Minimum Practical Requirements for Windows 2000 Professional

Discussion in 'Dell' started by dgrnyc, Feb 9, 2005.

  1. dgrnyc

    dgrnyc Guest

    I have a friend that has an old white box computer with a 133 MHz AMD
    K6-2 CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive. Currently, he is using
    Windows 98 SE. I know that this computer is not powerful enought to
    practically use Windows XP. But I'm on the fence about whether it's
    powerful enough to use operate Windows 2000 Professional at a reasonal
    speed. What do you think, is it better to stick with Win98 SE or switch
    to Win2K?

    dgrnyc, Feb 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. dgrnyc

    Ben Myers Guest

    Stick with Win 98se. The CPU is too slow. 256MB is a practical minimum for
    memory. Win 2000 performs acceptably on a system with a 300MHz or faster CPU.
    I'm running some older IBM ThinkPad 390E notebooks with 300ish MHz CPUs, 256MB
    memory, and smaller than 20GB hard drives. They operate just fine, a little
    slow booting up due to slow hard drive rpms... Ben Myers
    Ben Myers, Feb 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Kinda marginal, but it ought to work. Depends on your definition of
    "acceptable", but it should be better than Win98...
    William P.N. Smith, Feb 9, 2005
  4. dgrnyc

    Phred Guest

    Until recently I was using a system in another place that was pretty
    similar to the OP's, but it had an Intel processor (233 MHz IIRC) and
    a 3 GB HDD (which was usually pretty full :).

    It was usable for the sort of stuff I do routinely, but was
    v..e...r...y s..l....o......w to do a network logon, which was
    rather a PITA at times as it often took 10 or 12 minutes!

    The "new" machine has a much faster processor, 512 MB RAM, and a
    "huge" 20 GB HDD. (All that space! :) But it's running XP Pro.

    It logs on quickly (< 1 minute typically) but to my surprise it's
    actually v..e...r...y s..l....o.......w copying files to a network
    drive and deleting files on the network. *Much* slower than the old
    machine in fact. So I put this down to some sort of housework that XP
    is doing that 2K Pro didn't bother itself with(?).

    On balance, I prefer the fast logon and can tolerate the slow file
    management now that it's expected and I can plan around it.

    Cheers, Phred.
    Phred, Feb 10, 2005
  5. dgrnyc

    Ben Myers Guest

    It's difficult to provide definitive reasons why the two computers perform the
    way they do without knowing something about the network itself. Altogether too
    many problems can occur from misconfigured or malfunctioning network equipment.

    I recently replaced a pair of older P3 systems running Windows 98 with a couple
    of P4s running XP Pro. The old P3s ran like a slug when accessing a shared
    Quickbooks data base on a Windows 2000 server. The P4s run much faster. Why?
    Faster processor? Yes. More system memory? Yes. Faster local hard drive?
    Yes. Other? Damned if I know. The XP Pro systems log in a lot faster, mostly
    because their desktops are not yet cluttered with icons and they are not as
    loaded down with memory-resident bloatware. File copying to and from the server
    takes about the same amount of time. Go figure... Ben Myers
    Ben Myers, Feb 10, 2005
  6. dgrnyc

    Hubble Guest

    I am sure that I have seen something on the net about a compatibility issue
    between 98 and XP machines that are networked. I hada look at the MS
    knowledge base but a google search with xp 98 slow network brought up a
    wealth of sites with a large number of suggestions for fixes. It appears
    connectivity problems between 98 and XP are common, but it also appears they
    can be solved.


    Hubble, Feb 11, 2005
  7. Phred wrote:
    [SNIP slow network xfer...]

    Most likely the NIC in the new box is not configured correctly, and is
    re-negotiating all the time. This can be particularly nasty if you are
    talking to a switch that doesn't quite do auto-negotiation properly.

    I set my NICs to fixed speed and fixed full-duplex, to try and avoid
    these problems, but they still pop up from time to time. Sigh.

    Gary B-)
    Gary R. Schmidt, Feb 11, 2005
  8. dgrnyc

    Phred Guest

    Thanks for your comments, Gary. I guess it could be something like
    that; but, if it is, I would have to fight some sort of corporate
    "policy" implementation to solve the problem. (I'll mention it to the
    help desk FWIW. ;-)

    I've also noticed a pronounced "stutter" or "shudder" of the Windows
    Explorer display when accessing things on the network drive(s) from
    the "new" XP system. Perhaps that's another symptom of the problem
    you describe?
    Cheers, Phred.
    Phred, Feb 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.