XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP

[GeneralAres]

XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP

"Myth (Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. There are numerous Myths floating around the Internet regarding Windows XP, especially relating to Optimizations and Security. Hopefully this site will debunk some of these."

[piasabird]

I tried to install Windows XP with only 64 MB of RAM and it did not work. It might work with some tweaking or special boot disk manipulation, but it did not work for me.

The install procedure claims it needs 128MB to do an install.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Above Article 64 MB of RAM (may limit performance and some features)

The wording "may limit performance" should be revised to read "will greatly limit performance and there is a high probability that the system will not function at all". I've seen it with my own eyes, so no matter whan any article or website says (even one that does try its best to look like the Microsoft site), I know it's not true.

Originally Posted by Above Article Windows XP can be installed on surprisingly low system requirements contrary to popular opinion.

Again, based on above... I'm not basing it on opinion, I'm basing it on personal experience. It is not "my opionion" that a system with 64MB of RAM will run poorly with WinXP.

Nothing personal GeneralAres, I just don't want someone with 64MB of RAM to go buy WinXP and expect it to run well. It ain't gonna happen.

[GeneralAres]

Why your particular system did not run I can not say but it was not due to the 64MB limit.

Nothing personal GeneralAres, I just don't want someone with 64MB of RAM to go buy WinXP and expect it to run well. It ain't gonna happen

No argument it will run slow but it will run. You may want to look here: XP Requirements (Same Site)

The following requirements are Microsoft's "official" minimum system requirements which I have tested to work fine with the exception of only 64 MB of RAM (performance is poor). Increasing your RAM to 128 MB would be the only upgrade I would strongly consider as my absolute minimum Windows XP system requirements.

[Stryker]

My point is only that I would not want to risk misleading someone into purchasing WinXP with only 64MB or RAM in their system as they will not be happy with it. If a person understands the performance limitations and they are willing to accept that, by all means go ahead and install. But why install an OS that's going to bog down your system when there are perfectly good alternatives out there that don't take nearly the resources that XP uses?

Why your particular system did not run I can not say but it was not due to the 64MB limit

Didn't say it did not run, only that it didn't run well.

[GeneralAres]

Nothing is misleading, minimum system requirements are just that. I would rather see someone on Windows XP then 9x or ME. With the price of RAM nowadays adding some to bring it up to 128MB or 256MB is next to nothing.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by GeneralAres Nothing is misleading, minimum system requirements are just that.

Not arguing with what MS's requirements are, just saying that most users wouldn't be happy with the performance as a result of using the minimums.

Originally Posted by GeneralAres I would rather see someone on Windows XP then 9x or ME.

Something wrong with 2000 or 98SE?

Originally Posted by GeneralAres With the price of RAM nowadays adding some to bring it up to 128MB or 256MB is next to nothing.

Agreed, I just went from 512 to 1024 myself... but if you have to buy an OS to begin with, why not buy one that will work with what you have instead of buying the OS AND buying more RAM?

[GeneralAres]

Not arguing with what MS's requirements are, just saying that most users wouldn't be happy with the performance as a result of using the minimums.

Probably not with 64MB but with 128MB useability would be ok.

Something wrong with 2000 or 98SE?

2000 is ok but unless you are already using it XP is a much better investment. 98SE has no security and is as unstable as the rest of the 9x/ME OSes. 2000 and XP are the only practical Microsoft OSes to use any more.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by ME (Stryker) Not arguing with what MS's requirements are, just saying that most users wouldn't be happy with the performance as a result of using the minimums.

.............

Originally Posted by GeneralAres Probably not with 64MB but with 128MB useability would be ok.

64MB is the minimum... that's exactly my point.

[GeneralAres]

Exactly which is why they recommend 128MB. I don't think anyone reading that would think performance would be blazing with 64MB or RAM. Minimum just means it will work. This is why Microsoft says (may limit performance and some features) with 64MB of RAM.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by GeneralAres Exactly which is why they recommend 128MB. I don't think anyone reading that would think performance would be blazing with 64MB or RAM. Minimum just means it will work. This is why Microsoft says (may limit performance and some features) with 64MB of RAM.

This is exactly why I raised the point. There are hundreds of people reading these forums that may NOT know this. By reading here that 64MB could kind of, sort of work not too bad, it is misleading. Regardless of what any site says (including MS), WinXP should not be installed on a system with 64MB or less in order to achieve half decent performance. Increase the RAM, change operating systems, or wait for your system to catch up with you every time you click something. Pick one.

