PDA

View Full Version : XP Home install troubles.



waimaks
05-07-2005, 06:30 PM
Ok, I'll start from the beginning, I told a friend I would try and get his computer running a bit better, Its been pretty badly neglected and because of that windows(98) was completely corrupted and overall nothing worked right. I decided that a clean install of xp home would make things a lot easier for me and him so thats what I have ended up doing.
My problem now is that it has nearly finished the XP install and has seemed to have gotten caught up on something, it is 13mins away from completion and is in the middle of 'Registering Components', the funny thing is that its is still working and not frozen or anything, just not making any progress.
The computer I'm trying to install it on is an old Compaq package thing, and my friend has lost all of the discs that go with it. I think its 550mhz, 64mb ram thats about all the important bits. Any suggestions anyway?

Metla
05-07-2005, 06:37 PM
Sounds like its stuck identifying and loading drivers for internal components, no surprise that it chokes looking at the system specs, Even if you get it installed the system will run worse then before you wiped 98.

Did you get this copy of XP new for this machine? If your installing a version thats installed on another machine then it will disable itself after 30 days.


My advice would be to forget about the XP dream and load 98 back onto it.


You also say that under 98 nothing worked right,and now hangs on install of XP which may indicate a hardware problem,...to which I would just repeat my advice to go back to 98...

waimaks
05-07-2005, 06:50 PM
Ok, thanks for that, I thought it would be something along those lines, I'll

tweak'e
05-07-2005, 09:28 PM
for starters with 64 meg ram you'll be lucky for it to even run with XP. upgrade the amount of ram.

pctek
05-07-2005, 10:56 PM
Ok, I'll start from the beginning, I told a friend I would try and get his computer running a bit better, Its been pretty badly neglected and because of that windows(98) was completely corrupted and overall nothing worked right. I decided that a clean install of xp home would make things a lot easier ?
Nope, sorry, that bad news is that putting XP on a sick machine does not magically cure it.
Take Metlas advice.

SurferJoe46
06-07-2005, 05:09 AM
If I am not mistaken, XP requires at least 512 anyway..right?

Sleepy
06-07-2005, 05:18 AM
i thought it was 64MB minimum, 128MB recommended?

Laura
06-07-2005, 05:49 AM
Afraid you are mistaken Surfer Joe.
I run XP on 320Mb ram.
And back when I had 98SE on 128Mb, I was told I could switch to XP - though my specs would be reaaally stretched.
I didn't test it...

drcspy
06-07-2005, 06:41 AM
I have seen xp running on a 500Mhz with 64mb ram and would suggest you forget that idea completely........what you are trying to do is similar to putting a large truck body onto a small van engine............your engine is too small for the load........you need 256mb ram to run xp *reasonably*.....yes i'tll run on 128 but very slow to open programs etc......how big is the harddrive ?......xp in and of itself takes about 1.5gb of space......often it amuses me how folks think xp may cure all their problems but they simply dont seem to bother checking into the requirements much at all........I mean to say.....how many pc's have you seen running xp wiht say a 1ghz cpu and 256mb ram and still struggling a bit.......then you tell me you want to install it onto a 500mhz with only 64mb ram......*sigh* you need to do a bit more research lol............

pctek
06-07-2005, 09:36 AM
xp in and of itself takes about 1.5gb of space......
And before anyone tries to install it on a 2gB HDD, if you are instaaling the SP after, it will require considerably MORE space while its doing its backup and install.

Myth
06-07-2005, 09:41 AM
As the others have said, forget the XP dream..... go back to Win 98.
64MB is the minimum recommended for XP but it will run really sloooooooooooooowly and may even crash a lot

waimaks
06-07-2005, 05:10 PM
Thanks for the replys everyone, now i just need my good friend to find the 98 discs.

Sleepy
06-07-2005, 06:54 PM
I have seen xp running on a 500Mhz with 64mb ram and would suggest you forget that idea completely........what you are trying to do is similar to putting a large truck body onto a small van engine............your engine is too small for the load........you need 256mb ram to run xp *reasonably*.....yes i'tll run on 128 but very slow to open programs etc......how big is the harddrive ?......xp in and of itself takes about 1.5gb of space......often it amuses me how folks think xp may cure all their problems but they simply dont seem to bother checking into the requirements much at all........I mean to say.....how many pc's have you seen running xp wiht say a 1ghz cpu and 256mb ram and still struggling a bit.......then you tell me you want to install it onto a 500mhz with only 64mb ram......*sigh* you need to do a bit more research lol............

