What OS should I install...

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
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 Reply
Kenneth
Donator
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

What OS should I install...

Post by Kenneth »

on my Packard Bell PC?

Specs:
Sony DVD+R Drive
333Mhz AMD K6-2 Processor
64MB RAM
8.5GB Harddrive

betaluva
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:21 am
Location: Australia

Post by betaluva »

NT 5 beta, windows 2000, windows neptune, windows 9x betas,puppy linux. why not give reactos a try http://svn.reactos.org/iso/

Kenneth
Donator
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Post by Kenneth »

I've tried Windows Me, 98FE, 98SE and 2000 SP4. They tend to slow down in a month.

WinPC

Post by WinPC »

If it's from 1999, I would install a Windows 2000 Beta or Neptune. If it's from 2000 or 2001 I would install a Whistler Beta. It's more fun running Betas on PC's of their generations.

Bender
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Post by Bender »

Red Hat Linux 7.3. That s**t can run on anything...
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"

Kenneth
Donator
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Post by Kenneth »

@WinPC, it's from 1998.

EDIT: It has a RAGE IIC AGP Card.

WinPC

Post by WinPC »

Windows OCManage wrote:@WinPC, it's from 1998.

EDIT: It has a RAGE IIC AGP Card.
If it's from 1998, I recommend Memphis Build 1691, 1900, or Windows NT 5.0 Build 1729 if it was manufactured before Windows 98 was released. But because of the processor it was probably manufactured after the release of Windows 98, so if it was manufactured at the same time or after the release of Windows 98 I would recommend Windows NT 5.0 Beta 2, or if it was manufactured in late 1999 I would recommend Windows NT 5.0 Build 1904 or even Windows NT 5.0 (renamed Windows 2000) Build 1946 if it was manufactured in December 1998.

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

Xubuntu. It's modern and it runs well with 64 MB of RAM (although 128 is recommended).

hjort
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:08 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Post by hjort »

NT 4 Workstation, or Windows 95 OSR 2.1 if you need DirectX
My gaming machine: AST Advantage 6066d. Cyrix 66MHz 486DX. 4MB RAM. 512KB Cirrus Logic onboard graphics. Creativa Vibra 16 ISA. 520MB HDD, 3.5" FDD, 40x CD-ROM. MS-DOS 6.22/Windows 3.1

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

OS/2 Warp 4 (you need updated install disks for HDs larger than 4GB) or 4.5. That should run very well on the system.

moonlit
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Post by moonlit »

hjort wrote:NT 4 Workstation, or Windows 95 OSR 2.1 if you need DirectX
Though I'm pretty sure there's a version of DX5 floating around for NT4 somewhere.

hjort
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:08 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Post by hjort »

moonlit wrote:
hjort wrote:NT 4 Workstation, or Windows 95 OSR 2.1 if you need DirectX
Though I'm pretty sure there's a version of DX5 floating around for NT4 somewhere.
There is. But Windows 95 supports up to DirectX 8.0a
My gaming machine: AST Advantage 6066d. Cyrix 66MHz 486DX. 4MB RAM. 512KB Cirrus Logic onboard graphics. Creativa Vibra 16 ISA. 520MB HDD, 3.5" FDD, 40x CD-ROM. MS-DOS 6.22/Windows 3.1

betaluva
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:21 am
Location: Australia

Post by betaluva »

yeah that sounds like the most useable os, windows 98se+internet explorer 6.0+directx 8.0+windows mediaplayer 9.0

happy dude
Donator
Posts: 2461
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Post by happy dude »

NT4 WS. Up the ram if possible

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

betaluva wrote:yeah that sounds like the most useable os, windows 98se+internet explorer 6.0+directx 8.0+windows mediaplayer 9.0
Windows 98 SE supports up to DirectX 9.0c.

512dev

Post by 512dev »

If you're going to be using the PC regularly or for anything with any importance to it, I *highly* recommend staying AWAY from any kind if Windows beta or ReactOS.

