Hardware requirements for Win2K OS?

[TwoMoon]

Looking at upgrading MANY pcs from Win95/98/NT to Win2k. I have no reservations about upgrading, but I need the hardware requirements for Win2k so I can plan my budget. I know many pcs will require additional RAM and more than likely some will get chunked due to their old, old, old processor.

Does anyone have the hardware specs/requirements for Win2k? Pcs are used for daily word processing, AS400, small independent apps. Nothing terribly major. Like I said, they're working fine (for the most part) now on Win95/98/NT. We're just finally taking that step to upgrade (well, the ones we can anyway).

Thanks!

[TwoMoon]

Found my own answer. Thought I'd post it for everyone's benefit.

Windows 2000 Hardware Requirements

Minimum Requirements
Intel Pentium or compatible 133 MHz or higher processor. Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems.
32 MB of RAM.
2-GB hard disk with 650 MB free disk space. (Additional disk is required if installing over the network).
VGA-compatible or higher monitor.
Keyboard, mouse or other pointing device.
CD-ROM or DVD drive (required for compact disc installation).
Network adapter (required for network installation).

Recommended Requirements
Intel Pentium II or compatible 300 MHz or higher processor.
64 MB (4 GB maximum).
2 GB of free space.
SVGA Plug and Play Monitor.
Keyboard, mouse or other pointing device.
CD-ROM or DVD drive 12x or faster.
Network adapter.

Checking the BIOS
A basic input/output system (BIOS) is a set of instructions stored on a ROM chip inside x86 and compatible computers, which handles all input/output (I/O) functions.

Before upgrading to Windows 2000 Professional, check the BIOS on the portable or desktop computer to see that is has an updated BIOS. If the BIOS is not compatible, obtain an updated BIOS from the manufacturer.

If your system does not have Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) functionality during installation, you might need to update the BIOS. However, to get ACPI functionality after Windows 2000 is installed, you are required to do another installation. You can, however, upgrade your existing installation.

[griffinspc]

You might want to check here at Microsoft's recommended requirements.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...qs/default.asp

The setup you have above is way to underpowered. I am running W2K at work and just installed it at home and believe me, if you want any type of speed you'll want far more than you listed and more than Microsoft lists. I mean reasonable working speed from boot to shutdown.

Hope that helps.

[SuperSparks]

I'd go even further than the recommended requirements as far as the RAM is concerned. I would consider 128Mb the minimum for 2K without it thrashing the paging file all the time.

[kv]

Personally, I've had Win2K running on a machine with a C333 and 128MB of RAM. Took a bit of time to boot, and took a little longer to launch apps, but it worked well enough. However, I wouldn't want to consider trying anything less.

Supersparks is bang on with the 128MB memory requirement. Running Win2K with only 64MB will make Win98 look like a step up.

From my experience with various machines, the single biggest performance boost I've seen is upgrading from 128MB to 256MB. The second biggest performance boost I've seen was going from 256MB to 512MB. Memory is king when it comes to OS performance, and I would even rate it as more important than processor speed (within reason, of course). I would take a slightly slower machine with more RAM than a slightly faster machine with less RAM.

Just my $0.02..!

KV

[TwoMoon]

Okay, so we've got RAM covered. I'll have quite a few to upgrade from 64MB, but that was expected.

What about processors? Considering I upgrade RAM to 128MB...can I get away with basic Pentium processors? (Pentium Pro, Pentium I, Pentium II)

Also, what about hard drive space? I read in M$ specs that I need at least 2 mg. Is this a good measure?

[griffinspc]

As to the processor, for an office enviroment with AS/400 client and probably the general MS Office 97 or 2000 apps as well as your network connections (I assume this) I wouldn't go with anything less than a PIII 800.

As mentioned in replies above, you can run it on a lesser processor as a stand alone and even in the office but you will regret spending $$$ and then finding your employees waiting seemingly forever for W2K to load, the AS/400 client to connect and generally very sluggish performance.

It would be far better to invest a little more now than be upgrading again in a short while. Especially if you plan to expand your databases anytime in the future.

Prices for say, IBM's pIII 800 Netvista (if you can still get it) are really low. Even the P4 Netvista's are going corporate for about $600 with DDR memory.

To sum up, the old adage, "Pay me now or pay me later" is what your looking at.

PS: Sorry, forgot about the HD space. I assume you mean GB's not MB's. You can get away with 2GB's if you plan to store very little in the way of files on the individual machines and if you plan on a complete format and install of W2K. If you upgrade an existing OS (which isn't advisable anyway) you may see yourself short on space down the road.