Funny you should say that, my sister's got a celeron 1ghz cpu with 256ram, running xp pro. And yep, it is struggling a little, so slow! And yet my friend has a p3 700, 256ram, xp pro and runs fine.

bartsdadhomer
06-07-2005, 06:59 PM
I've setup XP on several smaller machines from a 450/256 to a 700 and they run fine if you turn off all the eye candy and unnecessary background services.

Sleepy
06-07-2005, 07:03 PM
So what is the lowest one should go when recommending someone to upgrade to xp home/pro cpu? & ram? and would the speed of the hard drive have anything to do with it being slow?

Greven
06-07-2005, 07:45 PM
I've ran XP on a K6-2 500mhz machine with 384mb RAM. It didn't run too bad.
I put XP on my parent's celeron 1.8Ghz when it had 128mb RAM, and it was so horrible that they upgraded to 256mb.

Metla
06-07-2005, 07:58 PM
I recomend an 800mhz cpu and at least 256mb of ram,you can get away with slower cpu's but she will chug, less ram and shes like wading through concrete.

Thats not to say it won't run, but when the hardware can;t run the OS at full speed then the entire system sucks.

As for the harddrive?

Yes, It can slow it down, amy slow component will affect the overall performance, The system I am on at the moment is a Celeray 900mhz,196 pc100 ram,and a 5400rpm harddrive,Running Win98,...its an out and out pile of junk, every time it has to access the harddrive the damn thing stalls.Crap cpu,crap ram,crap harddrive and being a filthy Dell its bound to have a craptastic motherboard as well.

Putting XP on it would be a joke.








I might point out that the HD i used to resuruct the system came from my pile of really crap harddrives that I should probally throw away but might come in usefull oneday.....Muhahahahah

Myth
06-07-2005, 08:08 PM
Ive just finished constructing a 400MHz Celeron based XP Home machine with 192 MB RAM (best thing, it didn't cost a cent - picked up mobo, PSU, Floppy, and midi tower for free, already had CPU and RAM as well as O/S :D)
Not the fastest thing in the world, but it'll do for now.
Will increase the RAM to 256 for better results.

Sleepy
06-07-2005, 08:17 PM
Well going back to how my sisters 1ghz celeron, 256RAM pc is running slow, could the powersupply affect performance? Noticed it was covered with dust, unsure if there was a case fan on the back but that was clogged with dust too. I guess its about 4-5years old so its probalary time for an upgrade, although everything will need replacing eventually.

Sleepy
06-07-2005, 08:19 PM
Ive just finished constructing a 400MHz Celeron based XP Home machine with 192 MB RAM (best thing, it didn't cost a cent - picked up mobo, PSU, Floppy, and midi tower for free, already had CPU and RAM as well as O/S :D)
Not the fastest thing in the world, but it'll do for now.
Will increase the RAM to 256 for better results.

Aye where did you pick up all those things free?

Myth
06-07-2005, 08:34 PM
Aye where did you pick up all those things free?Well the techs at my course have a whole lot of towers they use for parts... one of the towers had a socket 370 mobo which I wanted, the boss said if the techs said I could have it, I get it.
The techs said yup :D. The other parts were from a mate of my partners, her motherboard went boof, so I got the rest (incidentally, too late her mate remembered I was doing a tech course, coulda saved her $2500 (two computers and lots of bad advice))
Now if I can get hold of another 80GB harddrive so I can set up a file server in RAID 1 config, things would be sweet.

SurferJoe46
07-07-2005, 06:30 PM
I was kinda surprized that there is such a large amount of discussion on this point, so I called MicroSoft in Texas this evening and asked them what the poop is....

I thought I had heard that less than 512 was a mistake, and after our conversation they tell me (OFFICIAL WORD FROM THE PURVEYORS THEMSELVES HERE!) that XP (especially PRO) will not load all the goodies that XP is noted for if the system is too small, too slow or too whatever else qualifies a system for XP requirements. There is a default level that gets lower and lower as the system is slower or less ram. The first thing to go is the choices for screen resolution, as having a few more resolutions values installed takes considerable resources.

Bear with me, as the incidences and positions of importance and value here are a little skewed..I was taking notes as fast as I could, and may have gotten some of these out of sequence.

Next is the shadows, cursor tails, macros and macro support, smooth scrolling, restore points allocation size and number, fonts and bolding and Italicised versions, extra languages and font supports, and blended taskbar visual effects and colors and such.

Another loss is music playback and ripping values. Also, some of the P'N'P options will not be installed, as they are very system intense, and one would then have to search for individual drivers for hardware, somewhere on line or off one's own cd-rom. Compatability factors will show up too as some of the ability to run old hardware and programs as if they were still in an old system will be unavailable in a cropped install.

