How to install XP?

My aunt needs to format the HDD and I want to install her Windows XP Professional instead of W98SE. So could you tell me the main steps to sucess in this task?

Her PC is a PIII 500MHZ, I have no run disk for XP... so do you recommend me to install/update over W98?

Not a good idea.  WinXP runs slow on my PIII 800 with 384mb of ram, I wouldn\'t think to install it on my 550mhz.  The GUI is memory and CPU taxing, there\'s no way around it.  I\'d just keep 98se on it.  If she can afford to upgrade her OS I\'m sure she can afford a $550 P4 Dell with ~$100 in rebates.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

xp runs fine on my old celeron 533a with 512meg SDR. I donno whats wrong with your machine thx, but a p3 shouldn\'t have problems unless you\'ve got a crappy gfx card.

If you wanna install XP, see if u can boot from cd, it will allow u to format and install xp without screwing around. The XP cd is a boot cd in itself.

I\'d recommend, for someone who knows not a lot about computers win 2000 pro.

XP is a resource PIG.  Ran like crap on a clean install 2.53, with lotsa ram, good video card, etc.  I was getting a shitty framerate in FPS games untill I went back to 2000 (and later linux).  When will microsoft learn that a good OS kernel should fit on one disk.... floppy disk that is.

Even if you spend an hour turning off all the animation, shading, move-junk, interactive help guides, auto-insert notifications, and boot-delays, XP still is a slow and poorly written operating system.  Maybe they will fix it up for future releases, but I doubt it.

Souly have you seen XP on a P4?  I don\'t see how you could say XP runs fine on an older Celeron!?  I admit it runs ok on my older comp, but it is a resource whore as Fatal points out.. I also upgraded the p3 to XP from Win2k.  There was a pretty noticeable performance drop.  I wouldn\'t say there\'s problems with my machine but his aunt should turn all the GUI settings and bells & whistles on low to keep it running at a semi-steady pace.

When I\'m navigating through an OS I want things to open when I click them and not have to wait, even for a slight bit of time.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

I used to install XP every day on p4s. I just haven\'t had problems OS wise on the old Celeron machine. Granted some games run like crap. Mainly because of the hardware rather then the os.

On my xp i haven\'t disabled anything (accept sercurity loop holes) and it runs perfectly. All my games run at a framerate of 60fps+ 1024x768rez 32bit color etc, only a certain few have been under it. More from developer lazyness.

Xp runs fine on a celeron machine with 512meg sdr. Most likely lower mem would probably cause problems. My old celeron machine is a 533A celeron, 512meg SDR, Geforce2 T400, BX2000+ Mobo and all the other crap, keyboard, mice etc. I have no troubles at all, only with the newer games i get framerate problems. Faster machines get faster speeds, slower get slower speeds, but as long as teh system is stable. There\'s no problems. Only thing that i can see really effecting xp performance (too a point it\'s un usable) is memory and a shitty gfx card.

If xp is running like crap, on a system higher then my celeron. Normally it\'s from installing something that has a memory leak or crappy setup. CThelper is a BIG problem with machines using Soundblaster Live/Audigy cards. With any XP installation. Always imo, do a FULL format, then install it.

You\'re indeed discouraging me to install XP there...

WinXP is a beautiful OS.  IF you\'re having problems on a P4 2.53 system, it\'s because of a crappy hardware setup.  The OS actually runs games faster than winME which uses far less resources.  The problem with using winXP is that for great performance, you need at LEAST 512 megs of ram.  If your aunt is unwilling to part with her PC for something a little more up to date (you can actually build a pretty damn decent machine these days for $500), then her best bet would be to pick up some more ram (I\'m assuming she has 128 since, when P3 500\'s first came out, that was pretty much the stock capacity in PC\'s) and make sure the system has 512mb of ram.  After that, there shouldn\'t be any problems at all.

Cough, cough, no offense, but that\'s bullshit.  I\'ve been building computers from scratch for years, and this one cost me a cool 4Gs with all the custom shit I ordered.  I know EXACTLY what I\'m doing, and XP was set up as well as it could be.  There was litterally not a single thing in this computer slowing down the system at any point.  

