OS for a Celeron 366 with 256MB RAM

[AmigaMan]

Right now my wife's machine is running Windows 98. I originally had 64MB of RAM, but I bought a 256MB DIMM and I may put another 256MB in it. I have a 15GB 7200 RPM HD in it as well. Although Win98 is decent, I'm trying to stay on top of security updates and what not. I have a licensed copy of WinXP Home that I'm considering putting on it. I also have a Windows 2000 Pro CD that I'm not using (work PC that was upgraded to WinXP Pro). Barring any licensing issues, which will be better for this other machine?

Also from a licensing point of view, can I still use the Windows 2000 Pro from the machine that was upgraded to XP Pro? My workplace let me have the W2k CD since they had no use for it anymore. If this is illegal, then I may just go the XP route anyways and see what happens.

 

[SLCentral]

Def. Windows 2000. Windows XP reccomends a 700Mhz processor, and even with that it's sluggish, and with 256MB it'll be even more sluggish. Win 2000 is the way to go.

 

[FrustratedUser]

W2K will be just right for that rig.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
W2K will be just right for that rig.

 

[Netopia]

AmigaMan, I would dig up some more documentation on that computer before you go any farther. If it is an LX motherboard, then you are stuck with a 66MHz bus, but you could still probably run a Celeron 533 which you could pick up for around $30 dollars on line. The jump from 366MHz to 533MHz would probably help you a LOT more than that second stick of RAM.

If It's a BX motherboard, it would depend on whether it was a slot or socket type. Assuming it's socketed, you might be able to pop in a FCPGA CPU and there are MANY that can be had for cheap.... plus you'll be able to run that new memory you got at 100MHz instead of at its current 66MHz. The fastest FCPGA P3 with 100MHz bus is the 850, which can be had for between $50-80... a little less if you shop around.

The reason that I'm pointing all of this out is that whatever OS you get, it would be a shame to be able to get a MUCH more responsive system for only a little money and not at least look into it.

Good Luck,

Joe

 

[AmigaMan]

cool thanks everyone for the answers. It's a slot CPU on I believe an LX/EX board. I may look into finding a faster CPU, and I'll go ahead and install W2k on it.

 

[jasonawatkins]

I have to agree........I think Windows 2000 would be the best choice. You get the great stability of the NT Kernal, but you won't have the "pretties" that slow things down. I run Windows 2000 myself.

 

[dc5]

definatley windows 95...

 

[arsbanned]

I'd leave 98 on it. SE would be best. *shrug* 2000 will run like sh!t. There ya have it.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
I'd leave 98 on it. SE would be best. *shrug* 2000 will run like sh!t. There ya have it.

No it won't.

 

[phisrow]

My old laptop was a thinkpad 570 (333Mhz, 128mb ram) which ran Windows 2000 pro without any problems. Your 366 won't exactly feel like a dual opteron workstation; but it will work quite adequately.

 

[djdrastic]

If you must run Windows , then Windows 2000 will do quite fine . CPU Speed shouldnt be a problem ,[heck I used to have a 233 mmx w 512 mb ram as my WINS server]




NT Based OS's tend to rn faster , with more RAM , and since 2000 doesnt rape your graphic hardware like xp , its one thing less to worry about upgrading


Please, just install Service Pack4 + Additional Critical Security patches . The world needs less worm infested w2k machines


See msfn.org for some tutes on howto make a slipstreamed cd

 

[Netopia]

I'm a little perplexed about something here. I run a number of machines with XP and the first thing I do is to remove ALL eye candy, change the menus back to "old style", remove hibernation, reduce system restore waste.... in the end, I don't see any speed difference between my XP and 2000 machines except that the XP machine is WAY faster to boot and has added features (like compatibility modes).

Doing the above takes all of 5-7 minutes. Am I the only one who does that stuff?

Joe

 

[HKSturboKID]

How come no one mention Linux. No problem with license issue and it have all the office tools you'll need.

 

[AmigaMan]

Well I installed 2000Pro which was slipstreamed with SP4 and I'm up and running with it. As far as speed goes, it takes a while to startup and it seems a little sluggish. But that may be because I'm used to a Pentium M 1.7Ghz machine with 1.5GB of RAM and an ATI 9600 Pro video card. My wife doesn't seem to mind the speed and if she's happy, I'm happy.
As for Linux...yeah right. Linux is not ready for my wife's desktop. I doubt that it would run any better either. It's becoming as bloated as Windows and I don't think my wife is ready to switch to the command line...

 

[djpolstee]

Originally posted by: HKSturboKID
How come no one mention Linux. No problem with license issue and it have all the office tools you'll need.

I agree, why hasn't linux been an option? if you all are worried about liscencing and speed for os, then mos definitely jump on a linux. I've ran the red hat a cyrix 300mghz with 64meg Ram and its worked fine.

