Windows...

[TheBigBasicQ]

The main HD is a 6.4GB one while the other is just 1.2GB, lying around =P.

[HQSneaker]

6.4gigs isn't worth it either...you can start thinking of it from ~15/20 gigs :wink:

[TheBigBasicQ]

Well its an old computer and everybody uses it just for surfing or me for experimenting =P so the 6.4gb is sufficient and NTFS performs quite well I may add =)

[Z!re]

*clocked* My Win 98 install, wich I've had for 1.5 years+ boots up, and loads all my stuff, and becomes fully usable (that is, no more loading) after 2 minutes ~40sec

Desktop is shown after 1 minute ~20sec



Windows XP, on this computer, booted up, and became usable (no more loading) after about 2-3 minutes... Which was 2-3 minutes slower then the install of Win98 I had dualbooted. So I removed XP again.

The fact that XP made my computer perform worse then my old AMD K5 100MHz also had something to do with it.

[HQSneaker]

so the 6.4gb is sufficient and NTFS performs quite well I may add =)

That's what I was saying :wink:

Z!re: specs?

[Z!re]

AMD Duron, 857.6MHz
128MB SDRAM 133MHz

Installed on 1.2GB HDD, 5200RPM

Swap located on (partitioned, 8gb/8gb) 16GB HDD, 7400RPM (Not sure if it's 7400, 7000 something it is)


Swap file size locked at 1gb, variable swap file ize results in fragmentation, meaning slower.

[HQSneaker]

That's not enough memory for a dualboot, especially not with WinXP

[oracle]

I was dual booting Win98 and linux on a 1100mhz 128mb SDRAM for a long time (well, I still am but now with 384mb RAM). As long as you can shaft some of XP's RAM-hogging abilities I don't see why it can't be done (Nek says he has got XP's required RAM down to 56mb, ask him :lol

[HQSneaker]

It can be done, but isn't too realistic... It's sloooooooowwww :wink:

56mb, Nek? :o
If you really managed to do that, you should go work for MS... Don't mind the background of the company, think of the cash =p

[KiZ]

But the system is slowish in the first minute of use

amen to that :roll: