xp on old computer

[l3ored]

is it true that an old computer running xp will be slower than with 2000?

 

[spherrod]

yes - although you can turn off a lot of the graphical options on XP and the performance difference would be minimal. From my experience the memory footprint of XP is larger than 2000

 

[Fern]

IIRC, the memory footprint goes:

XP pro > win 2k > XP Home

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Fern
IIRC, the memory footprint goes:

XP pro > win 2k > XP Home

😕

XP Pro and Home should have extremely similar memory footprints. Most of the performance difference between XP and 2000 is the result of XP's new GUI (which can be tweaked / rolled back to "classic" style).

 

[AkumaX]

roll back to classic style; disable any visually enhancing features and you should be fine

i installed winxp on a celeron 450 and it works great 🙂 extra ram also helps, it has 384mb

 

[bpatters69]

I have a P4, 1.Ghz with 256MB of Ram and I am running XP Pro. The set up is ok but I wish I had upgraded to Win 2000 or XP Home. My needs are pretty basic so XP Pro gives me no advantage.

 

[newhemidude]

I have XP pro installed on my old Celeron 500 with 128 megs of RAM and it is more stable and speedy than it ever was with Win98 or W2K.

 

[imported_adusumilli]

yes i think windows-xp is very slow on old computer.this is because due to the memory size of a hard disk is very low in an old computer.and the internal memory is very less and due to high graphics used in xp it cannot be accompanied in an old computer
.xp uses more bytes of memory than windows-2000.

 

[briddle]

I have found that you must have a min. of 128, but just 192mb seems to dramatically improve speed over 128. I have several 500 mhz pcs(K6II and celeron) that I have put xp pro on that have 192 mb of memory and 8-10 gb hdds. Even with on-board video, they all are performing ok and very stable. Not gaming PCs, but good enough to get a non high graphics student through school with a burner.

 

[imported_pak9rabid]

yeah, xp definately has a larger memory footprint than 2k. if i remember correctly, xp won't even let you install if your system has less than 64MB memory. on the other hand, i've successfully gotten 2k to install on a P1 150 MHz system with like 32 megs of ram once...wasn't the best solution, but it worked. would I do that again? Probably not, since imma Linux nut 😀