Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

[stevo1210]

Is it possible to get some mediocre performance out of Windows XP providing that I have only a Pentium II 233Mhz CPU and 64MB??. Like would disabling the eye candy graphics, desktop background make XP run with some mediocre performance on something with 64MB of RAM?.
I currently have Windows 2000 Pro on a PC with a PII 233Mhz CPU and 64MB RAM and at idle I have like 20MB of RAM left at most.

I've noticed this for a long time but Windows XP is actually faster than 2000 Pro. One example is my Celeron 667Mhz w/ 256MB of RAM. It takes nearly 5 minutes to boot up with 2000, but with XP it takes only about 2-3 minutes.

Thanks.

[acstech]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

I think about 256MB is the minimum for any kind of usability with XP.

Just my opinion.

[bgavin]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

No.

Open the Task Manager, and check the Commited memory byte count. This shows you how much RAM is required to run the operating system.

The difference between Committed and Real is made up by Virtual (disk). Your system will go to Thrashing Hell forever with only 64mb.

You can Google for Windows XP Tweaks and find a significant number of services that can be disabled. These will reduce your memory footprint, but not enough to run in 64mb.

You would be better off running Win98SE.

[Per Hansson]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

Keep 2000

Yes, XP is faster at bootup but that is it
Enable the hibernation mode and use that for poweroff, with 64mb of RAM only your system will boot in seconds this way

XP will never run as good as 2000 with only 64MB of RAM

Think about disabling some services aswell that you don't need;
http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/win2k_services/

[gonzo0815]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

From my experience, the user interface of WXP is more responsive then the w2k ones.
It is like using a low latency kernel in Linux. I know, real performance does hardly differ, e.g. most benchmark deliver the same.

But you have to be more carefully, when installing 3party software, as wxp is definitely way more affected from bad software then w2k (e.g. in w2k a program crash will not affect any thing else, where in wxp may be the whole os would crash).

I would say, if a system can run w2k, it should doe the same with wxp.

[pentium]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

I tried it and I must say it was horrible.
A minimum of 256Mb or use something else.

[gonzo0815]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

Have you tried it with w2k too? I think no one will expect a neat computing experience from this configuration, but the question was the difference between w2k and wxp.

[i4004]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

>I currently have Windows 2000 Pro on a PC with a PII 233Mhz CPU and 64MB RAM and at idle I have like 20MB of RAM left at most.

install xp too and then see what you like better.(you'll need 2 partitions)
if both seem too slow(and they probably will be) install win98se.

[gonzo0815]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

On systems <400MHZ & 256MB RAM i would prefer anything from win NT over win95c to 98SE.
Only WIN ME has to be avoided like the plague, as it was the worst OS from MS ever.

WXP & W2k will be usable with an Pentium III 600mhz and 256MB Ram for normal office tasks.

[gdement]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

On systems <400MHZ & 256MB RAM i would prefer anything from win NT over win95c to 98SE.
Only WIN ME has to be avoided like the plague, as it was the worst OS from MS ever.

WXP & W2k will be usable with an Pentium III 600mhz and 256MB Ram for normal office tasks.

I agree with you there, also NT4 is significantly leaner than 98. 98 was when Microsoft introduced the IE4 integration, which bloats the whole GUI and constantly hits the disk.

Unfortunately, stevo mentioned in another thread that he needs USB so NT4 won't work because of that.

I don't think there's much difference in the CPU performance of 98 vs 2k, but win2k does need more memory. I'd try to upgrade the ram and use 2k. Win9x versions are annoyingly unstable.

XP uses more ram than 2k. I've tried slimming it down before, disabling unnecessary services and using the "classic" interface, but it still doesn't shrink quite to win2k levels.

[stevo1210]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

Only WIN ME has to be avoided like the plague, as it was the worst OS from MS ever.

I agree. I currently have Windows ME on that Penitum II 233MHz laptop and it would just randomly freeze for no reason sometimes.
I had 2000 pro on there beforre but It was like a dog running with four broken legs so I had to scrap it. I'd have to say that Windows 2000 was stable but it was way too slow. Bootup took like 5-8 minutes and I couldnt multitask as well as with Windows ME. Originally the laptop had Windows 98 on it and it would BSOD at random times, much similar to the freezing in Windows ME. If there was only some way I could find PC100 SO-DIMM SDRAM that this Dell Inspiron 3200 supported then i'd be OK.... only problem I feel is that buying PC-100 SO-DIMM modules will cost more than the laptop costs itself.

Thanks.

[stevo1210]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

I'm really cheesed off with Windows ME because of stability issues, so now I am reinstalling Windows 2000 back onto my laptop. I think i''ll have to tweak 2000 a bit for some performance. I also had a look at the minimum system requirements and it says that 32MB of RAM is the bare minimum. 64MB of RAM is recommended.... to hell with that, IMO 128MB of RAM should be the recommended minimum for Windows 2000 Pro.

Thanks.

[Scenic]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

try this. helped me a lot...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLite

after playing around with nLite i made a totally slipstreamed XP and Win2k CD with nothing but the bare OS (no drivers, no apps.. nothing)
total size of the resulting XP .iso was a bit more than 300MB and the final installed version used about 300 to 380MB
the win2k iso was just 200MB and installed less than 260MB

problem was: absolutely no drivers. gfx, sound, USB, cardbus/PCMCIA.. just nothing worked like "plug & play" *lol*

but it was extremely fast and used less than 70MB RAM (XP) after booting up.. (with drivers installed)

BTW:
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate...rUrl=Translate

and different translation
http://translate.google.com/translat...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[gonzo0815]

Re: Windows XP with 64MB of RAM

Well, nlite is very good tool, i am using it for any system i build.
But on an old system, the user experience with any windows =>w2k will not be tolerable even for very patient people.

I have tried it more then once an you can really feel the subjective performance lost at the everyday`s tasks. And sure, i have had switching back to windows 98Se in any of those cases due to user complaint.
If you are picky with the hardware & drivers, win98se can stable enough for the typical user of those older systems ;-)
It will bite you hard, if your using messy drivers under w98 due to the low or not present kernel / hardware access protection (e.g. a separation layer between any software and the real hardware).