Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    230
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Winows 98, still a good choice?

    I have a slow pc, pentium3 600Mhz, 128MB ram and 40GB hard disk.
    it's really slow and i felt this change when i switched to windows xp.
    so will switching back to windows 98 be a good choice?
    *aside of course from upgrading the pc

  • #2
    Senior Coder JamieR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,161
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Yeah it would, however on a lot of older PCs like that with limited RAM I tend to install Windows 2000 Professional - its solid, reliable and doesn't need as much RAM as XP does.

  • #3
    Regular Coder kewlceo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California, US
    Posts
    484
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Going online under Win98 is about as safe as leaving your doors unlocked and wide open while you go on vacation. I agree with weazel. Windows 2000 is the better choice by far.
    UBERHOST.NET
    Shared, reseller, semidedicated hosting and dedicated server plans.
    DirectAdmin Installatron Money-Back Guarantee 24/7 Support
    Providing "Service Above All Else" since 2005.

  • #4
    Senior Coder JamieR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,161
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    I only say Win 2k because it's more reliable, a lot more stable, faster and more secure than Windows 98. You still need all the standard security stuff -anti virus, firewall etc..you'd be mad to go online without them nowadays.

    J.

  • #5
    Rockstar Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,074
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 328 Times in 324 Posts
    I'd also recommend Windows 2000, its much better in terms of stability than 98 and should run decently on that machine.
    OracleGuy

  • #6
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,340
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts
    I would recommend a Linux distribution since there isn't much you can't do there that you could with windows and you don't always need the power that Windows bloat needs.

  • #7
    Supreme Overlord Spookster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Marion, IA USA
    Posts
    6,273
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 83 Times in 82 Posts
    Redhat Fedora would run great on that. Linux is not a resource hog like MS Windows.
    Spookster
    CodingForums Supreme Overlord
    All Hail Spookster

  • #8
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    230
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    i don't have win2000, can winME be a good substitute?

  • #9
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    AggieLand
    Posts
    40
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ken_shoti
    I have a slow pc, pentium3 600Mhz, 128MB ram and 40GB hard disk.
    [...]
    I am a spoiled little brat.

    I think switching to Linux or Redhat would be alittle too intimidating given our friends level of computer geekery. Heck, I've not even done it even though I ha... erm... dislike M$.

  • #10
    raf
    raf is offline
    Master Coder
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,589
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ken_shoti
    i don't have win2000, can winME be a good substitute?
    winME is not a substitue for win2k.
    winME is kind of the upgrade for the win9x versions, while win2k was the upgrade for the winNT versions.

    if you need to choose between win98 and winME, then i'd pick winME.
    but if at all possible, get yourself a win2k.
    Posting guidelines I use to see if I will spend time to answer your question : http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

  • #11
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    230
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    thnx for your responses, no choice but still have to use win98, no available cd of win2k or me. thnx for your advices, perhaps for my future installations!

  • #12
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ken_shoti
    I have a slow pc, pentium3 600Mhz, 128MB ram and 40GB hard disk.
    it's really slow and i felt this change when i switched to windows xp.
    so will switching back to windows 98 be a good choice?
    *aside of course from upgrading the pc
    Just for future reference, it was slow because the minimum "requirements"* for windows XP are not met by your machine. I believe it's like 700mhz, and I KNOW it's 256mb of ram.

    Also for future reference, Windows Vista which comes out in the next year or so requires 1.4ghz and 512mb of ram.

    *(not really requirements if you can still run it, more like recommendedations)

  • #13
    Rockstar Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,074
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 328 Times in 324 Posts
    No, the requirements for XP are much lower than that. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...n/sysreqs.mspx

    However I'd definetly say that between the CPU and the memory, the low ammount is what is slowing the computer down. For XP I wouldn't run it below 256 if all possible.
    OracleGuy

  • #14
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by oracleguy
    No, the requirements for XP are much lower than that. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...n/sysreqs.mspx

    However I'd definetly say that between the CPU and the memory, the low ammount is what is slowing the computer down. For XP I wouldn't run it below 256 if all possible.
    "It will run with even 64mb of ram, but it's definately not desired."-that's weird. On the Box I have for windows XP home it says minimum required: 256mb. Which is interesting. Maybe microsoft changed their minds....

  • #15
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    windows xp will work all right on that p.c.

    i have windows xp installed on a
    pII 400mz
    192mb ram
    40g hdd

    starts up in about 2min
    needed to configger it a bit

    b/f i configgered it, it started up in about 5 min


  •  
    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

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