[TwoMoon]

My goal is to bring 44 pcs into this century and prepare them to handle the next few years. We have been stagnant for a long time. Inevitably, we will be stranded. Slowly but surely, we are being stranded. I recently had to replace a video card and at the same time upgrade from Win95 to Win98 because it's almost impossible to buy a video card for Win95 (old version).

Our entire organization is looking ahead and some departments have already moved forward. This is my first and only IS job and I'm basically in the blind region of knowledge. I realize a good portion of my pcs will be replaced vs. upgraded. They're so old, they aren't salvagable or upgradable. For those that are upgradable, it will come down to budget. Will it be worth it to upgrade it or simply purchase a replacement? That's what I'm trying to find out now by outlining RAM, Processor and HD for each pc.

[griffinspc]

My goal is to bring 44 pcs into this century and prepare them to handle the next few years

That's what I was trying to address above TwoMoon. If you're the new IS person a couple things you should look at.

1) Stop all departments from doing there own thing as soon as possible. That may not be in your power but someone must have a say in this.

2) If you are planning for the future then a realistic plan must be drawn up and followed. You're on the right track asking questions and you're correct that ridding yourself of NT, W95 and W98 installs and going with one OS is best.

3) If budget is a concern you may find that doing this department by department as money is available would be the way to go. Another suggestion would be to build one machine for the department and then before it's used and altered image that machine to all the others. Keep that image for the other departments machines.

4) Plan to replace all the machines. It sounds as if you're running some really old crap. It will not be suitable for the future. MS no longer supports 95 and 98 so 2000 is the way to go. The AS/400 will also interface much more reliably with a single W2K OS with Client Express rather than a hodgepodge of OS's.

5) New machines will offer you USB ports, larger hard drives, faster processors, up to date business video, fast ethernet, CD-RW's, less power consumption and more.

I can't answer to your monitor situation but you can also expect less eye strain, possibly less chance of medical claims due to old monitor strain and happy employees.

6) I still recommend at least a PIII 800 or above. You don't need the latest and greatest and you won't believe the prices for machines that were at the top of the charts a year ago. A good quality ViewSonic 17" monitor is cheap nowdays too.

I hope that helps some.

[TwoMoon]

Thank you so much for your advice.

Unfortunately, I am only accountable for this department. We are a separate intity from the rest of the organization. We have our own server (Netware) and hope to change that to Win2000 server as well. It's a major overhaul...but greatly needed and eagerly anticipated.

Speaking of monitors...evidently we had a major purchase of them (in LOTS) about five to six years ago because I've had several to die within the past year. Same goes for backups and UPS's. I've purchased thirteen UPS's over the past year as replacements for ones that died due to a power surge.

[griffinspc]

So you have 44 machines in your department or am I reading that wrong? At any rate you can only do what you can do regardless of the number of machines.

I've purchased thirteen UPS's over the past year as replacements for ones that died due to a power surge.

If you're having UPS's die due to a power surge you're buying crap. Sorry, but those cheap UPS's at most chain stores are junk. They aren't protecting anything and in fact are costing you needed money. To get any real protection you're going to have to spend $$. Right now all you're getting is a false sense of security.

Depending on the monitor brand and model, 5 to 6 years old is getting ancient. Now if they're working great and have sufficient size for todays work place OK, if not I would upgrade those along with the machines.

If you do it right you'll be the hero of the department and the envy of the others. That's providing they are just patching things as you were looking to do at the beginning of this thread.

As far as shifting to Windows 2000 server and discarding NetWare that's even more reason to scrap all the old tired machines and move to the 18th century in hardware. That's not a knock on Win2000 server it's just bandwidth and production and a lot more enter into what you're trying to accomplish.

Good luck.

[ProfessorU]

Definitely use a nice UPS for your server. I would think that most workstations on this budget will have to settle for a surge supressor.

I ran windows 2000 server on a 2GB system drive until last month. By that time enough junk had accumulated to make the drive almost unusable. Swapfiles, Windows updates and the like will slowly absorb space until you're out. If anybody is running office they'll probably need a second drive or more space.

One of the coolest things about having 3 or 4 crummy machines is that they can be combined into one PC that would have been impossible to afford 8 years ago. Keep the good stuff like EDO RAM SIMMs above 16MB and newer RAM modules, 2GB+ drives, respectable procs, etc. and just reduce your number of workstations.

Maybe you can get the go-ahead to list the barely usable stuff on eBay and try to raise money for upgrades that will be useful in 2004? I'd be interested to see your upgrading plan if you finish one. Speeds double every 18 months. 1THz in 2006? Can't wait to see how a PentiumPro stacks up to that.