# IBM Aptiva



## Bobo (Dec 1, 2004)

My friend has an old IBM Aptiva, but google hasnt been able to give me much info.  Anybody know what mobo, supported RAM, etc this crap comp uses?


----------



## Praetor (Dec 2, 2004)

Well a model number would be a nice start


----------



## Bobo (Dec 2, 2004)

It's my friend's, all I know is that it is the IBM Aptiva 2274-12X


----------



## Praetor (Dec 2, 2004)

Catch:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Aptiva 2274-12X&meta=


----------



## Bobo (Dec 2, 2004)

Been there, done that.

I need a mobo, and supported RAM.  i think it is PC133.  If it is, will it be bckwrds compatable to PC100?  

Would 512MB PC100 be better than 256PC133, or vice versa?


----------



## Praetor (Dec 2, 2004)

PC133 will run at PC100 in that motherboard  And 512MB of PC100 is the better route


----------



## Bobo (Dec 2, 2004)

Praetor said:
			
		

> PC133 will run at PC100 in that motherboard



What do you mean, it will run at PC100?  If PC133 is all that is in there, will it still run at PC133?

Could I install XP home on above comp, with 512MB PC100, 600MHz AMD Duron proc?  Or would it run too slow?

My dad has XP on his 800MHZ, but he has 2gigs RAM


----------



## Praetor (Dec 2, 2004)

> If PC133 is all that is in there, will it still run at PC133?


"If you pay a Ferrari Price for a Ford Focus, will you get the same handling?" heehee, the socket is PC100



> Could I install XP home on above comp, with 512MB PC100, 600MHz AMD Duron proc? Or would it run too slow?


XP can run on a Pentium2 level processor. You'll be fine


----------



## omsairam (Dec 6, 2004)

Everything about aptiva

http://w3.btv.ibm.com/tsop/aptiva.info



			
				Bobo said:
			
		

> My friend has an old IBM Aptiva, but google hasnt been able to give me much info.  Anybody know what mobo, supported RAM, etc this crap comp uses?


----------



## Bobo (Dec 6, 2004)

Praetor said:
			
		

> XP can run on a Pentium2 level processor. You'll be fine



Never mind about it being an AMD duron, I was over there yesterday, and it was a slot 1 p2 350MHz.  So your saying that XP will run fine, even with only 512MB RAM?

btw, it is one of those stupid oems where ther ram runs slower if all the slots are filled.


----------



## Bobo (Dec 6, 2004)

omsairam said:
			
		

> Everything about aptiva
> 
> http://w3.btv.ibm.com/tsop/aptiva.info



My comp couldnt find that site...ive been having internet problems lately with things like that.


----------



## Praetor (Dec 8, 2004)

> So your saying that XP will run fine, even with only 512MB RAM?


Thats what i wrote. It'll run down to 64MB too


----------



## Bobo (Dec 8, 2004)

Praetor said:
			
		

> Thats what i wrote. It'll run down to 64MB too



**** slow, I bet


----------



## Praetor (Dec 9, 2004)

The boot process is a bit slow but once its up and running, not really (for what you'd expect)


----------



## Bobo (Dec 16, 2004)

Praetor said:
			
		

> The boot process is a bit slow but once its up and running, not really (for what you'd expect)



I think I'll leave it on win95.  I'd upgd to win2k, but I dont have a copy.

Why?  He is one of those people that does many multimedia things at once, using a LOT of RAM.  Trust me, it would annoy him


----------



## Praetor (Dec 17, 2004)

Do what you wish (although W98SE would be better) although i think he'd be slightly more annoyed with instability


----------



## Bobo (Dec 18, 2004)

Praetor said:
			
		

> Do what you wish (although W98SE would be better) although i think he'd be slightly more annoyed with instability



Why would it be better?  And why the instability?

In Win98, when you hitt ctrl-alt-del, you don't get the real task manager, and I hate that.  Does 98SE have that?


----------



## Praetor (Dec 24, 2004)

> Why would it be better? And why the instability?


W98 was built for the older machines and comapratively W98 is unstable.



> In Win98, when you hitt ctrl-alt-del, you don't get the real task manager, and I hate that. Does 98SE have that?


That is the real task manager. You've been accustomed to the pretty W2K style taskmanager


----------



## Bobo (Dec 24, 2004)

Praetor said:
			
		

> W98 was built for the older machines and comapratively W98 is unstable.
> 
> 
> That is the real task manager. You've been accustomed to the pretty W2K style taskmanager



Why is win98 unstable?  In what way?

The win2k is a lot better.....


----------



## Praetor (Dec 24, 2004)

> Why is win98 unstable? In what way?


When you finish taking a Operating System's course i'll explain in full. For now, its just that way


----------



## Bobo (Dec 24, 2004)

Praetor said:
			
		

> When you finish taking a Operating System's course i'll explain in full. For now, its just that way



If you say so.....

I'll tell him he can install XP


----------

