Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Thu 03-28-2024 5:11AM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Which OS?
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 12:03PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09-25-2003 8:14PM
Posts: 2314

Source: TJ North
I'm going to get my old computer working and give it to my sister. Her crappy old Compaq is very outdated and is on its way out...my old Dell is only somewhat outdated and still works fine.

So....what would be a good OS for it? I don't think it would run WinXP very well, the specs are 10gig HD, 600mHz Celeron, and 128mb RAM. It had WinME on it originally and i still have the install disks, however i really don't want to put that horrible system back on it. I'm thinking maybe Win98, and there is a copy on Seek....any thoughts?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 12:09PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 9:58PM
Posts: 1517

Source: Alpha Epsilon Pi
128MB of RAM is fine for Windows XP.

_________________
"Nor ought we to believe that there is much difference between man and man, but to think that the superiority lies with him who is reared in the severest school."
-- Thucydides


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 12:37PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Wed 08-25-2004 8:55PM
Posts: 2969

Source: TJ South
Swirls wrote:
128MB of RAM is fine for Windows XP.


no, I've used XP with 256 megs of RAM on my Athlon 2500 Barton system and it was getting unbearable until I upgraded.

I would suggest Windows 2000, it would probably run pretty well


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 12:47PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sat 10-18-2003 10:26PM
Posts: 2954
Location: Stone's throw from Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs

Source: Farrar Hall
I agree. Win2k would be a good bet.

_________________
It's still UMR to me, dammit.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 1:08PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri 04-23-2004 7:01PM
Posts: 486
Location: rolla

Source: Off Campus
98... excellent choice. with those specs, it's be fast & reliable.

why make it slower using a newer/bigger os that doesn't add anything important?

_________________
i post my computer specs here
so people will know i'm cool


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 1:12PM 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Sat 03-09-2002 12:57PM
Posts: 2026

Source: Sigma Nu
98SE.... it won't crash as much as XP (i have better luck with 98), won't require any upgrades and isn't as prone to virus attacks


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 1:37PM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Tue 03-18-2003 6:44PM
Posts: 747

Source: VPN
nsrbb5: your system is fucked up if it is more stable in 98se than winxp. it isnt as prone to virus attacks because its neworking support sucks.

win98, win2k, and winxp should all run ok. win98 sucks compared to the other 2 though. dont throw winxp out because you think its too bloated, if you turn down/off a few settings itll be just as fast as win2k but with better hardware support out of the box. that said, win2k would be great on that system.

again, nrsbb5: you are an asshat for recommending 98 over 2k/xp for stability reasons. i had a pc running winxp catch fire once, but i REALLY dont think that had much to do with the OS. so when i see someone recommend winxp, i dont say "i've had that catch computers on fire, you shouldnt use it" because thats fucking ridiculous.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 3:31PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue 03-09-2004 9:50PM
Posts: 312

Source: TJ North
Yea go with 2K, you get most of the features and it uses about half as many resources as xp.

_________________
"Have regard for your name, for it will remain longer than a great store of gold."
-Ecclesiasticus

"When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends."
-Japanese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 3:35PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09-25-2003 8:14PM
Posts: 2314

Source: TJ North
Thanks.....2k it is then, and of course its on Seek :D


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 4:01PM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Tue 03-18-2003 6:44PM
Posts: 747

Source: VPN
FuzzyLogic wrote:
Yea go with 2K, you get most of the features and it uses about half as many resources as xp.
half the resources? come on, win2k is good, but not that good


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 4:12PM 


Source: Somewhere
windows 1.0 is the only way to go, it's extremeley stable and takes on 2 floppies


Top
  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue 09-14-2004 4:16PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue 03-09-2004 9:50PM
Posts: 312

Source: TJ North
Yes, about half, no, not exactly half. On all the systems I have installed them on show about half the resources used by the operating system compared to winxp. If you need a little less biased view according to Microsoft WinXp requires 128mb of RAM and 300Mhz cpu. Windows2000 Pro requires 64mb RAM and 133Mhz cpu.

Hell, if you wanna go old school you might as well goto DOS. Now that was a sweet OS. Microsoft did what they do best on that OS, they improved. They didn't create.

_________________
"Have regard for your name, for it will remain longer than a great store of gold."
-Ecclesiasticus

"When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends."
-Japanese Proverb


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 09-15-2004 3:11AM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Tue 03-18-2003 6:44PM
Posts: 747

Source: Fidelity
those "requirements" dont mean much


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 09-17-2004 4:53PM 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Sat 03-09-2002 12:57PM
Posts: 2026

Source: Sigma Nu
Mee wrote:
nsrbb5: your system is fucked up if it is more stable in 98se than winxp. it isnt as prone to virus attacks because its neworking support sucks.


yeah, my system was fucked up. it's crashed 3 times since i've upgraded from ME back in 2001 (one upgrade, two total formats). on the first format, i set up a dualboot with 98. granted, i don't use 98 even 1/4 the time i use XP, i have had experience using xp 'back in the day' and never had a crash (don't get me started on ME, though!)

Mee wrote:
win98, win2k, and winxp should all run ok. win98 sucks compared to the other 2 though. dont throw winxp out because you think its too bloated, if you turn down/off a few settings itll be just as fast as win2k but with better hardware support out of the box. that said, win2k would be great on that system.

again, nrsbb5: you are an asshat for recommending 98 over 2k/xp for stability reasons. i had a pc running winxp catch fire once, but i REALLY dont think that had much to do with the OS. so when i see someone recommend winxp, i dont say "i've had that catch computers on fire, you shouldnt use it" because thats fucking ridiculous.


jeesus assfuck chill the hell out

he asked for a recommendation for a crappy old compaq to give to her sister. i assumed her sister didn't know about or use a computer for much, probably a little music, email word, internet browsing etc. maybe download a movie or two. what do you need XP for that for? 98 will suit her fine, can run any program she'll need and <i>probably</i> won't crash as much as XP. sure, 2000 or xp will run fine if you turn down a few settings, but would you expect someone with a second hand rebuilt computer to find those settings, recognize them and know what to turndown and what not to turn down?

damn what's with these fuckers on these forums who get an opinion other than their's and get all postal on them.

"FUCK YOU YOU ARE RETARDED FOR SUGGESTING THAT" blahb albh ablhbalabh


<i>douche</i>bags


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 09-17-2004 5:36PM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Tue 03-18-2003 6:44PM
Posts: 747

Source: Fidelity
Quote:
98SE.... it won't crash as much as XP"

thats the statement i had a problem with. just because a system is old doesnt mean it needs an old os to be stable.

oh, and my post was SUPPOSED to rile you up. god forbid anyone say anything controversial around here.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group