Solve : how can I increas the speed of Pentium 2?

1.	Solve : how can I increas the speed of Pentium 2?
Answer» Quote from: Geek-9pm on May 31, 2010, 08:34:59 AM Sounds like he has Vista, Not XP. hehe running vista on a PII? i am sorry to say that a pentium 2 is not going to run anything better that windows 98. If you are using windows XP, get a copy of 98 and try again.Quote from: Kurtiskain on May 31, 2010, 06:03:49 PM ...i am sorry to say that a pentium 2 is not going to run anything better that windows 98. If you are using windows XP, get a copy of 98 and try again... I can tell you from my direct experience that the Pentium II will run Windows 2000 & XP, assuming they have at least 128MB of RAM. Performance is comparable to Win98. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297 Quote from: Computer_Commando on May 31, 2010, 06:14:28 PM I can tell you from my direct experience that the Pentium II will run Windows 2000 & XP, assuming they have at least 128MB of RAM. Performance is comparable to Win98. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297 100% agree.Quote from: Computer_Commando on May 31, 2010, 06:14:28 PM I can tell you from my direct experience that the Pentium II will run Windows 2000 & XP, assuming they have at least 128MB of RAM. Performance is comparable to Win98. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297 Okay, I myself have used windows XP on a AMD K-6 350Mhz (above XP's minimum of 233MHz without any service packs) with 352MB of RAM (64MB was the minimum back then). this was made up of 128+64+32 SD RAM, and I FOUND that yes it would work, and okay i could use notepad with sufficient speed but as soon as you introduced things like SP2, Anti-virus and higher versions of Firefox or I.E...things went down hill very quickly. After SP2, MS introduced things like the security center, and other background processes that use more ram, leading to higher PF usage on disk. Op would notice major amounts of disk thrashing and slowdowns. A PC I have at home with 1024MB RAM, and a 2.5GHz Celeron thrashes like anything on a fresh install of XP SP3 with just Avast! and an internet explorer window open, surfing the net. note the link I followed took me to the Windows 2000 page...XP's requirements are slightly higher. A pentium 2 hits the bottom of the barrel. i was there, i experienced it, it just plain sucks for browsing the web, Youtube video would lagg in FULLSCREEN at 800x600, as it used to on my P4 2.5GHz at 1280x1024, not that this is XP's fault, the processor still would be not fast enough under any OS. All I am saying is that Win 98 is a lot more responsive (in my experience) on slower hardware.I used a K6-2 @350Mhz with 96MB, then 128MB, and finally 512MB, running XP SP3 for a total of 5 years. It runs fine. Of course I was an over-optimizer, half of the SERVICES were disabled, I didn't use Luna until I got a new graphic card, and a few other things, but it was usable, and I could run a more programs then I ever could with win98. Win98 is more responsive- yes. But windows 95 is faster still, and windows 3.1 is even faster. you have to draw the line somewhere, and the majority of consumer applications are no longer runnable on windows 98 at all. Good luck trying to find a AV program that is still supported with updates, for example.The OP never went into detail about what programs he is using. If it's just email or simple web stuff his machine may have a few more years left. His computer specs are just above the minimum for XP. But as he indicates, it is slow and painful so something needs to change. Minimum requirements for XP (posted almost 3 years ago). http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865/ Before he buys a new computer, he should spend about $40 on additional RAM and see what that does.Quote from: BC_Programmer on May 31, 2010, 07:33:48 PM I used a K6-2 @350Mhz with 96MB, then 128MB, and finally 512MB, running XP SP3 for a total of 5 years. It runs fine. Of course I was an over-optimizer, half of the services were disabled, I didn't use Luna until I got a new graphic card, and a few other things, but it was usable, and I could run a <lot> more programs then I ever could with win98. Win98 is more responsive- yes. But windows 95 is faster still, and windows 3.1 is even faster. you have to draw the line somewhere, and the majority of consumer applications are no longer runnable on windows 98 at all. Good luck trying to find a AV program that is still supported with updates, for example. True, A decent AV would be hard to get on a win 98 machine. So yes while XP is useable, as you said you had lots of stuff cut out and not even using the Luna theming, It does really boil down to what the OP wants to do with it.Now it's time to be serious. Installing Windows 2000 would be the best choice for this machine. There are many useful programs out there that run very well on Windows 2000. Some excellent programs are available as free downloads off the Internet. But taking SEVERAL minutes to load Windows XP often indicates some kind of problem with either the hardware, drivers for the hardware, or a very AGGRESSIVE AV program. There's also the possibility that the disk drive is very near the end of life. Windows XP by itself does little in the way of hard drive diagnostics. You have to use one of the tools available from the manufacturers to run a diagnostic on the disc drive to see if it is acceptable. He can pick up a very good reconditioned hard drive for under $40. Memory for that old machine should be is cheap by now. It uses a memory stick that does not have the same pin configuration as the newer machines. Quote from: Geek-9pm on June 01, 2010, 11:00:10 AM Now it's time to be serious. Installing Windows 2000 would be the best choice for this machine. There are many useful programs out there that run very well on Windows 2000. Some excellent programs are available as free downloads off the Internet. But taking several minutes to load Windows XP often indicates some kind of problem with either the hardware, drivers for the hardware, or a very aggressive AV program. There's also the possibility that the disk drive is very near the end of life. Windows XP by itself does little in the way of hard drive diagnostics. You have to use one of the tools available from the manufacturers to run a diagnostic on the disc drive to see if it is acceptable. He can pick up a very good reconditioned hard drive for under $40. Memory for that old machine should be is cheap by now. It uses a memory stick that does not have the same pin configuration as the newer machines. Agreed! Windows 2k still has the same interface, but without the bloated luna theme, it still has the same utility and useability of XP and runs on slower hardware. For XP to take a few minutes on that machine from boot up sounds reasonable if he has a small amount of RAM. I ran XP on 64MB of RAM once, just to test, and it was unbearable! On a side note...this is pretty cool! http://winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm

Answer»

Quote from: Geek-9pm on May 31, 2010, 08:34:59 AM

Sounds like he has Vista, Not XP.

hehe running vista on a PII?

i am sorry to say that a pentium 2 is not going to run anything better that windows 98. If you are using windows XP, get a copy of 98 and try again.Quote from: Kurtiskain on May 31, 2010, 06:03:49 PM

...i am sorry to say that a pentium 2 is not going to run anything better that windows 98. If you are using windows XP, get a copy of 98 and try again...

I can tell you from my direct experience that the Pentium II will run Windows 2000 & XP, assuming they have at least 128MB of RAM. Performance is comparable to Win98.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297
Quote from: Computer_Commando on May 31, 2010, 06:14:28 PM

I can tell you from my direct experience that the Pentium II will run Windows 2000 & XP, assuming they have at least 128MB of RAM. Performance is comparable to Win98.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297

100% agree.Quote from: Computer_Commando on May 31, 2010, 06:14:28 PM

I can tell you from my direct experience that the Pentium II will run Windows 2000 & XP, assuming they have at least 128MB of RAM. Performance is comparable to Win98.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297

Okay, I myself have used windows XP on a AMD K-6 350Mhz (above XP's minimum of 233MHz without any service packs) with 352MB of RAM (64MB was the minimum back then). this was made up of 128+64+32 SD RAM, and I FOUND that yes it would work, and okay i could use notepad with sufficient speed but as soon as you introduced things like SP2, Anti-virus and higher versions of Firefox or I.E...things went down hill very quickly.
After SP2, MS introduced things like the security center, and other background processes that use more ram, leading to higher PF usage on disk.

Op would notice major amounts of disk thrashing and slowdowns.

A PC I have at home with 1024MB RAM, and a 2.5GHz Celeron thrashes like anything on a fresh install of XP SP3 with just Avast! and an internet explorer window open, surfing the net.

note the link I followed took me to the Windows 2000 page...XP's requirements are slightly higher.
A pentium 2 hits the bottom of the barrel. i was there, i experienced it, it just plain sucks for browsing the web, Youtube video would lagg in FULLSCREEN at 800x600, as it used to on my P4 2.5GHz at 1280x1024, not that this is XP's fault, the processor still would be not fast enough under any OS.