[GeneralAres]

It is not misleading to say 64MB or RAM will work (less will not) I don't see anyone pushing that people do this especially when 128MB is recommended.

If you choose to use 64MB of RAM with Windows XP then you need to know it (may limit performance and some features). Otherwise bring your amount of RAM up to 128MB, there is no excuse to be using less then 128MB nowadays. You can get whole systems on Ebay with that much RAM for $50.

[Force Flow]

Someone one boards managed to get XP to run on 64MB, but it was basically a shell and not much else. For normal use, IT WILL NOT RUN. period.

As a IT professional, I would take almost everything that is posted on that site with a grain of salt.

I wouldn’t recommend installing XP on anything less than a system running a 600MHz CPU, with 256MB of RAM, and with 10GB of Hard Drive space and with a decent amount of tweaking. 2000 will run decently on a 333Mhz machine with 128MB, but like a dog on 64MB. The only O/S you can really run successfully on 64MB is 98SE.

2000 is ok but unless you are already using it XP is a much better investment. 98SE has no security and is as unstable as the rest of the 9x/ME OSes. 2000 and XP are the only practical Microsoft OSes to use any more.

First, XP is not for everybody. I've had cases where none of the newer O/S's would cut it and I had to run 98SE. Plus, older machines are sometimes not up to the task of supporting the newer, bloated software. 98SE still has its practical uses.

Because not many people use 98SE it is not much of a security risk as you would think. Who wants to hack 3 98SE machines when you have the option of hacking hundreds of XP machines in one swoop?

Yes, ME is very unstable. It is one of the worst pieces of software to come out of MS. However, 98SE was great for what it was. I have about as many stability problems on my XP machine as I do on my 98SE machine. If you know how to keep the O/S up and running well, it won't come back to bite you in the rear.

So, is XP *always* the best solution? No. Is 2000 or 98SE *always* the best solution. Nope. You have to look at it case by case.

[shadowbreaker513]

I remember how ripped off my dad felt when he bought ME. Took it back after like 4 days.

I wouldn’t recommend installing XP on anything less than a system running a 600MHz CPU, with 256MB of RAM, and with 10GB of Hard Drive space and with a decent amount of tweaking.

You just described my laptop except it's processor is 50Mhz faster and hdd is 2GB bigger. I actually have xp home running just as well as on this 2.4Ghz P4 with 512mb RAM, albiet it with less background programs.

[GeneralAres]

Windows ME was actually better then 98SE if you had compatible drivers. Both are based on 95 which runs ontop of DOS and thus stability is a joke. Comparing Win9x/ME stability to Windows 2000/XP is absurd. The Windows ME argument is another Myth by people who upgraded to it with out doing simple things like upgrading their BIOS, Drivers ect...

"For normal use, IT WILL NOT RUN. period."
No it will run just slowly.

You can run Windows XP on a PII233 with 128MB of RAM fine. The biggest bottleneck on older systems is usually the HD anyway. You can get a 25% performance increase (applications and OS load times) alone on most PII+ machines by replacing the 40 conductor IDE cable with an 80 conductor one.

Recommending anyone run an unstable unsecure OS is not good advice. No one is recommending anyone run Windows XP with 64MB of ram BTW only that it will work (slowly). I don't see why everyone has to keep bringing this up?

[Force Flow]

I have serious qualms with much of what you just said, so instead of challenging every little piece, lemme stop for a sec and ask you this: where are you getting this information that you are so sure about?

[thefultonhow]

Originally Posted by Force Flow I wouldn’t recommend installing XP on anything less than a system running a 600MHz CPU, with 256MB of RAM, and with 10GB of Hard Drive space and with a decent amount of tweaking. 2000 will run decently on a 333Mhz machine with 128MB, but like a dog on 64MB. The only O/S you can really run successfully on 64MB is 98SE.

Windows 2000 will run okay on 64 MB... as long as you don't try installing any programs like a virus scanner or firewall that run on startup. And a 2000/XP machine without those won't be running for long. I installed 2000 on an old laptop for a customer because their wireless wouldn't work on 98, and it ran like a champ until I installed Norton and Sygate. At that point it took 10 minutes to boot up and then when I launched IE it had to increase the pagefile size just to run it. I don't call that even running slowly, I call that crawling. It was a 300 MHz PII -- I shudder to think how XP would have run on it. The customer is getting a new stick of RAM pretty soon to bring the computer up to speed.

