What's the weakests system you ran XP on?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Ken Garrison, Jul 31, 2002.

  1. Ken Garrison

    Ken Garrison Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First I tried a 166 MMX OCed to 266 with 64 Meg SDRAM. Working pretty good. Then I got it running on a non OCed 166 MMX chip with 64 MB 72 Pin RAM. So far, it's running pretty good on that system. Don't have the pretty taskbar and everything. Got it running in simple mode now. Anybody install XP on a weaker system than THAT?
     
  2. Marshall Alsup

    Marshall Alsup Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I'm running it on a PII 400 with 128MBs and it sucks ass. I have to work on this piece of shit all day and I hate the fact that when I click on the IE icon I have to wait almost 15 seconds for the browser to load up. But, when I get home and use my PIV 1.8 running XP I feel better [​IMG]
     
  3. Ken Garrison

    Ken Garrison Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My main system is a P3 1 GHZ system with 384 RAM. XP runs pretty good on this system.
     
  4. Javier_Huerta

    Javier_Huerta Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pentium II, 300 mHz, 320 MB RAM. And it's a laptop.
    Two words:
    It. Flies.
    (When compared to 2K - all the pretty stuff is OFF).
    It's. Stable.
    (When compared to 95, 98, ME).
    It. ROCKS. [​IMG]
     
  5. Chris_Hall

    Chris_Hall Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    XP 1800+ / 1GB RAM .. runs ok [​IMG]
     
  6. Colin Dunn

    Colin Dunn Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1998
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Colin Dunn
    I think Ken wins for getting it to work on the weakest systems so far. I haven't tried it on anything less than a Pentium III-500 with 256MB RAM...
     
  7. Ken Garrison

    Ken Garrison Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  8. Francois Caron

    Francois Caron Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 1997
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Real Name:
    François Caron
    500 MHz IBM 600X notebook with 448 MB RAM.

    Since I don't open an excessive number of applications all at once, I turned off virtual memory. I also turned off all those annoying desktop and GUI animations. Everything works nice and fast now!

    Of all the upgrades you can apply to a machine before installing XP, the two most important ones are:

    1 - upgrading memory to around 500 MB.
    2 - Upgrading the hard disk capacity to at least 20 GB (I'm stuck at about 10 GB and it's a bit tight).
     
  9. Chris Liberti

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I got it running on a 286 25mhz 64K RAM. Just kidding the slowest thing I have tried it on is a 866 with 64 MB of RAM
     
  10. Wayne Bundrick

    Wayne Bundrick Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 17, 1999
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NT 3.1 couldn't run on a 286. I haven't tried running Windows 2000 or XP on a slow machine but I do have NT 4.0 Server running on 486/33 with 64 MB RAM.
     
  11. JasenP

    JasenP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1999
    Messages:
    1,280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Real Name:
    Jasen
    My old system was an Athlon 500mhz w/ 256mb RAM and it ran OK on that.
     
  12. Joe Hsu

    Joe Hsu Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2001
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you still have me beat Ken, but I think 2nd place is mine thus far:

    The family computer is a AMD K6/2 450 with 256 PC100. plus, a Riva TNT2. :-o
     
  13. Andre F

    Andre F Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2000
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    P2 / 384mb of ram...runs pretty good. Just got a new system yesterday so it seems really slow but I remember it running well.
    -Andre F
     
  14. Fredrik E

    Fredrik E Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have run Windows XP on a 233MHz Pentium II computer with 384MB RAM. It worked fine.

    Windows 2000 and XP runs fine on older, slower systems, but you need plenty of RAM memory. At least 128MB , preferably more.
     
  15. Dave E H

    Dave E H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I run XP Pro on several systems. PIII 500 w/ 256 megs of RAM (laptop) with a slow hard drive is the least and it's ok there. Not going to use it to compile a VB.NET application with 500k lines of code, but for web surfin', email, Office 2k, it's fine.
     
  16. Stephen Orr

    Stephen Orr Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm running it on three networked machines in my home, the weakest (slowest) being a 466i Celeron eMachine with 256MB RAM. The thing crashed all the time with ME, but now runs all the time with no problems whatsoever.
     
  17. Oachalon

    Oachalon Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    right now i have xp running on an athlon xp 2200+ with 2 gig of ram runs nicely. The slowest computer i have put it on was an amd k6-2 500 with 384mb ram. Runs pretty good.
     

Share This Page