IIRC, there was someone who challenged us to put Windows XP on a Pentium 1 (Or equivelent) machine. I have before me (Buried in a mess of wires) an eMachines Celeron 366 Board and CPU from an eMachines eTower 366t2 This machine right now, has no case, and I might do something with it. It has 96MB's Ram. 4 VRAM, and a ISA Network card. I figure that this has the power of a P1 MMX machine running at 266MHz, seeing as the machine is crippled with the celeron in it.
I will document and take pictures to show how bad (or good) windows runs on Aged machines
Post comments or questions below
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
Man i need more ram in my pentium 100.
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:
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".
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.
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...
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:
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.
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 :P)
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.
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
the pentium 1 went up to 233mhz mmx
as seen in this aio pc isa card
I bought an old Compaq Professional Workstation 5000 for £2. It had XP installed on it. The spec was a single Pentium Pro at 200mhz, 64mb RAM and a 2gb SCSI hard drive. It's pretty much the same now except for a second CPU and another 32mb RAM. It runs OK, quite a bit better with the dual CPUs. It's only on there because I haven't been bothered to get rid of it.
Yea I got a P1 200Mhz MMX with 64mb ram running WINDOWS XP PRO it runs alright but it's slow.
ive seen systems with as little as 32mb ram running xp... i wanted to shoot myself trying to fix this things adware!
But don't you have to have xp already on the hd because the install refuses to continue if it has less than 64mb ram
oh yeah? then what the hell is running in my Compaq Armada 4220t?
like you, I thought there was no 266mhz P1, I thought they topped out at 233mhz, and I thought I had a PII 266 w/mmx in my laptop. but, after alot of benching, it revealed it's self as a P I @ 266mhz. in one test, I got it to read 267mhz.
I have ran everything on this machine from Ubantu to Xandros to XP to 95, 98, and even Knoppix (HDD install.)
I was about to settle on a very healthy dual boot of XP and Xandros, as Xandros gave me no hardware hiccups. then, the THIRD hard drive failed in it.
I had 98 on it back in the day,on a 6.49gb HD, but that one failed. so I got a toshiba 20gb, and that one failed after 2 weeks. then, I got an IBM 20gb, and that one is defective. so, now I have to hunt for a hard drive before I sell it.
btw, it has 64mb of ram it, and a RAM cap of only 96mb.
I'm no professional googler, but the first response for armada 4220t lists your processor as a 266 MMX. But why take the time to read it on the first site? You can actually read, find the .pdf from compaq here on compaq's site.
Takes a whole of a few minutes to find, and they mention "The 4210T and 4220T processor boards include the 233- and 266-MHz MMX
processors and the MTXC controller, part of the Intel 430TX mobile chipset. The 4200
Family processor boards also include the electronic sensor that interfaces to the system
through the I2C bus. "
Of course you can always still call it a P1, because after all, saying it is much easier than finding out, right? And for the kiddies out there, there are no P1 MMX processors. You can call it that if you like, but if you do, you might as well be calling an SSE3 processor a P1.
Pentium processor family for embedded applications: 100, 133, 133+VRT, and 166 MHz, SPGA packaging
Separate code and data caches
Branch prediction feature
High-performance floating point unit
Enhanced 64-bit data bus
Data integrity features
Performance monitoring and execution tracing
4 Mbyte memory page size feature
50 MHz and 66 MHz bus speeds
100,133, 133 VRT, 166 MHz
82430HX, 430TX PCIsets
And for the Pentium II:
The upgrade path for embedded Intel® architecture includes longer life cycle support for the 200 MHz and 233 MHz Pentium processors with MMX technology.
Intel offers 166 MHz and 266 MHz Low-power Pentium processors with MMX technology. Both are available in thin HL-PBGA packaging, as well as PPGA packaging. The 166 MHz Pentium processor is also available in extended temperature range -40ºC to +115ºC.
Also, the Intel 430TX PCIset now supports synchronous DRAM [SDRAM] in embedded applications.
166, 200, 233, 266 MHz
But like I said, why find out the facts when saying what you believe are facts is so much easier.
To break it down, there's no PI with MMX, There's no PII Without MMX. There's No PI over 166 MHZ, there's no PII under 166 MHZ. Got it now?
A lot of this debate centers around where you draw the "Pentium 1" line. Do you draw it inside the end of the 80486 and the start of the Pentium Pro? If so then it goes from 50-300MHz, if you want to account for unreleased versions, with and without MMX. If you want original P1 then it is the 60/66 Socket 5. If you want the popular bug-fixed line you get the 75-200 non-MMX line. Then we jump to MMX-enabled Pentiums up to 233 in Socket 7. Then we go to mobile Pentiums up to at least 266 in production, as in your laptop. Thent he 300 version mentioned. The line of contention seems to center around MMX and mobile versions, and whether they should be "Pentium 1" or fully qualified as "Pentium 1 MMX/mobile".
So where are you drawing your line? 586 or 686 core? You seem to draw the line at MMX. You can have a 586 with MMX, and a 686 with out MMX (P-Pro).
People seem to be perpetually confusing this, so I'll clarify again. I made the unfortunate mistake of saying "Original Pentium" here when I should of said "Non-MMX Pentium". Another commenly used descriptor is "Classic Pentium", since technically the "Original Pentium" was the 60/66Mhz Socket 4 CPU.
The two chips have different masks, different CPUID values, different size caches, and different possible multiplier values. They're different CPUs. They are based on the same CPU architecture, in the sense that everything from the Pentium Pro to the Pentium III (and arguably the Pentium M) is based on the same architecture. But the existance of 1.4 Ghz Pentium IIIs does not mean that "The Pentium Pro went up to 1.4 Ghz, not just 200Mhz! You're wrong! Haw!" Only in spirit.
OMG pentium 1 started in the 60 mhz range and went to 233 or 266mhz and the P2 also started at 233mhz they introduced mmx in 1997 with either the 133 "herd rumors about it starting at 133mhz" or 166mhz cpu wich was a P1 = pentium 1 the info is real easy to find i have a P1 200mhz with mmx i know this cause it is stamped on the cpu as such
just look at this site
history on pentium