PC HD question

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:17 pm

Ok i have an old PC that isnt very fast and doesnt like me installing norton anti virus much. running on XP
If I stick the HD into a faster comp, newer bits etc, instal all the bits I need to on to the old HD, then pop the HD back into my old computer, will it work?
Or will it just go err, bios and hardware have nothing to do with this XP install... and promptly blow up in my face?

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:27 pm

It should work although XP will want to reregister as it will detect its a different coputer. I also wouldn't want to bet on how stable it will be.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:37 pm

I have this problem you see.

old computer. (friends)

256 MB ram

800mhz Durathon Athalon thingy

it instals XP, runs okish (well compared to my stuff) - but interestingly the XP security center is nowhere to be seen?
It wont read my Norton 2005 disc, which according to norton should work.
So i used 2004, that instals, but it falls foul of not being able to turn on auto protect (stupid) - i look at nortons web site for advice and nothing works.
At the same time i contract a nasty worm varient virus which has ****** the computer.

So my plan was to chuck some more power at, plug it into one of my machines and install from there, where I know the CD's would work

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm

I'd advice spending a bit of time downloading all the most recent windows updates and making a special XP install (you take an existing disk, replace all files which most recent ones from MS including patches). It's called streamlining and there are loads of tutorials about. It takes about 20 mins and costs just a writeable CD.

Then have AVG and Outpost firewall ready on a pen drive to install before you connect it to that net.

That way you're protected from the word go.

Post by **Denyer** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:At the same time i contract a nasty worm varient virus which has ****** the computer.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19 ... 0_minutes/

Except it's more like three these days.

As K says, install a good firewall and AV before giving it a net connection, or kiss the system goodbye.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:44 pm

I think this machine im using just cant cope with the stress of XP. bugger.

Stormwolf · Post by **Stormwolf** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:43 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I think this machine im using just cant cope with the stress of XP. bugger.

The minimum requirements for XP are:

CPU: 233 Mhz
Ram: 64 MB
HD Space: more then 1.5 gigs

Also consider that the mainboard could be f*cked up, static electricity can be quite damaging you know.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 5:46 pm

after much flapping about, finnaly getting all service packs in place XP drivers for stuff its working pretty good

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:15 pm

good good ^_^

{NB- xp crawls on its min specs. To get anything done I recommend at least 1GHz processor, 256MB RAM)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:51 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:{NB- xp crawls on its min specs. To get anything done I recommend at least 1GHz processor, 256MB RAM)

I don't know. I've been running XP on a 500MHz with 128MB RAM for a couple of years now and had no real problems.

Once I've cloned it onto my new pc (2.5GHz 512MB RAM) I'll have even less problems.

I did find, however, that the CPU was being raped less by intensive software once I'd installed a router between the pc and cable modem. Must've been nasty peeps forcing the firewall into overdrive, or something.

Oh, and for some reason, my 500MHz pc rejects SP2 installation, so it's possible that that has higher system requirements (something that MS probably doesn't want people to know).

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:51 am

No, you 500mhz system just knows that SP2 is the devil. It's doing you a favor.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:47 am

Rebis wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:{NB- xp crawls on its min specs. To get anything done I recommend at least 1GHz processor, 256MB RAM)
I don't know. I've been running XP on a 500MHz with 128MB RAM for a couple of years now and had no real problems.

It's probably to do with the 'standard' software I install that slows it down moreso. Good luck ghosting it!

Gekigengar · Post by **Gekigengar** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:28 pm

I would like to recommend this to all those that their machines are less than 1ghz and 384mb of ram, stick with Win98 w/latest sp.

Once you are over this hurdle, of a computer specification, you should be fine with XP and the latest service pack.

Stay away from Win ME, and 2000. You are asking for alot of trouble.

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:35 pm

Gekigengar wrote:Stay away from {Win ME, and} 2000. You are asking for alot of trouble.

May i ask why? 2000 is the most stable micro$oft OS i've had in years. never a peep out of it (the only problems i've had have been hardware rather than software). it is, from my experience, quicker and less resource hungry that XP.

ME i agree with completely, it's ****. But i don't think i'd be recommending anyway to stick with 98 anymore, not unless they're running very, very old equipment...

Gekigengar · Post by **Gekigengar** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:07 pm

Legion wrote:
Gekigengar wrote:Stay away from {Win ME, and} 2000. You are asking for alot of trouble.
May i ask why? 2000 is the most stable micro$oft OS i've had in years. never a peep out of it (the only problems i've had have been hardware rather than software). it is, from my experience, quicker and less resource hungry that XP...

