Best OS for my new (older) Lappy

[teqguy 0]

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/

 

[pr-man 1]

cmon guys 3 votes? help me out here

[zen69x 0]

What are the specs of the laptop and what are you planning on doing with it?

[teqguy 0]

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.

[adamvjackson 0]

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.

[Jerry Atrik 0]

i put xp sp2 on my wifes lappy, which is a p3 600 /w 256meg

it runs merrily along

[Charnel 0]

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.

[adamvjackson 0]

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!

[zen69x 0]

I actually tried Win2k and WinMe on an older PC, P200 w/ 96MB of RAM. Neither ran really well on it, but other than bootup time, Win2k seemed the better performer.

[pr-man 1]

its a p3 850 with 380 megs of ram and a 40 gig hd

 

im also trying to find the best drivers for the POS S3 Savage IX MV 16 meg it has on it

[zen69x 0]

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.

[pr-man 1]

well somehow my firts post with that info got overwritten but i will using it for older gaming, internet and playing dvds

[ScinteX 0]

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.