Best Windows OS for my 900mhz processor? - Page 2 - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio

RedLeader · 08-21-2007, 03:36 PM

wanderman xp or 2K

wanderman · 08-21-2007, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by augustwest

I don't think any increased functionality that you would gain from WIN XP, would be worth the increased drain on system resources.

- augustwest

that, is why one uses nlite to strip many of the items in xp that cause it to hog resources. With nlite win xp can take less ram, less space, and run faster then 2000. You can even use nlite with 2000 so everything will be alot leaner.

edit: I have a p2 400mhz running xp like a champ lol.

ziplock · 08-21-2007, 04:11 PM

A streamlined version of Win2K will run like a rocket. Regardless of OS, keep it clean! Any extra junk or more than necessary start up programs will bring that box to a crawl. Don't bog it down with anti virus apps like norton, use online scanners which are free and do just as good a job.

~Zip

socrates63 · 08-21-2007, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by skudmunky

I've got Windows 2000 running on my T21 with 800mhz P3 and 128 megs of ram. Runs fine.

Win2000 is a good way to go. I've ran it very well on a desktop Pentium 3 600MHz with 256MB RAM for years.

The stripped down XP that others have mentioned sounds promising as well.

If you could run either of these two, I'd do it because they are much more robust and stable than Win9x.

Davesrose · 08-21-2007, 04:40 PM

I also vote Win2k. I had it for years before upgrading to XP. I still don't see any real advantage with XP over Win2k, either then eye candy. And on an old computer, you'd just be met with slowdowns using XP. I'm just holding out for Vista to have some service packs so I can get 64bit memory optimizations, and improved multi-threading.

dan1son · 08-21-2007, 10:50 PM

256 is plenty for win2k or win98se as long as you don't install a new anti-virus application on it. Norton for example has a footprint of 50-100MB when running in the background. The problem with that is having no anti-virus and anti-spyware apps running puts you more at risk especially kids since they're not as experienced on the net to know what might not be safe.

The key to running a machine with that small of memory is running older apps and not very many background apps. Things like AIM, Weatherbug, Microsoft Messenger, pda sync apps, etc. all use memory and the newer versions all use more than the older ones. Once you have enough stuff running that you fill up the memory and start using virtual memory everything will slow down to a halt. The machine will remain quite snappy if you never use swap space.

I'd recommend going on eBay and putting as much memory in that thing as you can get... or ask some friends with old machines and see if you can get some that works in that machine. Older memory costs quite a bit at stores, but should be very cheap in the used world. Don't put more than $20 into the box, but I'd go for 512meg or more if you plan on running anti-virus.

Mrvile · 08-21-2007, 10:52 PM

I wish comps still ran Window 98. It was so simple, easy to use, and easy on the computers. It is by far my favorite Windows OS that I've had experience with.

catachresis · 08-21-2007, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by fordgtlover

Win98se

Double that -- 98se is a terrific low-cal Win OS. You might be able to put on win2000 as well (if you did, you'd have far fewer problems dealing with driver issues). You could put on Win XP, but besides the bloat, all you get is that lovely colourful GUI (;p).

Mrvile · 08-21-2007, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by chadbang

It's really my kids game computer.

I just noticed this. How does your kid play games on a 900mhz computer?

chadbang · 08-22-2007, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Mrvile

I just noticed this. How does your kid play games on a 900mhz computer?

We're talking Winnie the Pooh Fisher Price games, I think they're basically Flash driven. Sounds like W2k is the preferred choice. Thanks, guys!