|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Somewhere in Malaysia...
Posts: 953
|
Windows XP in an antique
I've a refurbished Pentium 166MMX processor and is it possible to install Windows XP (Home Edition) into this computer? The RAM's only 80MB and the video card is ony 1MB S3 Trio...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 9,231
|
Unfortunately not by a long shot; right off .. Microsoft recommends a system with at least 233Mhz on the processor and 128MB of RAM. You know that real world requirements will be much higher.
Even if by some miracle and patience, you were able to sit through the boot sequence on that system, it wouldn't do much else. I'd recommend an older Windows (not even Win2k) or an old Linux. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member (6 bit)
|
I was given a Toshiba laptop with a pentium 133 & 16mb of ram on board memory. I added a new harddrive (5400 old 4200) and 144mb of new ram. I was very unhappy with win 98, usb, wireless, problems and such. So I installed win 2K, disabled the processes that I didn't need and Ilove the way it performs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Administrator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Joplin MO
Posts: 37,791
|
98SE is the best OS with those specs. Win2K would run but thrash your hard drive apart, XP will just laugh at you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member (6 bit)
|
the min spec's for win 2k are Computer/Processor 133 MHz or faster Pentium-compatible processor; supports up to four CPUs on one machine
Memory 128 MB of RAM (256 MB recommended); 4 GB maximum as for my harddrive I can't even hear it |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Administrator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Joplin MO
Posts: 37,791
|
Actually the minimum ram spec for 2000 is 64mb. With any less than 128 the hard drive WILL thrash a LOT, been there done that on my 233 MMX laptop - with 64 it never shut up, upping it to 128 was a major improvement. You say you have what - 144 or 160? HUGE difference from 80, which is what Yong says he has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Member (8 bit)
|
Ive installed windows xp proffesional edition on a really small HD before 1.6GB to be exact.. doesnt it say on the box about needing so much to back up files and make temporary ones.. I guess it doesnt take up as much as it says it does when it installs.
__________________
| Dimension Series | Intel P4 Pentium Processor at 2.4GHz | 1GB DDR PC2700 333MHz | 22" Samsung Display | 320GB HDD | |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 279
|
I dunno about 166, but XP ran fine on my 200MHz in my signature.
Your RAM is enough though. I don't know if XP has a minimum requirement for CPU (not talking about recommended) |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Administrator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Joplin MO
Posts: 37,791
|
No, 80mb is nowhere near enough ram for XP to run without putting you to sleep. Major, you have 256mb, that's why it runs OK - and you are overclocking - 225 is close enough to the minimum REQUIRED 233.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 279
|
I ran XP on this machine at 200MHz and 64RAM. It runs that way, I didn't say how good it will run with 64RAM
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|