Hellooo New guy here!

I thought I would start out by saying hello and asking a simple question I have been trying to get sorted out for months.

What exactly is Win XP hardware system requirments????

Now according to MS, they say a PII300 with 64 mb and 2.5 gig of freespace on the harddrive.

Now according to my customers at work, I have heard them tell me they have installed it on systems as low as a P200mmx.
These people also tell me they just stuffed the CD in and it worked. They didn't use a third party program like Ghost.

I thought XP was like ME and did a system test before installing and if you didn't meet the base requirments, installation was aborted.

Can someone shed a little light on this subjest so I have more amunition to use when dealing with some of these people?

I just don't understand why people think that XP or win98 is the fix all of the OS's.

 

they say a PII300 with 64 mb and 2.5 gig of freespace

I believe those may be the minimums at which XP will work at its best.

I have heard them tell me they have installed it on systems as low as a P200mmx.

I had XP Pro working on a Cyrix 686/150 with 80 meg of Ram and it WORKED. Sure was NOT the greatest or smartest thing I ever did I ever did but it worked.

Within reason XP will work on just about anything. Although the better the hardware etc. the better it will be. But really that goes for any version of Windows. Including Windows 95.

I just don't understand why people think that XP or win98 is the fix all of the OS's

I do not understand that either as they are not. They are all very hardware and USER dependent. The initial install has as much to do with how well any version of Windows works as much as ( if not more ) than anything else. If it does not install or pick up hardware properly it will be nothing but problems. Same goes for Win 95 up to and including XP.

I had to install/reinstall XP three times before it decided to behave properly. 1st two were clean installs. The 3rd was overtop of SE and all is VERY well now.

BillyBob

 

So the obviously XP doesn't have a minimum spec unlike what MS has said.

HRMMM


So Billybob how does XP perform on your machine compaired to the other OS's??

Hows the boot time?

Data access time?

Stability?

Are you running NTFS or FAT?


A Cyrix chip???????? Did you ever read the MS article about Cyrix not passing the MS compatibility tests??

 

So the obviously XP doesn't have a minimum spec unlike what MS has said.

It does have minimum at which it work PROPERLY. And I was pushing my luck a little too far. But it did work great on a 266mhz Intel with 128meg of RAM. But the HD was too small on that machine.

So Billybob how does XP perform on your machine compaired to the other OS's??

I do not see it as overall preforming any better.

Hows the boot time?

Now that I have gotten rid of most of the stuff that XP wants to load by default it boots as fast as 98SE did. I never worry how fast it boots anyway. And very seldom do I sit here and watch it boot unless I am having problems. I usually turn it on in the AM as I am on my way to the coffe pot and walk away. And when I hear the Rooster crow I know all is well.

Data access time?

Very little bit faster than 98SE.

Stability?

Again. Getting rid of the un-needed trash at bootup it is very stable. But 98SE was stable and very solid for at least 6 to 8 Months prior to upgrading to XP. Actually I gained nothing other than knowledge by upgrading to XP Pro. That and getting it in and working properly before we lost the support for SE.

Are you running NTFS or FAT?

Fat32

A Cyrix chip???????? Did you ever read the MS article about Cyrix not passing the MS compatibility tests??

Who reads ( or cares ) what MS says ?? A lot of things don't past MS tests ( WHQL ) but they work just fine. I go by what MY MACHINE tells me.

HAHAHA !! Good old Windows ME was compatable with very little stuff anyway. ( hardware or software ) I had it three days and dumped it. ( not on the Cyrix CPU tho ) It was ( and in ) a World all its own. XP is by far better.

In other words. Once me and XP came to some understanding as to who was going to run my machine, we now get along fine.

Black Viper was a TREMENDOUS help in that area. It helped me get rid of some of the un-need stuff.

So the only place I see XP as being any better is in the use of disk space. Which seems to be about twice as much. And I am running the same amout of software that I did in SE. In fact less space hogging software. I got rid of Symantec Software. But other than that everything else is the same. XP went in overtop of SE. and I am still using more than twice as much of the C: drive.

2.9gig against 1.4 for SE. And SE included Symantec.

BillyBob

 

Whurd

"I just don't understand why people think that XP or win98 is the fix all of the OS's. "
----------------------------------
Because it is to this point, but like new cars coming out each year they try to add something to entice some to have to have it.
----------------------------------
BillyBob

"So the only place I see XP as being any better is in the use of disk space. Which seems to be about twice as much. And I am running the same amout of software that I did in SE. In fact less space hogging software. I got rid of Symantec Software. But other than that everything else is the same. XP went in overtop of SE. and I am still using more than twice as much of the C: drive. "
----------------------------------
Greater stability and fault tolerance, but much much greater configurability and control.

Mike

 

I'll second that! Also, the system resource problem that plagued Win9x/Me doesn't exist with XP, and that's reason enough for many users.

 

I really do not agree. I had all the configurability and control that I needed in SE.

But at the same time I can not give an honest answer one way or the other as I had no such problems with 98SE. 98FE and Windows ME yes, problems did exist. But with SE none.

My Wifes' machine has also had 98SE on it for at least 6 months ( or maybe more ) and NO problems there either. And that machine takes a BEATING from 4 to 12 year old kids.

But I did buy a new HD for her machine today because the number of bad sectors is slowly increasing on the existing one. ( primary drive at that ) A couple of hours in the next day or two will fix that.

I had NO problems in that area either with 98SE.

When we play golf with our Friend in Canada we get just as many hang ups during a game as we did with SE. But I think that problem there is more Internet related than OS. Some weeks we may get messed up several times. Both when we were using SE and now with XP.

So my bottom line is;

" I did not gain enough to really justify the $199 cost "

I got it. Have it activated. Am using it. But if something does go wrong I would not hesitate one second to put the HD with 98 SE on it back in here. Outside of the $199 cost I would have no problem with XP sittin on the shelf.

BillyBob