Antiquated OS question

vbimport

#1

I have an old rig that I’ve set up for my parents. Just for email, light web browsing, that sort of stuff. It’s a Pentium III 933 MHz with 512 MB RAM and not a whole lot else. Currently, I’ve got XP Pro SP3 installed on it and, as you might have guessed, it runs a little slow. It’s not terrible for how they use it, but I have an old copy of Windows 2000 Pro kicking around here that’s not being used. Assuming I can get all my drivers working in Win2k, is there any performance benefit there? My experience with Win2k is limited and all I can recall about it is its boot times were way slower than with XP.

So, my question can be summed up with this: Does using Win2k over XP make any sense in 2009?


#2

Hi,

there is not much performance difference between W2k and XP.
Apart from that, XP Pro gives some more administrative options that allow a higher security level. Additionally, there are some softwares that don’t work on W2k

And not to forget: MS will stop delivering security updates for W2k next year. Extended support for XP ends 2014, if I remember correctly.

So, instead of installing W2k, I’d see if I could tweak the system somewhat. Disabling unnecessary services, avoiding installation of bloatware does help.

Michael


#3

You could make a stripped-down version of Windows XP Professional SP3 using nLite, and then avoid installing bloatware and anti-virus software.

Anti-virus software can really suck the memory and speed out of a system. :frowning:


#4

Or you can give Linux a try. :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

No anti-virus software needed.


#5

[QUOTE=Whappo;2474398]Or you can give Linux a try. :slight_smile: :)[/quote]That should be a lightweight distro then. But I agree, for the tasks mentioned, that should work :slight_smile:

No anti-virus software needed.
on a properly configured Wintendo and an educated user, such isn’t needed either there :wink:

Michael


#6

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2474365]You could make a stripped-down version of Windows XP Professional SP3 using nLite, and then avoid installing bloatware and anti-virus software.

Anti-virus software can really suck the memory and speed out of a system. :([/QUOTE]

Would removing anti-virus software from the machine be such a good idea? I mean, I’d love to do it, because you’re absolutely right about how it can slow machines down. For security reasons though, I’m skeptical.

Also, as another poster mentioned, I had thought about putting Linux on there but I don’t know how well my parents and Linux would get along.


#7

[QUOTE=Saucerful;2474762]Would removing anti-virus software from the machine be such a good idea? I mean, I’d love to do it, because you’re absolutely right about how it can slow machines down. For security reasons though, I’m skeptical.[/QUOTE] It depends entirely on how you are going to use that machine.

If you’re going to use it for surfing the web, you probably need all the protection you can get.

If you’re going to use it only as a file/media/print server, then you can run it without anti-virus software.

It all depends.


#8

[QUOTE=Saucerful;2474762]

Also, as another poster mentioned, I had thought about putting Linux on there but I don’t know how well my parents and Linux would get along.[/QUOTE]

A linux desktop is as easy to understand and use as windows. The problem I run into is that some people are just locked in to using IE and the MS mail client and switching them to an alternate browser/mail client can be an exercise in futility.


#9

If you can find more memory for that pig it might fly:bigsmile: I ran XP with 1 to 2 gig of ram for years and it did fine, 512 is probably a bit small if anything running in the background is using memory.
I used to be a wizard at disabling anything unnecessary in my DOS and win 3.1/95 days. You can still do that in XP in administrative tools and reg editing and like that.


#10

[QUOTE=Saucerful;2474344]I have an old rig that I’ve set up for my parents. Just for email, light web browsing, that sort of stuff. It’s a Pentium III 933 MHz with 512 MB RAM and not a whole lot else. Currently, I’ve got XP Pro SP3 installed on it and, as you might have guessed, it runs a little slow. It’s not terrible for how they use it, but I have an old copy of Windows 2000 Pro kicking around here that’s not being used. Assuming I can get all my drivers working in Win2k, is there any performance benefit there? My experience with Win2k is limited and all I can recall about it is its boot times were way slower than with XP.

So, my question can be summed up with this: Does using Win2k over XP make any sense in 2009?[/QUOTE]

I would says as other mentioned stay away from win2k that sounds like a dead dinosaur already stay with XP pro sp3. XP is still getting updates and support by more users then win2k that I know of. Also without knowing what kinda mobo you have its hard to know what to tell you to expand or update to get more performance out if it. But 512MB is to small of memory for XP to run properly if you can at least get 1-2G of ram into your system but if that will depend on how much memory would go for that computer mobo specs. But adding more RAM will help improve our XP performance and you will see and notice it. Anything below 1G is a hamstring to XP running good. As Dartman says 512M does it a disservice for XP. My old computer that died finally was with XP XP sp3 running at 1.5G on 2.32G of Ram and lasted 8 years.