Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Eeyore, Dec 3, 2008.

  1. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    robb wrote:

    > I have not been keeping up with hardware and OS changes of late
    > (3 yrs... ok 8 yrs) and i was wondering if there is a better OS
    > to install on older hardware.
    >
    > Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz


    98SE will run fine on that. In fact XP would at a push ! You don't state
    your RAM. That REALLY counts. Don't use under 512 M and put the swap
    file on a separate small drive (maybe 2-5GB) you can pick up for
    pennies.

    Graham
    Eeyore, Dec 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eeyore

    tony sayer Guest

    In article <>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrel
    > scribeth thus
    >
    >
    >robb wrote:
    >
    >> I have not been keeping up with hardware and OS changes of late
    >> (3 yrs... ok 8 yrs) and i was wondering if there is a better OS
    >> to install on older hardware.
    >>
    >> Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz

    >
    >98SE will run fine on that. In fact XP would at a push ! You don't state
    >your RAM. That REALLY counts. Don't use under 512 M and put the swap
    >file on a separate small drive (maybe 2-5GB) you can pick up for
    >pennies.
    >
    >Graham
    >


    98SE should now be consigned to the dustbin it was a real dog especially
    for memory leaks. I was glad to see the back of it. WIN 200 was and
    still is a good version unlike that interim ME which like its medical
    namesake is a pox;(...
    --
    Tony Sayer
    tony sayer, Dec 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    tony sayer wrote:

    > Eeyore <> scribeth thus
    > >robb wrote:
    > >
    > >> I have not been keeping up with hardware and OS changes of late
    > >> (3 yrs... ok 8 yrs) and i was wondering if there is a better OS
    > >> to install on older hardware.
    > >>
    > >> Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz

    > >
    > >98SE will run fine on that. In fact XP would at a push ! You don't state
    > >your RAM. That REALLY counts. Don't use under 512 M and put the swap
    > >file on a separate small drive (maybe 2-5GB) you can pick up for
    > >pennies.

    >
    > 98SE should now be consigned to the dustbin it was a real dog especially
    > for memory leaks. I was glad to see the back of it. WIN 200 was and
    > still is a good version unlike that interim ME which like its medical
    > namesake is a pox;(...


    I used 98SE without trouble for many years. Worried about memory leaks ? Get
    cacheman.

    Graham
    Eeyore, Dec 3, 2008
    #3
  4. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    Peter Hucker wrote:

    > Eeyore <> wrote:
    > > robb wrote:
    > >
    > >> I have not been keeping up with hardware and OS changes of late
    > >> (3 yrs... ok 8 yrs) and i was wondering if there is a better OS
    > >> to install on older hardware.
    > >>
    > >> Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz

    > >
    > > 98SE will run fine on that. In fact XP would at a push ! You don't state
    > > your RAM. That REALLY counts. Don't use under 512 M and put the swap
    > > file on a separate small drive (maybe 2-5GB) you can pick up for
    > > pennies.

    >
    > With enough memory, the swapfile is harldy touched.


    You need > 512M for that. 768M on 98SE will probably do it.

    Graham
    Eeyore, Dec 3, 2008
    #4
  5. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    Peter Hucker wrote:

    > Eeyore <> wrote:
    > > tony sayer wrote:
    > >> Eeyore <> scribeth thus
    > >> >robb wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> I have not been keeping up with hardware and OS changes of late
    > >> >> (3 yrs... ok 8 yrs) and i was wondering if there is a better OS
    > >> >> to install on older hardware.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz
    > >> >
    > >> >98SE will run fine on that. In fact XP would at a push ! You don't state
    > >> >your RAM. That REALLY counts. Don't use under 512 M and put the swap
    > >> >file on a separate small drive (maybe 2-5GB) you can pick up for
    > >> >pennies.
    > >>
    > >> 98SE should now be consigned to the dustbin it was a real dog especially
    > >> for memory leaks. I was glad to see the back of it. WIN 200 was and
    > >> still is a good version unlike that interim ME which like its medical
    > >> namesake is a pox;(...

