JimF Posted September 21, 2001 Share Posted September 21, 2001 Experience has been varied. XP runs slowly (but is certainly usable) on 64 MB machine, and on the Celeron 400 with 192M RAM it absolutely flies, as it does on the 800 with 128M RAM. I don't think the need to 'upgrade' is as urgent as some say - 64 MB has not been the *standard* amount of RAM installed, at least around here, for quite a long time. 128 MB has been the 'entry level' standard for a long time, and XP works fine with that amount of RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
configure Veteran Posted September 22, 2001 Veteran Share Posted September 22, 2001 The 'classic' gui works smoothly under 128MB of RAM, but it a lil slow with Luna and all those XP-Theme :p.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF Posted September 22, 2001 Author Share Posted September 22, 2001 I think this will be solved once you get Windows XP optimized video drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zivan56 Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 When I installed XP on my 650Mhz Laptop with 128mb of ram it worked so fast in both themes, then I found its biggest weakness, you need to defragment the hard drive ever week or so to keep it fast. Also, when you play games like Red Alert 2 it takes over a minute to exit, when I had Windows ME before, the game exits instantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PabUK Veteran Posted September 22, 2001 Veteran Share Posted September 22, 2001 You need more memory. 64MB is certainly not enough to run XP properly, and 128MB is the minimum. There is little reason to have any less than 512MB anymore anyway with it being so cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 The bad thing about the defrag included with WinXP is that is takes so long to complete, especially on NTFS volumes. I am running Windows XP on a PIII 750 with 256 MB of RAM, it has only crashed once ever since I have been running it since early August. It is slow at times, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KR0NiCBaKeD420 Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 i noticed if u go to yer display properties and put the classic windows theme on ... that yer performance is a lil' bit faster.. b/c windows dosent have to skin every fu**in' program, windows, taskbar and start menu.. that u have running :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 The whole point of Windows XP is the new interface. If you are not going to use it, then why bother with Windows XP (I like the new interface)? The performance gain that you get when turning off the new interface is not that noticiable. The problem I have is the long amount of time it takes to defrag a volume under Windows XP. Besides that and a few other issues, Windows XP is a great operating system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackCoatMan Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 Well WindowsXP is indeed quite slow concerning specific jobs. For example, HeroesOfMightAndMagic3 runs quite slower than in Win98 (a noticeable change in speed). But OfficeXP programs are a lot faster! I own a pIII@560MHz (500 overclocked) and 192MB RAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaos34 Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 defrag is slow for you? that's weird... in win2k and xp, the included defrag has been a lot faster for me than the old win9x default defragger, especially with ntfs dirves... it's been faster. i defragged a very heavily 40gb drive, almost filled all the way up, in about an hour or so. i dunno... just my experience =p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 May be your configuration. I have a 20 GB HD with an NTFS volume for Windows XP. It may be the fact that NTFS is more efficient with larger volumes. May also be that you have a faster processor and more memory than my machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts