iLemming with an Intel Question

Please don't laugh (too much).  I need to help upgrade my aunts computer and she won't have a Mac.  Doesn't want to learn a new anything.  Her present machine is 133MHZ, 16MB RAM (72 pin SIMM) no USB, running Win95.  She can't spend more than $200.00(US).  I haven't used an X86 since Windows 3.1 but I'm the IT.

Question:

What do we want to be looking for?
Thank you

a miracle

Yeah, that's not really upgradable, not for $200.  Especially if it is in an old AT case with an AT power supply.

Windows 95 will be a bit more responsive and a bit less flaky if you pull out the existing memory (probably either a pair of 8MB or four 4MB SIMMs--and no, you won't be able to sell them, at least not to anyone who knows what they are) and put in a pair of 32MB SIMMs.  64MB is the upper limit of memory that the memory manager in the Windows 95 kernel can access anyway, except for the very last build of Windows 95, which could go up to 96MB.

If she for whatever reason needs USB functionality there are PCI USB cards that aren't too outrageous but all but the last two builds of Windows 95 will require you to hunt down and install the no-longer-supported USB patch, which may require quite some time.

You'd be a lot better off spending that $200 on a used Pentium III system, in my opinion.

>>3
Thank you.
She's had this artifact for years.  I installed her smoke detector as close as I could.  P III?  That will more than do.

With any luck, I'll get her online!

>>4
Glad to be of help.  When you find the P III system, I recommend using Windows 2000 over any and all other versions of Windows due to stability, compatibility, and relatively low resource use.

Depending on which services you have running at startup, Windows 2000 just by itself occupies only 100-120 megs or thereabouts, and is very quick and responsive with just 192 megs total--a 128MB and a 64MB--if she only needs to surf the web, send email, and do word processing (with SP2 or later, Windows 2000 can see and access up to a gig of physical RAM, if she does anything that needs it, but only heavy-duty gaming and heavy Photoshopping really eat up that much RAM).  Windows 98 occupies around 60-70 megs just idling and can access up to 256MB of physical RAM, but Windows 98 is really flaky and unstable, not to mention insecure.

By contrast, Windows XP huffs and puffs and thrashes in 256MB and really wants at least half a gig, if not a full gig, to stretch its legs and get comfortable--and the patches and service packs for Windows XP are becoming infamous for breaking your existing software.

Try installing some severed cat feet in her vulva.

>>6
OVARclocked severed cat feet? you put a waterblock on that vulva? hardcore!!! man ur leet!

>>3
Windows 95 cant address more than 96?  I think you need to re think that. I have a friend that ran windows 95 for years and it had 196 ram installed on it and worked fine.

UPDATE!!
Got her a P III 800MHZ, 256MB RAM, 10GB drive, a (mumble) video card, firewire card, sound card 10/100 ethernet card, 17in HP monitor, HP printer.
Win XP Pro, MS Office, Photoshop7, with ALL the install discs.
$270.00 US (I paid the $70.00).
So:
How'd we do?
P.S.  Do you have ANY idea how many quilting sites there are on the web?  OMFG!!!
Thanks to all 

mehhh winxp will probably not like so little ram, and i can't wait for the quilt shops to turn up in /b/

>>10 speaks only truth.

If you can get a copy of Windows 2000, install that instead.  Windows XP will huff and puff and thrash in only 256MB.  Alternately, RAM is cheap.  Put in an extra 256MB and you will see XP become considerably quicker and more responsive.

win2000 is the best windows and the only windows i run on the windows box....

>>12
Of course it is, and I would name you Captain Obvious if I didn't know people doesn't know.

Rule of thumb: NEW != BETTER

256mb is fine for WinXP.  Just turn off some of the unused services and it'll run even better.

BTW, XP is better than 2k.  Especially for first time users or people not very good with them.  If you didn't already know it, WinXP is an updated version of 2k. 

By MY STANDARDS, it's well, pokey.  By hers' warp factor 10.
I'll bump up the RAM when I can.  I'm a Mac user and our grail is there is no such thing as TOO much RAM!
>>10
We showed her /b/ last night.  Her response?  "Cute."  She was once a teacher and I've got a BAD feeling she's of the opinion /b/ is in need of some remeadial. (Moot help us all!)

>>14
WinXP = bloated Win2K. There's little to gain from it, except all this "EASY" "MULTIMEDIA" "ONE STEP" tard-proof stuff.

The "easiest" stuff is, the more trouble you usually end up having with it, too. I try to avoid any product that emphatizes how "OMG EASY!!!!" and "ZOOMJ ONE STEP WORLD DOMINATION" it is.

Too much FUD in this thread. Windows XP is much better than Windows 2000 in a lot of ways now, especially in networking compatiblity, ease of use, and some other crap I forget.

>>17

I lol'd.

>>17

Don't confuse "easy" with "gay" or "I'll do whatever crap I feel like doing pretending it's what you want"

19 Fails at turning off useless features.

>>20

20 fails at realizing if you turn off the useless features of WinXP, you end up with Win2K

win2k wins on the basis that one can get a (legal) win2k disk cheaper than a (legal) xp disk.

Also, win95 dislikes more than 128 ram... its the main reason i junked that computer so many years ago...so either >>8 got lucky, or i got a shitty motherboard. chances are its the latter. ;-)

>>22
Win98 chokes and pukes during boot (it bluescreens and freezes hard with an "out of memory" error, if you really want to know) on a PC with more than 256MB of RAM unless changes are made to various configuration files.  I'm thinking Win95 has a similar bug but I'm not sure where its limit is.