1

Hi all,

I have a little problem, I can't choose which OS I'll be using for my pc. Do you have any good experiences with any OS for personal use?

specs:
Intel P4 2 Ghz.
128 MB. Ram
2 Gb. Root drive
20 Gb. logical drive

22
Contributors
27
Replies
28
Views
13 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Ancient Dragon
0

If that personal use includes PC gaming, then Windows XP is really the only sensible choice. There ar some older games which won't function with it, but most can be made to run one way or another. The stability of Windows XP exceeds that of any other version.

If that personal use involves only applications use, then Windows XP, Windows 2000 or a Linux distribution are all viable options, depending on the applications you wish to use, and your prior experience with them.


Windows 98 is no longer a truly 'desirable' OS to use for any purpose.

1

Catweazle is definitely correct, but you also need to state your specific needs, and the things you do on the computer that would determine which OS to use.

1

I have a little problem, I can't choose which OS I'll be using for my pc. Do you have any good experiences with any OS for personal use?

128 MB Ram
2 GB Root drive
20 GB logical drive

You need more RAM, at least 256 MB, better still 512 MB. You also need a bigger hard drive. 2 GB is too small for any modern OS. This is true no matter which OS you get.

0

You would be able to get away with a linux system. You'd be able to use a GUI (graphical environment) but most likely not KDE or Gnome but rather just a lightweight window manager.

0

Do what, looking for unsecure systems?
(if you want to buy some software off Ebay I can provide links to secure(Trial)OS's and the likes.) ;)

AROS
http://www.aros.org/download.php
Need a GUI for DOS?
http://sealsystem.sourceforge.net/
Free Unix
http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/
BSD
http://www.bsd.org/
http://www.freebsd.org/
http://www.openbsd.org/
http://www.netbsd.org/
http://www.daemonnews.org/

Ripped
http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/Cpm/software/index.html
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
http://www.kc85.de/download.html
http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-cd
http://erika.sssup.it/download.shtml
http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/getstart.html
http://elks.sourceforge.net/download/
http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/fiasco/download.html
http://www.eros-os.org/project/build.html
ftp://freevms.nvg.org/pub/vms/freevms/
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.IS...ok/mirrors.html
http://www.freedos.org/freedos/files
http://www.menuetos.org/download.htm
http://www.cs.vu.nl/pub/minix/
http://www.netbsd.org/Releases/
http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/native/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/crux/
http://www.openbsd.org/ftp.html
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/download.html
http://www.poweros.de/download.html
http://www.qnx.com/eval/
http://www.reactos.com/index.php?ta...section=reactos
http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/get.html
http://www.v2os.cx/
http://vsta.sourceforge.net/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/winmac
http://yamit.sourceforge.net/download.html
http://meos.sourceforge.net/index2.htm
http://www.menuetos.org/
http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/
http://www.eros-os.org/
http://www.atari.org/
http://www.amiga.org/modules/news/
http://www.beosjournal.org/
http://www.bebits.com/
http://www.openbeos.org/
http://www.yellowtab.com/
http://www.petros-project.com/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
http://www.software.ibm.com/os/warp/
http://www.neuconcept.com/thepage/
http://www.qnx.com/
http://www.montagar.com/~patj/freevms.htm
http://www.osdev.org/
http://www.osnews.com/
http://tunes.org/Review/OSes.html
http://www.osnews.com/phorum/
http://cio-today.newsfactor.com/
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/bridges/oses.html
http://tunes.org/Review/OSes.html

DOS
http://www.phystechsoft.com/en/index.html
http://www.freedos.org/
http://www.rdos.net/rdos/index.htm

http://www.winehq.com/
http://www.litepc.com/
http://www.reactos.com/

0

Your really at a loss with so little Storage and Memory, your not going to be able to do much on any os besides dos with that little.

0

Thanks everybody for the responses, especially the links. It's true that I will need more Ram for my computer. It's for gaming and the like and I forgot to say it's for standalone. I'm sorry about that, my mistake.

Windows XP, yes I could use that, but because my computer is relatively weak, I have therefore old games. Could I perhaps make a dual boot system?

Linux, I'll need to learn all the commands before I could use this :) no prob. I didn't know that Linux had a GUI, oh well I'll see what I can do with it.

1

With that spec i would sujest windows 98 SE as you would probably want games/office etc, and an OS that won't use up ALL of your reasources, but seriously with that spec,you need to upgrade. otherwise you will struggle to run anthing modern inc office 2k

0

Yes, you can dual boot.

Use FDISK to make a partition of around 3 to 4 Gig, format it FAT32 and load on Windows 98. That should be enough room for your old games.

Boot from a Windows XP CD after you've finished setting up Win 98, create a partition in the remaining unpartitioned space, and install Windows XP to it using NTFS file system for preference. The Windows XP install will create the dual-boot for you in the process, as long as you've got Win 98 installed first.


And add more RAM. 128Mb isn't really even enough for Win98, and 384Mb is a minimum for Windows XP to run well. If your PC has a reasonable display card, then your processor is fine, and you'd really only need RAM and perhaps extra hard drive space.

0

xp can run all games you want to play on it. cause xp has an option that lets you run different software under different modes. like say win98 mode, win2k mode, win95 mode and even dos mode if i remember correctly its been awhile since i have used xp but i believe its pretty easy to do. but for xp you best to have atleast 256Mb ram perferably 512 but 256 would be fine. :) hope this helps

0

I'm afraid that's not quite right.

Windows XP will operate most games, either with compatibility mode or with the use of official or unofficial 'patches' for the games, but it will not run all of them, unfortunately.

