Which Windows for business???

[jeans2nd]

I have read a lot of everybody's opinions on which Windows (98SE, ME, 2K) to use for gaming. Any opinions on which OS to use for business? We have about 300 PC's, from MMX to PIII, 32-64 MB RAM, mostly Win 95, standard business software. Which OS would be best to upgrade with? Thanks in advance!

 

[Shudder]

I would say 2k, but since they have 32-64, you might be better off staying with a 9x OS.

I"ve never run 2k with a 64MB machine, but I imagine it wouldn't be too bad, but I would never go below that level.

 

[Rand]

If you had more RAM than I would suggest Win2k. but with only 32-64MB I'd have to say a Win9X based OS is the best choice for you... probably WinME or 98SE

 

[perry]

We have a few floating around with Win2K that only have 64MB. Compaq's iPaq comes to mind. 500MHz Celeron (IIRC) in it. They really aren't too bad.

When a machine comes into our help desk we try to upgrade the OS. If it can handle Win2K, we put that on it. If it can't, we put 98SE on it. Hardware upgrades only happen if hardware has failed on the machine.

 

[Ladi]

Windows NT 4 will run fine on those machines, be stable, and definitely do well with the types of applications you're speaking of.

~Ladi

 

[StuckMojo]

ditto on the NT4. it runs fine with 32M but prefers 64M to be snappy.

 

[BCYL]

Yes, NT4 would be a good choice... To me the win9x kernel (which includes WinME) is just too unstable for business application...

 

[dirtboy]

Another vote for NT 4.

 

[Doh!]

I vote for NT4 also but if you decide to go with Windows 9X, I would suggest the 95 OSR 2.x version with the updates which appears to be a bit lighter than 98 (i.e., IE integration). But if the users have USB peripherals, then 98 SE would be a better choice.

 

[Sunner]

I agree with Homer, NT if you want a "real" OS, or if you go 9x, OSR 2.x(2.1 is my fav since it doesnt come with IE4, 2.5 if you want IE4).

On a side note, why not just buy another 32 megs for the 32 meggers?
To me, working on a comp with 64 is painful, with pretty much any OS, 128 is the minimum, and 192-256 is good, having to work on 32 must really really suck, poor bastards.

 

[Blayze]

one more vote for Windows NT

 

[jeans2nd]

Thanks all very much. We are working on establishing "enterprise standards" and I'm going to go with an NT vote. More RAM is also a good idea, too. Thanks!

 

[Davegod75]

w2k all the way..man i've said this a lot. it might be a little slow...but it's a world of an improvement over nt4

 

[ThurzNite]

Here w/about 60 pc's, ranging from a 486 dx4 100 w/32 ram to p3 667 with 128ram, we try to use NT with sp4 and all the fixes. Most of our systems are pentium or p2 90-200mhz, 32-64 ram. They're not up to date, but run fine with NT4. The older slower ones are still on 95, various versions of it, but we try to get them on osr2 if not NT. We like NT sp4 cuz it's stable and most programs require sp4. If programs start asking for sp5 and sp6, then we'll move up. Otherwise, if it runnin, why mess w/it?
Jay

 

[extra]

if you've gotta use windows, NT should be fine on a 64mb machine

 

[StuckMojo]

yup, thats the one thing i left out...USB...if some of your 'puters need to use it, then NT4 is out. win2k is better, but not an option for you with 32M of ram.

if you need USB, i am a tad wishy-washy on the 95 98 thing...i suggest you evaluate (actually install and test) 95 OSR 2.whatever with the USB patch, and 98 SE to see which will be better for you. 95 should be lighter, but 98 did offer some improvements hardware detection wise.

as far as 32M not being enough for NT4, thats not true. it will run fine, just swap a little. it does have excellent memory management compared to 9x. as long as they arent "power users" (whatever that is), 32M should be adaquate. 64M is nice.

 

[jeans2nd]

Sorry to run this into the ground, but I forgot about USB. NT doesn't work with USB? How about W2K - does it support USB? Is W2K really stable enough to use in production? I have enough 2 AM pages already!

 

[GT1999]

We're using Windows 2000 Pro here, at a local ISP and it's working great. Since most of our customers use Windows 98, we have dual boots or have it all memorized.

 

[owensdj]

jean2nd, NT 4.0 has no support for USB ports or devices, but Windows 2000 certainly does.

I think Windows 2000 is more than stable enough for production use. It's lightyears ahead of Win95/98 in the stability department, if that's what you're comparing it to.

Your problem with going with Win2K could be a lack of memory. Win2K will install and run with just 32MB, but it will page VERY heavily. Going to 64MB will give you a hugh increase in performance. You really need 128MB to get the best performance from Win2K running most business software. I'd suggest you put Win2K onto one of your machines with 64MB of memory and run your application software. If the performance is acceptable, go ahead and go to Win2K.

Don't even consider using the infamous Win95/98/ME line of "operating systems" for business use unless you absolutely have no other choice. They are just too unstable and insecure for serious use.

NT 4.0 is a great business operating systems as well and would run well with just 64MB of memory, but Win2K is the future of Microsoft business operating systems, so I'd leapfrog NT 4.0 and go directly to Win2K if possible.