• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

xp on 333mhz/192mb laptop?

My guess is that computer will crawl at an unbearably slow pace with XP on it. For some reason, XP seems faster on 1Ghz+ computers, but slower on 1Ghz or below computer (not EXACTLY 1Ghz, but you get the idea). It makes better use of newer hardware, but it's still got more bloat than 2000 that slows down older machines.

My suggestion: use that box to try out linux. I suggest Fedora Core but leave off Gnome and use XFCE. Otherwise, Damn Small Linux with XFCE or Fluxbox would make that computer fly.
 
I've configured a Pentium 550 MHz / 192 MB XP home laptop, and seen a K6-II 400 MHz / 256 MB desktop updated from W2K to XP. Both have run "fine". I've also seen a K6-II 350 MHz / 256 MB desktop that seems slow.

XP has some optimization in the startup process that can be helpful for older systems / slower drives. There's also updated power management (although nothing but a replacement will fix a very old battery) and wireless support (although sometimes you're still better off running your vendor's client; vendors sometimes rely on XP for WPA support). Assuming these are issues for you, and you're not replacing the system, it may be possible to squeeze some additional life out of an old computer with XP.

But 333 MHz is very old these days, and it might be possible to source an old laptop that's much faster and still cheap...
 
XP will run (IMHO) unbearably slow on a machine with those specifications. If you are diligent in shutting down unneccesary services and keep a slimmed down software load, you might come out OK.
 
Your limiting factor will be RAM. When you first install XP fresh it will run alright, but once you start loading your apps on it, it will slow down immensly. My suggestion is to upgrade the RAM to 256 or preferably 512 if the system supports it. Otherwise, Stick to 2000. I personally like 2000 alot. Runs all the same apps, has about the same driver support, and runs great on a wide variety of older/new hardware.... (Though its always a good idea to upgrade/max out your ram if you're running any NT based system)
 
I'm running XP Home on a K6 333 laptop with 192MB. 192 is the limit. The one thing I did do was to upgrade the HD from 4.3GB to 30GB. System does run slow compared to my P4 and AMD64 systems but thats natural.

The reason for my doing this was didn't have all drivers for Win98 fresh install. BTW, this is the only system I have which is running any sort of Window$. All rest are Linux.

That being the case, if you can upgrade ram do so by all means.
 
You definately need more memory for it to have barely acceptable performance. Laptops as a whole run better than similar spec'd desktops so there is a little hope there. Just make sure you have access to all the drivers for your laptop and research them to see if they are XP compatible. I have had laptops just keep rebooting after XP installs due to incompatible XP drivers but work beautifully on Windows 2000, an OS that is supposed to be pickier on devices and driver support when it was the OS of the day.
 
again, why would you spend $150 on an OS for a crappy laptop like that? Stick with 2k (assuming you have a 2k license) or move to a Free, or free, OS
 
I'd go with XP, I tried both 2k and XP on my 700mhz pc with 128 ram awhile back and Xp seemed to run better on it. After I tweaked it a little bit it ran better too. Mind you it wasn't a huge difference but it was noticable. I also have a professor that was using a 333mhz pc with on it, It ran about as decent as you'd expect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top