    > >
    > > I used 98SE without trouble for many years. Worried about memory leaks ? Get
    > > cacheman.

    >
    > I've got a leak in XP! After about 3 days, the graphics run at about one tenth of speed (it's a gradual slowdown). Immediately faster on reboot. This is a clean install, and the problem wasn't there in the last install. I had to reinstall after the hard disk was irrecoverably corrupted.


    Which version ?

    This is why I NEVER update anything without damn good reason if it works in the first place.

    Graham
    Eeyore, Dec 3, 2008
    #5
  6. Eeyore

    JeffM Guest

    >robb wrote:
    >>Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz
    >>

    Eeyore wrote:
    >98SE will run fine on that.
    >

    ASSuMEing he can round up all the device drivers.

    Your other suggestion will likely avoid that nuisance.
    (Linux has superior out-of-the-box hardware support.)

    >You don't state your RAM. That REALLY counts.
    >

    Yup.

    >Don't use under 512 M
    >

    If he does go the Win9x route and has beaucoup RAM
    (over 512MB), he'll likely need this trick:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=MaxPhysPage
    JeffM, Dec 4, 2008
    #6
  7. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    Peter Hucker wrote:

    > Eeyore <> wrote:
    > > Peter Hucker wrote:
    > >> Eeyore <> wrote:
    > >> > tony sayer wrote:
    > >> >> Eeyore <> scribeth thus
    > >> >> >robb wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> I have not been keeping up with hardware and OS changes of late
    > >> >> >> (3 yrs... ok 8 yrs) and i was wondering if there is a better OS
    > >> >> >> to install on older hardware.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >98SE will run fine on that. In fact XP would at a push ! You don't state
    > >> >> >your RAM. That REALLY counts. Don't use under 512 M and put the swap
    > >> >> >file on a separate small drive (maybe 2-5GB) you can pick up for
    > >> >> >pennies.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> 98SE should now be consigned to the dustbin it was a real dog especially
    > >> >> for memory leaks. I was glad to see the back of it. WIN 200 was and
    > >> >> still is a good version unlike that interim ME which like its medical
    > >> >> namesake is a pox;(...
    > >> >
    > >> > I used 98SE without trouble for many years. Worried about memory leaks ? Get
    > >> > cacheman.
    > >>
    > >> I've got a leak in XP! After about 3 days, the graphics run at about one tenth of speed (it's a gradual >> slowdown). Immediately faster on reboot. This is a clean install, and the problem wasn't there in the >> last install. I had to reinstall after the hard disk was irrecoverably corrupted.

    > >
    > > Which version ?

    >
    > 32 bit with latest updates.


    SP3 ?


    > I think it's a motherboard problem. One of the onboard disk controllers no longer works, and for 2 months it refused to install anything form the windows update site. I was installing them one at a time manally, until it started working for some reason. I occasionally get a report that a graphics card hasn't got it's extra power connector connected, but this does not coincide with the slowdown, and the power is on the connector at a stable voltage. Besides, I was getting that error before the reinstall (running happily for a year).


    Not a good sign. Get a new mobo before something craps out.


    > > This is why I NEVER update anything without damn good reason if it works in the first place.

    >
    > I find a lot of annoying bugs and crashes disappear with updates.


    I rarely find bugs in anything. NEVER disturb a stable installation ! My neighbour, who can't resist the 'update now' button (despite me doing everything except punching him on the nose for it) is forever in a pickle and then expects me to fix it.

    Graham
    Eeyore, Dec 4, 2008
    #7
  8. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    JeffM wrote:

    > >robb wrote:
    > >>Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz
    > >>

    > Eeyore wrote:
    > >98SE will run fine on that.
    > >

    > ASSuMEing he can round up all the device drivers.


    I never had a problem. He's not running new hardware, note. And there
    are plenty of driver sites. Bar oddball cards he should be OK.


