Windows XP Installions questions

Everything is fine except the 128 ram....256 is a push and 512 runs really well.

This would probably be pretty slow, if it even ran. I had a 700 mhz Athlon with 128 mb of ram and it was marginal. XP really needs 256 mb minimum.
24x floppy??? You mean cd?

I get a lot of my parts from newegg.com. Good prices and outstanding service.

yeah I meant 24x cdrom.

I think this system uses the old EDO so dimms... think new egg has those? I have 2 sticks of 64 mgs right now.

I have an AMD Athlon 1100...was running Windows millenium, then upgraded (clean install) to XP almost a year ago. At the time, I only had 128 Mb RAM, and it seemed to do okay. A few months later I added two 256 Mb dimm modules (Kingston). Glad I did the upgrade, but I was still able to install and run XP prior to the upgrade. Now I need to get a bigger hard drive.

I have run XP on my Umax 233 with 96 mb ram. It ran pretty good actually I only decided to remove it and go with win2k because of the size of XP on my dinky 3 gig HD. 2k runs quite smartly too I must say.
the trick to getting good performace with smaller ram is memory management. brick wall your swap file at 2x your ram. This will prevent excessive disk usage that you would other wise get from windows resizing the virtual memory every bloody 5 minutes.

oh and expect that 233 to take about an hour and a half to install XP.




Your question about upgrading... there is a really strong chance that your ram is max'd on your notebook. the only upgrade that is likely would be the HD. I have just put a 6 gig into my umax but had to partition it to get full use of it. and yes I am sticking with 2k for now.
[Message Edited]

I did a search for edo at newegg and got no results.
[Message Edited]

check the manufactures website. You may find that your notebook supports EDO and Sdram.

it is a dell latituse cp... if anyone knows if i supports sdram, please chime in. in the meantime i will try to ask dell.

dell is easy... on the bottom of your notebook is a support tag# just type it in here https://support.dell.com/register.aspx
if your using this machine when you goto the site you can do a scan of the current setup.

Memory info based on the latitude cp
Memory module sockets 2
Memory module capacities and type* 16-, 32-, 64-, and 128-MB, 3.3-V EDO SODIMMs
(128-MB SODIMMs for the CPi system only, with CPi BIOS A03 or higher)
Standard RAM one 32-MB memory module (CP) or one 64-MB memory module (CPi)
Maximum RAM 128 MB (CP)
256 MB (CPi)
Memory access time:
tRAC
60 ns
tCAC
15 ns

sorry kona unless you have an i after the cp your ram is maxed... but like I said xp will run fine on it.

dell is easy... on the bottom of your notebook is a support tag# just type it in here Linkif your using this machine when you goto the site you can do a scan of the current setup.

crap I forgot about that thank jeez I would lose my head if it was not attached!

sorry kona unless you have an i after the cp your ram is maxed... but like I said xp will run fine on it.

just curious were you found that out. I like to know what my machine has in it and all that.

DOES ANY ONE KNOW WHERE I CAN GET A PROGRAM TO TELL THE CPU TEMP other than motherboard monitor?

http://docs.us.dell.com/docs/systems/pmojav/specs.htm your specs sir...

the mobo would have to be designed with a temp monitor. I think that based on the age of the notebook that is highly unlikely.

Thanks for the specs.... damn the only thing to upgrade is the HD so I am stuck with either windows ME or 2000. Never tried 2000 anyone have some thoughts about it?

BTW Kona learned how to use the weird Function key to eject CDs!

233 MHz seems to me to be too slow to be running XP on especially if you are planning on running any Stardock GUI enhancement programs on top of that.

Windows 2000 may be the better choice. Windows 2000 is really NT version 5.0 and XP is really NT version 5.1. XP is really just Windows 2000 with eye candy on top, so if you want to improve efficiency by having everything XP has minus the eye candy then go with Windows 2000.
[Message Edited]

2000 is very definitely the better choice.....when the option is either ME or 2K you are deciding between what are very commonly referred to as the best and worst Windows versions ever created to date...

I will still never understand why MS ever released M(aximal bugs)E(dition)...

it's probably to make win xp look better when it comes out?

i hated windows me it was less stable than win 98, and in few cases, less featured.

I hated the whole Win95/98/M.E. series.
[Message Edited]