Sky10w10w 3 Posted December 14, 2007 Ever wonder what it would be like to take dinosaur computer systems (first generation pentiums) and try to install XP on them? Someone went to the trouble of analyzing the absolute junkiest system you'd need to run XP off of (whether it runs well or not is a whole different story). If you've ever built a PC from scratch, you can probably find some humour in the article, found @ http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm The most amusing thing is reading how long it took XP to boot up on some of those old systems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jukt 0 Posted January 21, 2008 I'm sure we've all had old computers that felt like one of these at some point. My last laptop had 512MB of RAM and it was ridiculous trying to run XP on it sometimes, this is just crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Softix 0 Posted January 30, 2008 I think everyone do suffer from such type of stuff especially those from third world countries. It is indeed ironic that some people still used Windows 95 at the moment. Anyway not everyone are using faster pc and connections. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gnash 10 Posted January 30, 2008 I've installed winxp on a 300mhz cpu once. What it really limits it is the RAM. The pc had 256 so it ran fine. What really bogged it down was MSN Messenger, Media Player and IE, but just the OS was fine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anime-niac 0 Posted January 30, 2008 The slowest system I've installed XP on was a K6-2 350 Mhz with 384 MB of ram. It ran slow, but was functional. The fact that someone intentionally went looking for the lowest specs absolutely required for XP to run is hilarious (sp?). Someone using a system that slow is definitely better of with either Win3.1 or Win95. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KevInSweden 0 Posted January 31, 2008 Slowest for me was a K6-2 450 with 192mb, was pretty usable if you just stuck with the basics, trimmed the services, removed everything from MSconfig and used the classic look. Still wasn't great, but was stable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harrison 0 Posted January 31, 2008 I remember looking at that site some time ago. It is mad what some people will do with their spare time. Still, it is quite cool seeing that someone did actually manage to get XP to run on hardware that old/slow. Now to see what they can achieve with Vista! That doesn't even run properly with less than 2GB of ram! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KevInSweden 0 Posted January 31, 2008 They probably started on Vista as soon as it was released, it's still booting Whoops, nope it has crashed on the Welcome to Vista screen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gnash 10 Posted February 1, 2008 There are many slim versions of xp on the net. Usually increase speed but things like joysticks and other easy usb devices are not supported. :( Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sky10w10w 3 Posted February 4, 2008 They probably started on Vista as soon as it was released, it's still booting ROTFLMAO. You could probably apply your statement to any PC built before 2005; that's how disturbingly bloated Windows Vista is! Anyway, I brought up that website because I found it hilarious, but since some of you have attempted to install XP on rigs with CPU speeds < 500 MHZ, I suggest you try Linux. Old hardware goes a lot further on Linux than it does on Windows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildlele 0 Posted February 24, 2008 lol great link, totally agree with the vista comment. never going to install it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
