If you upgrade the RAM you can do alot more. I had a Compaq Presario 4840 that did MP3, DVD, DivX, GPS and more very smooth.
OK, I have a 233mhz P2 with 64 megs of ram. What is the fastest thing to run so I can play mp3s on it? My 2.4ghz project flopped cause the computer crapped out on me, but the 233 worked beautifully.
I was thinking a hard drive installed version of knoppix, or something similar.I'm probably not going to go windows jsut because for size and speed it cant beat the small linux distros.
"stop with the REINSTALLS, what do you think we got some lame-o installer!!!" - mitchjs
DOS?Originally Posted by malcom2073
Ford Focus MP3 : www.stevieg.org/carpc Blog Updated 29 January 2009!
Car PC Status: Complete - Undergoing Software Redevelopment
More RAM and Linux Mandrake 9.2
'04 Canyon 4x4 pickup
[---PC on hold----working on external fiberglass "tool" box---]
Ideas....Originally Posted by malcom2073
You could impress your friends with midi-files of all the latest hits played back through a Soundblaster 16.
Or rather, you could connect a bunch of relays to your parallel port along with a custom program on the carputer to operate an 8-track tape deck from a lilliput touchscreen. It'd be so retro!!
And you can also add a strobelight to your dashboard for added fun and excitement!!!
(Sorry... I really tried.... but I couldn't resist )
Seriously though, I think even an older OS running WinME could play MP3s. Just dig up an old version of WinAmp somewhere, and you'll probably be fine. I would also be one to say that you should add some memory though. Infact, if you can get it up to about 256MB, even Win2000 would probably work. Just disable all the graphical effects, display bit-depth, unused services, and background images.
BTW - mine is only running 733MHz with 512MB running XP and it hasn't choked on me at all. I can be using Frodoplayer, Navivoice, Routis, and Phone Control, and it seems to maintain just fine.
if you really want the fastest you can get, i would recommend 98SE. you can try out different linux distros. you might get really good results with Linux, if you're up for it. I don't know of any up to date distro (+ Full featured GUI Desktop) that performs well on old hardware. Maybe use Xfce or Blackbox desktops with something like Fedora, Mandrake, or SuSE. DEs like KDE and Gnome will make your system drag.
i would NEVER recommend Windows ME. never.
you don't need 256MB of RAM to run W2K. in fact, i've run W2K on a Pentium I, 120mhz with 64MB. i would however recommend more than 64MB. you can even run XP on 233mhz with enough RAM. i've got XP TabletPC Edition running on 233mhz, with 160MB. it runs suprisingly well. it wouldn't handle games, DVD, or graphic apps like Photoshop/Illustrator, but it it works very well for MP3, avi, GPS, and Office apps.
to sum it up, to get the most preformance out of your low-spec system, i would recommend 98SE, followed closely by W2K, and then maybe a linux distro with a light DE.
AMEN BRUTHA!!Originally Posted by gutterslide
That crap isn't worth the time of day it takes to refer to it as the Mistake Edition.
Its a horrible, horrible thing that should not have ever been. If it were a car, it'd be the Ford Pinto, if it were a gun it'd be a Saturday night special, if it were a politician, it'd be the WHOLE CLINTON FAMILY! I'm talkin some seriously bad joo-joo man.
I am in no way associated with Microsith nor any of its subsidiaries. But even they would agree that WinME is "The Thing That Should Not BE"
Mind Scream out
Seriously, I NEVER had a problem with ME, and used it for 2 1/2 years without a reinstall - not because I wanted to, but because I had to, since the drivers for some proprietary direct-to-disk recording hardware weren't available for NT based OSs. Even with applications this demanding, ME stood up at least as well as 98se.Originally Posted by mindscream
I've heard the "ME sucks" choir sing this chant over and over, and truthfully, I don't get it. Sometimes, it seems as though a few people the industry can say "this sucks, or that sucks", and no one can actually deliver a substanitive reason why. It just catches on - perhaps initiated by the opinions of a couple of 15 year olds working at CompUsa who blue-screened after a network card driver install, and then it snowballs from there.
All this to say, 2000 and XP are far superior in almost every way - especially in terms of stability, but ME (in my experience) has always been at least as stable as 98, and would always be a consideration in the event that I needed an OS to run on a slower machine.
Originally Posted by Bryan Pape
I mean no disrespect at all Bryan, you asked for proof. Here is a little known fact. The day Windows Millenium Edition was released. Microsoft stated on their own website, that ME contained no fewer than 63,000 known bugs.
That one event, coupled with Leo LaPorte telling me there was no DOS support, swore me off ME forever.
Also, I worked for Dell tech support and currently work for Brother Software Tech Support, and we continually see problems with WinME. Fortunately not anywhere close to the number that we used to.
The only troubleshooting step we had "in most cases" at Dell to fix Windows ME was to format and reinstall. Thanks Bill Gates for using the American Public to beta test your software.
Sorry guys, not trying to hijack the thread...just venting a little.
Mind Scream out