BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 26d, 20h, 52m | CPU: 57% | MEM: 6165MB of 12227MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Forum rules


Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

Which OS to put on the PC
Windows 3.x 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Windows NT 4.x 32%  32%  [ 10 ]
Windows 2000 48%  48%  [ 15 ]
Windows XP 16%  16%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 31
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Capable OS for a classic computer        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:18 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am

Posts
953

Location
My house
There's this computer at school that I'm able to bring home at the end of the school year. I just wondered what OS I should put on it. It has a 500MHz CPU, 64mb of RAM and 20gb hard disk space. I want the OS to be NT-based for high stability, high performance for obvious reasons but I want it not to be unbearably slow. Which OS should I put on it?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:18 am 
Reply with quote
stick another 128mb stick of ram in it & go for windows 2000, or an nlited
xp.
If the video card was low on memory then run xp in classic mode or it'll
seem a little slow.

Maybe you should also consider trying a linux distro on it, there's plenty
out there that'll run quick on this machine providing the hardware isn't
something odd or unique.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:14 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
Well my first answer would be Windows 98 because it is able to do most functions of a home computer and won't add many of those features of 2000 that you probably won't need...

Windows 2000 wouldn't be that bad because you would get some compatibility with modern programs like Office 2003.

The Linux idea wouldn't be bad, but especially for old systems you will have to be carefull when compiliing the kernel...

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:12 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:37 pm

Posts
73

Favourite OS
Windows 7 RC1 (Build 7100)
What about Windows FLP?

You can get it from SillyProject [I think].

It is meant to be 'XP for old systems', so it fits the bill perfectly.

_________________
The other answer! (i.e. not 42)
Current PC: Asus G2Sg laptop, Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 (2.5GHz), 4GB RAM.
Current main OS: Windows 7 RC1


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:40 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:55 pm

Posts
549

Location
UK

Favourite OS
Windows NT 4.0
WinFLP is on SP.

I choose XP, as in WinFLP

_________________
My Website -
Ecclesia Semper Reformanda Est


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:31 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:09 am

Posts
361

Location
China

Favourite OS
Win2000
I certainly suggest Win2000. It runs very well on such spec

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:43 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:58 pm

Posts
39
yea... Win 2000 will do the job..

I had some problems with XP on a 500 MHz machine.

If it's a Celeron, WinXP won't make you happy ^^
If it's a Pentium III, it's ok

Same with the AMD equivalents...

Additionally... Win 2000 will run much better on 64 MB then XP

NAX

PS: NT4 is also cool, but application compatibility kinda... sucks


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:15 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Posts
400
Windows 2000. I had it running once on a 400 Mhz Celeron CPU with 64MB RAM and 5 GB HDD. Now, it's got 256MB and it's more responsive. Either way, I had great if not perfect performance with Windows 2000 with 64 MB, so you should do fine.

If all you run is XP programs, however, then you may want to go for that, but I strongly recommend a RAM upgrade.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:40 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:45 pm

Posts
1432

Location
UK

Favourite OS
Longhorn 4074
Theoreticaly, i would say Windows 2000.
But i have a smilar computer in school's library* and we have installed XP there. It runs even smooth (nah, maybe not now - but only because a very inteligent person installed there VTP, VCP and other visual crap :/) and better than 2000. I remember when we had 2000 there - a lot of crashes, random reboots, problems...

*its even a little worser - 400MHz CPU, 64 MB Ram and only few gigs on HDD (dont remember exacly how many but its less than 10GB).


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:57 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Posts
514
I agree with the whole CPU thing, if it's a Celeron then go Windows 2000 and if it's a PIII or K6-2 you might get away with XP... More RAM would be nice in either case, but I've had XP running will on a similarly spec'd machine to that one. It's all to do with just keeping it clean really.

Windows 2000 is a nice compromise though between speed on old machines and functionality, it'd be perfect on that machine.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:29 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:16 am

Posts
725

Location
TeXaS

Favourite OS
Windows Vista Beta 1 (6.0.5112)
I'd definatley have to say Windows NT 4.0.... Very good on RAM, only takes a little more hard drive space than any Windows 9x version, and though your resources are limited, the NT core allows you to multitask a little better so you're not stuck with a totally slow system. If you by chance want to add more RAM, then you can totally throw Windows 2000 on there. That would ensure better compatability anyway.

_________________
Laptop: Precision M6300 2.4GHz Core 2 T8300 / 4GB RAM / 320GB HD / ATI Quadro FX 3600m
Server: PowerEdge 1950 (Gen III) (x1) 2.5Ghz Xeon E5420 / 24GB FB-DDR2 / 1.5tb 7.2k SAS RAID 0
Desktop: Precision T5500 2.66GHz Xeon X5650 / 24GB DDR3 ECC / 2x 300GB Seagate 15k7


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:52 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Posts
514
NT4's good, but unfortunately compatibility with newer applications isn't nearly as good as 2000, plus it doesn't support USB or plug and play, or any of that fun stuff... 2000 will give you a much smoother ride, even with 64MB RAM.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 3:03 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:26 pm

Posts
930
BeOS or Zeta


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 6:36 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
moonlit wrote:
NT4's good, but unfortunately compatibility with newer applications isn't nearly as good as 2000, plus it doesn't support USB or plug and play, or any of that fun stuff... 2000 will give you a much smoother ride, even with 64MB RAM.

NT4 will support USB 1.1 if you install a 3rd-party driver, but mixed results are to be expected.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:50 pm 
Reply with quote
In the past, I was running Windows 2000 on an old notebook (Pentium-MMX 266 Mhz, 32 MB RAM, 2 GB HDD).

I got reasonable performance. A bit slower than Win 98 of course, but with your CPU and RAM, this should not be an issue.

We also still use some Win2K PCs at work. Up to now, I did not encounter any program that would not run on it (except programs that wouldn't run on XP either). Win2K is reasonably "up-to-date" (XP is Windows 2001 if you take it that way...).

Last but not least: A Win2K installation does not need that much disc space. I remember that I could cut it down even more by removing the dllcache folder and drivers.cab from the windows directory after installation. Result: Win2K will run as normal, it will just request its CD when adding new hardware...


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:10 am 
Reply with quote
Permanently Banned
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:09 am

Posts
463
The dumpster is in back :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:32 pm 
Reply with quote
Probbaly windows FLP.

I hear its very customizable as well, as the windows folder is smaller or something.

Anyway, go for flp.

-Altrus


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:31 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:04 pm

Posts
124

Location
In front of a Thinkpad
Windows2000. A RAM upgrade will be needed, though.

BTW, with 256MB RAM, Ubuntu runs quite nicley, surprisingly. I've even had transparency effects in the panels working right on a 400MHz Celeron before.

_________________
http://ubuntu.com
^Ubuntu 8. New installer. Why the heck didn't they do this years ago?


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:08 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:04 pm

Posts
2797

Favourite OS
Anything checked :P
I voted WinXP (as in FLP). Anything that can run 2000 but struggles with XP can run FLP perfectly. :)

_________________
C H E C K E D . B U I L D S . A R E . A W E S O M E N E S S

Glitch City Laboratories ForumsSoftHistory Forumsirc.rol.im #softhistory,#galaxy

If you like my posts, donate me Dogecoin: DLnZV8DS3CaZmLKAVxL2aMijY2vUZeyjBi


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS