WinXP/2000/98se on an old system?

[G200 PSYCHOMAN]

Hello guys! havent been here in a looong time

My system is 4 yrs old and I've been using 95 ever since.
But i'm realising that win95 will eventually be unsupported/unknown etc and i might as well learn the new interfaces.

Ive read very good and very bad things abt XP - but for some reason it seems most interestin. 2000 is most stable but i dunno abt support eg good drivers/old games/etc?

Ill install 98se as last resort - nothing interestin there.

my system is:
celeron333 on 440BX, 196MB, MGA-G200, SB-PCI64, Seagate 8G.


can it provide enuf performance on win2000/XP? eg would 3D games be heavily affected? Any annoyances i should expect on my system?

[mutz]

...some people's opinion to the contrary, I wouldn't go backwards to anything. XP is what XP does. System too.

To avoid any annoyances, I would upgrade my system too. 8Gig, for example, is only enough to get you in trouble...

If I want to keep up with my appetite, I've never been able to keep anything longer than around two years. Four is ancient.

Check your appetite, then check you wallet...

[RichL]

Personally I wouldnt touch WindowsXP with someone elses bargepole, although some here are deeply in love with it (especially after their cheque from Uncle Bill clears ).
I've got 2000 sp3 at the moment, and I havent found many games I cant run (Interstate 76 is one exception).
I'd reccomend installing a small 95 or 98SE partition and then installing 2000 over the top, so you retain the ability to boot into 95/98 for the few games that dont work under 2000.

[Technoid]

I recomend the same as RichL

eXtra Problems will be very slow on your system

Win2000 on the other hand will run fine

[az]

I've just recently installed XP, and it feels a little slower than 98SE on my Duron 750 with 256 MB DDR.

I didn't like the new interface, and I'm just getting used to where all the options are hiding etc. It's more different than I'd thought, yet on the other hand less than I thought...

Do you want to play old DOS games, too?

I liked 98SE fine, I just wanted NTFS, and was curious about XP (and thought "why not start using the OS that'll be supported in the future now, instead of trying to get comfortable with it when there's really no other option left").

On your PC, I fear XP might be VERY slow...

AZ

[Marshmallowman]

processors with small caches do not like win xp or win2k,.

Duron's get by ok, but celerons run like dogs add to that you should have at least 256m of memory to run at least win2k.

For that system you, win98 is probably the best match, but it really depends oin what you want do with the system. For games go win 98, if you don't play games on it , win 2k should be okay(if a bit slow).

If you upgrade to p3 it should run win 2k quite well or better still get a ecs735/duron upgrade.

considered linux?

[thop]

well i have already installed XP on a PII233, 96MB RAM. now believe it or don't it boots the guy who is using it is only surfing the net, using word .. usual stuff. the responsiveness is suprisingly good.

other than that i think XP is the best MS has to offer up to now. if you fight your way through the bloat that is and know how to configure your system. i also like the new interface (trimmed it down a bit though), i hope cold grey interfaces are history.

[Marshmallowman]

Yes the older p2's with 512k cache run win2k suprising well, have not seen one running XP though

[G200 PSYCHOMAN]

Thanks for the input guys.

To avoid any annoyances, I would upgrade my system too. 8Gig, for example, is only enough to get you in trouble...

hehe yea my system is getting a little cramped and implanning to get a CR-ROM burner. A firend told me they go at 40x burn speed! shiiish

Personally I wouldnt touch WindowsXP with someone elses bargepole, although some here are deeply in love with it (especially after their cheque from Uncle Bill clears ).
I've got 2000 sp3 at the moment, and I havent found many games I cant run (Interstate 76 is one exception).
I'd reccomend installing a small 95 or 98SE partition and then installing 2000 over the top, so you retain the ability to boot into 95/98 for the few games that dont work under 2000.

Thas the problem...i don't know why people like/hate it so much. You sy intall 2000 over the top? dont you mean in another partition?

eXtra Problems will be very slow on your system

On your PC, I fear XP might be VERY slow...

Duron's get by ok, but celerons run like dogs add to that you should have at least 256m of memory to run at least win2k.

now believe it or don't it boots the guy who is using it is only surfing the net, using word .. usual stuff. the responsiveness is suprisingly good.

other than that i think XP is the best MS has to offer up to now. if you fight your way through the bloat that is and know how to configure your system.

hmm only way to find out is to "trial and error" - maybe ill do it in my vacation.

If you upgrade to p3 it should run win 2k quite well or better still get a ecs735/duron upgrade.

considered linux?

im plannig to get a p3 550 (slot-1) but don't know if ill be able to find em.
Don't think a ecs735/duron upgrade will work on my comp.
I had corel linux long ago but it wouldnt boot and now its just taken 700MB of my HD forever! (...until i get Partition Magic to delete it).

PS soz for the long post.

[UtwigMU]

I am in the same situation.

On 9x OSes:
95OSR2 and 98SE are stable, the ME and 98 first edition are not.
Good for gaming and websurfing but hardly anything more demanding as they cannot handle hogging apps very well. They have only 32bit user resources which means no Maya and only one copy of 3DStudioMAX

On NT OSes
NT 4.0 I'm using it in dual boot with 98SE (just gaming) right now and it's lean (light on resources) and mean (stable). Drawbacks are no FAT32 support (supports only FAT and NTFS), no USB support and no directX. (I can open all software I have installed and it doesnt freeze)

2000 (aka NT 5.0) Like NTs - stable, slightly more demanding, FAT32, USB and DirectX are supported

XP (aka NT 5.1) fancy GUI, faster booting, burning, picture previewing and other features. Very demanding

RAM (just OS) usage on 128MB computer:
NT ~ 35MB with 512MB of space they increase file caching and they don't page - 75MB
2k ~ 55MB
XP ~ 85MB

I recommend switching to win2000 and not XPs. I tried them on a similiar setup and they ran OK without any apps. 256MB is minimum.

You may wan't to dualboot Win98SE and win2k:
C: Win98SE (2GB FAT32 - better ussage than FAT) + games
D: Win2k (6GB NTFS or FAT32 if you wan't to see this drive from 98) + office + apps + user files

Before going Win2k make sure you have all the drivers; SB PCI64 is natively supported by Windows2000 and XP and they install drivers by themselves.

On HW upgrades:
If you want to game G200 is slightly slow. I recommend upgrading to G400/TNT2 class videocard because on my rig in older games that run smooth on it even GF2MX is CPU bound and does not perform significantly faster (even gets spanked in lover resolutions by G400). That is if you're not upgrading CPU/MoBO soon.

If you plan to upgrade CPU MoBo soon and want to game buy a videocard later. Right now Radeon 8500/9000/GF4Ti 42000 offer the best price/performance.

On CPU upgrade.
Pentium III 450-600 are Katmai core based (Coppermines are denoted by E as PIII 600E and 133FSB pentium IIIs both Katmais and Coppermines are denoted by B as PIII 600B and PIII600EB)

Some older BX Motherboards (like mine) will not support Coppermines. Check manufacturers website.

Is your board SLOT1 or PPGA?

Here are the options:
- overclock 333 to 500 (BEST if it's feasible and likely is)
- Katmais are atrocciously expensive 550 and 600 costing above 100$ on pricewatch. Get 450 and o'c to 600 if your MoBo supports 133FSB or get a cheap 2nd hand 550 and 600. Those are too slow by modern standards.
- If your MoBo supports Coppermines get a 900 Coppermine Celeron and a Slocket if your board is SLOT1 or PPGA-FCPGA converter if your board is PPGA
- There are powerleap adaptors that support Tualatins - FCPGA2 - on SLOT1 or FCPGA motherboards but they cost too much.

Upgrading all together, while keeping SDRAM is IMO not worth it, it's better geting new DDR/P4 or DDR/Athlon

You may go Tualatin Celeron (1.0A-1.3A) + SDRAM or ECS K7S5A thlonXP. Do not get P4 based celeron (1.7 and 1.8) because they suck.


Here's my upgrade path:
now:
Generic Midi Tower, Zalman case fan
Macase 300W PSU
DFI P2XBL
PII350@467
Micron 512MB PC133 CAS2
Matrox G400
SB PCI64
Adaptec 2904
USR ISA V90 modem
WD AC28400 8.4 GB 5400RPM, Philips 36×, Teac CDROM532S, Teac CDR56S, Teac Floppy.

- WD 80JB special edition 80GB 7200RPM drive
- Chieftec/Antec SX1030 + either Tualatin SDRAM or DualAMD MP + DVD + bigger PSU if going dual AMD
- 2 or 3 19" monitors and videocard (No videocard worth more than monitor rule.)
- A3 inkjet Printer ...

[G200 PSYCHOMAN]

If you install Win98 and use Fat32 when formatting, you can install Win2000 in the same partition. If you have Win9x in a Fat16 partition or want to use NTFS for Win2000 then obviously you'd have to install in seperate partitions.

Ah ok, i didn't know that - always assumed that OSes had to be on diff partitions.

If you want to game G200 is slightly slow. I recommend upgrading to G400/TNT2 class videocard because on my rig in older games that run smooth on it even GF2MX is CPU bound and does not perform significantly faster (even gets spanked in lover resolutions by G400). That is if you're not upgrading CPU/MoBO soon.

If you plan to upgrade CPU MoBo soon and want to game buy a videocard later. Right now Radeon 8500/9000/GF4Ti 42000 offer the best price/performance.

On CPU upgrade.
Pentium III 450-600 are Katmai core based (Coppermines are denoted by E as PIII 600E and 133FSB pentium IIIs both Katmais and Coppermines are denoted by B as PIII 600B and PIII600EB)

Some older BX Motherboards (like mine) will not support Coppermines. Check manufacturers website.

Is your board SLOT1 or PPGA?

Here are the options:
- overclock 333 to 500 (BEST if it's feasible and likely is)
- Katmais are atrocciously expensive 550 and 600 costing above 100$ on pricewatch. Get 450 and o'c to 600 if your MoBo supports 133FSB or get a cheap 2nd hand 550 and 600. Those are too slow by modern standards.
- If your MoBo supports Coppermines get a 900 Coppermine Celeron and a Slocket if your board is SLOT1 or PPGA-FCPGA converter if your board is PPGA
- There are powerleap adaptors that support Tualatins - FCPGA2 - on SLOT1 or FCPGA motherboards but they cost too much.

Thanks for the tips, UTmigMU.
I plan to keep my G200 but would TNT2/G400 be useful on a 2x AGP port - i think my old sys will bog it down?
I'm not planning to buy a new board - just CPU (after BIOS flash - have never done that b4!!!) - so DDR RAM wouldn't work.
I tried o/c my CPU to 500 (only lucky people get 500 on a 333) but max i ever got was 415. To really o/c me 333 to 500 would mean playing with slot-1 port to change voltage/somehow unlocking the multiplier/get extra cooling etc.
My board only supports a multiplier of 5.5 and my RAM is 100MHz - which is why i want a p3 550.

[Greebe]

I tried o/c my CPU to 500 (only lucky people get 500 on a 333) but max i ever got was 415. To really o/c me 333 to 500 would mean playing with slot-1 port to change voltage/somehow unlocking the multiplier/get extra cooling etc.

An extremely small percentage of people were able to reach 500 with a Celery 333. Most OCers simply didn't even bother with that cpu and instead got the 300a's instead (myself included). Even with that said those who could barely manage it were using water cooled pelt setups and even then it was less than a 5% chance that would fly.

[UtwigMU]

initial G400s (like mine) were AGP2× only.

AGP speed comes into play when you have to fetch data/textures from the main memory a lot of time, that is in newer games where the textures won't fit entirely in videoram (IIRC G200 = 8MB and G400 = 16 or 32MB).

When you have to hit AGP very often performance severely degrades since video memory bandwith is an order of magnitude wider than AGP bandwith and AGP 2× or 4× doesn' t make a big difference.

IIRC
AGP = 256MB/s, AGP2× = 512MB/s AGP 4× = 1GB/s AGP 8× = 2GB/s

IIRC (not exact numbers but in the ballbark, do a search)
GF2MX = 2,7GB/s
GF4 TI = 8-10GB/s
Parhelia = 17GB/s
Radeon9700 = 20GB/s

[cjolley]

Originally posted by Greebe


An extremely small percentage of people were able to reach 500 with a Celery 333. Most OCers simply didn't even bother with that cpu and instead got the 300a's instead (myself included). Even with that said those who could barely manage it were using water cooled pelt setups and even then it was less than a 5% chance that would fly.

I must have been realy lucky,
I ran a slot1 333 @ 500 for two years using a $9 heat sink and RS paste.

chuck

[Wombat]

Was there both a 333 and a 333a? The cacheless celerons would overclock like crazy - but the extra speed still didn't make up for the lack of cache.