FF, as for your system requirements, I installed XP on my dad's 400 MHz PII with 256 MB of RAM and it ran like a champ. 2000 ran well on some 233 MHz PII machines at my school with 128 MB of RAM. GeneralAres is right that CPUs don't have to be that fast to run 2000/XP well, but I think he's lowballing the minimum by a whole lot.

[GeneralAres]

where are you getting this information that you are so sure about?

I work for a PC OEM.

until I installed Norton and Sygate

Well there is your problem. Seriously though if you install applications you have to take into account those applications requirements ontop of the OS. Needless to say I am not arguing anyone should run XP with 64MB of RAM only that it would run (slowly).

As for the PII233, if your talking Office 2000, email and Internet access it is fine. But again you have to judge what you will be using the machine for.

[jimmyrules712]

ive run win xp pro on an old machine, 333 mhz celeron, 64 mb of sdram, 2gb HD.

i thought it ran rather well, and seemed much faster then the previous win 98 it had.

[Stryker]

My key point, and the reason for my multiple posts in this thread, is that there are droves of people from all over the world that come to this site for guidance and advice, a large number of whom are not members and do not as questions. The slightest hint of advice that could result in someone being unhappy with their build, or could also cause it not to function properly, is unacceptable in my opinion. Many people rely on this forum and the excellent content within it. Do a google search for "build a pc"... we're the first match!

I'm not arguing with anyone, I am trying to preserve the quality of the information at PC Mech. If someone had read the original article without any of this discussion, it would seem as though you could run XP with 64MB with a slight decrease in performance. The results are not consistent enough to make this statement, and therefore I do not believe it should be stated. Sure it can be done, but not consistently. I think the posts here have proven that.

I'm sure there have been machines that can run all sorts of operating systems with very low system specs, but the purpose of this forum is to guide, help and give advice to those who are looking for it. Not to push the perverbial envelope of minimum system requirements.

[piasabird]

All I know is that XP refused to install with 64MB of RAM on an OEM Install without an existing operating system. On an upgrade install it may work but that may be different. On this particular case I had no Floppy port on my Mini-ITX Motheboard, so I could not set up an alternate load of a memory manager to compensate. I suppose it may be possible to create a custom install disk that worked better. I will probaby just buy some more RAM of take a stick out of another computer.

I was playing with this Mini-ITX Motherboard and I wanted to get it to work.

[glc]

Time for me to chime in. Why beat yourself to death trying to run a bloated OS on a low power machine? There is no good reason to even try to run XP on an old dog when a less demanding OS will run a lot better. This reminds me of the days when people were trying to run Win95 on 386's with 8mb ram. Yes, it runs. Yes, it meets minimums. It runs like a dog. Win 3.1 runs a lot better.

Go ahead - put XP on a 233 with 64 ram. It will run. I've seen it run. However, you are going to get a lot more work done a lot faster if you put 98SE on it and if you take care of it, it will be stable enough. If you need to run applications that aren't compatible with 98SE, you should be looking at getting a new machine anyway. Again - no point in trying to push the envelope when hardware is so cheap these days.

GeneralAres - this is not a flame, but if you work for a PC OEM, you should be pushing new computers, not new operating systems on old computers. ANY currently available technology is designed for XP, as is most stuff made in the past 4 years.

We are losing sight of what an operating system is. It's to support your software and hardware, not the endall and not something that absolutely has to be the latest and greatest. I still have customers running Win95 - their applications and hardware are supported so why upgrade? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, fix it right - if you need XP, upgrade your hardware appropriately, don't try to force it to work on hardware that wasn't designed for it.

[Jester]

Amen.

[GeneralAres]

For the last time NO ONE is saying run Windows XP with 64MB of RAM! Nor am I saying it will run fast or is this site even implying that. Did anyone bother to read the link to the XP Requirements page? Anyway I emailed the owner who has since updated the page.

GeneralAres - this is not a flame, but if you work for a PC OEM, you should be pushing new computers, not new operating systems on old computers. ANY currently available technology is designed for XP, as is most stuff made in the past 4 years.

I push reliable and secure operating systems period. Win9x/ME ESPECIALLY Windows 95 are unstable unsecure OSes. Anyone responsible knows this and would not be recommending anyone use them, especially when it take very little to get a system running well with XP.

We are losing sight of what an operating system is. It's to support your software and hardware, not the endall and not something that absolutely has to be the latest and greatest. I still have customers running Win95 - their applications and hardware are supported so why upgrade? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, fix it right - if you need XP, upgrade your hardware appropriately, don't try to force it to work on hardware that wasn't designed for it.

It is not about the latest and greatest it is about reliability. No offense but I don't know anyone with half a brain still running Windows 95??? This is what you don't get Win9x/ME are broke! They were never designed to be stable OSes, they are DOS hybrid OSes. I don't care how you have yours configured or what hardware you are using, I gaurantee you I can crash it and cause you to reboot, they have no HAL layer ect... Oh that is more nonsense Windows XP supports more hardware then Win9x/ME, the handful of hardware it doesn't support, involves garbage ISA devices.

It is all about reliability, if you think Win9x/ME are stable and reliable I have a bridge to sell you. The sooner we get everyone to a stable platform the better everything will be.

[Stryker]

GeneralAres,
Have you ever heard the expression "beating a dead horse"?

[Force Flow]

GeneralAres, you're not reading glc's reply quite right.

Originally Posted by glc I still have customers running Win95 - their applications and hardware are supported so why upgrade? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, fix it right - if you need XP, upgrade your hardware appropriately, don't try to force it to work on hardware that wasn't designed for it.

Windows 95 and 98SE good O/S's for certain tasks. I agree with you on ME, but not for the reasons you stated. ME was buggy and unstable. 95B and 98SE were not. As long as you take care of them, they will keep chugging.

They can actually be more secure in some respects because many of the viruses, trojans, worms, and spyware out today do not affect 9x systems--they are directed at 2000 and XP.

[GeneralAres]

Have you ever heard the expression "beating a dead horse"?

Have you?

Windows ME was actually more stable then Win95 and 98. People that claim it was not are either regurgitating the same online misinformation or don't know what they are doing. Win9x/ME are impossible to make anywhere near as stable as Windows 2000/XP. It is by design. If you value reliability and security you would be using a reliable and secure OS. I build/repair and service hundreds of PCs/Servers a month.

They can actually be more secure in some respects because many of the viruses, trojans, worms, and spyware out today do not affect 9x systems--they are directed at 2000 and XP

Completely not true. Win9x/ME systems are ten times more infected then the average Windows XP/2000 machine.

The one thing I have found is so much of the online myths never hold up in the real world yet they never die online.

[Force Flow]

Windows ME? Stable? Not a chance in a million years. I'd take 98SE any day of the week over ME. ME was the most problematic O/S that MS never bothered to patch. Why is it that I see 98SE still on some store shelves while ME is nowhere to be seen?

ME is the worst O/S to use and/or try to fix. Believe me, I've been faced with this many times in my line of work. Either a downgrade to 98SE or an upgrade to 2k is much preferred, depending on what the hardware will support. I'm not saying 95B and 98SE were rock solid, but they were much more stable as far as ME goes.

Completely not true. Win9x/ME systems are ten times more infected then the average Windows XP/2000 machine.

...and this arbituary figure is coming from where?

Yet again:

We are losing sight of what an operating system is. It's to support your software and hardware, not the endall and not something that absolutely has to be the latest and greatest.

[GeneralAres]

Windows ME was as stable if not more then Windows 98SE. At the time of Windows ME's release mainboard manufacturing was being moved from other countries like Taiwan to mainland China, people incorrectly diagnosed lockups as being OS related when in reality it was due to crap mainboards. The other problems were people continued to try and use Win95 or Win98 not SE drivers with ME causing more stability problems. A properly configured Windows ME machine is as stable as the Win9x/ME platforms can be. If you understood what ME is, Windows 98SE + all the patches + system restore - DOS (they hid it) + the ability to use the Windows 2000 driver model, you would understand why people had problems. Windows ME also removed support for a lot of crap ISA devices. The other problems were people not upgrading their BIOS.

Why is it that I see 98SE still on some store shelves while ME is nowhere to be seen?

All I see on shelves is Windows XP. I don't know what you are talking about here. We were only able to buy (for good reason) Windows ME after Microsoft stopped selling 98SE.

The why Microsoft did not patch it reason is absurd, since Windows ME already included all the Windows 98SE patches they only had to patch from there, which they did.

...and this arbituary figure is coming from where?

All the service we get in. Win9x/ME machines are just completely hammered with Spyware and Viruses.

We are losing sight of what an operating system is. It's to support your software and hardware, not the endall and not something that absolutely has to be the latest and greatest.

If you understood the immense differences between the Win9x/ME and Win2000/XP OSes you would understand how important this is. The latest and greatest comment is just stupid. Windows XP is flat out stable and reliable.

[glc]

I think I've seen enough. We are accomplishing nothing here. This thread is closed. If you want to go argue operating systems, go find a forum that encourages ARGUMENT - this isn't one. We encourage intelligent discussion.