Hi

I want to install A windowx XP in a pentium II client with RAM of 64 and
hard of 40Gig ,is it possible ? if not, what's the minimum specification
for a station in order to have it?

Thanks a lot.

Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
• PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz
minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron
family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported;
may limit performance and some features)

• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

• CD-ROM or DVD drive

• Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device



"R-M" wrote:

> Hi
>
> I want to install A windowx XP in a pentium II client with RAM of 64 and
> hard of 40Gig ,is it possible ? if not, what's the minimum specification
> for a station in order to have it?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>

Do this and you can expect turtle slow performance. It may well be almost
unusable.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

<R> wrote in message newsps2ow3lermw7tkz@system109.parskhazar.net...
> Hi
>
> I want to install A windowx XP in a pentium II client with RAM of 64 and
> hard of 40Gig ,is it possible ? if not, what's the minimum specification
> for a station in order to have it?
>
> Thanks a lot.

R wrote:

> I want to install A windowx XP in a pentium II client with RAM of 64
> and hard of 40Gig ,is it possible?


Possible? Yes.

But practical, no. 64MB of RAM is *way* too little to run XP with anything
approaching acceptable performance.


> if not, what's the minimum
> specification for a station in order to have it?


64MB meets the official minimum, but as I said, that says nothing about
running at acceptable speed. I wouldn't try to run XP with anything much
less than a 400MHz processor and 256MB of RAM. Even that will be very slow,
but it will be usable.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> R wrote:
>
>
>>I want to install A windowx XP in a pentium II client with RAM of 64
>>and hard of 40Gig ,is it possible?
>
>
>
> Possible? Yes.
>
> But practical, no. 64MB of RAM is *way* too little to run XP with anything
> approaching acceptable performance.
>
>
>
>>if not, what's the minimum
>>specification for a station in order to have it?
>
>
>
> 64MB meets the official minimum, but as I said, that says nothing about
> running at acceptable speed. I wouldn't try to run XP with anything much
> less than a 400MHz processor and 256MB of RAM. Even that will be very slow,
> but it will be usable.
>

FWIW, I saw a 266 PII laptop with 192MB RAM and a 3GB HDD recently that
ran XP Pro ok. Didn't have any apps installed but the OS booted up
nicely and quicky, too. Worked fine as a terminal in a domain. I was
very surprised to be honest. But I agree, the more system resources and
speed the better.

Happy New Year!
Steve N.

R-M wrote:
>
> I want to install A windowx XP in a pentium II client with RAM of 64 and
> hard of 40Gig ,is it possible ? if not, what's the minimum specification
> for a station in order to have it?

NOT a good idea with so little ram.


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

> FWIW, I saw a 266 PII laptop with 192MB RAM and a 3GB HDD recently that
> ran XP Pro ok.

I guess that "ok" is in the eye of the beholder :-) Systems seem to vary
quite a bit with their specs vs. performance.

FWIW, I was asked to "fix" a relative's P4 with 256MB RAM over Christmas
which was purchased with XP Home SP2 pre-installed.but was rather slow at
doing anything, launching apps etc. The parents bought it for their child
but she was quite unhappy with it because of its sluggish performance.

I ran anti-virus, spyware checkers, defraggers etc. Not much change.

I added a 256MB RAM stick and the system seemed to gain a new lease of life.
It now runs beautifully.

--
Regards

John Waller

John Waller wrote:

>> FWIW, I saw a 266 PII laptop with 192MB RAM and a 3GB HDD recently
>> that ran XP Pro ok.
>
> I guess that "ok" is in the eye of the beholder :-) Systems seem to
> vary quite a bit with their specs vs. performance.
>
> FWIW, I was asked to "fix" a relative's P4 with 256MB RAM over
> Christmas which was purchased with XP Home SP2 pre-installed.but was
> rather slow at doing anything, launching apps etc. The parents bought
> it for their child but she was quite unhappy with it because of its
> sluggish performance.
> I ran anti-virus, spyware checkers, defraggers etc. Not much change.
>
> I added a 256MB RAM stick and the system seemed to gain a new lease
> of life. It now runs beautifully.


I can believe that, but how much RAM you need is *not* a one-size-fits-all
situation. You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you
from using the page file, and that depends on what apps you run. Most people
running a typical range of business applications find that somewhere around
256-384MB works well, others need 512MB. Almost anyone will see poor
performance with less than 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing
things like editing large photographic images, can see a performance boost
by adding even more than 512MB--sometimes much more. Some people do fine
with only 256MB, and more does almost nothing for them.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

John Waller wrote:

>>FWIW, I saw a 266 PII laptop with 192MB RAM and a 3GB HDD recently that
>>ran XP Pro ok.
>
>
> I guess that "ok" is in the eye of the beholder :-) Systems seem to vary
> quite a bit with their specs vs. performance.
>

Also depends on intended use. My reply was anecdotal, not advisory.

> FWIW, I was asked to "fix" a relative's P4 with 256MB RAM over Christmas
> which was purchased with XP Home SP2 pre-installed.but was rather slow at
> doing anything, launching apps etc. The parents bought it for their child
> but she was quite unhappy with it because of its sluggish performance.
>
> I ran anti-virus, spyware checkers, defraggers etc. Not much change.
>
> I added a 256MB RAM stick and the system seemed to gain a new lease of life.
> It now runs beautifully.
>

Yes, point taken.

Steve N.

> I can believe that, but how much RAM you need is *not* a
> one-size-fits-all situation.

Agreed Ken.

That was the point of my post.

:-)

--
Regards

John Waller