XP on systems below minimum
I just installed XP Pro on a Pentium 133 with 64MB of RAM (box minimum states Pentium II 233 with 128MB). It still boots to the login screen within 30 seconds but login takes forever. Most apps do not run very well but they work.
I just installed XP Pro on a Pentium 133 with 64MB of RAM (box minimum states Pentium II 233 with 128MB). It still boots to the login screen within 30 seconds but login takes forever. Most apps do not run very well but they work. Did anyone tried to install XP below the minimum specs on the box?
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Nope. I tried Win2k on a system running at 400MHz with 64MB of ram; it was unbearable to work with. I wouldn't even try it on that slow of system, because of, well, the lack of speed.
Due to some weirdness the other week my PC suddenly decided that I only had 24MB of RAM [as opposed to the normal 320MB it actually has installed]. I don't think I've seen Windows run so slowly since I had 95 on a 486DX/33 with 8MB of RAM! [running a k6-2/500 @ the mo - getting an XP1800+ soon].
BTW - the above mentioned prob was temporary & a one-off occurrance that went away as soon as I shut down & then turned it back on again.
BTW - the above mentioned prob was temporary & a one-off occurrance that went away as soon as I shut down & then turned it back on again.
I installed Windows 2000 on a Pentium 166 MMX with 32 MB of RAM. It was pretty damn slow, due to lack of memory. With 64 megs it probably would be better, but still slow. I also installed Windows ME on this system and it was horrible too. Windows 98 runs fine on it.
I installed Windows 95 on a 486 DX2-66 with 8 megs of RAM and that was crap and slow.
I installed Windows 95 on a 486 DX2-66 with 8 megs of RAM and that was crap and slow.
Below 128mb is NOT worth it for XP.
128MB BARE minimum JUST for XP itself. If your gonna run any programs on top then youre gonna net 192mb.
256 is the commonly recommended ammount. That'll be fine for desktop working and minimal gaming. But you're still gonna have to close programs and monitor your memory usage if your a pro. If a newbie then 256 will be enough for ya.
384mb is the sweet spot. All most users need today running Windows XP and what high-end systems should be running at least.
512mb+ is for those who NEED this amount of memory and know what to do with it. Load all sorts of programs (within reason) and don't have to worry about memory usage that much if at all.
128MB BARE minimum JUST for XP itself. If your gonna run any programs on top then youre gonna net 192mb.
256 is the commonly recommended ammount. That'll be fine for desktop working and minimal gaming. But you're still gonna have to close programs and monitor your memory usage if your a pro. If a newbie then 256 will be enough for ya.
384mb is the sweet spot. All most users need today running Windows XP and what high-end systems should be running at least.
512mb+ is for those who NEED this amount of memory and know what to do with it. Load all sorts of programs (within reason) and don't have to worry about memory usage that much if at all.
But the official XP specs say 128mb ram. What do you mean by this:
Quote:128MB BARE minimum JUST for XP itself. If your gonna run any programs on top then youre gonna net 192mb. I don't understand what you could do with a system if you didn't run programs...
Anyway I mostly agree with you there DosFreak. What do you think of minimal CPU?
I would think you could get it going well on any p2 class or above machine, as long as they has sufficient RAM, Assuming it's not too much different to Win2K.
Quote:128MB BARE minimum JUST for XP itself. If your gonna run any programs on top then youre gonna net 192mb. I don't understand what you could do with a system if you didn't run programs...
Anyway I mostly agree with you there DosFreak. What do you think of minimal CPU?
I would think you could get it going well on any p2 class or above machine, as long as they has sufficient RAM, Assuming it's not too much different to Win2K.
For usability? Around 340+mhz. I'm currently visiting my parent's and have been upgrading their Compaq Presaior 5220:
Before:
ATI Rage LT Pro (4mb Vram + 8 shared)
6gb WD HD
64mb Micron memory
98FE
Now:
Geforce4 MX 420 (64mb)
60gb Maxtor 7200rpm DMA/133@33
3 128mb Kingstom PC-100 sticks (384mb)
XP Pro
The first upgrade I did was the HD. Yanked out the old and stuck in the new. Installed XP Pro fresh. XP was DOG slow, as I knew that it would be. Memory usage was around 80+meg with no other programs loaded. I then began installing programs and such and experienced an average memory usage of around 150+ meg. (This fits with my usual desktop memory usage with my computers at work). As you can imagine swaping 70mg to a pagefile was EXTREMELY PAINFUL. Basically only one program could be loaded at a time for usability and painful accessage of HD was hurting my ears. So today I drove the hour to Evansville Best Buy, picked up 384mb of memory and that GF4. Stuck 'em in and the HD hasn't made a noise yet! YAY! . Now as for video the old ATI was fine for desktop work. (This monitor is at the maximum capable of 1024@60hz, 800@85hz). But I wanted to bring my bro/sis into some of the latest games. So I stuck that GF4 in and did some benchmarks. Basically the latest games such as C&C:Renegade,Jedi Knight 2, Quake 3 can only be run in 640X480. For the Q3 engines VERTEX lighting has to be used since it seems LIGHTMAPING is too much for this crappy processor.... 2D games (RPG's, RTS, solitaire type game will be used for this computer unless I can find me a K63)
Speaking of the processor. It's a crappy K62 380mhz with no on-board L2cache. There is 64kb of L1 cache and 512kb of cache on the motherboard but the absence of L2 cache on the chip itself is limiting performance greatly. For desktop work (Outlook, a few Internet Explorer Windows, wordpad, Browsing XP files, viewing PDF's) it's fine and performes all-right. (Note that I have all graphical enhancements turned off as I do on my super-computer back home ). Gonna see if I can find me a K63 chip around these parts...if I want to bother that much with it.