I was getting 60-80 fps at 1600x1200x32 with AA on in XP.  When I went back to 2000 pro, I was getting over 150 fps in the same programs, with the same settings.  I\'m sorry to tell you, but XP is meant for the faceless masses who actually don\'t know anything about computers, and can\'t be bothered to learn the small amounts necessary to run anything better.  Look at the minimum system requirements for the OS and that\'s your first indication that something is very, very wrong at Microsoft headquarters.

XP = for morons too stupid to know better, who like the fact that a stupid dog will pop up to ask them if they want to run that CD they just inserted.  Can it (all the crap) be disabled?  Yes.  Is it worth it?  No.  It still runs like a sumo wrestler.  :rolleyes:

2000 = better, though with MS that\'s not saying a whole lot.  At least it\'s based on a system that was used for servers, so it\'s without all the \'unnecessary\' addons.

98 = not bad, but getting dated.  At least they\'ve had a while to iron out the bugs that are present in ALL their OSs.  It\'s faster because it\'s SIMPLER, and doesn\'t try to do half the crap that more modern OSs do.

Anything else = probably better.  I run linux and 2000.  2000 only because not everything is available yet on non windows systems.

----------

Even if your aunt knows very little or nothing about computers, go with 2000.  The fact is, it\'s not must harder to use than XP, but oh-so-much faster.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

so i\'m a moron am i?

2000 and XP are based on the same thing, NT kernel.

I prefer xp because it has a better backwards compatibility then 2000 for the older type games. Only problem i\'ve found atm is old dos games not enabling sb16 sounds. So i\'m using VDMsound. Most of the old games i have won\'t even run on 2000.

As for which is the better, it really depends on what you\'re doing with it. I\'ve never had problems with XP in performance, i\'ve built plenty of computers and have no problems with either 2000 or XP.

There is a problem with XP on certain hardware setups. .No name brands and xp do not mix well.

my athlon 1.2 T-bird came with windows Me and it crashed ALL THE TIME

I then upgraded to XP and my computer has been rock solid and hasn\'t crashed a single time in the 6 months i\'ve had it installed.  I\'ve had errors in programs but windows itself has never crashed or frozen up.....so you can call me a moron for liking an OS that DOSEN\'T CRASH.

:rolleyes:

[Kurt Angle]

XP>2000>ME>98SE>98>95>3.11>3.1>MS-DOS............

THREAD CLOSED!

XP is MS\'s baby and is the best consumer OS they offer.  Fatal no offense to you but there was something definitely wrong with your setup, there SHOUDLN\'T be a huge performance loss when switching from 2k to XP.  I also did this transition and saw little or no change when gaming.  So you lost 70fps.. that automatically means XP is a braindead OS that is meant for the idiot masses?  WTF kinda crap is that? :jack:

I have also tweaked both OS\'es using various online guides.  Maybe you should retry XP.. with all the tweaks listed I\'m sure you can strip it down to use just as much resources as 2k.  Like Souly said they are based off the same NT kernel, there isn\'t that much of a difference.

Couldn\'t have said it better THX.  Thank you.

Well, it\'s nice to read other people\'s points of view.  The fact is though, I DO KNOW WHAT I\'M DOING.  I built a damn fine, cutting edge system with NAME brands.  Christ... I\'m even runing rambus ram in here just for the speed (even if cost/speed ratio isn\'t "worth it").  Everything tweaked, things run much faster under 2000, compared to XP.  

That\'s it.  That\'s what I\'m saying.  I don\'t think operating systems should actually be some sort of random crapshoot whereby it\'s good for most, but shitty for some.  A well written OS should work well for everyone.  The only place I had a simmilar experience to you pro-XP guys was with the backwards compatibility for running older games in XP.  I\'m glad XP is easy to install, seems to identify hardware easily, and looks great at first, but it still runs like shit on some (well set up) systems.

Even though they\'re based on the same kernel, by the way, they\'ve added a few million more lines of buggy unnescessary crap to XP than they did to 2000.

PS - I\'m sorry I called u guys morons.  I\'m sure not all XP users are moronic faceless masses.  It just gets my back up when people tell me I have a "crappy hardware setup" without knowing what they\'re talking about.  I was simply trying to point out that XP is meant for "the masses", as an OS they don\'t need to understand computers to use (though not everyone will be categorized there).