    > Your other suggestion will likely avoid that nuisance.
    > (Linux has superior out-of-the-box hardware support.)
    >
    > >You don't state your RAM. That REALLY counts.
    > >

    > Yup.
    >
    > >Don't use under 512 M
    > >

    > If he does go the Win9x route and has beaucoup RAM
    > (over 512MB), he'll likely need this trick:
    > http://www.google.com/search?q=MaxPhysPage


    Interesting. Not totally dissimilar to other tricks I've used (check
    cacheman) and advanced memory usage in control panel but useful.
    Bookmarked. Thanks.

    Graham
    Eeyore, Dec 4, 2008
    #8
  9. Eeyore

    Jasen Betts Guest

    On 2008-12-03, Peter Hucker <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:22:58 -0000, tony sayer <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrel
    >> > scribeth thus
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>robb wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have not been keeping up with hardware and OS changes of late
    >>>> (3 yrs... ok 8 yrs) and i was wondering if there is a better OS
    >>>> to install on older hardware.
    >>>>
    >>>> Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz
    >>>
    >>>98SE will run fine on that. In fact XP would at a push ! You don't state
    >>>your RAM. That REALLY counts. Don't use under 512 M and put the swap
    >>>file on a separate small drive (maybe 2-5GB) you can pick up for
    >>>pennies.
    >>>
    >>>Graham
    >>>

    >>
    >> 98SE should now be consigned to the dustbin it was a real dog especially
    >> for memory leaks. I was glad to see the back of it. WIN 200 was and
    >> still is a good version unlike that interim ME which like its medical
    >> namesake is a pox;(...

    >
    > ME was pointless. It came out AFTER the superior 2000.


    me was the successor to 98, AFAICT it was supposed to fail

    2000 was the successor to NT 4 (ie NT5) XP is NT6 vista is NT7
    Jasen Betts, Dec 4, 2008
    #9
  10. Eeyore

    JeffM Guest

    robb wrote:
    >I do have 512M RAM in the notebook.
    >

    As was mentioned, device drivers can be hard to come by.
    This is especially true for non-desktops.
    (Outside the Linux realm,) the age of the OS is a factor
    WRT acquiring device drivers. I have seen several reports of
    manufacturers taking down dated driver caches from their sites.

    >I should have stated that i was really looking for an OS
    >other than MS flavors.
    >

    http://www.livecdlist.com/
    If you click on a column heading (and don't have JavaScript disabled),
    it will sort the list for you
    (e.g. tiny exemplars at the top--or behemoths).

    Note to all who have frozentech.com's Live CD List bookmarked:
    Update your link. (It redirects for now.)
    ..
    ..
    Just as WINE is a reverse-engineered set of Windoze APIs
    to let you run Windoze-compatible apps under Linux, this
    http://www.google.com/search?q=ReactOS
    is a re-implementation of a Windoze environment:
    If you're looking for a little adventure, be a beta tester.
    JeffM, Dec 4, 2008
    #10
  11. Eeyore

    - Bobb - Guest

    "robb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Eeyore" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> robb wrote:
    >>
    >> > I have not been keeping up with hardware and OS changes of

    > late
    >> > (3 yrs... ok 8 yrs) and i was wondering if there is a better

    > OS
    >> > to install on older hardware.
    >> >
    >> > Eg Dell inspiron 8100 PIII/866 Mhz

    >>
    >> 98SE will run fine on that. In fact XP would at a push ! You

    > don't state
    >> your RAM. That REALLY counts. Don't use under 512 M and put the

    > swap
    >> file on a separate small drive (maybe 2-5GB) you can pick up

    > for
    >> pennies.
    >>
    >> Graham
    >>

    >
    > Thanks Graham,
    >
    > Thanks for the help.
    >
    > I do have 512M RAM in the notebook.
    >
    > It was given to me with Win-ME loaded but it locks up
    > occasionally/intermittently doing just mundane tasks like
    > installing new software or poping between windows too quickly or
    > moving the mouse too fast. I never realy heard or read anything
    > good about ME and now i have some evidence of OS flaky-ness.
    >
    > I should have stated that i was really looking for an OS other
    > than MS flavors.
    >
    > I mostly cut my computing teeth on **many** early and later unix
    > variants like AT&T Unix PC, SCO, AIX ( i think i have an RS6000
    > around here somewhere) , Apple A/UX, HP-UX, SunOS , Solaris
    > etc.....
    >
    > Some flavor of Linux is a definite consideration.
    >
    > As for interesting i was thinking if something like an
    > experimental OS existed (e.g. Java-OS) or if an MMIX
    > implementation for x86 architecture existed ?
    >
    > anyways thanks for the helpful comments and advice,
    >
    > robb
    >

