XP on a celeron 366

I can disable the CPU Cache, and the L1 cache (there is an option)

Cool great job.
but this guy has put xp pro on a pentium 100mhz with 64mb ram
http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm

Man i need more ram in my pentium 100.

Story
I booted up the xp cd from boot manager
and got past the loading drivers for the OS then when i said starting windows to go to setup (non graphical) and it told me i needed 64mb ram.

I know I am gonna be a bit behind on it. But you would not believe how ungodly slow it is. Maybe this is the reason MS made a PII min. for windows install as a "Recommended min."

This is the beast I am using:

Are You using windows xp pro sp2 or sp1?

the stripped to the bone edition

It is an OEM Dell CD. I am just using it for testing purpose's

I left for about 2 hrs to go eat and do some stuff. I came back, and it is still installing. How long did that guy with the P 100 take to install it? It has been sitting like this for about 4hrs now.

The original Celeron processor is based off of the Pentium II chip.

Furthermore, the original Pentium topped out at 200MHz...there was no 266MHz version.

I'd hardly consider a machine running a 366MHz Celeron "crippled." The Celerons were decent processors in their day, primarily because of the fact that you could overclock the hell out of them. I set up a 400MHz Celeron machine with 256MB RAM running Windows 2000 Pro for someone I know as a basic Web surfing/e-mail/Word machine, and it runs quite well.

If you ment me with the pentium i don't have the ram to install win xp pro.
but probably the guy from winhistory.de probably already pre installed it
(which would Work faster if you have another pc faster than it)

and referring to catmistake maybe nlite would work better all you need is your a windows xp cd and nlite.

I happen to have a Dell 266MHz P1 MMX in my friends house. don't tell me that they top at 200. Notice that I mentioned the "MMX" in my post. These usually came out after the Pentium was stopped being lables "Pro" for the MMX instruction set.

Also, on the board I am using, there is no "Overclock" option. Remember, I am running this on a heavily 'proprietary' system. When I mean "Proprietary", I mean that the Ram on this machine runs at 50MHz. This is 'Special' Ram. I have no idea why eMachines did this in it's day, other than to have people come to them for ram. History of this model shows that it was only in production for about 1-2 months. Making it the shortest lived eMachines system ever sold.

Hell, I have to use a digital-to-analog convertor to make the Original CD-Rom pipe music into this system. I might take pics of it if I can find it. Also, the floppy port on this is not standard either. It has a 7-line connector to the 'proprietary' floppy. and on top of that, I can't use any other floppy drives because of that. Which means I can't even install win9x or any other system that requires a floppy (My friend busted the floppy about 2 yrs ago)

This thing is probably more crippled than the average P1 MMX's

would take pics, but I killed the batteries on my camera by leaving it on all the time I was gone (oops!) anyway, it is slow as hell. even with the 96MB of Ram in this. It is dog slow.
I will see if I can speed it up by disabling some of the graphics

Don't get snitty.

If you want to consider the Pentium MMX as part of the original Pentium line, then fine, you're right. The Pentium MMX went all the way to 300MHz. But the MMX chips used a different core and process, and many consider them to be different chips (a number of motherboards that support "plain" Pentium 200MHz chips won't support 200MHz MMX chips, even though they use the same socket, for example).

I Probably would of considered the pure pentium 1 line from 66mhz pentium to 166mhz pentium

Edit: If you want to install it on one of these Pentiums you'll might have to find graphics drivers because microsoft didn't provide them with windows xp.

Sort of makes sense because they probably didn't think you would install xp on a pentium

after I turned off all the system "Niceties" wait.. nope.. still quite slow...
Time to tinker under the hood and see what I can turn off

and Dr. Webster. I didn't get to add this. But I have a 233MHz P1 (No MMX) sitting on my shelf. So, I know they don't top at 200, even the non-MMX design. I have seen a P1 266 non mmx also.

this was my faliure of installing windows xp on a 100mhz pentium with 32mb ram.
I'll install some more ram into the machine and maybe i'll work

Sorry about the bad quality of the pic

have I started some kind of culture in this thread that has people doing 'under-performing' tasks on their old machines?

even iTunes runs on this thing

Playing Cherub Rock by the Smashing Pumkins right now

It's surprising how little CPU Time iTunes takes...

How long did it take for windows xp to install (roughly)?

I realize no one's interested... but in my experiment, on a 800Mhz PIII... the version I mention above takes less than an hour to install... (its Pro SP2 updated to, I think, a couple months ago) about an hour and 10 minutes for me to get it as I like it with all the apps I want, firefox, swdocter, symantic antivirus, etc., and the start menu in the order I like it... and all with classic windows and menus, and shadowing off, those sorts of performance tweeks, and the uptime is incredible (probably because I never use it but to test how things look from the other side... using RDC from the pb, of course, launched with RDC Menu, awesome app...)
Anyway... drum role please... Just how long did that full install take you?

actually, it was 4, but I went to eat and take breaks. but I estimate, about 2 1/2 hrs of raw horsepower crunching time for the install on the machine. I now have it in a tool case for the hack. It is running smoothly now. I had to adjust some stuff in the bios (Like making the BIOS "non-cachable". That can slow stuff down a lot. I also disabled some stuff like the serial port and parallel port. 1 thing that stood out, was legacy USB drivers (For old USB Keyboards) That eats up about 15% of the CPU Time looking for the devices. It also slows down the MLB.
It runs ok now. I modded the Network card to fit in the case. The case can close up, and be carried to an old-school gaming lan. I might install Diablo II on this for a friend and we can do a lan game and he can use this PC for killing stuff.

