Myt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 73 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1487 times:
Oh man, I didn't mean device manager! Ha, I've had a few beers. Just right click on my computer, click on properties and type what it says under the general: part at the bottom. Just what processor it is apart from a Celeron. What speed?
Nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 36 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1430 times:
Quoting Myt332 (Reply 10): Just right click on my computer, click on properties and type what it says under the general: part at the bottom. Just what processor it is apart from a Celeron. What speed?
By the look of what he just posted, he has already done that. It doesnt always report processor speed. Next time you turn your PC on, as soon as the monitor comes on, you will see a black screen, with white text. In there somewhere will be your processor speed, it will say something like "Intel Celeron 600mhz".
Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 11): I'm pretty sure you have to have 512MB RAM to run XP
Ive had XP running off a 256mb machine before, it will run but its a bit painful. I think the minimum is 128mb RAM, which you have, so it will install, but it will be extremely slow.
If your going to install XP, i recommend you install some more memory.
Diamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 64 Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1410 times:
Express1, I predict that you'll have a lot of problems with XP on that computer. You may be able to get it to run - sort of. But you'll find that your CDROM drive will no longer work (and never will again). You'll find that some of your USB or serial ports won't work (and never will again).
Some of your installed software will no longer function, etc.
Because I've never seen hardware fail as a result of an OS change. It might be that a USB port or something might stop working when a change of OS is made, and I have seen that, but I've never seen it stop and then "never work again", as you say, when I've reverted back to a prior OS.
Diamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 64 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1369 times:
Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 19): Because I've never seen hardware fail as a result of an OS change. It might be that a USB port or something might stop working when a change of OS is made, and I have seen that, but I've never seen it stop and then "never work again", as you say, when I've reverted back to a prior OS.
I have 2 computers (w/ monitors, keyboards, etc.) in my attic that have probably been used for less than 50 hours each. I made the mistake of having to have the latest OS on them without verifying that the hardware could handle it. They are both older-than-old now and would have little value to anyone.
I agree with the people who say that ME is pretty bad. It seems like a child's version of Windows to me. So I got the brilliant idea to upgrade it, and now it's useful for surfing the web, and maybe some MS-Office applications.
And my '98 machine continually crashed and dsiplayed a blue screen (right out of the box). I kept hearing how Windows 2000 was so 'stable' so I gave that a try. Also, a complete failure. It would be best suited as a boat-anchor now.
Now I have 4 portables (large laptops) in my house that are all networked together and performing exactly as they should. Why? Because I hired someone with a brain to do it for me.
Hawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3150 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1343 times:
It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that XP will run on that machine. Crawl is more like it.
My uncle has a 1.1GHz Celeron that came with XP Home and 128MB of RAM. I timed it once, it took 10 minutes from hitting the power button until it stopped accessing the hard drive enough that it was usable. A memory upgrade made things much better.
For not much more than the price of XP Pro, you can probably get a whole new computer that will run circles around your current machine. If you wait a couple of months it might even come with Vista.
On second thought, Vista bad. Get XP while you can.
Siren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 307 posts, RR: 12 Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 11): I'm pretty sure you have to have 512MB RAM to run XP. And more from our IT guys..... 6 years old is ancient... Big grin
It will run with 128... just... painfully and slowly. If you want to keep your current hardware without upgrading, I would suggest tracking down a copy of Windows 2000 Service Pack 4. It would run pretty smoothly on that hardware, and be just as stable as XP Pro.
Quoting Diamond (Reply 16): But you'll find that your CDROM drive will no longer work (and never will again). You'll find that some of your USB or serial ports won't work (and never will again).
Some of your installed software will no longer function, etc.
I think what Diamond is referring to is if you were to do an ME to XP upgrade. First off, this is a terrible idea even if you had a fantastic PC with stellar performance. Upgrading from a Windows 9x system and overlaying an NT system onto it, and expecting things to work properly is just asking for all sorts of trouble - device trouble, deep seated registry trouble, trouble that might requre you to reformat your hard drive and start from scratch.
I strongly suggest this is what you do anyway. If you reformat and start from scratch, you won't have device issues as Diamond raised. Your CD drive will function properly (as it sits on the IDE bus, and this is recognized by Windows ME and thus Windows XP), and USB and Serial ports will likely work afterwards - it's a Dell computer, and a Dell motherboard designed by Intel. These were very mass production boards, and before Microsoft released XP (and Vista) very rigorous testing was done to ensure there was a lot of backwards compatibility and drivers built into the operating system to ensure this sort of thing would not happen. (I worked at Intel at "Windows Hardware Quality Labs") Only the very oldest legacy systems (Pre-1998) would face these kinds of issues. Rest easy. Your system will run XP very very well if you upgrade the ram to around 512 or so. And I strongly also suggest that you do not load Service Pack 2. It's more resource intensive, and for that you might want a faster computer.
Indeed. All current Macs can also run Windows if you want - this may look like an extremely important option in the beginning, but for most people it fades to the background pretty fast. But it's there if you want or need it.
There's a wide range of Macs available; It could very well be the least painful way forward from your current situation.
If you've got any questions, I and others will be glad to provide help and information.
25 Express1: with 127.0MB and 600MHz i think i will give it a miss,i can't afford to upgrade or buy a new PC,as earning money from my job this time of year is (0)
26 Goldenshield: You could run Linux on those older systems with little, or no, problems at all. The more popular flavors—such as Fedora, Unbuntu, and Debian—all h
27 Rolfen: Windows ME works on FAT32 filesystem. Windows XP supports FAT32 but usually works on NTFS. I suggest you choose to reformat your drive as NTFS while i
28 Goldenshield: Usually? MS recommends upgrading FAT32 to NTFS. It does give some security with user folders, meaning that if I took the drive out of one computer an
29 Rolfen: The beginning of windows NT date back to october 1988 I'm pretty sure it's inspired by UNIX... I even think that I read somwhere that some top window
30 ChrisI1024: XP tends to run ok as long as you give it 512MB of RAM. I have it running on a couple of 450MHz Pentium III computers along with MS Office and it runs
31 IFEMaster: RAM certainly seems to be the key component with XP. I have it running IIS at home to host a blog. It's running on a Celeron 633Mhz, and it's running