Which OS is better suited for this machine?

Lepard

Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
540
The specs of the machine are the following:

CPU: Pentium III 1GHz
RAM: 128MB PC133
VIDEO: Matrox Millenium II 8MB

Im thinking Windows 2000 instead of WinXP.

This because XP with less than 512MB of RAM is very slow. The machine will be used by an older person and they will only be using it for internet and music.

Thanks in advance.
 
Irrespective of anything you do 128Mb RAM is just too plain restrictive for an 'internet box' aimed at an older person in today's world. And whilst indeed 512Mb marks 'ggod point' for XP, XP will perform just fine for the 'older person' purposes you mention in 256Mb RAM.

It isn't that hard to track down sticks of SD-RAM. Swap meets, compouter markets, eBay, trading sections of forums like this'n. Add a bit more, use XP with up to date security patches, browser etc, install some 'operate in the background and don't trouble the user' ,malware and AV protection, and you'll be doing that older person a service rather than a disservice.

Sure, Win2000 or Win98 would run fine on that box as-is, but it just ain't right to throw such things at older folk nowadays!
 
Simply for compatibility and driver support, I would go with Windows XP on that machine. I've ran XP on machines, that only have 128MB of ram, at work before. Yes it's slow booting up but once it's up and running, it's not that bad. I have machines right now that are PIII 500MHZ, 128MB of ram, that are running XP, with a fleshed out policy and active desktop running. IE 7 is sluggish and so is opening up Office, but when your on a budget, some machines just can't be thrown out. I also have a few PIII 950mhz machines. They are noticeably faster, even with 128MB of ram.
 
Afterthought:

If that's a 128Mb stick of RAM in the box, and you can get your hands on a 256Mb stick to add to it, that'd do the job real nice. We generally say that 512Mb is good for XP because that's 2x256Mb sticks. In reality the 'starts to get good here' point for XP sits at around 384Mb of RAM installed.
 
Either would work. I've run XP on 128 MB before with indexing service, system restore, on the classic theme, etc., and it ran alright.
 
XP all the way, even with the 128MB. But as already noted, do try to bump the RAM if possible, double it definitely, or quad it to 512MB and it'll run great.
 
I'd also consider a cheap GPU upgrade. My old Matrox card had issues with flash content, and since flash is everywhere it might be a good idea to use something that doesn't bog down with flash content. If it does run flash fine then forget what I said.

XP with 128MB should work, but you'd need to turn off some services to make sure it stays snappy. Check the FS threads for some RAM, I saw a few sales for 128mb x 2 for $5 shipped.
 
XP works fine with low-end videocards. It would probably also run fine even on a 500 MHz CPU, but it absolutely needs more than 256MB of RAM to be usable. Even Win2K would be a bit sluggish not to mention its poor multimedia capabilities, driver support etc. There's Win98SE but it's so old and outdated that it would be a nightmare to use. Try to hunt down a couple of RAM sticks and get at least 384MB RAM or something then install XP.
 
Thank you, everyone. I will go with XP and try to convince the person to the RAM upgrade.
 
I'd just do it.

A quick check of the 'For Sale/Trade' section here reveals this:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1313504&highlight=pc-133

where 2x128Mb sticks are listed for $10 (shipped).


Why make it difficult? What's wrong with saying "I had to bung some more memory in it, so you owe me ten bucks or a free feed!" Huh?

Not necessarily making it difficult, but I don't really want to surprise them with an extra $10 charge. Rather have them make the decision after giving them the facts.

Although I wouldn't think they would mind, I'll order some PC133 and if they don't want the upgrade then keep it for the next PC that comes through the shop.
 
Back
Top