Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Hi,
My current system is a Win98 SE running on a P4 1.6A ghz with 128 MB RDRAM and Geforce2MX 400. I've been considering an OS upgrade for a while to WinXP but always chicken out when I read about the high sys requirements. My question is whether my current system specs are adequate to host the XP OS, and if I do upgrade, whether I should choose Windows 2000 or WinXP . Your replies here will definitely influence any decission I take in this regard.
Thank you
You should go with XP. Your system is more than up to speed. It's a much more stable system than Win 98. You could upgrade your RAM to 256, but 128 will do.
0 
I would say go for it. 256 RAM would be better but 128 will suffice; just.
One thing though; whether you choose to move to XP or not my strong advice is to forget about upgrading and do a clean install.
The only time upgrades really work is immediately following a clean install of 98/ME. Otherwise you can often end up with a flaky system and be disappointed.
I think the majority will bear me out on this one.
0
Your specs will take Xp, the one problem I can see is you will need more RAM if you want to enjoy Xp.
The one other thing is format and install XP don't upgrade...make sure you back up all you need for the move over and try to get any driver updates you need for printers,scanners etc save them to disc so they are ready right away after your fresh install.
One other thing if and when you do install Xp make sure you enable the firewall [internet options>tools>advanced] before getting on the net....
HTH
Alan56
0
Having used XP, I must say no. Windows 2000 is a definate better system than XP. XP only has some frou-frou styling touches, which slow the system down unnecessarily and look bad at the same time.
2000 all the way.
0
I agree with 900t, unless you want to play games.
If you're using your computer just for work, then windows XP is just a gussied up Win2k with more eye-candy and system hogging features (and product activation). Stick with Win2k in this case.
If you just play games, what you'll gain from XP is stability. Otherwise stay with 98, I noticed a loss of speed when I went from 98 to XP on the same hardware.
If you want to play AND work, then I have to recommend XP. It does both well.....but do yourself a favor and get some more RAM.
...however, you're thinking of XP now, which means you want it. You do want it don't you? C'mon, don't kid yourself. It's going to nag at you every time you walk in the store and see the pretty shiny boxes.
You can call it a Christmas present to yourself.
0
Your P4 is good, your 1.6 GHz proc rating is fine, however you need 512 MB RAM. Everyone who moans that XP is slow is strangling it on resources. I just built a setup with AMD Barton 2GHz proc/333FSB, 512Cache, 512 DDR, Shuttle AK39Nboard, memory set on Ultra. Photoshop7 (the mother of all resource hogs) loads in 5.5 seconds from dead stop to opening screen. XP will not run well on a system that has resources for WIN2000. No way No how. Give it the resources it requires and it will outperform 2000.
0
Regarding the comments about doing I clean install, I agree. Installing over an older version, although is supposed to work, nearly always produces niggling problems.
As for the eye candy, yes, XP has lots of it. But it can be turned off. XP can be configured to look and feel just like Win98, but is XP underneath with all the advantages that has.
If you are worried about compatabilty, run the upgrade advisor. It will tell you if you are likely to have any problems.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.asp
Stuart
0
A funny thing too.....I initially set mine up to get rid of the eye-candy. Then I started feeling kind of crappy because I had bought a "new" OS and everything looked the same as Win2K.
So, out to the store for RAM (and that nifty new video card) and back again. Turned on the eye candy, and became quite pleased.
Ahhh the simple pleasures.
0
Along with the extra memory I would suggest you get XP Pro for the extra security features. I solved the back up hassle by installing a new hard drive :-) & keeping the old intact for stuff you need & think you might need at some point. I also agree with a clean install vs. an upgrade.
0
Wow, I never expected so many responses in such a short time, thank you all for taking the time and helping out.
I've realized that my PC has become quite dated so I'll definitely consider a RAM and video card upgrade for the new OS.
First, about the Win2000 vs WinXP gaming issue, well, I do play games but almost all RTS's , AOM, Warcraft 3 etc. , but I have been thinking about getting Halo for the PC.
I'm a cautious PC user, its been almost 2 years now since I installed my present Win98 setup ( right after I bought the new rig) without any problems or re-installs. I manage this by running Norton Cleansweep before I install any new software and using advanced registry tracer and a small program directory watcher for keeping tabs on new registry entries and files, only takes about 2/3 minutes. The thing is that I've been paranoid about the registry since my Win95 days and I wonder if XP or 2000 would allow me the same degree of freedom over my OS maintenance.
Also this one feature of WinXP that really turns me off is the restore function and I've seen on friends' machines that it eats up a LOT of disc space, and since the restore function along with other apps I don't think I need keep running in the background all the time, I believe they fall into the resource hogs category. There's this software called XPlite Professional which claims it can slim down WinXP by remoing "unwanted features" including the restore function, so if I buy WinXP , would it be safe to use XPlite on it.
0
Never used XPLite, but a agree the restore feature can be a bit of a hog. However, you can turn it off without recource to third party programmes. Most things in XP can be turned of if you dont want them.
Stuart
0
I would stick with w2k its more stable.
I have two systems both with 512ram one has
amd xp 2600 with radeon 9200 vidcard the other p4 2.6 radeon 9700. I use the w2k for
games never any problems and its the faster of the two
0
as an experiment only, I just installed and ran XP on a pentium 166 with 128 MB ram, so yes, it does work and not too badly at that. it was an interesting experiment and that is all that it was. another thing I tried was to upgrade from w98se to XP HE as a separate excerise, I would not recommend it, internet access worked OK but never could get file sharing to work. file sharing works just fine if you install XP clean on the 166 but not when you upgrade. Al
0
I think it is wise to disable things yourself, not rely on an application to do it for you. Only you know what you need & what you don't need. I have System Restore turned off. I would rather be in charge of what I return to! BlackViper has a pretty good site for what things in XP do and what & what isn't required for good operation. You might want to take a look.
www.blackviper.com
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