Then you better tell Wikipedia that they're wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium

Clearly shows that the non-MMX original Pentiums stopped at 200MHz.

I'm never going back to that planet...

many many of their entries are wildly inaccurate at best. Its not a source for research, its mearly a jumping off point.

Intel says 75-200 for the *second* Pentium design. The original Pentium was 60 & 66 MHz. THere is a difference between P-1 and P-1 MMX and P Pro is a 686, not a 586. P-Pro is more like a P-II than a P-I. P-II was designed from the P-Pro.

Regarding this stupid argument about Pentium clock speed... just go to Intel, for crying out loud. Search for "Pentium data sheet". That gets you to the "Processor Information Page". Everything they've ever made is still listed under "Embedded".

http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/mmx/mmx.htm
http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/pentium/docs_pentium.htm

The latest "Specifications Updates" PDF for the product line suggests the *possible* existence of a 300Mhz MMX, although that's the only reference to it anywhere, and it also suggests it may of been a surface-mount version. 200Mhz is the *fastest* ever stated for classic Pentium anywhere.

I'd suggest posting photographs of the CPU markings on this 233Mhz "Non-MMX" Pentium. Among other things the "real life" classic Pentium only supported a maximum multiplier of 3x, so if it can run faster then 200Mhz on a 66Mhz bus it's a Very Special CPU.

Anyway. I'll also reiterate the point already made that a 366Mhz Celeron is substantially faster then any classic Pentium. Celeron got its "Crippled" reputation from the original 266-333Mhz versions which lacked the 128k onboard Level II cache. The later ones are pretty indistinguishable from a Pentium II at a similar clock speed. So if you're trying to set some sort of record for running XP on the lousiest machine possible you're going to try harder, although the fact that you're using an eMachine does give you a few bonus points.

--Peace

You know, I really dont want to rub salt into an open wound right now, but I feel compelled to say that this sort of short attitude with other members, from anyone at any time does sort of supress the desire to ask questions here, and I've noticed it much more frequently lately. Why be that way? Just state the facts, or what you know.

I've held back more than one question I've dreamed up from here because I thought it might elicit this same sort of a response.

Not pointing fingers because, as I've said, it's happened in other threads as well. Just hoping it could be curbed a bit somehow...

--Macinjosh

You won't -- or at least shouldn't -- get such a response for a legitimate question. You'll only get such a response if you come in here, state someting you believe to be fact, be corrected by someone else, and then contiune to argue your point even though you've been proven wrong.

Doing a quick Google search before asking questions / asserting facts goes a long way in forums; if you ask a question that either doesn't come up often or hasn't been asked, you'll get an unharsh response. If, however, you come in here and, say, ask how you can use your iBook LCD screen as a television, we're going to flip out because we've been asked that question a million times before. It's not just an Applefritter thing; it applies to pretty much all Internet forums.

I popped the CPU into a Dell optiplex Desktop (P1) and it is a 233MMX. Which surprises me, as it does not say MMX on the chip. It DOES say:
"Intel
Pentium 233
Copyright Intel 92-93"

I usually, the MMX's I see, have MMX on the die. This one is an oddball...

Maybe I should try this with that 233 mhz Dell Dimension XPS Pentium II box. Throw some ram in there and see it fly in XP or even Windows 2k Pro land. Just need a cheapo pci ethernet card for it and I'll be set.

- iantm

but, I accidently wrecked the board. while putting a new heatsink on, I knocked off a few resisters, and Am not sure how to solder the tiny suckers on in the small area that they are in. They are seated inbetween the CPU Socket, and the RAM slots. I will still have pics up that I took before this.

Thx everyone for posting.

I have it up on my site. If it says "Bandwith Used up or something, just wait till later and check it again, I don't know what my bandwith limit is though, if I get enough hits, I will update the site package. On a side note, have a pop-up blocker on, yahoo loves to put pop-ups in the site. this doesn't change either way I put the site up (Their editor or my HTML Pure pages )

Windows XP SP2 Pro on a 'crippled' Celeron 366

In response to trying to install Windows XP on a computer that doesn't meet the requirements, try the following:

Boot into DOS. Go to your CD-ROM drive. Switch to the i386 directory. Type in winnt /nm. If I remember correctly, that should skip the check for the minimum requirements.

Cheers,

The Czar

i use to have a compaq with a 500mhz celoron and 64mb ram running xp pro with a 3dfx voodoo 3 2000 pci i could play 4x4 evo online easy cause of the video card unreal tournament ran like pood cause xp dont support the glide api. but being on a broad band connection for about 2 months brought it to its doom cause of all the trojans virus's and stuff. im now running a beige G3 AIO with a 266mhz cpu 224 mb ram 100gig hdd running os 9.2.2 and can boot into OS X 10.2 and had it on the same bb connection for about 4-5 months with no signs of slowdown