So, according to M$, they say that the very least for optimum (read: full installation of either version of XP we are talking about here) is 512 ram, 700+ processor and 40 gig hd. We did not talk about any of the other XP versions that are available, only Home and Pro.

They know that there are people who do installs out there that say they get XP onto obsolete systems with less ram, but in reality there is a lot of stuff that just isn't installed for them. XP may run, but somewhat crippled. :horrified

Sleepy
08-07-2005, 08:12 AM
So your saying that 512 minimum with a 700+ processor is the optimal rate?
So if you've got a slowish celeron/duron/sempron 700Mhz-1Ghz upgrade the ram and everything should be good? Thats good to know. So what does that mean when new computers now are selling with 256RAM? Even with a 2300+ sempron it would still struggle on 256RAM? And so dose that mean if you install win xp pro/home on a computer around the 700MHz mark, with 256RAM that it won't install all the features, what if you upgrade the ram to 512? Is it better to do a fresh install then.

SurferJoe46
08-07-2005, 06:29 PM
So your saying that 512 minimum with a 700+ processor is the optimal rate?
So if you've got a slowish celeron/duron/sempron 700Mhz-1Ghz upgrade the ram and everything should be good? Thats good to know. So what does that mean when new computers now are selling with 256RAM? Even with a 2300+ sempron it would still struggle on 256RAM? And so dose that mean if you install win xp pro/home on a computer around the 700MHz mark, with 256RAM that it won't install all the features, what if you upgrade the ram to 512? Is it better to do a fresh install then.

OK...again to the people who SHOULD know..they are writers and troubleshooters for the stuff they screw up...M$ (Texas) said:

The optimum installation (all the gingerbread and bells and whistles are BEST made for a system with 512, 700+ and 40 gig, at least. That said, there is a certain amount of reluctance (I think) to admit that what a person has is not optimal yet somehow runs just as well as...or better then..or whatever other benchtest they think XP-PRO/HOME needs to show for performance. I deferr to the M$ people, and although I too have had a Dell 500,256k,40gig run (what I thought was) perfectly, I can indeed see and feel the difference in a more modern tower with a lot more ram and (pardon me) LOTS O' HARDDRIVES.

I may be off base here with those comparisons, as I do not offer to understand just what a person feels is perfect/well/good/minimal for themselves. However, if a system requires all the room and speed and resources it can get to run the BEST, then that's the goal of which to aspire.

Less than that reminds me of the clown car in the circus..the one where all the clowns keep on pouring outta this little coupe (I would not want to be the person INSTALLING all those clown backstage!). If they can get that many clown into such a minimal space, then I do indeed believe that one can get XP to run on an abacus too, but I think the beads might smoke from all the friction.

PICTURE OF A MAN INSTALLING XP ON A VIC>20 :badpc:

Rob99
08-07-2005, 06:39 PM
My under 5 year old kids have a Dell 333Mhz with 128Mb Ram, OS is XP but tweaked for speed but still has the XP look, runs just fine.

They play games, play movies, surf the net, all the basic stuff and you woudnt even know it was an old hunk of crap.

Metla
08-07-2005, 06:43 PM
Perhaps someone needs to tell them then?

muhahaha.

Im sure they would love to have a crack at Dads 3000 AMD,1gb Ram and 6600GT.....

Rob99
09-07-2005, 12:22 AM
Perhaps someone needs to tell them then?

muhahaha.

Im sure they would love to have a crack at Dads 3000 AMD,1gb Ram and 6600GT.....
Mostly the reason they now have a computer.... you just wait, wont be long before bubs is on your knee spilling and mashing all sorts of crap into your keyboard, while you are surfing Disney or Nickjr.com

Myth
12-07-2005, 10:44 PM
Ive just finished constructing a 400MHz Celeron based XP Home machine with 192 MB RAM (best thing, it didn't cost a cent - picked up mobo, PSU, Floppy, and midi tower for free, already had CPU and RAM as well as O/S :D)
Not the fastest thing in the world, but it'll do for now.
Will increase the RAM to 256 for better results.Just an update to this...
Once finished installing SP1, Microsoft Office 2000 and minimal apps (Firefox and one or two others) the harddrive was over half full, and the computer went like a bicycle with one wheel (very slow)
Changed CPU to 446 MHz Celeron, and am in process of changing OS to Win 2000 SP4 (again for next to nothing - scored a good deal off TradeMe :D).
More updates later (possibly)