Win2k pro or Win98 SE on a K5-100MHz?

[Torghn]

Usualy I wouldn't need to ask such a question as I'd just go with Win2k. However, this is a very slow and old computer. Does Win2k need more processing power than Win98 or will it run fine on a 100 Mhz machine? I also have a K5-166 that I have the same question on.

Edit:Forgot to say both computers have 32MB of 60nS EDO ram.

 

[cnhoff]

Definetely Win98, mostly because of the amount of RAM, but also because of the lack of cpu power!

 

[jj1492]

For the love of God, use Win98 SE... let us never speak of this again. 🙂

 

[Zach]

Windows 95a. Are the hard drives over 2gig? I'd use Win95b if iver 2gig.. keep it slim, or use Linux.

PM me if either OS is needed..

 

[Torghn]

Man, I don't think I have Win95a any more and yes my Hard drives are over 2GB. What version of Lunix would you recomend? I'm a heavy network useser and it would need to connect to a Win2k/Win98 network.

 

[Workin']

Win 95b would be my first choice, but Win 98SE will run OK on the 100MHz box and perfectly fine on the 166. Win2k would suck on either one.

 

[Dyngoe]

98Lite is my suggestion. Slimed way down, I've heard of fully functional win98 systems with ~40mb on the HD. My setup takes 115mb, but that's pretty small relatively. Pick it up at www.98lite.net and you won't be sorry.
As Always,
D

 

[Zach]

<< Man, I don't think I have Win95a any more and yes my Hard drives are over 2GB. What version of Lunix would you recomend? I'm a heavy network useser and it would need to connect to a Win2k/Win98 network. >>



Here is someone saying they used Redhat 6.2 on a 120 without trouble, I'd probably use that too if I were going for linux.

And, SMBClient will let you mound Windows filesharing, Samba itself will share for Windows networks.

I'm still thinking 95b though.