would XP be reccomended

[cuog]

would XP be reccomended for this computer or will it not be able to handle XP

current setup:
p1 - 233 mhz
192 MB RAM
currently running 98 1st edition
will provide more info if needed

[fudtone]

I would slap 98se it in and call it good. Or even linux considering the things its good for are not going to require Windows.

[Miz]

A 233 is going to be old enough that you may not be able to find drivers for all its hardware.

That said, 233 is the minimum processor requirement for XP. When they use the word "minimum," they mean "you can install it and it'll run." It probably will not run well and it surely won't run fast.

[TwoRails]

It would slow it down a lot, if it did run. The very few times I've put XP on older machines (the slowest was a Celeron at 4xx) and it brought it to it's knees, but it ran it.

[sdkfz]

Would I reccomend it - No- too old and too slow for the size of the OS, sick with the recomendations already given

Will it run it- maybe, depends on the hardware, go to this MS site and pull the testng tool, it will tell you if the machine's hardware can run XP

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...g/advisor.mspx

[thefultonhow]

Originally Posted by cuog would XP be reccomended for this computer or will it not be able to handle XP current setup: p1 - 233 mhz 192 MB RAM currently running 98 1st edition will provide more info if needed

XP system requirements say you need at least a 266 MHz processor. With that said, though, I think that you would be well served by Windows 2000; I ran it on a PII 300 for a while and it worked fine, and I've seen it run on as low as a Pentium-166. And it's far superior to Windows 98.

[HAL9000]

I wouldn't bother... yes, you could get it to run... turn off all the eye candy and cut the services down to only what you absolutley need and it might run like Win2K then... but I really wouldn't bother with the effort.

[elocal]

Exactly.

I would put linux with low resource apps (not with Gnome or KDE).

If not, 98se is good enough choice.

[macko72]

My opinion is that win2k would be perfect on yours machine beter value for money and beter security.[You can install XP but it will run very slow and it will give you a headache].

[cuog]

I can get a free copy of 2000 server professional thru my school would that work on there or is it completely different from normal versions of windows 2000

[thefultonhow]

Originally Posted by cuog I can get a free copy of 2000 server professional thru my school would that work on there or is it completely different from normal versions of windows 2000

Windows 2000 Server really needs at least a PII-300 with 256 MB of RAM to run at anything more than a snail's pace. It has a bunch of extra services that suck up system resources. Although I suppose if you were to disable the services, it would run fine...

[macko72]

No don't use server version!!!

[cuog]

Originally Posted by macko72 No don't use server version!!!

Ok chill out, but out of curriosity why do you put so much emphasis on it

[fudtone]

Originally Posted by thefultonhow It has a bunch of extra services that suck up system resources. Although I suppose if you were to disable the services, it would run fine...

I had 2k server on a p3 450 and it was working OK... Yes it has a ton of Service that should be disabled for any home user looking for resources and security.

[macko72]

Originally Posted by cuog Ok chill out, but out of curriosity why do you put so much emphasis on it

Nothing serious just my mark!!!

[glc]

The ideal OS for that computer is Win2000 Pro. It will run acceptably and be very stable as long as the hardware and bios is compatible. If you can get more ram in it, that will help but 192 is acceptable. XP will run like molasses in January as will any server version of Win2000. Minimum realistic hard drive size is about 4 gigs, it requires 2 gigs just to install and when you are done it will take up about 700 megs to a gig not including the pagefile.