djuk

We have an old pc here at home which was a freebie. Its going to be mostly used for downloading stuff overnight and leaving hanging around really. I have the choice of using windows xp professional or windows 2000 professional, which is going to be less resource hungry and make the computer run more smoothly? It is a 233mhz celeron with 96mb RAM

Thanks

David

Hobo_Jojo

windows 3.1

stevem2k

linux

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Out of that choice win2000 by far

But personally, with that spec system...I'd use Win 98SE

ozzy

CP/M

ozzy

Linux? are you serious. hope you don't expect to run one of the cr@ppy GUI's I tried Linux on some PII400's at it was slow as ****

Stefan

GaryK

yep agreed go with the lowest one you can, each successive realease just adds more and more features and code (and bugs!) so if you dont care what it looks like 3.1 is not a bad suggestion or DOS even if you know enough to kick off scheduled jobs.

If not then Win2k is your best bet, i still use it in preference to anything else.

Gary

Hobo_Jojo

see, i rock oh yeah babyi do indeed rock

snowcrash

windows 98SE ...

or

Linux (don't use the GUI, thats for amatures )

Daz34

I cannot realistically see how you will run Windows XP or 2000 on that spec. I would go fo Windows 98SE.

Darren

mj

I run 2000pro on a p233 ( as in pentium 1) lappie with 96 meg of ram - no problem at all - take three weeks to bot up, but other than that its fine. Forget 98 its orrible.

towzer

98's appaling. Got for Win2K or possibly the cut down version of Win2K - is it Win2K lite? It shipped with the original iPAQ desktops and had some of the OS missing but it ran very quickly.

Phil

dsmith

Win98 SE for that spec. be fine.

Deano

Daz34

Win98 SE is pretty stable IMHO

Chris L

I run Linux on a very similar spec machine. It is perfectly possible (with acceptable performance). I would expect it to out perform Win2K or XP. A little extra memory would make a difference and it is very cheap.

The machine that now runs Linux (Redhat 9) used to run Win 2000 and it ran like a dog. If you are only going to use it for downloading overnight then I don't think it will make a great deal of difference what you run, but don't discount Linux.

Chris

suba

at least with windows 98SE, there's no security hole like you get with w2k and XP

suba

at least with windows 98SE, there's no security hole like you get with w2k and XP

mj

There's no security holes in 98 because there's no security.

JohnnyRob

XP is a good operating system, but will strangle the system; I occasionally access a 200mhz p1 running XP and it's soooooo slow -and it only access' the internet!

Can't comment on Windows 2k but I remember Windows 98SE (those were the days!) and from what I can recall it was fine...

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Yeah as if win2K and Xp are secure

At least with obsolete OS's you can be safe that most new viruses will work not properly as they are designed to get past the loopholes in 2K and XP

Now what is wrong with 98SE (SE = second edition)? IMO the most rock solid and bug-free OS's that Microsft has made in recent years, and it's still faily current (you can run office XP on it no probs). Most certainly had less trouble with 98SE machines than the countless win ME, 2K and XP computers which give me hassel in one way or another.



Unless you lot are getting mixed up with win 98 (first edition)

ozzy

No GUI? we're in the 21st century; it's not 1980

The Linux GUI's I've seen are **** and they wouldn't convince me from moving from XP or Mac.

Next you'll be telling me to use a text browser or vi as a word processor

If it's a low-spec machine I'd stick with 95 or 98se.

Stefan

druddle

Linux or Solaris x86 with no GUI. Thats if you want a "proper" OS

class_A

Win2k will be fine if you're just going to leave it downloading, just give it some more RAM. Then again I hate Win9x with a passion.

Or have a look at some of the lighter Linux distros (eg. Slackware). They can be made very minimal and efficient, ideal for light browsing, P2P and MP3 playing.

Gedi

Clear a few things up.

Linux has nothing to do witha gui. You pick your own.
KDE and Gnome have moved on leaps and bounds in the past year and IMO the new KDE 3.1.* is now better than windows. Its quicker, can be made just as visually pleasing if not more so, and is more secure. Yes, even the security of windows' gui is crap. Shatter attacks are only too common on local machines.

Whoever is saying that win98 is secure is having a laugh. It is officially the most unsecure operating system to hit the mainstream and thats not myth. Microsoft will even admit it, hence the reason they stopped support for it. It needs to be removed from existance ASAP.

Linux can be almost as resource hogging as windows. OK, Linux itself is much more efficient, but its not just the kernel, its everything that comes with it. Its the software that runs on top is the thing that can slow it down. As said, a minimal Linux system easily out performs windows, so in my experience I would recomend install Linux with minimal software. It would be a great machine to start to learn something a little more involving on.


Finally, regarding no GUI's. Non GUI systems are some of the most important systems today. GUI's just do not provide you with the power that is sometimes required. Only a shell can provide this, thus they will always be with us

chiark

I have a Libretto 100CT, which has a Pentium MMX processor overclocked to run at 266MHz. It also has 64MB of memory.

It runs Win2K Pro quite happily, providing you don't expect it to set the world on fire

ADP

DOS

Jza

98's not supported - so go ME!

Jza

DJNafey

I agree with Ali-B - out of the choice of Win2000 or XP, I would definitely go for 2000 ..... but it would still be with very low expectations!! If you can get another 128Mb RAM in it, it will be a lot better. I am an IT Manager (and build systems in my spare time as well) so I do know what I'm talking about here, even if I talk rubbish on other threads!

I once set up a Celeron 433MHz PC with 64Mb RAM and Windows 2000. I could hardly get the thing started. I upgraded it to 128Mb and it was a lot better but still pretty awful. Luckily, it was a PC for testing my company's new software that we were about to release - was deliberately set up to see how rubbish it would be under that spec with Win2000 !

My choice for anything less than a Pentium III machine is (and will be for a long time) Windows 98 SE. Although Microsoft don't really support it any more, you can still get Internet Explorer 6 SP1 and Media Player 9 (the latest versions) for it if you are quick.

StickyMicky

i dont think hes botherd about having a good system?

doesnt he just want sumthing thats stable to download stuff over night?

go with the bare bones
3.1 or 98se

DJNafey

Jza, have you got any good experiences of Windows ME ?! I've got it on my budget Sony Vaio laptop at work and it's the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever had to use. I can see what Microsoft were trying to do - give home users the simplicity of Win98 with some of the flashy bits that they were putting in Win2000 .... but it seems that they never actually tested it!

Looking forward to putting Win2000 SP4 on my new Dell laptop that I'm getting in the office in a couple of weeks

StickyMickey, you're right - if it's just a question of stability, then it's best to keep it simple. Incidentally, I set up a P166 MMX (128Mb RAM) the other day with Win98SE and it ran beautifully. Went to Windows Update and downloaded all of the available security patches, updates, etc and it slowed it right down! Oh well, it was a Xmas present for my 6yr old nephew - it's good enough to keep him happy!

Does Windows 3.1 support any decent browsers? I assume that Microsoft stopped supporting it after Internet Explorer 3(?)