 

[abracadabra1]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
I'd leave 98 on it. SE would be best. *shrug* 2000 will run like sh!t. There ya have it.

I have a very similar machine (celeron 366, 384mb ram) that has been running windows2000 for almost five years now. It's very responsive and works just fine. Just don't expect to play any games or do much multimedia stuffs on it.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: arsbanned
I'd leave 98 on it. SE would be best. *shrug* 2000 will run like sh!t. There ya have it.

No it won't.

And neither will XP.

 

[imported_goku]

Geta powerleap processor adapter, I have one and it does wonders! But I used it on a BX Board so I was able to get speeds upwards of 1.4GHZ from 450MHZ. For the LX Chipset you will get a max speed (with same kit) 933MHZ which is plenty fast. I have Windows 2000 on a Pentium 166MHZ NON MMX 128MB ram and it runs fine (5400/Maybe 7200 RPM 2GIG Quantum Drive), little slow but then agian its a 166. I also have Windows 2000 on a 600MHZ Laptop, its only slow because it has a slow HDD (4200RPM).

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: goku2100
Geta powerleap processor adapter, I have one and it does wonders! But I used it on a BX Board so I was able to get speeds upwards of 1.4GHZ from 450MHZ. For the LX Chipset you will get a max speed (with same kit) 933MHZ which is plenty fast. I have Windows 2000 on a Pentium 166MHZ NON MMX 128MB ram and it runs fine (5400/Maybe 7200 RPM 2GIG Quantum Drive), little slow but then agian its a 166. I also have Windows 2000 on a 600MHZ Laptop, its only slow because it has a slow HDD (4200RPM).

I've been thinking about a powerleap upgrade, but for the money, I could almost get one of those Dell SC400 specials. I just gotta wait until their down to $250 again...

 

[imported_goku]

Remember this and I hope others agree, most top of the line systems that are a few years old will always beat low end machines that are new! There comes an extent where anything will beat a top of the line for the time but still for laptops, a Pentium III laptop will always beat a Celeron 2.4GHZ because celerons suck, especially on lappys!

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: goku2100
Remember this and I hope others agree, most top of the line systems that are a few years old will always beat low end machines that are new! There comes an extent where anything will beat a top of the line for the time but still for laptops, a Pentium III laptop will always beat a Celeron 2.4GHZ because celerons suck, especially on lappys!

Unfortunately this machine was not top of the line back when it was new and it's definitely not gonna beat anything now except my old Packard Bell Pentium 60.

I'd love to see my Pentium III 500 Latitude beat a Celeron 2.4Ghz laptop. If you really believe what you just said and have a Celeron 2.4Ghz laptop, I'll trade ya!

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: goku2100
Remember this and I hope others agree, most top of the line systems that are a few years old will always beat low end machines that are new! There comes an extent where anything will beat a top of the line for the time but still for laptops, a Pentium III laptop will always beat a Celeron 2.4GHZ because celerons suck, especially on lappys!

This is incorrect, and it is incorrect especially on laptops. The Mobile verison of the Celeron comes with twice the cache of the desktop version, and a Pentium III laptop comes in a huge range of processing speeds, none of wich is superior to a 2.4 Mobile Celeron. I am quite surprised a blanket statement like that would have even been attempted.

 

[imported_goku]

Numbers dont say not much in this case since I have actually worked with these lappys, these were friends who weren't quite sure what they were getting when they first got it. Its a pretty general statement I know and these lappys could easily have not been optimized but I think was I was generally going at low end systems are usually outperformed by top of the line systems that are older (about 3-4 yrs older). I have even encountered lowend lappys that were brand new and were slower than a Pentium 120 and when I did a DXDIAG test, everything was software based and the Direct Draw was extremely slow (Still can't figure out why). So that is essentially my encounter with celerons, oh BTW my friend bought an HP celeron 766 system back in 2000/2001 and it performs horribly compaired to Pentium IIs I have at home (Including 66MHZ models). I have just encountered way to many celeron based systems that were a nightmare to work with and I'm not sure I will ever work with them agian. The only exception to this rule is the powerleap adapter Celeron processor which I put into my dell system and that I have to say performed exceptionally well. It blazed through everything but it was short lived because I ended up doing a complete system overhaul and just rebuilt from the ground up (exlcuding case). So in my experience with celeron based systems I have had way too many problems with them but since that Tualatin Based Celeron performed way better than I could have hoped for and you say that what I said is not the case, then I guess I will have to take your word.

 

[pahecko]

I agree on Win2k. I've got a P3 500MHz, 512MB and xp is a bit slugglish at times. I also have 2K on it and it's much faster. The only thing that seems slower on 2K is booting.