NT4 would probably be your best bet at this point. If you are able to bump it up to 128MB of RAM, I would give 2000 a try. Hell, I've ran 2000 on 64MB before, and it's possible -- you just need to be careful of what you're loading it up with. If you aren't, it *will* slow down to a crawl within a month.

Hope that's somewhat helpful to you.

-512

moonlit
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Post by moonlit »

512dev wrote:If you're going to be using the PC regularly or for anything with any importance to it, I *highly* recommend staying AWAY from any kind if Windows beta or ReactOS.

NT4 would probably be your best bet at this point. If you are able to bump it up to 128MB of RAM, I would give 2000 a try. Hell, I've ran 2000 on 64MB before, and it's possible -- you just need to be careful of what you're loading it up with. If you aren't, it *will* slow down to a crawl within a month.

Hope that's somewhat helpful to you.

-512
Second that, I had a 233MHz/160MB/4GB laptop a few months back and despite the low specs 2000 ran like a dream. Works a treat, compatible with most new-ish software and solid as a rock.

os2fan2
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Contact:

Post by os2fan2 »

NT4 and earlier run quite well, as does OS/2 (any version). USB support is somewhat patchy.

There are fixes for NT4 and NT3 that will allow them to install on a large hard drive. I had NT3 on a 32 GB disk, using the patches at bearwin. NT4 also can be made to support USB.

You could even use a Windows 9x like OS. I got 98SE to run in under 16 MB ram. (hint, use 98lite to remove IE, and install IE 6.)

DOS / Windows 3.11 work well, if you set PageOverCommit to something like 2.

ewan275
FTP Access
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: UK, Home of RISCOS

Post by ewan275 »

If you want a laugh use Windows ME

Also the Windows NT WS4 will support large had drives with a free download from MS called post SP6 security rollup, intall this and you will be sorted
Image

Chicago
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:47 am
Location: $HOME

Post by Chicago »

With 64 Megs In RAM i would recommend Windows Me or 98
You may try Neptune, but it needs 128 megs in mem at least
If not it's a bit slow. i'd consider ugprading memory for cheap.

I use a computer mostly with the same specs for internet TV, and It;s great!!
I've been using Neptune w/160 mgs in RAM, 333 mhz and 3.2 gigs on hdd.
Greetings!

longview
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Post by longview »

Jumping on the Linux bandwagon, if you're going to do anything desktop on it install Linux and use a small light DE, stay away from KDE and GNOME.
I'd probably turn it into a firewall of some sort.

Comedy option: OPENSTEP 4.2, it's on the server and should run perfectly on that hardware.
Let's sperg about hardware
E6410 - i5-560m, 8GB, WXGA+, NVS 3100M, Samsung SSD 830 128GB, WWAN, 9-cell, E-Port Plus Replicator
Desktop - i5-2500k (4.3 GHz TB), 8 GB, HD6950 2GB, 2x24" 1080p, Samsung SSD 830 128GB + 2 TB stripe, Xonar D2X

edwild22

Post by edwild22 »

If you have Neptune, I would suggest that, but otherwise linux or Win 98.

mdogg
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 954
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am
Location: My house

Post by mdogg »

I don't think Neptune would be stable enough to be a full time OS. Windows 2000 would probably be a better solution over Neptune.
Image

edwild22

Post by edwild22 »

Oh yeah i guess your right. I just suggested it because it would use less resources. but yah I totally forgot about its bugs.

Chicago
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:47 am
Location: $HOME

Post by Chicago »

mdogg wrote:I don't think Neptune would be stable enough to be a full time OS. Windows 2000 would probably be a better solution over Neptune.
Hi!
I agree, but, only with a memory upgrade. Nor Neptune nor 2000 work smoothly with 64 megs. I used a 2000 machine w 64 megs for more than 1 yr and believe me, It's no good.

BTW, i dunno if it's only my computer, but neptune has problems with flash drives.

Have a nice day!

Post Reply