what would be the best OS for my moms cmoputer?

[Sforsyth]

Thanks it has windows 2000 on it now should she switch to XP or no, what if she got more ram?

 

[SynthDude2001]

If she's already running Windows 2000, XP isn't really that necessary (not like it would be if she were still running something like Windows 98) - and 128MB would be a little low for XP these days.

 

[arvin2k]

windows 2000. Very stable with the latest SP4

 

[Jeff7]

More RAM will definitely help in either case.
A more drastic case:
Friend with a 400MHz Celeron (or a P2) and 64MB of RAM (and Win98SE). He's now got 192MB or 320MB (don't remember how much I put in there anymore). I'm pretty sure it's 320MB though. He says he just loves the speed of it now. Windows loves to have memory. If the computer resorts to using virtual memory, even a 5GHz CPU won't mean diddly, as it's going to just sit around waiting while the hard drive goes about its sluggish business.

 

[Brian48]

I still use Win2k on a few of my machines. Nothing wrong with it at all.

 

[obeseotron]

I'd keep 2000 and pick up 128mb more ram.

 

[Lasthitlarry]

Win2K is pretty much the same as, if not better than, XP.

I have never had it on my own PC, but it seems to be more secure, so it is more costly.

 

[PingSpike]

The only reason 2k might seem more costly is because there is no "home" edition...so you have to buy the full blown professional. You should be able to find it for less than XP pro though.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
If the computer resorts to using virtual memory, even a 5GHz CPU won't mean diddly, as it's going to just sit around waiting while the hard drive goes about its sluggish business.

Not if it has 1GB of cache.

 

[w00t]

windows 2000 > windows xp

windows 2000 was microsoft's best os because it wasnt made for home users it was made to be stable.

 

[stevty2889]

I would stick with windows 2000. It's as good and solid as XP, but not as memory hungry. I won't run a windows XP machine with anything less than 512mb of ram, or it feels extremely sluggish to me, while 2000 seems fine with 128mb.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: w00t
windows 2000 > windows xp

windows 2000 was microsoft's best os because it wasnt made for home users it was made to be stable.

I think you're partly right - XP is quite stable, the problem is it's bloated for home users.

Either is fine for that system with more memory, but unless you at least double the ram, 2000 is the much better option.

I find 2000 works acceptably with any amount of ram more than 128mb (old P2 laptop with 160mb runs fine, for what it is). I'd say 128 is the absoute minimum, but even a little bit more makes a world of difference.

 

[w00t]

I think xp needs like 512 to be happy 256 is kinda bad.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: w00t
I think xp needs like 512 to be happy 256 is kinda bad.

Weird that I've found it to work like this, but my experience with XP is the same as with 2000; anything over 128 will be relatively snappy for a 2k system, and anything over 256 for an XP system.

So (for example) this system would run 2K nicely with any ram upgrade, or get another 256 (for 384 total) and XP should run well.

 

[Maluno]

Stay with win2k or go to the penguin.