Can I run 2000 where 98 and ME used to run, on old latop.

Can I run 2000 where 98 and ME used to run, on old latop.

I have a Dell Thinkpad 600E which came with win98 and had been
upgraded to winME and was running well.

I only used it on a trip and to take digital photos to show a friend.

It was working fine 2 years ago but after sitting around, the
harddrive has failed** and a refurbished 4gig HDD is 10 dollars or
less.

Is there any reason I can't install win2000 on the new hardrive?

I'd rather use that because so much new software won't run on 98 or
ME, and even though I don't plan to put much software on it, still it
seems a mistake, I'm sorry to say, to load 98/me.

I'll still only be using it lightly.


The cpu is 366MHz and I don't remember how much RAM it had (whatever
it came with) perhaps 320 Meg, is that possible?

But I'm posting anyhow on the possibility those things won't be
necessary to answer the question.)

**I have a backup, but the files are not the issue. (and nothing I
didn't have copies of was on the the computer, except 200 outgoing
emails, about 20 of which are of value.)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:51:46 -0500, mm <>
wrote:

>Can I run 2000 where 98 and ME used to run, on old latop.
>
>I have a Dell Thinkpad 600E which came with win98 and had been
>upgraded to winME and was running well.
>
>I only used it on a trip and to take digital photos to show a friend.
>
>It was working fine 2 years ago but after sitting around, the
>harddrive has failed** and a refurbished 4gig HDD is 10 dollars or
>less.
>
>Is there any reason I can't install win2000 on the new hardrive?
>
>I'd rather use that because so much new software won't run on 98 or
>ME, and even though I don't plan to put much software on it, still it
>seems a mistake, I'm sorry to say, to load 98/me.
>
>I'll still only be using it lightly.
>
>
>The cpu is 366MHz and I don't remember how much RAM it had (whatever
>it came with) perhaps 320 Meg, is that possible?

That is, the original ad said 320 PC100 ram . I don't know what
320 means, 320 Meg? The computer was made around 2000 or 2002 iirc.
>
>But I'm posting anyhow on the possibility those things won't be
>necessary to answer the question.)
>
>**I have a backup, but the files are not the issue. (and nothing I
>didn't have copies of was on the the computer, except 200 outgoing
>emails, about 20 of which are of value.)

In news,
mm typed on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:51:46 -0500:
> Can I run 2000 where 98 and ME used to run, on old latop.
>
> I have a Dell Thinkpad 600E which came with win98 and had been
> upgraded to winME and was running well.
>
> I only used it on a trip and to take digital photos to show a friend.
>
> It was working fine 2 years ago but after sitting around, the
> harddrive has failed** and a refurbished 4gig HDD is 10 dollars or
> less.
>
> Is there any reason I can't install win2000 on the new hardrive?

I few points here. You mean an IBM ThinkPad 600E and not a Dell, right?
And a 4GB hard drive is large enough for Windows 2000. Although I would
slipstream the install disc if you are going to update it to SP4 first.
As it will take up less room on the drive that way.

And the ThinkPad 600E came with 128MB of RAM. IMHO, you will not like
the speed too much with this. As I ran Windows 2000 on such a system,
but it had 192MB of RAM. And Windows 2000 swapped to the drive way too
often. Although I had another machine the same, but had Windows 98SE on
it and I used the Windows 2000 one far more. These two are Toshiba
2595XDVD laptops which has about the same specs as yours.

Luckily in my case with Windows 2000, it had all of the drivers on the
install disc for everything. That is one problem you might have, finding
Windows 2000 drivers for the video, sound, I/O, etc. But let's talk
about speed.

Windows 98SE booted up in about 90 seconds I recall. But Windows 2000
under this little amount of RAM had taken 10 minutes. Even waking up
from hibernation takes that long and slightly longer, so no help there.
The reason why it was so slow was because it would load a bit, swap to
disk, load a bit, swap, etc.

Watching video (like youtube), Windows 98SE could handle up to 700kbps.
While Windows 2000 could only handle about 100kbps. And I could watch
DVD movies on the Windows 98SE machine, but unusable under Windows 2000.
None the still, I used the Windows 2000 machine more for the web, email,
etc. if I was going to use the computer for a few hours or more anyway.

I have four netbooks and the CPUs are underclocked down to 633MHz. So
they are still faster than the laptops we are talking about. But you can
install up to 2GB of RAM on these machines. But even with just 512MB of
RAM, Windows 2000 flies on such a machine (virtually no swapping).
Although I believe 256MB of RAM or more works really well with Windows
2000. And any more memory than 512MB I don't think you will see any
improvements.

So the driver issue and very slow booting, slow hibernation, and poor
streaming video are the problems I believe you will see if you install
Windows 2000 on it.

A weird thing about Windows 9x and memory, anything more than 64MB
doesn't seem to help performance at all. At least I never have seen any.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Centrino Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

4g hd is alright..BUT, it works your laptop to death..at least 10g, an
keep files cleaned up, and 2000(you'll want to update to SP4, and al
updates) and it should run fine.
I put a 12g in a T22, and updated all 2000 programs, and it's actuall
pretty fast(I was suprised!)

CCleaner, evonsoft computer repair, and eusing free registry cleaner
will keep it clean and quick!

On 1/14/2011 11:07 PM, mm wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:51:46 -0500, mm<>
> wrote:
>
>> Can I run 2000 where 98 and ME used to run, on old latop.
>>
>> I have a Dell Thinkpad 600E which came with win98 and had been
>> upgraded to winME and was running well.
>>
>> I only used it on a trip and to take digital photos to show a friend.
>>
>> It was working fine 2 years ago but after sitting around, the
>> harddrive has failed** and a refurbished 4gig HDD is 10 dollars or
>> less.
>>
>> Is there any reason I can't install win2000 on the new hardrive?
>>
>> I'd rather use that because so much new software won't run on 98 or
>> ME, and even though I don't plan to put much software on it, still it
>> seems a mistake, I'm sorry to say, to load 98/me.
>>
>> I'll still only be using it lightly.
>>
>>
>> The cpu is 366MHz and I don't remember how much RAM it had (whatever
>> it came with) perhaps 320 Meg, is that possible?
>
> That is, the original ad said 320 PC100 ram . I don't know what
> 320 means, 320 Meg? The computer was made around 2000 or 2002 iirc.
>>
>> But I'm posting anyhow on the possibility those things won't be
>> necessary to answer the question.)
>>
>> **I have a backup, but the files are not the issue. (and nothing I
>> didn't have copies of was on the the computer, except 200 outgoing
>> emails, about 20 of which are of value.)
>

no cross-posting please. this reply to als.sys.pc-clone.dell only.

i recall though win2k would install on systems with 128mb of ram it was
problematic. win98 did not require this much memory. so i think you
first need to figure out what you have there, what make/model, amount of
disk, and amount of ram. i wouldn't waste my time with a 4gb hard disk.
larger disks are very cheap too and your machine could support much
larger size disks. depending on the model it may have certain
limitation but it would just ignore the amount of the disk that it can
not recognize. and having said that i don't see any motivation for
installing win2k instead of winxp. winxp is far more capable and
supports much more stuff. even a basic anti virus for 2000 is almost
non-existant these days.

In news: t,
Christopher Muto typed on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:59:19 -0500:
> i recall though win2k would install on systems with 128mb of ram it
> was problematic. win98 did not require this much memory. so i think
> you first need to figure out what you have there, what make/model,
> amount of disk, and amount of ram. i wouldn't waste my time with a
> 4gb hard disk. larger disks are very cheap too and your machine
> could support much larger size disks. depending on the model it may
> have certain limitation but it would just ignore the amount of the
> disk that it can not recognize. and having said that i don't see any
> motivation for installing win2k instead of winxp. winxp is far more
> capable and supports much more stuff. even a basic anti virus for
> 2000 is almost non-existant these days.

I looked up a ThinkPad 600E and it sports a 366MHz Pentium II and 128MB
of RAM. I also installed Windows 2000 on a 4GB netbook just last year.
And I may still have it installed on one of my spare solid state drives
that I could pop in if needed. If not, it is on a backup which 4GB
doesn't take long.

Also Windows 2000 stock without any updates only takes 700MB of space.
After all updates it becomes 2GB in size. So you have left about 2GB
left for applications, swapfile, and data. I think this is enough for
most people for a spare computer. But I have no problems if somebody
suggests more disk space. I am just saying it will fit okay with 4GB.

My big concern is the 128MB of RAM. As I believe it will be really slow
and swap to disk that booting will take forever. Applications will also
take longer to load, but once loaded should be okay as long as they are
not heavy memory hitters. 256MB of RAM should be fine, if the ThinkPad
600E can accept that much.