    Knoppix runs from CD
    - Bobb -, Dec 4, 2008
    #11
  12. Eeyore

    JeffM Guest

    Michael A. Terrell wrote:
    >[...]Microsoft clearly stated that ME would be
    >the last FAT version of Windows.


    I take exception to your use of "FAT".
    NT-based kernels can do FAT12, FAT16, and FAT32.
    **DOS-based** is the prefered term for Win3.x/Win9x.
    JeffM, Dec 5, 2008
    #12
  13. Eeyore

    Jamie Guest

    Peter Hucker wrote:

    > On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:43:45 -0000, Michael A. Terrell <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Peter Hucker wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:00:19 -0000, Michael A. Terrell <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Peter Hucker wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:31:14 -0000, Michael A. Terrell <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Peter Hucker wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:54:02 -0000, Michael A. Terrell <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Peter Hucker wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>But why buy ME when 2000 is available?!?!? It doesn't matter what it's based on, 2000 had everything ME did, and more.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> They were not 100% compatible with each other. ME was the end of the
    >>>>>>>>Win FAT 95 family, while W2K was a stepping stone from early NTFS Win NT
    >>>>>>>>to XP.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> They were intended for different markets. ME was for home use, while
    >>>>>>>>W2K was for business use. Microsoft clearly stated that ME would be the
    >>>>>>>>last FAT version of Windows. W2K was released, because the development
    >>>>>>>>of XP was way behind schedule.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> By your troll logic there was no reason to buy Windows CE, when NT
    >>>>>>>>was availible.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>What on earth are you on about? CE is for pocket computers. It won't install on a desktop.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> What are YOU talking about? CE was used in a lot of embedded
    >>>>>>industrial applications, including some custom built $80,000
    >>>>>>CB-2000/DR-2000 telemetry receivers I shipped to NASA, and other US
    >>>>>>government agencies.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Pocket telemtry recivers presumably. CE is mini windows.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You are about to lose your trolling permit. Windows CE was "Compact
    >>>>Edition' in that it left off all the crap you didn't need for embedded
    >>>>applications. Things like games, handicap accesibility, and IE. It was
    >>>>NT that had been stripped to the bare bones. Its too bad you aren't as
    >>>>smart as you pretend to be. If you were you could work at a fast food
    >>>>place.
    >>>
    >>>In what way is "compact edition" different to "mini windows"? Ergo I was exactly correct.

    >>
    >>
    >> There never was a "mini windows" released by Microsoft, no matter
    >>what you think it should be called. Ergo you were exactly wrong.

    >
    >
    > You don't think compact means mini? Maybe you should buy yourself a dictionary for xmas.
    >
    >
    >>>>>>>2000 will upgrade 98. You don't have to be a business to install it! It lets you play games just as much as 98!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Games? No wonder you're so stupid. Some early Windows 95/98/SE
    >>>>>>software didn't run under any version of NT. the OEM license ME was
    >>>>>>cheaper, per machine, than W2K as well.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>NT I agree, it didn't allow some software (mainly games) to run. But 2000 was not like NT in this respect even though it was based on it.
    >>>>
    >>>> A lot of the custom engineering and production software we used at the
    >>>>company wouldn't run under NT or W2k, so they just kept using Win 95 in
    >>>>those applications.
    >>>
    >>>Badly written programs often won't run in a later OS.

    >>
    >>
    >> They weren't 'badly written'. They were written to the standards of
    >>the day, and for existing harware platforms. Not everything is a
    >>consumer PC. We built custom hardware for multiple platforms, from EISA
    >>to VME/VXI busses.

