Help
Have you checked out Linux as an alternative?
Although Windows is the best solution for ensuring compatability, Linux is more robust in both performance and stability.
There are distributions available that offer native compatability with Windows compiled applications, such as SuSe, and for other distributions you can install Wine and run Windows applications on top of the Linux kernel.
For every retail Windows based application, there are at least two freeware or Gnu-licensed applications that perform on par with it's Windows counterpart. A good example of this is Open Office, which entirely replaces Microsoft Office for free.
Gaming on Linux, however, is a complicated matter. Either you have games that natively and soley render in DirectX(like most Microsoft games do) or they are compiled to be specifically run under Windows.
While a lot of games, such as IdSoft's entire line of games, have Linux ports, most games primarily use DirectX as the default renderer. You shouldn't have a problem if you're playing any Valve games that use the HalfLife engine, any IDsoft games, or any of the Unreal series.
If all else fails, wrap it. http://www.v3x.net/directx/
Page 1 of 1
Best OS for my new (older) Lappy
#4
teqguy 
- stranger
- Group: Members
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 02-September 04
Posted 03 September 2004 - 08:13 AM
He already posted the specs, but my post somehow overwrote it.
I believe he had an 850mhz PIII with 128mb of ram.
Pr-man... there are more solutions to consider than just 2k/XP, as I demonstrated with my post. Unless you have a specific application in mind that only runs on Windows, I suggest taking a look at Linux.
Unlike Windows, you don't have to install the OS to get the taste of it, because there are LiveCDs available. Check out Knoppix.
I believe he had an 850mhz PIII with 128mb of ram.
Pr-man... there are more solutions to consider than just 2k/XP, as I demonstrated with my post. Unless you have a specific application in mind that only runs on Windows, I suggest taking a look at Linux.
Unlike Windows, you don't have to install the OS to get the taste of it, because there are LiveCDs available. Check out Knoppix.
#5
adamvjackson
- Pooh-Bah
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: 26-August 02
Posted 03 September 2004 - 03:56 PM
With 128MB of RAM, Windows 2000 would be the better choice. Above that, XP would be fine.
Linux is a great alternative, but recently with KDE 3.x and Gnome 2.x window managers, they seem to have pretty heavy system requirements for all the nice features. I'm sure there are ways to tune performance by disabling some of the new features, but I don't know how to do that just yet.
Linux is a great alternative, but recently with KDE 3.x and Gnome 2.x window managers, they seem to have pretty heavy system requirements for all the nice features. I'm sure there are ways to tune performance by disabling some of the new features, but I don't know how to do that just yet.
#6
Jerry Atrik
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 694
- Joined: 10-June 02
Posted 03 September 2004 - 04:29 PM
i put xp sp2 on my wifes lappy, which is a p3 600 /w 256meg
it runs merrily along
it runs merrily along
#7
Charnel
- stranger
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 21-August 04
Posted 03 September 2004 - 04:46 PM
More than just a couple people would put a bullet in my brain for saying this... but.. ME! I know I know, it sucks, it's unstable.. but not if you configure it properly. If you spend a few weeks fine tuning it, POSSIBLY underclocking your computer by just a FEW Mhz, it can be pretty stable... and have a bit less load than the newer windows. Besides... the task manager kicks the shit one they have in win XP now, anyways 
. It's a lot harder for someone to hack you on, and lets you have more input as to what's going on... not so much crap the computer does on it's own without you wanting it to. Now, this next bit I haven't confirmed, but have heard by a lot of people... that windows ME itself only allocates 64 megs of RAM. Yes, you can have more, but that surplus is used for games or other programs.
. It's a lot harder for someone to hack you on, and lets you have more input as to what's going on... not so much crap the computer does on it's own without you wanting it to. Now, this next bit I haven't confirmed, but have heard by a lot of people... that windows ME itself only allocates 64 megs of RAM. Yes, you can have more, but that surplus is used for games or other programs.
#8
adamvjackson
- Pooh-Bah
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: 26-August 02
Posted 03 September 2004 - 09:27 PM
In my honest opinion, Windows ME should use approximately the same amount of "resources" as Windows 2000, but using Windows 2000 will provide you with a much more stable platform and kernel, as well as a much, much more secure (by default) operating system.
Please don't think I am flaming you at all, Charnel, just stating my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions!
Please don't think I am flaming you at all, Charnel, just stating my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions!
#11
zen69x
- member
- Group: Members
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 26-March 02
Posted 04 September 2004 - 10:33 AM
OK, but you still haven't answered what it is you want to do with it. IMHO if you don't define what you want out of it, it is pretty much impossible to give you a good recommendation as to what you should put on it.
#13
ScinteX
- enthusiast
- Group: Members
- Posts: 317
- Joined: 23-August 04
Posted 04 September 2004 - 11:59 PM
yep win2k sounds about right. Lighter than XP plus the stability of NT.
XP (as in, XP SP1a, not SP2;)) can be reasonably responsive- I have turned off every "feature" that I can.
It only uses 118Mb of RAM initially. However i am sure with a good bit of tweaking you can get Win2k running great on your specs.
XP (as in, XP SP1a, not SP2;)) can be reasonably responsive- I have turned off every "feature" that I can.
It only uses 118Mb of RAM initially. However i am sure with a good bit of tweaking you can get Win2k running great on your specs.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1