What OS would YOU load on this Micron P166 MHz, 128mb???

**TangleWeb** · February 16th, 2002, 05:47 PM

Greetings Gurus,

I have a friend who was given a Micron Millennia Mxe Pentium 166 MHz PC from work. It had 64mb of RAM. I upgraded it to 128. It has a 2.6 GB Hard Drive, 4 mb S3 Virge video, Sound Blaster AWE 32 sound & a Digicom 56K, DI3658 ISA Modem.

The PC was given to her with NO Operating System, so I will be buying the OS to install. There is only a few dollars difference between the single PC license cost of Windows 98 SE, ME & 2000. The hardware meets the minimum requirements for all 3 operating systems. Cost is not a factor, only performance & stability.

The user is an older lady who values stability over performance. She DOES NOT play games at all. She will be using Microsoft Works 2000, Quicken 2002, and POP 3 mail through the local ISP in Outlook Express & IE 6.x & that's about it.

I have installed all 3 operating systems on hardware similar to this, but I'll reserve my opinions till I hear some of yours.

Fire away gurus.....

(By the way, I'm not looking for "Micro$oft Sux, put Linux on it" type comments, or "Pentium 166 why bother", comments, but this is an open forum.)

**Stalemate** · February 16th, 2002, 05:55 PM

I would normally start with "Linux rules, lamer", but I'll refrain

What you probably came up with as a solution is the same thing I'll suggest.

Windows 2000 Pro.

More performance and stability than the other choices, and will probably run faster than Win9x.

It is also better equipped mith the RAM you have available.

...now if this was Linux...

**KINGofBLEH** · February 16th, 2002, 06:18 PM

The CPU may meet the "minimum" required specs for 2000, but the "recommended" spec is a 400Mhz CPU or higher.

I would recommend 98 because it is fairly stable and would accommodate her needs as outlined in your post. Plus it will scream on that machine.

**TangleWeb** · February 16th, 2002, 07:42 PM

Now there's the rub.....

98 will be much faster on this hardware, but 2K will probably be more stable....

I say "probably", the way she will be using it 98 will probably be pretty stable. The business that used it before they gave it to her had 98 on it & it ran well, even with 64mb.

I have noticed that in some cases ME is faster on the same hardware than 98, I was thinking about that as an option. I have not seen the stability issues on ME that some people have.

**Ahcoraj** · February 16th, 2002, 08:28 PM

if thats all she'll be using, 982e will be as stable as any other. Stability issues are more often than not driver issues, and i've found it easier to find support for older hardware in 98 than 2k.......

**Matridom** · February 16th, 2002, 08:37 PM

I would recommend 2k pro also.. I've seen it run well on a p166 with 64 ram... 128 would do it well. 98 is OK, but it get's too bloated..

**Poseidon** · February 16th, 2002, 10:24 PM

Since you are going to perform a clean install on an empty hard drive I would say Win98SE with all the latest updates should serve her needs adequately.

Second: that OS is closer to that generation of personal computers

**Outcoded** · February 17th, 2002, 04:52 AM

Personally, I'd stick 95 on 'cause I've still got about a couple of dozen disk and license packs lying around that I bought cheap.

2000 will be way too slow, as will Moron's Edition at a guess. 98SE will be fine since she's only going to be doing basic stuff.

**lysergic** · February 17th, 2002, 07:02 AM

I would say either 95C or 98SE. Would the machine run 2k? Yes, but on a system such as that I think your main problem with running 2k are going to be that the processor is just fast enough, the ram is just enough, and the IDE drive on a system that old is going to be too slow. Will take forever to boot or to load anything up. And with 128 megs Win2k is going to have a fairly large swap file. The closest I have seen a system with near those specs to handle Win2k decently was a PentPro 200, 256 megs of ram and a scsi2 drive.

**TangleWeb** · February 17th, 2002, 10:54 AM

As always, thanks to all who posted!

It looks like everybody is thinking along the same lines.

I would like to comment that at the company where I'm a support analyst with roughly 400 users we are preparing to roll out Active Directory, so we are rebuilding workstations to Windows 2000 a few at a time. Others are being replaced with new Compaq EVOs. Our minimum hardware configuration is a Pentium 200 with 128mb. These systems are Digital Celebris desktops & towers for the most part. Most of them only had 64mb of RAM & were running Windows NT 4.0 sp 6a. We bring them into the lab & upgrade the RAM to 128 & install Windows 2000 Pro on them (clean). We also install the basic components of Office 2000. We install IE 6.0 & all updates from the MS update site. Our standard software suite includes Reflection 9.01 for access to the VAX (We will still be running much of the company on the VAX till the custom-built Oracle Database based system is put into production later this year) we also have Reflection sessions to many other devices. Our users access several web-based applications & use Word & Excel extensively.

