Is XP really better?
 

I have an HP Pavillion 2.0Ghz 256RAM 40gb hdd that runs XP but it runs like absolute crap. No viruses or spyware. It feels slower than my 400mhz Dell Optiplex GX1 128RAM 2.1gb hdd running '98se. The Dell is far more stable than the HP.

I was wondering if XP would be good for the Dell. I want to get the most out of my computer. I have heard that XP utilizes your memory better than '98. Would XP be good for the Dell or should I keep it as is?

I wouldnt run XP on anythign less than 512MB ram. It eats it for breakfast.

I currently run XP on less with absolutely no problem what so ever. P4 1.6 with 256 Megs of RAM.

But for the Dell, if you have a copy I would recommend Windows 2000. Same basic operating system, but without a lot of the extra UI bells and whistles that slows it down. But a well-tweaked XP would probably work just as well. The biggest problem with running XP on that Dell would be the hard drive size. XP takes a lot of room and installs a lot of junk with it. It can be a real bitch on smaller hard drives.

But with either XP or 2000 you can squeeze a lot of extra performance out of them with well tweaked services. Also, under XP run msconfig and disable any starting up process that you don't need.

For the Dell: Windows 2000 if you got it, otherwise keep a well patched 98SE and you probably will be good.

Get more ram. 256 is barely enough these days. My pc was slow as hell on 256, I added 512, now its nice and speedy

I buy some RAM if I had some money. For the HP I'd probably buy another 512mb of RAM. I'd add another 64mb of RAM to the Dell.

it seems that XP runs ok on my 466 mhz 160 mb ram machine...

dont install xp on a 3gb hard drive....

learned that the hard way.

If you have it use it. If you plan on buying something buy XP Home. It sounds like Home will suit you quite nicely and its the least expensive one.

I experience the same sanario with my independly built computer (Win98SE 504Mhz PIII,128Ram) vs my friends compaq (WinXP,1.7P4,256MB.) General browsing (exploer & internet) seems more fluid on my old school comp then his new school comp. Besides I dont care for XP for a multitude of reasons, when I buy my next comp its gonna be a dual boot (Win98SE/Longhorn).

runs fine an a HP 350Mhz PII, 196MB RAM

Nuh-Uh! I got my XP Pro for $137 :D


XP Pro is running great in my p4 3.2, 120 gb Western Digital SATA HD, 1 gb Corsair Ram ^_^

I got my corp copy free, its never let me down!

I swiched back to 98 from XP, never looked back.

xp does have neato icons tho

Aghhh, XP, it burns, it burns!
*hiss*

2000 pro for me thankyou.

Well, I used to use(weird) Windows 98SE, but start getting all those erro msgs, and also with the news that MS would stop supporting this version, I bought Windows XP Pro (Why buying less than you can), and now I'm fluying. I bought, togheter with Win XP Pro 512MB ram, and I already had 256 .. so, Now I'm flying on My Ahtlon XP 2400+ 2GHz, I just want to change my GeForce 4 64MB AGP8X to something more ... (smooth)

XP is great. Runs my old DOS games (well, most of them), doesn't crash, etc.

Plus, since I've disabled all the skinning crap, it runs just as fast as 2000, but with more features. :D

Get a Mac. If you insist on using something XP, you can still have Office XP for Macs.

MacOS gets you laid. With Windows, you're simply fucked.

On my dad's pc, he runs XP pro sp1a on his 1ghz athon with 384 mb ram, and it runs very well after some tweaking.

*cough*linux*cough*

I haven't had any serious problems with mine yet. I'm running XP Home sp1 on an HP Pavilion 504n (2ghz Celeron, 512megs RAM, 32gig master HDD, 74gig slave HDD). I've set the theme to Windows Classic and disabled a bunch of the eye candy, and it runs pretty quick for the most part. It's stable as hell, too.

I run XP on my 1.47 Ghz with 224 MB ram.. its kinda slow, but what can you expect when im running several IE's, AIM, MSN, YIM, Shoutcast DNAS, AND SAM2 on it at once lol

proteg, have you ever tried trillian for your IM needs?

Yes, Trillian rocks much butt.

yeah, but since im behind a firewall, I cant use voice option on trillian.... i might switch tho

XP runs fine on my system(80 gig hard drive, 2.5GHZ Pentium 4 running 11MHZ slower than it should because some idiot underclocked it a tiny bit, 256 megs of ram).

uhh... trillian doesn't have the voice option as of yet.

ah.

XP seems stable enough on a 80GB with 1.7GHz.P4(ugh) & 2 sticks of 512.

XP runs fine on my athlon XP 1800+, 512 DDR 2700, 30 GB maxtor hard drive.....I also have mandrake 9.2 on an 8 gig hard drive which also runs fine.......I play UT2K4 demo on it :D

If you have the 2.0 GHz computer on a network and the Dell isn't, or if you have a lot of shit on the 2.0 GHz that isnt on the Dell, then that might be the reason for it running all shitty. I think you need 512MB of memory to really run XP; 256 is OK while 128 is pure shit.

I think that 98se is inherantly (sp?) a lot faster than XP, so you should just leave the Dell as it is. I don't see that much of an imporvement between 98se and XP; they just put on some eye candy. The biggest thing XP has over 98se (i can't be sure but I am pretty sure that this is true) is that 98se (at least, at first) did not support USB.

Huh? only Windows 95 did not have native USB support, and USB was added to Windows 95revB but it was only a partial implementation. Windows 98 first edition was the first to have fuller USB support.

Now if you're talking USB 2.0 or IEEE1394(Firewire), then yes, Windows 98 did not have native support for those

Try switching back to the windows classic theme. I saved like 20-30 megs by doing this.

Indeed!

I've built myself a PC: (AMD Athlon XP 1700@2500+, 256MB RAM, 120GB disk) and WinXP boot up much more faster (like 20seconds - my guess, will measure it in the evening) than anything else previously installed.

Wiht a "out of a box" PC (=Dell, HP...) you are always slower than with a custom built PC.

and you never get the exact parts you want, they skimp on anything they can as long as the spec LOOKS good at first glance and its cheap.

Exactly. Checked my WinXP startup (until the disk-activity diode is off) and it takes 33 seconds (and mind I am running several background progs like Firewall, Antivirus, ICQ, RivaTuner...)

The 1.7ghz P4's suck. I think 1.8+ is when they started getting decent to good and I wouldn't recomend anything lower to someone who is budget shopping. I wouldnt recomend Intel for some one who is budget shopping for that fact anyway.

Hey I could get WinXP Pro for free :P Next Microsoft Play Test I go to Ill just say, hey give me pro, and you know what? I got Pro. I don't need another Pro copy so if anyone wants a Pro copy from me in the future for a modest price just drop me a line and I'll tell you when I go to another Play Test.

Why not?

Intel's suck. AMD all the way!

It all boils down to personal preference. AMD is no better than Intel.

AMD has a better lower end while Intel has the 3.2E HT 800 FSB thingy