Avast AV runs fine under Windows 2000, so if nothing else there is at
least one that will. And Windows 2000 will generally run anything that
Windows XP SP1 will run. But anything that requires Windows XP SP2 or
greater most likely will not.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Centrino Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

In news:igstju$kmr$,
BillW50 typed on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:47:09 -0600:
> In news: t,
> Christopher Muto typed on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:59:19 -0500:
>> i recall though win2k would install on systems with 128mb of ram it
>> was problematic. win98 did not require this much memory. so i think
>> you first need to figure out what you have there, what make/model,
>> amount of disk, and amount of ram. i wouldn't waste my time with a
>> 4gb hard disk. larger disks are very cheap too and your machine
>> could support much larger size disks. depending on the model it may
>> have certain limitation but it would just ignore the amount of the
>> disk that it can not recognize. and having said that i don't see any
>> motivation for installing win2k instead of winxp. winxp is far more
>> capable and supports much more stuff. even a basic anti virus for
>> 2000 is almost non-existant these days.
>
> I looked up a ThinkPad 600E and it sports a 366MHz Pentium II and
> 128MB of RAM. I also installed Windows 2000 on a 4GB netbook just
> last year. And I may still have it installed on one of my spare solid
> state drives that I could pop in if needed. If not, it is on a backup
> which 4GB doesn't take long.
>
> Also Windows 2000 stock without any updates only takes 700MB of space.
> After all updates it becomes 2GB in size. So you have left about 2GB
> left for applications, swapfile, and data. I think this is enough for
> most people for a spare computer. But I have no problems if somebody
> suggests more disk space. I am just saying it will fit okay with 4GB.
>
> My big concern is the 128MB of RAM. As I believe it will be really
> slow and swap to disk that booting will take forever. Applications
> will also take longer to load, but once loaded should be okay as long
> as they are not heavy memory hitters. 256MB of RAM should be fine, if
> the ThinkPad 600E can accept that much.
>
> Avast AV runs fine under Windows 2000, so if nothing else there is at
> least one that will. And Windows 2000 will generally run anything that
> Windows XP SP1 will run. But anything that requires Windows XP SP2 or
> greater most likely will not.

Oh yeah... I wanted to also add that I would be a bit concern running XP
on a 366MHz Pentium II with 128MB of RAM. Here are the requirements for
XP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows...m_requirements

The requirements for Windows 2000 are a Pentium processor of 133 MHz or
greater, at least 32 MB of RAM, 650 MB of hard drive space, and a CD-ROM
drive (recommended: Pentium II, 128 MB of RAM, 2 GB of hard drive space,
and CD-ROM drive).

In my experience though, if you have at least 400MB of RAM for Windows
2000, the OS itself doesn't gain any more speed if you add more
(although your applications might). And for Windows XP SP2, at least
800MB of RAM the OS runs very well too.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Centrino Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

"fxmulder" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> 4g hd is alright..BUT, it works your laptop to death..at least 10g, and
> keep files cleaned up, and 2000(you'll want to update to SP4, and all
> updates) and it should run fine.
> I put a 12g in a T22, and updated all 2000 programs, and it's actually
> pretty fast(I was suprised!)
>
> CCleaner, evonsoft computer repair, and eusing free registry cleaner,
> will keep it clean and quick!!
>
>

CCleaner is great...
any registry cleaner or "repair" programs are crap....can cause more
problems.... and should be avoided

In news:igv7gb$rvv$,
olfart typed on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 11:48:13 -0500:
> "fxmulder" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> 4g hd is alright..BUT, it works your laptop to death..at least 10g,
>> and keep files cleaned up, and 2000(you'll want to update to SP4,
>> and all updates) and it should run fine.
>> I put a 12g in a T22, and updated all 2000 programs, and it's
>> actually pretty fast(I was suprised!)
>>
>> CCleaner, evonsoft computer repair, and eusing free registry cleaner,
>> will keep it clean and quick!!
>
> CCleaner is great...
> any registry cleaner or "repair" programs are crap....can cause more
> problems.... and should be avoided

Really? As I see Crap Cleaner (aka CCleaner) is nothing more than
another registry cleaner. Although it is one of the most respected ones
in the business.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Centrino Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

"BillW50" <> wrote in message
news:igvs5m$oop$...
> In news:igv7gb$rvv$,
> olfart typed on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 11:48:13 -0500:
>> "fxmulder" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>
>>> 4g hd is alright..BUT, it works your laptop to death..at least 10g,
>>> and keep files cleaned up, and 2000(you'll want to update to SP4,
>>> and all updates) and it should run fine.
>>> I put a 12g in a T22, and updated all 2000 programs, and it's
>>> actually pretty fast(I was suprised!)
>>>
>>> CCleaner, evonsoft computer repair, and eusing free registry cleaner,
>>> will keep it clean and quick!!
>>
>> CCleaner is great...
>> any registry cleaner or "repair" programs are crap....can cause more
>> problems.... and should be avoided
>
> Really? As I see Crap Cleaner (aka CCleaner) is nothing more than another
> registry cleaner. Although it is one of the most respected ones in the
> business.
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Centrino Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
CCleaner INCLUDES a Registry Cleaner...which you don't have to use.....but
also does alot more to clean up a system. Of course you already know this,
but are just tolling to start another one of your soapbox "injuneer" rants.
Why don't you just stick your head back up your *** and talk to yourself