Old Celeron 400 Mhz

marceloM · Dec 31, 2006, 03:38 PM

Hi guys:

Which is the best choice for ?

An old CELERON 400 Mhz with 192 Mb. ram.

Win 2k or Win XP light version

PangingJr · Dec 31, 2006, 04:06 PM

if you need to buy a new copy of Windows, then i suggest you buy Windows XP.

if you don't have to buy it and you are already have both copies of Windows, then i suggest you try them out for yourself.

H3X4D3C1M4L · Jan 1, 2007, 03:00 PM

I'd say use Nlite and then stip down the Windows 2000, XP includes too much fluff by default and would probably cripple the 400Mhz Celeron (just isn't enough power or clock speed there to pull it off).

2000 would run pretty decently if you took out everything that you weren't using

.

Also note: Putting in a faster more modern hard drive in that system (even a really small one like 40GB or 80GB) would really help system performance, because it removes the bottleneck of the hard drive (which WILL be used for paging alot heh), hard drives from that era of computing glory wouldn't fare too well under the stress of a more modern O/S

Judas · Jan 2, 2007, 01:04 PM

Windows XP BY FAR.

just make sure you've got at least 256mb of ram imo... .course windows XP Pro SP2 runs great and much better then windows 2000 or 98 on a intel/amd 486 90mhz and 64mb of ram, so i choose xp over everything reguardless of system setup.

H3X4D3C1M4L · Jan 2, 2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

Windows XP BY FAR.

just make sure you've got at least 256mb of ram imo... .course windows XP Pro SP2 runs great and much better then windows 2000 or 98 on a intel/amd 486 90mhz and 64mb of ram, so i choose xp over everything reguardless of system setup.

lol Judas are you sure you weren't doing SOMETHING odd?

I can't even install XP on a machine less than 200MHz inside of a 48 hour window much less run it.

Judas · Jan 2, 2007, 02:11 PM

you serious?

i had an old compaq computer that i had to use (build date on it was i beleive 93 of novemeber), the machine orginally came with windows 3.0 i beleive.

anyways, 90mhz 486dx4 and 64mb of ram + 8mb onboard compaq memory) (many many 72pin sticks of simms) Onboard 128kb video memory.

I had taken the 80mb hd out of it and put in a 1.6gb hd (as a 1036mb hd was frigen 2mb short of ms windows minimum hardrive space requirement)

Anyways, popped in a netgear pci network card, tried a soundblaster pci card, but the pci ports were non-compliant. lol.

Anyways, i had to download the Floppy windows xp installation startup disk maker, and pop all 6 in the computer to get it to start installing.

The end result was not only a smoother running machine then windows 98 or 2000, hell even windows 95, but ALL the hardware devices installed perfectly fine with the windows xp supplied drivers, AND i even got some transfer modes to work that never ever, would never work with 95/98/2000. Set the system restore to off, set the performance mode to fastest mode, and gui to classice performance mode, defrag the sucker, trimmed off unnessary programs that were installed, and kept the startup slimmed to the default windows services.

The result was, aside from flash related or anything to do with MMX required apps, a damn good system. Took roughly 45 seconds to actually startup (serprised the hell outa me) There was JUST barely enough HD space to install office 2003 on it and all the updates, leaving roughly 150mb of swap file and 50mb of other temp/work documents.

Quite impressed with the little sucker.

marceloM · Jan 7, 2007, 01:14 PM

Guys the question is very simple, no changes will be made in the hard configuration.

It will keep the old 6.5 HD.

swimtech · Jan 7, 2007, 02:15 PM

Xp will definitely run, but will consume a quarter of your drive. I've installed and run XPSP2 on IBM 390E laptops with 192Mb ram - runs ok (just ok...) actually (a 300Mhz PII processor...) using a 4G hard drive.

2000 will be snappier (much less of a resource hog), but XP will give you better features and is more supportable overall.

What you going to use the machine for?

PangingJr · Jan 7, 2007, 03:54 PM

marceloM,
since it's not going to be depending entirely on the spec of your computer alone, but it's going to be depending on you as well and even more.
so i just think that's not a simple question to answer.

matasvytautas · Jan 8, 2007, 06:26 AM

yeah I have an old HP vectra 266Mhz..with 64MB RAM..Win XP runs on it..not really fast..but when you have LAN it doesn't really matter..Great for internet use...so use XP..and enjoy..

matasvytautas · Jan 8, 2007, 06:27 AM

well 233mhz actually

marceloM · Jan 8, 2007, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimtech

Xp will definitely run, but will consume a quarter of your drive. I've installed and run XPSP2 on IBM 390E laptops with 192Mb ram - runs ok (just ok...) actually (a 300Mhz PII processor...) using a 4G hard drive.

2000 will be snappier (much less of a resource hog), but XP will give you better features and is more supportable overall.

What you going to use the machine for?

It is used for Word, Excel, browse internet.

Matth · Jan 8, 2007, 11:48 AM

192 MB - odd figure - if that's 256MB minus 64 MB onboard graphics, then use the BIOS to drop the graphics to 32 or 16 MB, and maybe drop AGP aperture to 64.

marceloM · Jan 8, 2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matth

192 MB - odd figure - if that's 256MB minus 64 MB onboard graphics, then use the BIOS to drop the graphics to 32 or 16 MB, and maybe drop AGP aperture to 64.

Impossible
The old PcChips 748LMRT only have 8 Mb onboard graphic.

marceloM · Jan 9, 2007, 05:56 PM

I forget told you.

3 old dimms 64 Mb each one = 192 Mb

matasvytautas · Jan 10, 2007, 02:04 AM

XP will run with 64MB RAM. That's all that it needs to run, albiet slowly..Of course office will cause it to run slower, and you wont be able to surf the net the same as you do with 1GB of RAM. He has 192MB of RAM, which is exactly what I have in two computers-a Pentrium 446Mhz and a Celeron 400Mhz. (we wont go into the differences between these two processors-both are weak) The 400Mhz Celeron will be able to handle what you want it to do. Just enjoy it. If you are not a gamer or design graphics for a living, these computers will suffice. Actually, probably 90% of the people who don't use computers for gaming would probably be satisfied with a computer like this with a ATI RAGE AGP card for video.(as an example, but probably a 32MB video card would be better). Really, there is no need to spend a lot of money on a computer as a used computer for about 15-20 USD will satisfy all of your basic computing needs. My 400 Celeron and 450 Pentium were just given away to me and had I known beforehand that these computers would be all that I would ever need, then I wouldn't have bought a Athlon 64. It's the gaming level that you want to experience that is the deciding factor on what computer you really need. If you have a LAN internet connection, the 400Mhz Celeron will suffice..and 192 of RAM is way more than enough...

matasvytautas · Jan 10, 2007, 02:08 AM

What video chip do you have? Maybe the Trio?

matasvytautas · Jan 10, 2007, 02:15 AM

Ignore previous question, you already told everyone that you have a 748 LMRT..

H3X4D3C1M4L · Jan 10, 2007, 03:57 PM

I don't see why you'd want to run such a bloaty OS on a machine that old... I'd think 2000 would support everything you need (it supports 99.9% of the things I do with my PC).

Or better yet use Linux, nothing will perform better on that machine than Linux and you can use Open Office and Firefox in lieu of the microsoft products.