    >
    >
    > If the programmers stick to the rules laid out by Microsoft, they will run in future versions.
    >
    >

    and that's bull shit, MS$ rules change like my wife's attitude.

    1. $MS can't keep a standard, they are no more innocent than third
    party coders.

    2. At some point, $MS Os will become useless for anything hardware
    serious for real work because it appears that they are pushing towards
    arcade and eye candy to attract those that don't know any better.



    http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"
    Jamie, Dec 8, 2008
    #13
  14. Eeyore

    Jamie Guest

    Peter Hucker wrote:

    > On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:20:05 -0000, Jamie <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Peter Hucker wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:43:45 -0000, Michael A. Terrell <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Peter Hucker wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:00:19 -0000, Michael A. Terrell <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Peter Hucker wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:31:14 -0000, Michael A. Terrell <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Peter Hucker wrote:
    >>>>>>>>

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> What are YOU talking about? CE was used in a lot of embedded
    >>>>>>>>industrial applications, including some custom built $80,000
    >>>>>>>>CB-2000/DR-2000 telemetry receivers I shipped to NASA, and other US
    >>>>>>>>government agencies.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Pocket telemtry recivers presumably. CE is mini windows.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You are about to lose your trolling permit. Windows CE was "Compact
    >>>>>>Edition' in that it left off all the crap you didn't need for embedded
    >>>>>>applications. Things like games, handicap accesibility, and IE. It was
    >>>>>>NT that had been stripped to the bare bones. Its too bad you aren't as
    >>>>>>smart as you pretend to be. If you were you could work at a fast food
    >>>>>>place.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>In what way is "compact edition" different to "mini windows"? Ergo I was exactly correct.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There never was a "mini windows" released by Microsoft, no matter
    >>>>what you think it should be called. Ergo you were exactly wrong.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>You don't think compact means mini? Maybe you should buy yourself a dictionary for xmas.
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>>>>>>> Games? No wonder you're so stupid. Some early Windows 95/98/SE
    >>>>>>>>software didn't run under any version of NT. the OEM license ME was
    >>>>>>>>cheaper, per machine, than W2K as well.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>NT I agree, it didn't allow some software (mainly games) to run. But 2000 was not like NT in this respect even though it was based on it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> A lot of the custom engineering and production software we used at the
    >>>>>>company wouldn't run under NT or W2k, so they just kept using Win 95 in
    >>>>>>those applications.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Badly written programs often won't run in a later OS.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> They weren't 'badly written'. They were written to the standards of
    >>>>the day, and for existing harware platforms. Not everything is a
    >>>>consumer PC. We built custom hardware for multiple platforms, from EISA
    >>>>to VME/VXI busses.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>If the programmers stick to the rules laid out by Microsoft, they will run in future versions.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>and that's bull shit, MS$ rules change like my wife's attitude.
    >>
    >> 1. $MS can't keep a standard, they are no more innocent than third
    >>party coders.

    >
    >
    > It is a fact that if you use undocumented features of an OS, you may not have your program functioning in the next version.


    Sure, but what if you're using documented features that become non
    supported later on which MS$ has done so many times.
    Their word means nothing in that matter since they them self's, use
    undocumented features that make some of their own software unusable in
    future versions.
    >
    >> 2. At some point, $MS Os will become useless for anything hardware
    >>serious for real work because it appears that they are pushing towards
    >> arcade and eye candy to attract those that don't know any better.

    >
    >
    > Why use an ugly system if you don't have to?
    >

    Don't have a problem with that except when it cuts into the process
    time of where you need to get real work done!..
    In short, arcade OS'es are not welcome in the real world of getting
    things done!

    http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"
    Jamie, Dec 9, 2008
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    752
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  2. T

    Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

    T, Nov 29, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    461
    Eeyore
    Dec 3, 2008
  3. tony sayer

    Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

    tony sayer, Nov 29, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    435
    Eeyore
    Dec 3, 2008
  4. John Holmes

    Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

    John Holmes, Dec 1, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    427
    Eeyore
    Dec 3, 2008
  5. John

    Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

    John, Dec 3, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    415
    Baron
    Dec 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page