Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Win 98 SE or Win XP

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Win 98 SE or Win XP

    I am using a BKMVP4 motherboard with a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor, 160 MB of RAM and 8 MB (maximum) onboard graphics. The video solution is a portable DVD player (RCA drc-616n) with 7" TFT screen and unknown screen resolution (temporary solution). Which operating system would be best to optimise processor and graphics performance, Windows 98 SE or Windows XP?
    Vauxhall Astra SXi Car PC installed.

  • #2
    XP, more stable, more freatures
    TruckinMP3
    D201GLY2, DC-DC power, 3.5 inch SATA

    Yes, you should search... and Yes, It has been covered before!

    Read the FAQ!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Davefocus
      I am using a BKMVP4 motherboard with a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor, 160 MB of RAM and 8 MB (maximum) onboard graphics. The video solution is a portable DVD player (RCA drc-616n) with 7" TFT screen and unknown screen resolution (temporary solution). Which operating system would be best to optimise processor and graphics performance, Windows 98 SE or Windows XP?
      You are going to want to get some more RAM if you are going to put on XP.
      AMD XP 2600+/512MB RAM/120GB hard drive
      Opus 150W/DVD/GPS/7" Lilliput TS/802.11g/Bluetooth
      Installed.


      -GPSSecure- - GPS Tracking
      -AltTabber2.2.2- - Handy touchscreen utility.

      Comment


      • #4
        Xp some (or all) of the frontends/softaware that you find here work better with win2000-winXP

        (meaning that because Big M stop supporting Win98, compatibillity isues won't let the App to be install)
        RexBruMet Skin for FrodoPlayer

        Nissan Aux-in MOD


        Originally posted by bgoodman
        We're an international forum, post in whatever langauge you like.

        Comment


        • #5
          personally, i think you can run xp fine on 160 megs if you slim down the unnecessary background processes.

          Comment


          • #6
            i have a k6-2 450 with 256mb ram and it runs xp, but not very well. It takes like 5 minutes to boot to a usable state. i would try win2k or stick with 98 for that cpu.
            System: AMD Duron 1200+ , 512 MB ram , usb sb mp3+ , Tview 7" touchscreen , M1-ATX PSU , Slot Load iMac DVD-Rom , 40 GB laptop HDD, netgear USB 802.11g

            Progress: Installation: 90% Dash fabrication: 80%

            Parts Needed: USB GPS

            Comment


            • #7
              Do the VIA motherboards have win 98 drivers?

              And meyer64, I laughed when I looked at your location .
              "Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."
              Joel 2:32

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bernoulli
                Do the VIA motherboards have win 98 drivers?
                Yes.
                Have you looked in the FAQ yet?
                How about the Wiki?



                Under normal circumstances, a signature would go here.

                Comment


                • #9
                  i run xp (stripped of some services but not nlited or anything extreme like u guys) on a compaq 850MHz lappy with only 128mb ram and it runs XP fine. takes about about 7-8 sec to go into hibernation and bout 5 sec to come out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    i say use windows 2000... basically less crash prone then 98 and easier to run on 450mhz

                    edit: also XP will take a long time to boot on such an old processor

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm running an nLite'd XPSP2 install, w/Minlogon, on a Toshiba 470CDT laptop. Specs: Pentium-200MX,64MB-RAM,2MB-VRAM,2GB-HDD,10X-CDROM. My install is ~200MB. It's standalone only(not networked), but is fully functional (within its CPU/GPU limitations--MP3s, light gaming, DOS apps, etc.). Boot time is ~45 seconds.

                      Despite what anyone says, XP will run on ANY Pentium-class x86 w/32MB or more RAM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I've just upgraded to 256MB of SDRAM, DVD ROM and 40Gb hard drive. XP seems to be OK. Only have ACPI issues related to restart, only a slight pain during software install etc. Thanks for your replies.
                        Vauxhall Astra SXi Car PC installed.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          XP will not run correctly with 160 meg. You need at least 256 and I would recomend 512. XP uses so much of the resourse it will actually make the machine run slow when you do not have enough memory. If you are going to choose 98 SE or XP I would also consider WIN 2000 PRO in the mix. Uses less resourse compared to XP and to my findings is the most stable operating system for networking windows offers at this time. XP is a more media friendly program but the requirements are big. I use win 2000 pro on all of the banks I mantain for that reason. I do use win xp pro on my PC but I also have a P4 3gig processor and 1 gig of ram on my work and home pc I also have the same setup on my laptop but I use win 2000 pro.

                          I would strongly recomend WIN 2000

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Not trying to be a dick since I am a newbie and all
                            You would have to show me a computer that you are able to load XP and operate correctly with 32, 64 or even 128 meg without having some form of problems like slowness and lockups. You may be able to load it with more memory and run at idle speed but the first time you try to do anything on the pc with 32 or 64 meg it will probably lock up

                            I get Wal-Mart crap every day with 128 meg and when I reload I have to add memory for the process to work

                            I think the statement that anything with 32 meg or more will run win XP !correctly! is a little far fetched.

                            Win XP is designed for machines that can bring out the full potential of the OS.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 8675309
                              Not trying to be a dick since I am a newbie and all
                              You would have to show me a computer that you are able to load XP and operate correctly with 32, 64 or even 128 meg without having some form of problems like slowness and lockups. You may be able to load it with more memory and run at idle speed but the first time you try to do anything on the pc with 32 or 64 meg it will probably lock up

                              I get Wal-Mart crap every day with 128 meg and when I reload I have to add memory for the process to work

                              I think the statement that anything with 32 meg or more will run win XP !correctly! is a little far fetched.

                              Win XP is designed for machines that can bring out the full potential of the OS.
                              I have a P3 600 laptop that had only 128MB and it ran XP Pro just fine.
                              Slowly, but just fine.
                              Granted, I upped the memory for performance.

                              64MB is the minimum amount of RAM, according to Microsoft.
                              Read it here: http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314865
                              You're correct that a system won't run XP with 32MB of RAM. But the statement that you MUST add memory to a 128MB setup is false.
                              Have you looked in the FAQ yet?
                              How about the Wiki?



                              Under normal circumstances, a signature would go here.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X