You pretty muched answered your own question for me, and it's the hardware issues, especially with 3rd party drivers it really hates it, as well as some 3rd party software, not much in terms fo reliability in my own opinion... check out these articles: PcWorld Magazine Article Win ME and PcWorld Magazine Article Windows 2000

I have friends and families that ran the o.s., and it gave them trouble from the day they bought their system with it from a retail store. Even me when it comes to cleaning their system of junk and optimizing it. Even then I am still finding little headaches of the O.S. every so often.

I do believe to each their own in terms of O.S., since you are able to find a way to make it stable for yourself, then go ahead and stick with what you got.

But if people are just getting constant headaches a lot more in ME or 2K, get back to win98 and wait to upgrade to XP. If you are going to "just" upgrade, wait till you get yourself a full version of XP home, a 40 gig hd, 384mb ram, and a processor of 1ghz.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:13 pm

Personally I wouldn't wish 98 on my worst enemy, I've never had an installation of it that didn't fall down within 20 minutes of setup. Bah!

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:41 pm

Gekigengar wrote:
Legion wrote:
Gekigengar wrote:Stay away from {Win ME, and} 2000. You are asking for alot of trouble.
May i ask why? 2000 is the most stable micro$oft OS i've had in years. never a peep out of it (the only problems i've had have been hardware rather than software). it is, from my experience, quicker and less resource hungry that XP...
You pretty muched answered your own question for me, and it's the hardware issues, especially with 3rd party drivers it really hates it, as well as some 3rd party software, not much in terms fo reliability in my own opinion... check out these articles: PcWorld Magazine Article Win ME and PcWorld Magazine Article Windows 2000

I have friends and families that ran the o.s., and it gave them trouble from the day they bought their system with it from a retail store. Even me when it comes to cleaning their system of junk and optimizing it. Even then I am still finding little headaches of the O.S. every so often.

Maybe i should've been a bit clearer, when i said hardware problems i meant 1. a RAM stick had failed 2. a Hard Drive got bad sectors 3. PSU blew up... all of which would've killed any OS.
Never had a problem with drivers except when i allowed Windows Update to upgrage my HP Laserjet printer's driver... then i could only print in landscape mode...

I had XP for a month... had to reinstall it every week and it never ran proberly... that was on a 1.8 Gig, 512Mb system...

I guess i've been lucky with 2k over the last three years!

Karl Lynch wrote:Personally I wouldn't wish 98 on my worst enemy, I've never had an installation of it that didn't fall down within 20 minutes of setup.

I know what you mean, I think I remember how surprised i was once when it lasted for about 8 hours without a crash... or i might just have imaged that...

[edit]Sorry G, but i personally don't put much weight behind those articles... firstly they're dated 1999... secondly they're talking about win2k beta3... and thirdly they're PC world... [/edit]

Gekigengar · Post by **Gekigengar** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:10 pm

I was actually happy with my win98 system and dos... I enjoyed DOS, the only other system I hated was win95.

I haven't had any problems with my XP, so this means that we both are having a good time with our OS.

I guess other than that to each their own.

However I would not mind trying out Linux, but would not mind a windows emu to run some of the games I have collected for XP.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:19 pm

I ran win 2k for years on a high spec machine asking it to do a number of various media jobs.
XP is better.

And thats because more ppl create stuff for it now.

Plus I like the way it looks and feels.

ANyhows. its all relative, if u like what u got dont worry.

for me its XP

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:50 pm

Gekigengar wrote:Stay away from [...] 2000.

YMMV, but several years use in one form or another and no problems here. XP, conversely, is a bloated piece of crap.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:02 pm

I have no problems with XP tho.

Renders are faster with better multi-threading support.

but i guess im a niche market

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:24 pm

Compared to 95, 2000 is also bloated. However, it adds significant stability—being a completely different codebase—whereas XP is a few things bolted onto 2000, and if people don't specifically need them the resource trade-off is quite poor.

Fortunately MS aren't stupid enough to prevent people buying the licenses they need for compatiiblity with existing machines. If pressed, they'll concede that a current Windows license allows for running a previous OS flavour instead. The same with Office, etc.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:17 pm

Is this a good place to mention that I use Linux. I occasionally boot into WIndows XP for games, though.

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:27 pm

Bouncelot wrote:Is this a good place to mention that I use Linux.

Well, other than the fact it's off-topic...

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:58 am

Denyer wrote:
Bouncelot wrote:Is this a good place to mention that I use Linux.
Well, other than the fact it's off-topic...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:17 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:
Rebis wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:{NB- xp crawls on its min specs. To get anything done I recommend at least 1GHz processor, 256MB RAM)
I don't know. I've been running XP on a 500MHz with 128MB RAM for a couple of years now and had no real problems.

It's probably to do with the 'standard' software I install that slows it down moreso. Good luck ghosting it!

Ghosting it is fine. My only problem is that I appear to have misplaced my admin password...

Ho hum. Looks like I'll be 'borrowing' another product code from somewhere and copying it the hard way...