What's the lowest spec you've installed XP on?

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Supercharged

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Supercharged

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Supercharged
slowest? that would have to be my laptop. 1.3GHz celeron. However it came w/ XP. If I ever needed to reinstall I'd put 2k on it.

Why would you downgrade to 2K?

Because I HATE winxp. I installed it on my main rig because 2k doesn't support hyperthreading properly and I just upgraded to a HT cpu. I've been misserable since install XP. Some things are obviously slower. I can't stand it's bloatedness, it's new windows update, new WMP, worthless image viewer, cd burner crap, windows movie maker, windows messenger, activation etc. And of course SP2 adds a bunch of new nagging crap which I have to disable! :| I'm used to my much more powerful apps like Nero and ACDSee. All the crap XP comes with is a complete waste to me. I'll install my 3rd party software dispite M$'s attempt to shove their crap down my throat. Too bad I can't uninstall half of it. I'm looking forward to this XP to crap out on my like my previous XP installs have in the past. It looks like SP2 might take a little longer though. Seems stable dispite it's slowness. But once something happens to cause me to reinstall I'm going back to 2k.

Bloated? Buy a bigger hard drive. They're cheap.
Slower? Maybe at some things.
Don't like the image viewer? Install a different one.
Don't like the burner software? Install Nero.
Don't like the nagging? Set things up the first time and never see it again.

Or, you could install a consumer friendly OS for less than half the price.

You're missing the point. And XP is supposed to be a consumer OS. I have plenty of hard drive space but why should I have 2 programs on my computer that do the same thing. Windows should not come with all this crap. I want a basic OS that's stable and supports everything I throw at it. So far the only OS I have found that closely matches that is Win2k.

I like how your own statement contradicts itself. XP is supposed to be a consumer os, but Windows should not come with all this crap? XP is meant for the avg user, not some wannabe hardcore computer user who wants a basic OS. I don't see what your deal is with XP anyway. In the past 3 weeks I've imaged, formatted, and/or upgraded well over 40 computers to XP. The only thing XP runs slower on are these friggin POS Powerspec Celeron 2.4's that for some reason we bought. It destroys 2K in every application we use otherwise - Autocad 2004, IDDS, Project/Visio, etc. (Used by engineers for Verizon) The advancements XP has over 2K far outweigh whatever you claim XP sucks at. Same goes with 2K3S over 2KS. (We're running 2K3S on a couple of lower level P3's as IIS and FTP sites. I think all of our DNS/WINS/DHCP/file servers are all Poweredge's, the ones mentioned beforehand are workstations converted to servers since we were tight on budget)

 

[DeeKnow]

i've got 2000 running very nicely on a 600 MHz PIII... thinking of putting XP on it, just so I can use hat feature (my kids can log in and do stuff on their account without stopping what I was doing in mine - not sure what they call that)

 

[thermalpaste]

CHECK THIS OUT.....
HERE

 

[udonoogen]

i installed XP on a system similar to your last one. my uncle was working on it for about a year before we finally upgraded him.

im not sure ... but i believe it was installed on my grandfather's old 400 celeron with 32 megabytes of ram. either that or it was windows 2000 (cuz doesnt windows xp need 128 at least?). i remember when i came home from school i immediately bought him a stick of 128 pc133. that thing was slower than none other on that 32 megabytes of ram.

 

[thermalpaste]

AND THIS........
pentium 100 on xp

 

[thermalpaste]

Originally posted by: udonoogen
i installed XP on a system similar to your last one. my uncle was working on it for about a year before we finally upgraded him.

im not sure ... but i believe it was installed on my grandfather's old 400 celeron with 32 megabytes of ram. either that or it was windows 2000 (cuz doesnt windows xp need 128 at least?). i remember when i came home from school i immediately bought him a stick of 128 pc133. that thing was slower than none other on that 32 megabytes of ram.

Win-xp gets installed on systems with 64 megs of ram also

 

[DaFinn]

Yup, XP works on very low specs. I've installed XP in work to a Ppro 200Mhz/128Mb and to a celeron 433Mhz/64Mb, both work fine. 256Mb of memory is REALLY recommended though...

 

[thermalpaste]

Originally posted by: DaFinn
Yup, XP works on very low specs. I've installed XP in work to a Ppro 200Mhz/128Mb and to a celeron 433Mhz/64Mb, both work fine. 256Mb of memory is REALLY recommended though...

Technically speakin, xp should work on a 386 also because it is a 32 bit processor and can address 4096 MB of physical memory.......has anybody tried installing on a 386DX?

 

[Abhi]

Pentium 2 300mhz, 96 mb ram....

Oh.... the pain, the pain...

 

[biscuitboy]

it will be well slow that last PC
turn of all effects, set pagefile to same amount so doesnt use CPU to grow, turn of unecessary services, turn of system restore, etc..

MS minimum spec for XP
233mhz, 64mb RAM, 2gb HD

 

[Amused]

PII200 96MB of RAM 2MB video mem. A friend's old Compaq. Slow as hell, but stable with all effects turned off.

 

[phantom309]

Celeron 500 128 laptop. Usable with eye candy turned off, but still sluggish. Win2k is much better choice.

 

[OutHouse]

comp2: Citrix 333mhx, 196mb ram, 4gb HD, ATI all-in-wonder 32mb - XP a few hardware issues - no biggie

you put citrix metaframe on that machine?

edit, nevermind you mean Cyrix.

 

[DurocShark]

P-60 with 256mb ram.

Hah!

 

[dquan97]

TI-82

 

[EvilWobbles]

K6/2 - 366 with 96 megs of RAM
6 gig HD

runs surprisingly smooth....

 

266 P2 Thinkpad or Virtual PC on a 1.33Ghz G4 Powerbook.

 

[quakefiend420]

heh...i once installed .net server rc-2 on a p2 266 with 128mb of ram and a 4.3gigger...took like 8 mins to boot and lagged like hell...not nearly enough ram...

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: Evadman
I have XP on my current AMD K6-2 300 fileserver. I am thinking of picking up a 500 chip if I come across one.

Try to find a K6-2+ if you can, those fly (maybe it was k6-3+.. forget ) They were almost on par with pre tbird athlons for some things.

 

[slydecix]

233 PII w/ 64mb RAM

 

[Snapster]

P200 MMX 128MB ram, 1x2Gig HD 1x1Gig, 16MB Vid card. Non bootable to cd, took aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages to install. Had to have the effects turned off to run ok. If classic win2k look was on it was not that bad to use either.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: KingNothing
I once installed Windows XP on a Pentium-90 in Reno, just to watch it die.

Heh, back in 1995 i was running Win 3.11 on a P90. That rig was $3500 new. As time went by it got NT4 and I finally felt at home with Windows after being a Mac user since '90.

It ran AutoCAD and lots of other crap just fine.

 

[Aves]

K6-2 475 with 256MB of RAM.

 

[ActuaryTm]

Originally posted by: Evadman
I have XP on my current AMD K6-2 300 fileserver. I am thinking of picking up a 500 chip if I come across one.

Am running a K6-2 500 MHz at a remote location down in Florida. Rock solid processor. Has been running 24/7 (save the few days it was offline during the recent storms) for over three years.

 

[Monkey muppet]

Originally posted by: thermalpaste
486DX4 100Mhz , 96MB FPM-DRAM, S3 Trio 64+, 1.96gig hard disk, it took 17 hours to install xp and took about 57 minutes to boot up.....with visual themes disabled it take 40 seconds for the start menu to pop up.......

we have teh Winnar!!!!