All I am saying is that Win 98 is a lot more responsive (in my experience) on slower hardware.I used a K6-2 @350Mhz with 96MB, then 128MB, and finally 512MB, running XP SP3 for a total of 5 years. It runs fine. Of course I was an over-optimizer, half of the SERVICES were disabled, I didn't use Luna until I got a new graphic card, and a few other things, but it was usable, and I could run a more programs then I ever could with win98.

Win98 is more responsive- yes.

But windows 95 is faster still, and windows 3.1 is even faster. you have to draw the line somewhere, and the majority of consumer applications are no longer runnable on windows 98 at all. Good luck trying to find a AV program that is still supported with updates, for example.The OP never went into detail about what programs he is using. If it's just email or simple web stuff his machine may have a few more years left. His computer specs are just above the minimum for XP. But as he indicates, it is slow and painful so something needs to change.

Minimum requirements for XP (posted almost 3 years ago).

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865/

Before he buys a new computer, he should spend about $40 on additional RAM and see what that does.Quote from: BC_Programmer on May 31, 2010, 07:33:48 PM

I used a K6-2 @350Mhz with 96MB, then 128MB, and finally 512MB, running XP SP3 for a total of 5 years. It runs fine. Of course I was an over-optimizer, half of the services were disabled, I didn't use Luna until I got a new graphic card, and a few other things, but it was usable, and I could run a <lot> more programs then I ever could with win98.

Win98 is more responsive- yes.

But windows 95 is faster still, and windows 3.1 is even faster. you have to draw the line somewhere, and the majority of consumer applications are no longer runnable on windows 98 at all. Good luck trying to find a AV program that is still supported with updates, for example.

True, A decent AV would be hard to get on a win 98 machine.

So yes while XP is useable, as you said you had lots of stuff cut out and not even using the Luna theming, It does really boil down to what the OP wants to do with it.Now it's time to be serious.
Installing Windows 2000 would be the best choice for this machine. There are many useful programs out there that run very well on Windows 2000. Some excellent programs are available as free downloads off the Internet.
But taking SEVERAL minutes to load Windows XP often indicates some kind of problem with either the hardware, drivers for the hardware, or a very AGGRESSIVE AV program.
There's also the possibility that the disk drive is very near the end of life. Windows XP by itself does little in the way of hard drive diagnostics. You have to use one of the tools available from the manufacturers to run a diagnostic on the disc drive to see if it is acceptable. He can pick up a very good reconditioned hard drive for under $40.
Memory for that old machine should be is cheap by now. It uses a memory stick that does not have the same pin configuration as the newer machines.
Quote from: Geek-9pm on June 01, 2010, 11:00:10 AM

Now it's time to be serious.
Installing Windows 2000 would be the best choice for this machine. There are many useful programs out there that run very well on Windows 2000. Some excellent programs are available as free downloads off the Internet.
But taking several minutes to load Windows XP often indicates some kind of problem with either the hardware, drivers for the hardware, or a very aggressive AV program.
There's also the possibility that the disk drive is very near the end of life. Windows XP by itself does little in the way of hard drive diagnostics. You have to use one of the tools available from the manufacturers to run a diagnostic on the disc drive to see if it is acceptable. He can pick up a very good reconditioned hard drive for under $40.
Memory for that old machine should be is cheap by now. It uses a memory stick that does not have the same pin configuration as the newer machines.

Agreed! Windows 2k still has the same interface, but without the bloated luna theme, it still has the same utility and useability of XP and runs on slower hardware.

For XP to take a few minutes on that machine from boot up sounds reasonable if he has a small amount of RAM. I ran XP on 64MB of RAM once, just to test, and it was unbearable!

On a side note...this is pretty cool!

http://winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm

Solve : how can I increas the speed of Pentium 2?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment