[Ulysse]

Hello everybody!

I'd like to know your opinion: could I install Windows 2003 on a 233MMX laptop with 96MB SDRAM? Actually, I'd like to test W2k3 before installing it on my main computer. In the sticky post abave, I read that it takes 128 MB...

FYI, I have Windows XP on the laptop and it works well (it is a bit slow, but it works.)

Ulysse

[gamehead200]

Ulysse, on Nov 26 2003, 08:19 PM, said:

Hello everybody!

I'd like to know your opinion: could I install Windows 2003 on a 233MMX laptop with 96MB SDRAM? Actually, I'd like to test W2k3 before installing it on my main computer. In the sticky post abave, I read that it takes 128 MB...

FYI, I have Windows XP on the laptop and it works well (it is a bit slow, but it works.)

Ulysse

Windows Server 2003, like you said, needs 128MB of RAM... I doubt it will run on a 233 MHz... Even though I've run it on a 300 MHz, with 192MB of RAM...

[Aaron]

Windows 2003 will refuse to install if you have less than the minimum requirements. However there's a workaround you can follow here:

http://www.MSFN.org/board/index.php?showto...iew=getlastpost

[tokyodrifter]

I had Win2k3 on my Compaq 533 MHz w/ 256 MB RAM and it felt a tad slow...can't imagine it on a 233. Good luck

[voxtek]

I have W2k3 on my old computer (400 MHz, 393 MB) and it runs very fast.

[Ulysse]

Well, I'll give it a try. My point is that

1) XP works well on that laptop
2) 2003 is supposed to be faster than XP (if you turn it to a workstation)

So, conclusion:

W2003 should work well, shouldn't it?

Ulysse

[Aaron]

Should be fine! Microsoft raised the minimum requirements as it was intended to run server-like applications. But if you're not going to be using any then it should run ok-ish.