Highwire Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 I got this IBM computer. It must be old cause it lays flat like the older computers. I have XP installed on it and it is so slow! The hard disk is pretty much empty and its still slow. It worked fine when I got it and it had windows 98' on it but now its slow with XP. Have any ideas on how to get it faster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 XP absolutely rapes system resources, go back to 98. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Or, ya know, get a computer from this decade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highwire Posted November 3, 2007 Author Share Posted November 3, 2007 (edited) Well I dont have the 98' disk, 98' was built in when I got it. edit: I tried but everything was too expensive. My dads friend bought a new computer and gave this to us. But some days its fast most are slow. Edited November 3, 2007 by Highwire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Righty Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 What does it have for CPU, memory? I had a PII 233 running XP on 64mb of memory. It was quite slow. I put 192mb in it and it was loads quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highwire Posted November 3, 2007 Author Share Posted November 3, 2007 I have the Windows 2000 disk right in front of me should I install that? It's closest to 98' which is recommended for this computer. Theres a sticker on it and it says recommended for 98' and NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Pie Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 What does it have for CPU, memory? I had a PII 233 running XP on 64mb of memory. It was quite slow. I put 192mb in it and it was loads quicker. I once serviced a Gateway PC at school running at much the same speed - add it with a virus, and it was practically useless unless I reformat it or if I add more memory... The minimum system requirements for XP tells the user what it needs just to run it, but it obviously needs more if you want it to run it as smoothly as possible... A downgrade to 98 or ME might be necessary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Righty Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I have the Windows 2000 disk right in front of me should I install that? It's closest to 98' which is recommended for this computer. Theres a sticker on it and it says recommended for 98' and NT. I would not put NT on it. NT isn't too useful unless you are on a network in the mid to late 90s. Windows 2000 is similar to XP but not so resource intensive (from what I've heard). I would put NT on it. There are a lot of tweaks you can do to make XP run faster, but some of them can go bad. What does it have for CPU, memory? I had a PII 233 running XP on 64mb of memory. It was quite slow. I put 192mb in it and it was loads quicker. I once serviced a Gateway PC at school running at much the same speed - add it with a virus, and it was practically useless unless I reformat it or if I add more memory... The minimum system requirements for XP tells the user what it needs just to run it, but it obviously needs more if you want it to run it as smoothly as possible... A downgrade to 98 or ME might be necessary... Again - depends on how much you tweak it. I had the Dell tweaked pretty well so that it could run decent. The only thing it had a problem with was videos - those would be choppy. But on a macine like that gateway or my dell, something older would be recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Or, ya know, get a computer from this decade? Seconded, lulz. I have the Windows 2000 disk right in front of me should I install that? It's closest to 98' which is recommended for this computer. Theres a sticker on it and it says recommended for 98' and NT. Yes. Windows 2000 will run significantly faster. In fact, I'd bet it will run faster than 98 did. It's still pretty light((as far as Windows goes, lol)), but it's built better than 98. As in, no where near as fucking GLITCHY. I hate 98.... My first PC had it, ran faster when we put 2000 on it. Much faster, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Pie Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Yes. Windows 2000 will run significantly faster. In fact, I'd bet it will run faster than 98 did. It's still pretty light((as far as Windows goes, lol)), but it's built better than 98. As in, no where near as fucking GLITCHY. I hate 98.... My first PC had it, ran faster when we put 2000 on it. Much faster, in fact. Although XP and 2000 has much the same requirements, 2000 can run quite faster because of the lack of shell interface skins and less knick-knacks, as far as I know. Although the only beef with Win2K is the Active Folder system, which is prone to viruses, such as the Redlof crap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now