Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Best OS for a "junk" machine?

  1. #11
    Old-Fogey:Addicts founder Terr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,007
    I think "Guest" might be a bit too harsh--you'll get more complaints of "it won't let me do X" than it's worth.
    [HvC]Terr: L33T Technical Proficiency

  2. #12
    Senior Member alakhiyar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Land of Oryx
    Posts
    255
    Good ideas. I'll take those suggestions to heart.

    I do not think any of them will be installing much software by themselves either to begin with as both have barely seen a PC in action.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  3. #13
    take the delete key off the keyboard they use

  4. #14
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,188
    Well, I generally use WIN98SE.............but not on kit as modern as you describe

    I would go Win 2000................. it is nice and stable and possibly cheaper than XP?


  5. #15
    Senior Member alakhiyar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Land of Oryx
    Posts
    255
    The first machine has been delivered, but since the box is surrounded by concrete, net access is spotty to say the least. I am currently teaching the user how to use a mouse and keyboard so there is quite a way to go before the user will be thinking about apps and speed
    An ISP is coming over later to check things out and when the net connection is fixed, the real teaching will begin
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  6. #16
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,188
    Hah!

    That is why I like Windows98SE............. you can harden it to suit yourself, and it does not open very much by default

    I like Win2000 because it is stable and does the job with far less resource requirements than XP.

    You do seem to be talking a stand alone scenario here?

  7. #17
    Senior Member alakhiyar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Land of Oryx
    Posts
    255
    Yeah, its for this machine I usually hand out the "crap" hardware to people who do not have computers but they usually know what to do with them too. This time, i got a few people that have no clue.

    I ended up with Windows 2000 for that machine though in the end as XP really did not like the motherboard i think.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  8. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5
    My opinion is XP
    I had experiance i used xp alot on several types of machines
    you need a 198mb min to run well

  9. #19
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,188
    This is an XP box and is currently using about 520Mb of RAM.................I generally wouldn't like to put XP on anything less than 512Mb. My experience is that all Windows versions are more susceptible to available RAM amounts than processor speed.

    Windows XP is rather like Win ME, it likes more RAM than NT4 or Win2000. They will work pretty well on 256 or 384Mb.

    Another problem with XP is it sometimes won't play nice with old equipment and peripherals.

    I know the minimum recommendation is 128MB and a 233MHz processor, but that does not give a particularly good experience, particularly if the user has had something like Win98SE on decent kit beforehand.

    Windows XP is a very good operating system, so I don't like giving it to people on kit that does not show it as such

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    620
    Windows 3.1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •