| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 28231 | 2002-12-14 04:00:00 | Win XP on presario | loftyboy (2771) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 105843 | 2002-12-14 04:00:00 | Got Compaq presario 533 AMD, with 184 ram, Win98SE, Has anyone upgraded to Win XP, will it run ok? Sick of blue screens of death lol.Spend on upgrade or new, faster puter? Ta, Ralph | loftyboy (2771) | ||
| 105844 | 2002-12-14 04:18:00 | Hey I Would personally not make the upgrade for the following reasons: Processor - XP has a huge footprint and is powerhungry (kinda like it's Manufacterer) - upgrade this to something like 1.6+ Mhz otherwise you'll notice lag on programs Ram - Ample... But I would add another 128 or 256 (preferably 256) MB to your computer... 128MB ram is the minimum for XP However, in the end it's up to you if you make the jump to XP CyberChuck |
cyberchuck (173) | ||
| 105845 | 2002-12-14 06:38:00 | Lofty, The system should be fine with XP, although if I were you I'd up the RAM to 256. I put XP on my machine in February, and my specs aren't that much better than yours - it DEFINITELY runs better than 98SE/ME, without a doubt. Can't remember what a BSOD looks like anymore. However for the price of XP you might want to save a bit longer and buy a new system (with XP pre-installed anyway) :) unless of course you can get XP academic price. Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 105846 | 2002-12-14 06:41:00 | I agree with Mike. We have Xp running on a K62 500 with 156mb ram and it's OK (sorry Chuck) | crozier (2004) | ||
| 105847 | 2002-12-14 06:42:00 | Sorry, I don't really like to pick apart a post, but there's a couple of things I disagree with :) >>> upgrade this to something like 1.6+ Mhz otherwise you'll notice lag on programs XP runs fine on a P3 600 and a Athlon 750 (two of the machines that I've run it on) and have noticed not a lag on programs, but an improvement on performance. >>> 128MB ram is the minimum for XP 64 is actually the minimum (and it runs fairly well on 64), so the 184 or whatever should be fine... but I agree, boost it to 256 at least (cost is negligible anyway) Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 105848 | 2002-12-14 06:45:00 | Your joking That means I can make the jump too :D Thanks CyberChuck |
cyberchuck (173) | ||
| 105849 | 2002-12-14 08:06:00 | I run XP on 4 machines, from 600 Celeron to 2 GHz P4 From 128 Mb (shared with Video on a 600 Mhz Celeron) to 512 Mb DDR It runs fine on 600 Mhz. Its quite OK on 128 Mb, better on 192 Mb, and for the applications I use not much benefit above 256 Mb. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 105850 | 2002-12-14 11:25:00 | just for interest sake I loaded XP pro on a pentium II 350 with a 16 meg tnt vid card with all the eye candy turned off. Wasn't that responsive on 128 meg ram so i bumped it up to 196 and there was little change. Put another 32 megs in and what a difference. I've noticed this on several machines since (though it could be my imagination), the sweet spot for memory on Xp seems to rest above 196. | the highlander (245) | ||
| 105851 | 2002-12-14 12:01:00 | Exactly. Kill the eye candy and XP is pretty much Windows 2000 in disguise. People should also really do a prune of the Services they are running. XP will run a lot of services that aren't necessary, they just use up your memory. |
gibler (49) | ||
| 105852 | 2002-12-14 23:57:00 | Many thanks to you all, will get it and try it out after I get more ram | loftyboy (2771) | ||
| 1 | |||||