A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows ME » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Win2000with SP4?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 18th 06, 05:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Win2000with SP4?

I wrote:

Would a AMD Athlon 800 with 256 RAM be able to handle W2K? I have XP Pro
on it now and it's a bit slow opening programs.

Alias


Noel Paton replied:

Should be OK, Alias - but can't you put another 256MB on it?


If I could, I would and leave XP on it. It was originally an ASUS board
but HP messed with and removed one of the RAM slots, leaving two when
there should be three. I have tried two 256s and no joy. I use one of
either of the 256s, it works. If I use two 128s, it works. If I use one
256 and one 128, no joy. Do you think the performance would be better
with W2K than XP Pro?

I also have a 5400 rpm IDE hard drive on it. Would putting a 7200 on it
improve performance?

Alias
  #12  
Old April 18th 06, 05:18 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Win2000with SP4?


"Alias" wrote in message
...
I wrote:

Would a AMD Athlon 800 with 256 RAM be able to handle W2K? I have XP Pro
on it now and it's a bit slow opening programs.

Alias


Noel Paton replied:

Should be OK, Alias - but can't you put another 256MB on it?


If I could, I would and leave XP on it. It was originally an ASUS board
but HP messed with and removed one of the RAM slots, leaving two when
there should be three. I have tried two 256s and no joy. I use one of
either of the 256s, it works. If I use two 128s, it works. If I use one
256 and one 128, no joy. Do you think the performance would be better with
W2K than XP Pro?

I also have a 5400 rpm IDE hard drive on it. Would putting a 7200 on it
improve performance?


Yeah - the overheads in Win2K are a lot less than they are in XP.
I know the Min spec in XP is supposed to be 128MB - but I've only ever seen
1 machine running that level - and it was a snail, despite having a decent
cpu...adding another 128MB made it acceptable, but not fast (the owner
couldn't afford to go to 512MB).
OTOH, Win 2K min spec is 64MB, IIRC - and it runs very happily on my
PII400/384MB, and faster than XP did at the same spec.

As far as the HD speed is concerned, yes, if there's significant
fileswapping going on, then putting a higher-spec HD in would help that
along nicely - particularly if it has a nice big onboard cache.

However...... if there are already problems on the motherboard, you be want
to start thinking in terms of replacing that - as it may simply be the first
of a cascade of problems. If you can replace the MB now, with a 'perfect'
one, then you may prevent damage do other elements later when/if the MB does
finally give up the ghost.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's


  #13  
Old April 18th 06, 05:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Win2000with SP4?

Noel Paton wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message
...
I wrote:

Would a AMD Athlon 800 with 256 RAM be able to handle W2K? I have XP Pro
on it now and it's a bit slow opening programs.

Alias

Noel Paton replied:

Should be OK, Alias - but can't you put another 256MB on it?

If I could, I would and leave XP on it. It was originally an ASUS board
but HP messed with and removed one of the RAM slots, leaving two when
there should be three. I have tried two 256s and no joy. I use one of
either of the 256s, it works. If I use two 128s, it works. If I use one
256 and one 128, no joy. Do you think the performance would be better with
W2K than XP Pro?

I also have a 5400 rpm IDE hard drive on it. Would putting a 7200 on it
improve performance?


Yeah - the overheads in Win2K are a lot less than they are in XP.
I know the Min spec in XP is supposed to be 128MB - but I've only ever seen
1 machine running that level - and it was a snail, despite having a decent
cpu...adding another 128MB made it acceptable, but not fast (the owner
couldn't afford to go to 512MB).
OTOH, Win 2K min spec is 64MB, IIRC - and it runs very happily on my
PII400/384MB, and faster than XP did at the same spec.

As far as the HD speed is concerned, yes, if there's significant
fileswapping going on, then putting a higher-spec HD in would help that
along nicely - particularly if it has a nice big onboard cache.

However...... if there are already problems on the motherboard, you be want
to start thinking in terms of replacing that - as it may simply be the first
of a cascade of problems. If you can replace the MB now, with a 'perfect'
one, then you may prevent damage do other elements later when/if the MB does
finally give up the ghost.


Problem with replacing the MB is that the processor is one of those big
ones and motherboards that use that type of CPUs aren't being made
anymore. If I were to replace the mother board, I would also put a
better processor on. I can afford another hard drive, but not another
MB, processor and the RAM that processor would need. It isn't a primary
computer but a back up computer. My primary has AMD Athlon XP 3000+, 1
gig of 333 RAM, etc. and it runs XP Pro excellently.

Alias
  #14  
Old April 18th 06, 06:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Win2000with SP4?


"Alias" wrote in message
...

Problem with replacing the MB is that the processor is one of those big
ones and motherboards that use that type of CPUs aren't being made
anymore. If I were to replace the mother board, I would also put a better
processor on. I can afford another hard drive, but not another MB,
processor and the RAM that processor would need. It isn't a primary
computer but a back up computer. My primary has AMD Athlon XP 3000+, 1 gig
of 333 RAM, etc. and it runs XP Pro excellently.



I know the problem! - I'm hoping to 'acquire' a few older boxes in the near
future for cannibalisation. With any luck I'll be able to use one to replace
the PII finally - I have some reasonable chips to put in instead, if only I
can get a PIII-type motherboard in GWO

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's


  #15  
Old April 22nd 06, 05:16 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsme.general
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Win2000with SP4?


Thanks Joe.

Harry.


"Joe Starin" wrote in message
...
My two cents, Harry.... Just upgraded from ME to XP Home on a four-year

old
Dell. Wife and daughter both needed XP to run newer software, otherwise I
would have stayed with my very reliable ME. Had to add RAM (simple). But,
spent many, many hours replacing drivers, reinstalling software, etc.
Upgrade also scrambled my Kodak picture collection. Yes, my new "XP Dell"
runs beautifully, but it took me a while to get there. I'm guessing an ME

to
2000 switch would be a hassle, too. So, I concur with Mike Maltby --

unless
forced to make the switch, stay with ME until a new XP PC comes along. Or
maybe your timing will be right and you can make an even bigger jump to

the
new MS OS (Vista?) Joe Starin

"webster72n" wrote in message
...
Noel:
From now on in I'll ignore their recommendation(s) and make up my own

mind
upon their findings 'only'.
Thanks.

Harry
and sooo much 'wiser' now.


"Noel Paton" wrote in message
...
Ah - the 'old' Aida 32?
I can't remember the last time I ran that on an ME system that was high
enough spec to take either Win2K or XP.
From memory the 'way to improve' at the bottom of most of the pages
should
be taken with a few grains of salt - IIRC, I ran it on a 512MB system,
and
it recommended adding more RAM to speed it up

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to

NG's
"webster72n" wrote in message
...

SiSoft looks beautiful to me and works just as nice, Noel, but aida32

was
the cause of my inquiry.
No *strike-out* here.

Harry.


"Noel Paton" wrote in message
...
SiSoft Strike Again??

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to

NG's
"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Upgrading to Win2K from Win Me is unsupported and whilst it can be

done
is
not recommended by Microsoft. Personally I wouldn't bother, stick

with
Win Me until you get a new PC with XP.
--
Mike Maltby



webster72n wrote:

By my system analasys I am being encouraged to upgrade to Win2000
to
improve performance.
My question:
Is this step worthwhile compared to installing WinXP Professional
w.
SP2 instead?

Harry.














 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.