0

Thanks again for the responses, I have made the dual boot. It needs a lot of Virtual Mem to work though. But at the moment it's only slowing down the start-up. The games are working fine in W98, so no problem there :)

In WinXP, I found that compatibility mode your talking about. It's in the Fast-Menu------->properties and then on the tab compatibility. It works on 2 out of 5 games so far. But I haven't tried win9x/Me modes yet. But perhaps they'll work in those.

Indeed as all of you are saying, what is needed is an upgrade of the Ram and I think I'll go on 512 MB. DDR SDRAM. It says in the motherboard manual that it'll work.

It's an big improvement; I have now 2 GB's left on C: and 14 GB's on the D: drive!

All, thank you for the support, You've been a great help.

0

I use WinXP Pro for everything. I code ASP/SQL and run IIS and MSSQL Server on my computer during the day, then when i need a break i play a bunch of online games. Some really old and some new. I even play some old Win 95 and 98 games sometimes, they all run fine.

The only time it crashes is when i create some bad code when im working (OOPS!), hehe :rolleyes:

I have used just about every OS (including linux) except for Windows 2003 (even though i have it). So far i love Win XP Pro the most. It might be a little big, but i think its worth it. :)

1

Install Freebsd with the kind of resources you mentioned that is the best. Next best option is Linux.
Both these have it own set of games.
I am not game expert but you do have stuff like doom on Linux.

Regards
Amar

1

Install Freebsd with the kind of resources you mentioned that is the best. Next best option is Linux.
Both these have it own set of games.
I am not game expert but you do have stuff like doom on Linux.

Regards
Amar

I think they have doom on linux, i'm not sure... But I think I've played with it when i was fooling around on my college's linux system... but that was ages ago...

1

Windows XP is going to be the easiest choice to run with. You can for linux if you are more advanced but it is less compatible with some hardware/software etc.

0

I use WinXP Pro for everything. I code ASP/SQL and run IIS and MSSQL Server on my computer during the day, then when i need a break i play a bunch of online games. Some really old and some new. I even play some old Win 95 and 98 games sometimes, they all run fine.

The only time it crashes is when i create some bad code when im working (OOPS!), hehe :rolleyes:

I have used just about every OS (including linux) except for Windows 2003 (even though i have it). So far i love Win XP Pro the most. It might be a little big, but i think its worth it. :)

Any particular reason for not liking Linux? I am a great Fan of Linux as OS and I like it the most.

0

Windows XP would be a better choice.. I would like to choose the vista for you but you only have 128 RAM..

-1

u install windows 98 it is the perfect OS for ur desktop....
bye tc..

Votes + Comments
Useless and out of date muck racking.
0

I think there is no one clear best OS, each does have its advantages and disadvantages, and different people will be best using different ones. Microsoft Windows is the most common OS and is a reasonable choice for most people.

0

Hi all,

I have a little problem, I can't choose which OS I'll be using for my pc. Do you have any good experiences with any OS for personal use?

specs:
Intel P4 2 Ghz.
128 MB. Ram
2 Gb. Root drive
20 Gb. logical drive

If you are able to pour a little money into the situation, you can probably find a used computer for $40 that is more capable than the one that you've listed. IF there are enough slots and if the motherboard on that system is capable enough, replacing the RAM would be a great step. Replacing or adding a disk would be another great step.

A place like Tiger Direct or NewEgg is a good place to find both inexpensive systems and replacement parts. I got an HP desktop a few years ago with a 2.7 GHz processor and a GB of RAM. I replaced the disk and the CD/DVD unit with inexpensive replacement parts from either Tiger Direct, NewEgg, or some other online retailer, had the parts at my house in a few days for under $100, and I still have that system.

I've bought two or three other systems, none of them new, and I've gotten good mileage out of them, and not one of them was over $500, in fact, most were around half that. With anywhere from a $40 to a $100 investment, I've fixed up a couple of them.

Getting a bare bones kit is not a bad idea either. Tiger Direct sells those all the time. I'm not saying you have to go with them; they are just a common example that I see, where you can get really powerful desktop systems for $2-300 and you can get parts for $40-100 that can really juice up older systems.

Try one or both of those approaches and there will be a lot more stuff that will work on your more powerful system.

Personally, I happen to be a Linux desktop fan. Don't automatically go to a Linux system, but if you are open to taking a completely different approach to what you are doing, take it into consideration as you revamp what you have. One very good scenario is to install a Linux system and then install virtualization software, such as Virtualbox OSE, then you can run Windows from Linux. You can go the other way, too, run Linux systems in a Virtualbox OSE installed on a Windows system. Don't rule either of these out, but don't automatically do that either. Do a bit of homework first and decide what works best for your own needs and interests.

Good luck with your research and your decision!

0

i think dual booting can consume memory,.
correct me if i'm wrong.

Using either a virtualization or emulation solution, yes, these are definitely memory consumers. In fact, if you have less than 1 GB of available memory, it is not even worth looking into virtualization, because you need 512 MB or more just to run a decent OS, either natively or virtually, so that is only a viable approach if you significantly upgrade both memory and disk resources. I recommend that only if an investment can be made in upgrading hardware or purchasing alternative inexpensive hardware (new, used, or refurbished).

Merely dual booting or multi-booting does not incur any memory penalty whatsoever, however. Having more than one operating system on the same hardware consumes disk space, but it only consumes additional memory resources if you are attempting to concurrently run more than one operating system at the same time using Virtualbox OSE, VMware, KVM as hypervisors, or something like QEMU or WINE to emulate or run another OS from within the OS you are currently using.

0

Gotta say XP - if for nothing else just for compatibility with most of the software out there. I( haven't run into any major problems with Vista yet but you're going to need a lot more memory than what you have. XP will barely make it with that amount.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.