The reason I've been so detailed about this is that a Pentium 200 with 128 runs pretty much everything many of our users need with acceptable performance. Of course Engineering, Mapping, Marketing etc. have more demanding needs & have newer systems. Most of the users that have P200's will have their workstation replaced with thin clients connecting to a Citrix Server Farm. We already have about 60 users (Customer Service reps for the most part) using thin clients.

Anyway, I digress....

I am going to load Windows ME on this system. I have had no problems with this OS, unlike many who have posted here. It handles memory more efficiently & has several enhancements I like. The user will like the fact that it's a current OS & the ease of use. The fact that I can get it for $45 at <a href="http://www.9software.com" target="_blank">www.9software.com</a> when 98SE is $69 doesn't hurt either!

**Sowulo** · February 17th, 2002, 12:10 PM

FYI: I checked out that link to #9 Software. On the home page "Hot Deals!" there are several items such as copies of Windows being sold without COA's. This is illegal. Buyer beware a company with no scruples about selling illegal items could just as easily take your money and deliver nothing.

**TangleWeb** · February 17th, 2002, 12:42 PM

I appreciate you looking into this Sowulo. I too looked pretty hard at this vendor. The "COA" is not required for a legal (Licensed) copy of Windows. The Certificate of Authenticity (COA) is merely a sticker that OEMs affix to a case to show their software is authentic.

I quote the MS website;

"Please note: This COA label is NOT a software license. If you are offered this COA label as a "sticker license" beware—it is not legal. These labels are not sold separately. You and your business could be at risk if you rely on one of these labels as your "license". Legal PC manufacturers must adhere COA labels to a PC's chassis."

I take this to mean that the "license" is the important thing. This software has the Holgram CD & the license. It just doesn't include a "COA" sticker. My understanding is that a license is what Microsoft cares about. You can even buy license seperate from the media. I'm only interested in the "License", I have the media for every Microsoft OS back to DOS 5.0. If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know. I'm trying to stay "legal".

**Gabriel** · February 17th, 2002, 02:18 PM

[quote]Originally posted by TangleWeb:
<strong>
- Queted and Edited -

I have a friend who was given a Micron Millennia Mxe Pentium 166 MHz PC from work. It had 64mb of RAM. I upgraded it to 128. It has a 2.6 GB Hard Drive, 4 mb S3 Virge video, Sound Blaster AWE 32 sound & a Digicom 56K, DI3658 ISA Modem.
There is only a few dollars difference between the single PC license cost of Windows 98 SE, ME & 2000. The hardware meets the minimum requirements for all 3 operating systems. Cost is not a factor, only performance & stability.
The user is an older lady who values stability over performance. She DOES NOT play games at all. She will be using Microsoft Works 2000, Quicken 2002, and POP 3 mail through the local ISP in Outlook Express & IE 6.x & that's about it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

It seems to me that the obvious OS to select is Windows NT4 (Sp6a).
Stable - Cheap - Low on Resource -> not for games though.

**TangleWeb** · February 17th, 2002, 02:29 PM

Not a bad point Gabriel, I still have NT 4.0 sp 6a on one of the PCs at my desk at work (although it is a dual boot with XP Pro & is mostly booted to XP).

We still have a lot of PCs at the company where I work running NT 4.0 with sp 6a. In this case I would be concerned about a driver for the modem, etc. It certainly isn't PnP!

I'm about half way through installing Windows ME, I'll post the results when I've worked on it for a bit.

**Gabriel** · February 18th, 2002, 02:17 AM

[quote]Originally posted by TangleWeb:
<strong>In this case I would be concerned about a driver for the modem, etc. It certainly isn't PnP!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IMHO Most of the problems with Modems are With Soft Modem (or HSP).
I always Buy 3Com or Creative Modem - So I don't have to mess with this kind of trouble.
Don't Forget that NT => Mature, Stable and you already know it's bugs.

P.s. WinME $ux - It has no Stability whatsoever.

Any way,
Good Luck
Gabriel

Thread: What OS would YOU load on this Micron P166 MHz, 128mb???

Thread Tools

Display

What OS would YOU load on this Micron P166 MHz, 128mb???

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions