XP on ancient computer
Moderator: Moderator Team
XP on ancient computer
http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm
It is possible to run NT based OS's on really quite sparse hardware, this is, however quite an extreme example...
It is possible to run NT based OS's on really quite sparse hardware, this is, however quite an extreme example...
-
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:46 pm
- Location: Germany, Bavarya, Neumarkt
- Contact:
That's a interesting and funny test of OS installing and "running ". I never had tested so slowly PCs with WinXP.
Guennie1568
ROS-Fan und X2Pandora Audioeditor
ROS-Fan und X2Pandora Audioeditor
My personal record is nLited WinXP pro on PII 233 MHZ, 32 MB RAM, 1 GB HDD, two monitors , nvRiva TNT Ultra64 + Matrox Mystique.
Fscking slow as hell. On 32 MB RAM HUGE swapping having prefetch enabled or disabled. 256 MB ram makes thing more responsive but you can still see windows drawing. Two monitors affect performance immeasurably.
Observation from high-end systems. PCI GFX card for second/third monitor tends to break things considerably when windows spans the screen split, I guess PCI/PCIe/AGP transfer is at work.
Even on Athlon 64 with PCIe and 2 GB RAM, you can see windows drawing when using PCI Matrox Mystique, but it doesn't affect performance of the computer at all.
Memory affect performance most. Fragmentation is second. Lesson learned windows internal defragmenter sucks badly, NTFS too on memory low system.
Fscking slow as hell. On 32 MB RAM HUGE swapping having prefetch enabled or disabled. 256 MB ram makes thing more responsive but you can still see windows drawing. Two monitors affect performance immeasurably.
Observation from high-end systems. PCI GFX card for second/third monitor tends to break things considerably when windows spans the screen split, I guess PCI/PCIe/AGP transfer is at work.
Even on Athlon 64 with PCIe and 2 GB RAM, you can see windows drawing when using PCI Matrox Mystique, but it doesn't affect performance of the computer at all.
Memory affect performance most. Fragmentation is second. Lesson learned windows internal defragmenter sucks badly, NTFS too on memory low system.
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:09 am
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:09 am
-
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:43 am
- Location: Italy
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:09 am
Try the "Smart Boot Manager"Carlo Bramix wrote:I have a fully working 486DX at 33 MHz, Cirrus Logic ISA VGA with 1MB and VESA extensions in its bios and a 255 MB harddisk, but I cannot test ReactOS on it because that PC cannot boot from CD-ROM.
It must boot from floppy or harddisk first...
Sincerely,
Carlo Bramini.
http://linux.simple.be/tools/sbm
You boot it from the floppy, and then it can boot the CD drive.
You'll need at least 23M ram in your computer for ReactOS to boot, unless someone stripps it down first.Carlo Bramix wrote:I have a fully working 486DX at 33 MHz, Cirrus Logic ISA VGA with 1MB and VESA extensions in its bios and a 255 MB harddisk, but I cannot test ReactOS on it because that PC cannot boot from CD-ROM.
It must boot from floppy or harddisk first...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 42 guests