So yeah any 300+mhz computer could run XP fine. Just make sure it has 192+mb of ram and it'll be fine!
Before:
ATI Rage LT Pro (4mb Vram + 8 shared)
6gb WD HD
64mb Micron memory
98FE
Now:
Geforce4 MX 420 (64mb)
60gb Maxtor 7200rpm DMA/133@33
3 128mb Kingstom PC-100 sticks (384mb)
XP Pro
The first upgrade I did was the HD. Yanked out the old and stuck in the new. Installed XP Pro fresh. XP was DOG slow, as I knew that it would be. Memory usage was around 80+meg with no other programs loaded. I then began installing programs and such and experienced an average memory usage of around 150+ meg. (This fits with my usual desktop memory usage with my computers at work). As you can imagine swaping 70mg to a pagefile was EXTREMELY PAINFUL. Basically only one program could be loaded at a time for usability and painful accessage of HD was hurting my ears. So today I drove the hour to Evansville Best Buy, picked up 384mb of memory and that GF4. Stuck 'em in and the HD hasn't made a noise yet! YAY! . Now as for video the old ATI was fine for desktop work. (This monitor is at the maximum capable of 1024@60hz, 800@85hz). But I wanted to bring my bro/sis into some of the latest games. So I stuck that GF4 in and did some benchmarks. Basically the latest games such as C&C:Renegade,Jedi Knight 2, Quake 3 can only be run in 640X480. For the Q3 engines VERTEX lighting has to be used since it seems LIGHTMAPING is too much for this crappy processor.... 2D games (RPG's, RTS, solitaire type game will be used for this computer unless I can find me a K63)
Speaking of the processor. It's a crappy K62 380mhz with no on-board L2cache. There is 64kb of L1 cache and 512kb of cache on the motherboard but the absence of L2 cache on the chip itself is limiting performance greatly. For desktop work (Outlook, a few Internet Explorer Windows, wordpad, Browsing XP files, viewing PDF's) it's fine and performes all-right. (Note that I have all graphical enhancements turned off as I do on my super-computer back home ). Gonna see if I can find me a K63 chip around these parts...if I want to bother that much with it.
So yeah any 300+mhz computer could run XP fine. Just make sure it has 192+mb of ram and it'll be fine!
I agree, trying to use XP with under 192MB is horrible. I ran it for a while under 96MB and boy it was slow.
With 352MB it works fine. I also have all the visual features on too.
With 352MB it works fine. I also have all the visual features on too.
Quote:
Nope. I tried Win2k on a system running at 400MHz with 64MB of ram; it was unbearable to work with. I wouldn't even try it on that slow of system, because of, well, the lack of speed.
My Pentium II 400 (I can't remember if I'd overclocked it at that point or not...) handled Win2k just fine but admittedly it had 128Mb RAM...
That same system (although overclocked to 496Mhz) is now running Windows XP quite happily even with all the Luna eye candy (IMO the best thing to happen to the Windows UI ever) turned on. I laugh at people who have 1Ghz+ machines and much better video cards who advocate turning all that stuff off to increase performance...
Nope. I tried Win2k on a system running at 400MHz with 64MB of ram; it was unbearable to work with. I wouldn't even try it on that slow of system, because of, well, the lack of speed.
My Pentium II 400 (I can't remember if I'd overclocked it at that point or not...) handled Win2k just fine but admittedly it had 128Mb RAM...
That same system (although overclocked to 496Mhz) is now running Windows XP quite happily even with all the Luna eye candy (IMO the best thing to happen to the Windows UI ever) turned on. I laugh at people who have 1Ghz+ machines and much better video cards who advocate turning all that stuff off to increase performance...
