Problem with Very Low Computer System Resources

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by sasha1, Oct 12, 2001.

  1. LelandC

    LelandC

    Magna (or anyone),

    I have an 800 mhz Dell Pentium 3 with 512 MB Ram. My system has alway been pretty stable (knock on wood). I have been thinking about installing Win2000 but haven't yet. So you suggest that I buy the full version of WIN2000 and install on a clean hard drive? I would hope this installation will go smoothly?

    Does Win2000 do a better job of utilizing RAM compared to Win98SE that I am currently running?

    Leland
     
    #11     Oct 12, 2001
  2. JamesBarr

    JamesBarr

    I had a similar problem as I use 4 monitors. An upgrade to 768MB RAM solved the problem.
     
    #12     Oct 12, 2001
  3. Magna

    Magna Administrator

    Leland,

    I have an 800 mhz Dell Pentium 3 with 512 MB Ram. My system has alway been pretty stable (knock on wood). I have been thinking about installing Win2000 but haven't yet.
    I've been running NT for about four years and W2K for about 6 mo (on two separate computers). As much as I recommend both of them, if your system is stable I probably wouldn't fix it since it ain't broke. :)

    So you suggest that I buy the full version of WIN2000 and install on a clean hard drive? I would hope this installation will go smoothly?
    If you decide, for whatever reason, you want to switch to a 32-bit system then the full version installed on a clean drive is the preferable way to go. Don't get me wrong, W2K will usually upgrade over Win98, but many times there are problems. They stem from different drivers, left over 16-bit code, and a fundamentally different registry structure. I know people who have been successful, and I know people who never got the upgrade to take. When installed on a clean hard drive W2K is happiest, and things tend to go very smoothly.

    Does Win2000 do a better job of utilizing RAM compared to Win98SE that I am currently running?
    Not sure what you mean by "utilizing", but W2K manages memory much better than W98, and there is no resources limitation as I discussed in my last note on this thread. Most important W2K is very, very stable and that's why most people switch over. But if your W98 is stable now...
     
    #13     Oct 12, 2001
  4. Wirehead

    Wirehead

    sasha1


    Magna is right on with his explanation. I had the identical problem you are having. I was running Win98SE and as soon as I switched to Win2K all those resource problems went away. I bought the upgrade version of Win2k because it was cheaper. I did a complete fdisk and format. When the upgrade software asked me for a previous copy of a Windows OS, I stuck my Win98SE CD in. That all it wanted. I was then able to finish the Win2k installation.
     
    #14     Oct 13, 2001
  5. Magna

    Magna Administrator

    Wirehead,

    I bought the upgrade version of Win2k because it was cheaper. I did a complete fdisk and format. When the upgrade software asked me for a previous copy of a Windows OS, I stuck my Win98SE CD in. That all it wanted. I was then able to finish the Win2k installation.

    That's a useful trick that I've done a few times.:) But you must have a CD for an approved upgradable O/S. In this case, the Win98 (or Win98SE) CD will do just fine. So will an NT CD. Don't know about a Win95 or a WinMe CD.
     
    #15     Oct 13, 2001