FSIC Messageboard
  Help / FAQ
  Windows XP

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Windows XP
3dp
Pilot
posted 10-19- 11:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for 3dp   Click Here to Email 3dp     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As many here will already know, I struggle by with a very limited system. I want to upgrade the motherboard, processor, and video card, but it's an expense I can't really justify yet.

That said, I can justify the purchase of Windows XP (long story) and I will get it eventually. Supposedly, it's is a lot faster since it finally dumps the Win9X DOSy stuff, etc.

Therefore, I have two choices:

1. Buy XP now in the interest of speeding up my system, and specifically FS-SDOE, putting off the hardware upgrade until Q2 next year, give or take.

or

2. Wait on XP and save my cash for the hardware upgrade, hopefully in Q1 next year, and then getting XP in late Q2.

In suggesting a choice to me, keep in mind that my processor (300MHz) just meets the recommended processor speed for XP (300MHz). If it's going to slow me down with my current system, the second choice above is obvious.

Any advice is welcome. Thanks.

------------------
Be seeing you,
3dp
Visit RAF Harkness!

IP: Logged

Blind Faith
Pilot
posted 10-19- 12:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blind Faith   Click Here to Email Blind Faith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It has been my experience that everytime Bill comes out with a new version of the OS it is tailored to bring down the new hardware to the level of your old OS on your old PC.

I have been installing 2000 for a year now and it does require more horsepower to deliver a stronger more stable and safer plateform. My old home PC (PII 350) is crippled by the heavier OS. I prefer to gut out my Win98 and bolster the memory to improve performance.

I have tested XP and it seems even more demanding on hardware. It also shows the same inclination that ME and 2000 have to force you to discard your older hardware.

My conclusion is: keep a machine's hardware setup and OS matched and make the OS more efficient by pruning unnesssary apps and services. My old 286 portable still runs DOS and DOSSHELL, what a show piece with 10BT on the Par port, my home PC Win98 and my next PC will surely use XP or better.

I had to make the same kind of choice a few months ago and I went for more memory, it helped.

Good luck

[This message has been edited by Blind Faith (edited 10-19-2001).]

IP: Logged

nealg
Pilot
posted 10-25- 10:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for nealg   Click Here to Email nealg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My recommendation, based entirely on what little experience I have ( and no knowledge of XP yet at all from a user standpoint ) would be #2. I loved DOS, reluctantly went to Win3.1 ( dual boot - what a cluster that was, but I learned ), then 95, then 98, now 98SE on my new upgrade. ( Note that my favorite so far was straight 98, gave me the least hassle ). But each OS really performed best with at least mid-level newer hardware, if that makes sense. So, you would likely get better performance from both your hradware and OS by upgrading your hardware first, especially motherboard and CPU.

Admittedly, XP looks to be a winner of a OS at least superficially, but I have caught some stirrings of driver problems rumbling around out there, and not just for newer hardware. Something I am keeping in mind....though I see myself going with XP sometime in the (near?) future. I would be rather hesitant to say that it will improve the performance of a older system...but with a 500 to 1.5 gig CPU or higher, it might produce some boost. Maybe.

------------------
nealg=FC=

IP: Logged

Nat
JAG
posted 10-26- 06:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Nat   Click Here to Email Nat     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lets be straight here, you shouldn't upgrade your OS until you have a PC to suite it. Imagine how my Duron 1Ghz, GF2MX-400, 640mg RAM, 40Gb HD would run under Win3.1! Nothing has eve been as stable as Win 3.1, but my PC with that OS would be a real screamer! Fact is, Win98 is slowing my machine down with loads of useless crap that win3.1 didn't have. Turn it on it's head, my old K5-133 ran win3.1 great, got slower running win95, and almost killed it using 98, new OS force you into upgrading you're hardware, so blow the OS off and wait till you have a better PC, I'm still running 98 today and have absolutely no intention of "upgrading" (slowing) my maching down with a newer OS

IP: Logged

Nat
JAG
posted 10-26- 06:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Nat   Click Here to Email Nat     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
PS, a Duron/MB combo is very very cheap now, and boy will you love it (I upgraded from a K6-2 500), Duron 1Ghz=£67 M/B=cerca £80

IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center

(This site Copyright (c) 1999 Inertia LLC)

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c