Can a PI/233mhz/128MB run win2000?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas G. Marshall
  • Start date Start date
I run 2000 Pro on a 266 with 64 MB of RAM, so yes, I would assume so

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server]
http://www.imbored.biz - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site :-)
Only reply by newsgroup. If I see an email I didn't ask for, it will be
deleted without reading.
 
And I ran it on a 366 with 128MB RAM ok. So yes - go ahead.
Jonathan Maltz said:
I run 2000 Pro on a 266 with 64 MB of RAM, so yes, I would assume so

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server]
http://www.imbored.biz - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site :-)
Only reply by newsgroup. If I see an email I didn't ask for, it will be
deleted without reading.


"Thomas G. Marshall"
Click to expand...
 
Well 366 is already a speed demon compared to 2**, I ran Windows Server 2003
on a 400 MHz for quite some time

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server]
http://www.imbored.biz - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site :-)
Only reply by newsgroup. If I see an email I didn't ask for, it will be
deleted without reading.


Gordon Burgess-Parker said:
And I ran it on a 366 with 128MB RAM ok. So yes - go ahead.
Jonathan Maltz said:
I run 2000 Pro on a 266 with 64 MB of RAM, so yes, I would assume so

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server]
http://www.imbored.biz - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site :-)
Only reply by newsgroup. If I see an email I didn't ask for, it will be
deleted without reading.


"Thomas G. Marshall"
Click to expand...
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This is starting to sound like the "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch from Monty
Python.

"Ah, luxury....*we* lived in a *lake*."
Well 366 is already a speed demon compared to 2**, I ran Windows
Server 2003 on a 400 MHz for quite some time


Gordon Burgess-Parker said:
And I ran it on a 366 with 128MB RAM ok. So yes - go ahead.
Jonathan Maltz said:
I run 2000 Pro on a 266 with 64 MB of RAM, so yes, I would assume so

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server]
http://www.imbored.biz - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site :-)
Only reply by newsgroup. If I see an email I didn't ask for, it
will be deleted without reading.


"Thomas G. Marshall"
Click to expand...
wrote in message
Just wondering if it'd choke.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Another 32MB RAM and it would've been slow but OK. I have an old AMD K5
100MHz w/64MB here on a LAN as an archive store, and it does just fine.
The usual apps run just fine, too- Word, spreadsheets, and the like. No
speed demon, but no "choke", if I get your meaning. Boots in a minute or
so, applied SP2 with no hiccups.
The difference between it and another old machine on the same LAN (AMD
Athlon 766MHz 512MB RAM) is not very great.
Big difference between 32-64MB, and rightsized pagefiles also matter
hugely. That said, I suspect that while 32MB is really inadequate, a
large pagefile would have helped considerably.
 
Did the large pagefile thing, didn't help. XP ran better on it then 2000
did :-)

I wasn't going to buy another 32 MB of RAM because it's a laptop...and an
old one at that, so it would be expensive for no reason

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server]
http://www.imbored.biz - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site :-)
Only reply by newsgroup. If I see an email I didn't ask for, it will be
deleted without reading.
 
Brian said:
Doesnt anyone just read the MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS lists on
the box or on the MS website for 2000?
All any version of 2000 needs is a 133 with 62MBs RAM, and
about 1 Gig of space.
Click to expand...

Those minimum requirements are about what microsoft thinks will work without
crashing. Not what would work without choking.

If you trust such things I'll sell you some swampland on ebay...
 
Dan Seur said:
Another 32MB RAM and it would've been slow but OK. I have an old AMD
K5 100MHz w/64MB here on a LAN as an archive store, and it does just
fine.
The usual apps run just fine, too- Word, spreadsheets, and the like.
No speed demon, but no "choke", if I get your meaning. Boots in a
minute or
so, applied SP2 with no hiccups.
The difference between it and another old machine on the same LAN (AMD
Athlon 766MHz 512MB RAM) is not very great.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, in the words of raymond barrone's father. That the different is
not that great is something I've been wondering for some time: Just where
is the true bottleneck, in terms of what is becomes painful or not. I've
always suspected that it is memory + disk drive speed far more than cpu.
The simple mathematics bear it out as well: I don't care if the cpu
initialization for word is .2 seconds or .1. I would be driven nuts by the
disk loading of that monster, and of by the potential page faults it causes,
which is again linked by the disk loading. OI.

Your findings are fascinating to me. What does 100 mhz (amd) equate to in
intel land, do you know?
 
Dan Seur said:
Another 32MB RAM and it would've been slow but OK. I have an old AMD
K5 100MHz w/64MB here on a LAN as an archive store, and it does just
fine.
The usual apps run just fine, too- Word, spreadsheets, and the like.
No speed demon, but no "choke", if I get your meaning. Boots in a
minute or
so, applied SP2 with no hiccups.
The difference between it and another old machine on the same LAN (AMD
Athlon 766MHz 512MB RAM) is not very great.
Big difference between 32-64MB, and rightsized pagefiles also matter
hugely. That said, I suspect that while 32MB is really inadequate, a
large pagefile would have helped considerably.
Click to expand...

Do you suppose that this system is better suited for WinME?
(PI/mmx/233mhz/128mb)
 
Usually memory isn't the difference between good and bad. If you have a
slow system, however, you will want more RAM

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server]
http://www.imbored.biz - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site :-)
Only reply by newsgroup. If I see an email I didn't ask for, it will be
deleted without reading.
 
Jonathan Maltz said:
Usually memory isn't the difference between good and bad. If you
have a slow system, however, you will want more RAM
Click to expand...

That's the cart before the horse.

A system /becomes/ slow when it doesn't have /enough/ ram.
 
Paul Dietrich said:
NO! You're better off with win98 than winME. WinMe is like a bastard
child that Microsoft wishes it could disown. :)
But seriously, winme is to be avoided, if possible. Go with 2k...
Click to expand...

REALLLLLLLLLLLY?

Why? Is there a web site that says why?
 
I meant a slow processor. And besides, a P4 3.06 GHz computer with 128 MB
RAM will run fast/smoother than a P1 233 MHz with 256 MB RAM. RAM is only a
factor.

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server]
http://www.imbored.biz - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site :-)
Only reply by newsgroup. If I see an email I didn't ask for, it will be
deleted without reading.


Thomas G. Marshall said:
That's the cart before the horse.
Click to expand...
»Å?øsystem /becomes/ slow when it doesn't have /enough/ ram.
 
Running 2K and XP on a couple of old Compaq laptops I picked up cheap on
eBay. 144 MBS RAM on each, (all they'll take). The 2K is a 233MMX, the
XP is a 266. They do what I need. Internet with a wireless PCMCIA card,
Explorer, Outlook Express, the odd Office app. Maybe a light game now
and then. They work fine.
 
I'd be curious to see a cost benefit analysis of the following...

Two Ebay computers... I've seen the hardware go for $30 or so these days, but maybe as much as $100
Windows XP & 2000 (are these fully licensed professional versions at $170 each?)
A few office applications at ~$500 each?
Was the IT department involved in this @ ($100/hour).
Your time... ($100/hour)...

Net performance of the final product...count the number of crashes at 5 minutes each at $100/hour.
I assume that these are kept up to date with the latest versons of IE, and windows patches, and
a modern virus scanner is installed. Otherwise you can shut your whole company down for a day
or more - think of the cost savings of not allowing anyone to browse the internet for a day. By the
way - I never ran a virus scanner on my 233MMX system, it kept hanging. Only now do I find a
virus scanner inoffensive.
 
Back
Top