I just clean installed XP on my friends laptop for the first time. Installation went fine but I run into a problem when I try installing updates from microsoft's website. The updates download fine but it takes forever to install them. I've had to abort installation twice after waiting hours. He has a Presario 1200 with 500mhz cpu, 88mb ram, 6gig hard drive. I'm thinking the slowdown is the small amount of ram he has but according to Microsoft 64mb is minimum, 128mb is recommended. So do you the problem is the ram? If so, how can I get around this. I know you are going to suggest installing more ram or a different OS but he would really like to avoid doing either one. Any help is appreciated, thanks.
I would have to say RAM is the biggest problem. But a close second would be the CPU speed! Thats a pretty old machine to be putting XP on. I would say go back to Windows 98 or even Windows 2000 would probably be better then XP. XP = Resource Hoggggggggggggggggggg. Hope this helps
Sorry, I am not l33t enough to have a sig
And in the Words of Kulderas: "I ownz in my sl33p!"
~~System Specs~~
AMD Athlon 1.3 Mhz
Asus MB A7V266
512Meg of DDR PC21000 Ram
Sound Blaster PCI 512
GainWard GeForce4 Ti 4200
NetGear Network Card 10/100 Mbs
40 Gig Quantum 7200 RPM 2mb cache
40 gig Western Digital 7200 2mb cache
Plextor 12x10x32 CD-RW
6x DVD Rom
17" Moniter (Trinitron Tube)
Those are minimum specs for a desktop. A laptop with those specs would be slower as the laptop components are generally slower. I would definitely run 98SE with that CPU/Ram combo. Maybe 2000 if 256megs of ram.
www.myeducational plan.com-come see my plan to fix the USA educational system. I hope this is sig legal. Major Site Design Update on July 18, 2006. On June 18, 2009 passed the 10,000 post mark. December 24, 2009: Major Theme change and more....
I just reinstalled Windows XP and the CD I have already has SP1 installed.. So when I downloaded the 53MB of updates from Microsoft 2 days ago.. The download was fast, but the updates taken about 40 minutes..
So if my system above takes 40 minutes.. Then you just need to wait
But 88mb for Windows XP is crazy! I wouldnt install it on anything less then 128MB...
EDIT:
You can upgrade the CPU yourself.. Like my IBM 600e, it had a CPU card that I just replaced with another and works without a hitch.. But it does void any warranty you might have...
But sine that laptop was about 5 years old, any warranty is long gone
Well I finnally got all the updates installed(took several hours) and talked my friend into upgrading his ram to 160mb(thats the max his laptop supports). Thank you for the help.
Originally posted by Colossus Just to give you a hint....
But 88mb for Windows XP is crazy! I wouldnt install it on anything less then 128MB...
256MB here for non power users. I usually see memory usage around 128MB without having to go in and disable services and do regestry hacks. So if your not doing much more than 128MB is fine. In his case 160MB should be no problem. For power users I go with 512MB-1GB. The only equipment I touch that needs more than that sometimes is servers. The "commit charge" on the one I'm on now is at 2.39GB. No wonder it gets slow every now and then!
Originally posted by ewitte 256MB here for non power users. I usually see memory usage around 128MB without having to go in and disable services and do regestry hacks. So if your not doing much more than 128MB is fine. In his case 160MB should be no problem. For power users I go with 512MB-1GB. The only equipment I touch that needs more than that sometimes is servers. The "commit charge" on the one I'm on now is at 2.39GB. No wonder it gets slow every now and then!
Eric
My resources without hacks and disabled services and complete driver install are less then 90mb including mouseware and keyboard drivers/applications and other items running in the background from various hardware...
Originally posted by Colossus My resources without hacks and disabled services and complete driver install are less then 90mb including mouseware and keyboard drivers/applications and other items running in the background from various hardware...
XP or 2000? Pro or Home? On a domain? Oddly I believe I usually see Pro using less resources by default.
Originally posted by Colossus I was talking about XP Pro.. I dont use Home And no not part of a domain
Even with pro it is not *that hard*. I just closed out of everything except for my virus software and the commit charge was still 134MB. Although I did a few tweaks to cache more than normal. Just opening two web sessions and logging into yahoo (strangely that took 10MB itself) it jumped to about 160MB.
Reply With Quote
Hope this helps
Bookmarks