Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
celeron/128mb which is faster!)

I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.

We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the more
modern the os - the slower the result.

What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my needs?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?
>

I use 2000 on a PII laptop with no problems, and good speed. Has most of the
features of XP as well.

Russell

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?
>
>
XP is fast enough, on the right PC and with enough memory.
On the PC you are talking about, I would run 2K. Personally I wouldn't touch
ME with a disinfected bargepole!

SteveH

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

A relative of mine has a similar spec of PC and tried XP, its memory usage
was too high and even with all the eye candy turned off it still wasn't as
responsive as Win98SE when that was used instead.
So my choice, if the spec or memory can't be changed (another 128mb of
memory would help greatly), is to use Win98SE if it is available. Windows 2K
is similar to XP in its demands of a system and considering the type of use
that you indicate that it is for then Win98SE or even ME, although some
people do report stability issues, seems ideal.
Be aware that Win98/ME is coming to the end of its shelf life and MS will
one day stop updating the critical fixes that are needed for "safe" Internet
use etc etc etc.
ATI have also stopped updating their drivers for Win98/ME, as an indication
that even some hardware support might be dropping now.

--
Regards


Morgan

Hard Drive noise a problem....?

www.flyinglizard.freeserve.co.uk

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Morgan" <morgan@home.net> wrote in message
news:c91tfr$v65$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
> not
> > sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> A relative of mine has a similar spec of PC and tried XP, its memory usage
> was too high and even with all the eye candy turned off it still wasn't as
> responsive as Win98SE when that was used instead.
> So my choice, if the spec or memory can't be changed (another 128mb of
> memory would help greatly), is to use Win98SE if it is available. Windows
2K
> is similar to XP in its demands of a system and considering the type of
use
> that you indicate that it is for then Win98SE or even ME, although some
> people do report stability issues, seems ideal.
> Be aware that Win98/ME is coming to the end of its shelf life and MS will
> one day stop updating the critical fixes that are needed for "safe"
Internet
> use etc etc etc.
> ATI have also stopped updating their drivers for Win98/ME, as an
indication
> that even some hardware support might be dropping now.
>
> --
> Regards
>
>
> Morgan
>
Windows ME is the only flavour of Windows that I have not bothered with.

I run Windows 2000 on a Pentium II 266 laptop with 256Mb, and it's fine. I
have not tried XP on it.

If you want to stick with XP, give it some more RAM ( I normally use at
least 1Gb). I would consider 256Mb a minimum for XP.
--
Doug Ramage

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
> installed win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I
> have used a friends celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
> am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word
> processor and spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option
> of several users (al la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always
> the more modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
> needs?

Windows 2000 Pro is the more stable of the two options. If RAM can be
increased to 256MB it is the better choice by far..

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Morgan wrote:

>> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option
>> but am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> A relative of mine has a similar spec of PC and tried XP, its memory
> usage was too high and even with all the eye candy turned off it
> still wasn't as responsive as Win98SE when that was used instead.
>

You are going to notice a significant difference between 98 and XP on
_any_ PC; the two are just too different to compare.

> So my choice, if the spec or memory can't be changed (another 128mb
> of memory would help greatly), is to use Win98SE if it is available.
> Windows 2K is similar to XP in its demands of a system and
> considering the type of use that you indicate that it is for then
> Win98SE or even ME, although some people do report stability issues,
> seems ideal.
>

In my last job (I'm a s/w Engineer) I used a PII-450, 128Mbyte, W2K for
really heavyweight stuff - debug versions of a 3D CAD/CAM system and
Visual C++ simultaneously - and it was perfectly useable. I did get it
u/g to 256Mbyte which showed a marked performance improvement, but for
the intended use of the OP's machine 128Mbyte should be fine.

The problem is one of the _perception_ of performance, e.g. Word may
take 10 seconds to start under Win98 but 20 seconds under W2K, but ask
yourself how often you start Word? When you are typing into a dcoument
you won't notice any difference. Remember, the slowest part of any
computer is the muppet using the keyboard ;-)

> Be aware that Win98/ME is coming to the end of its shelf life and MS
> will one day stop updating the critical fixes that are needed for
> "safe" Internet use etc etc etc.
>
> ATI have also stopped updating their drivers for Win98/ME, as an
> indication that even some hardware support might be dropping now.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?


XP should run fine on a 450mhz machine..
the problem is with the RAM...you really should bump it up to 256 megs

neither Win2000 or ME will run that much faster on that machine...

so unless you add more RAM and stay with XP

I'd recommend using win98se. it should run well with 128 megs of RAM

but it will not be as stable as XP !

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net>, "James"
jammy@totalise.co.uk says...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
You should be able to extract considerably better performance by
trimming all the unnecessary bits from XP - that means disabling all the
menu animations, unused services, wallpaper etc. If he can get away
with using Office 97 then that would help too.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net>, "James"
> jammy@totalise.co.uk says...
>> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
>> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
>> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>>
> You should be able to extract considerably better performance by
> trimming all the unnecessary bits from XP - that means disabling all the
> menu animations, unused services, wallpaper etc. If he can get away
> with using Office 97 then that would help too.

Don't forget to switch off Indexing too.

Parish

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my needs?
>
>
>
Win98 SE is the OS which suits best a PII-450 with 128MB RAM - even
better than ME!
W2K is nearly as resource hungry as XP (even if XP is run in 'best
performance' mode), it is slow with 128 MB and happy with 256+ MB.

Roy

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
> installed win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I
> have used a friends celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
> am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word
> processor and spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option
> of several users (al la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always
> the more modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
> needs?

As others have said already, Win ME is not known for it's reliability, and
Windows 2000 uses similar resources to Win XP (at least in the same order of
magnitude).

An additional stick of RAM will not be much different in cost to buying
another OS. Even going to 256MB will make quite a difference to loading
times.

Win XP is actually a very good OS, and when Release Pack 2 comes out it will
be very secure (I am running the beta and it looks good).

Good luck.

Martin

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

You might want to check out XPlite from LitePC.

See http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

BTW, a Celeron can be either P-III based or P-4 based. Either of
which, might be a LOT faster than an old P-II.

James wrote:
>
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Without reading much of these posts, I can tell you that Me is
NOT as Unreliable as the urban legends would like you to believe. Been
running it for years with minimal problems. It has a hand over 98 if
your into multimedia or digital pictures(thumbnail view, etc). I have
also been using it in a commercial environment for over 5 years with
no problems, doing all kinds of digital reproduction work and printing
on large media printers.




"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
am not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word
processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several
users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always
the more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for
my needs?
>
>
>