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

**Froghead** · February 18th, 2002, 03:29 AM

I would go with WIN95B if USB support is not required. Current install has been running on my P166 for over three years. I reboot about once every two months.
Current setup:
QDI Explorer MB
P166mmx
128MB SDRAM
4.3 GB WD Hardrive
Guilemot Maxi-Gamer Phoenix Voodoo Banshee 16MB Video
D-Link NIC (had to swap out my old no-name NIC a couple of months ago)
Diamond Supra Max 56K PCI (Win-modem)
ESS sound (ISA)
40X Asus CD-Rom drive and Colorado Tape Back-up

I.E.5.5, Outlook Express, Zonealarm, NAV2001, MSN Messenging are always on. Net connection is via cable.

If you want USB support then WIN98SE.

My main concern with WINME on the Micron system would be the amount of HD space it's going to eat up.

NT4.0 or W2K not recommended for the neophyte.

Cheers!

**HIESLanMan** · February 18th, 2002, 10:27 AM

I've run W2K on a bunch of similar machines, and it is very slow. However, as this lady's demands are minimal and she is likely to have low expectations on the machine, it's probably a good choice.

**kato** · February 18th, 2002, 10:32 AM

I'd also say win95C if no USB devices are needed. NT4.0 would also work well, but I would think the problem with that would be vendor tech support. Say for example she buys a word processing package from walmart and has trouble. She calls the tech support number. Now even with 95 or 98 that can be a dicey situation, but with nt4? I can't imagine a minimum wage call center tech handling her correctly. Can you imagine him trying to talk her through finding the device manager??? It's kind of like calling your ISP when you are having trouble getting your linux box online. Usually these clowns are only trained in consumer OS (and usually not even very well)

**Hippie_Tech** · February 18th, 2002, 10:57 AM

All I have to say is avoid Windows ME like the plague. I have had nothing (without exception) but problems with ME. I also would like to point out that while 2000 Pro would be a good choice for the OS (although a little slow on this configuration), I hope you realize that eventually she will be looking into doing something more with the machine than what you stated. It's inevitable. "All I need it for is e-mail and basic word processing, etc." Then it turns into I want to get a scanner or a digital camera so I can send pictures to my kids or I want to do video conferencing or I want to install some games for my grandkids. I would suggest 98SE. When done right with the appropriate drivers and OS upgrades, 98SE can be very stable. Plus 98SE will be a little more novice friendly than 2K Pro. Of course you're dealing with a "user" so just about any OS you choose won't be completely stable. Even 2K Pro. Just my 2 cents.

**TangleWeb** · February 18th, 2002, 11:35 AM

Gabriel you are probably right about NT 4.0. This PC has a Digicom (Modem Blaster) modem in it.

Anyway, having said that I have finished it up as a Windows ME installation. It seems to perform very well. The only problem I had was with explorer freezing up occasionally when I connected to a shared Network Drive on my home network (Windows XP). She only connects to her ISP over a dial-up connection, so I think she will be fine.

Hippie_Tech, I must be lucky, I've had no trouble with ME, although I must admit that I haven't had nearly the experience with it that I've had with other OS's. What type of problems are you experiencing?

**ilovetheusers** · February 18th, 2002, 08:31 PM

Gotta say that NT4 with all the servive packs might not be too bad for her is stability is what she wants. I have NEVER seen a win 9.x/me box that I would personally call stable. Personally I have pretty much thought that after win95c that the rest of the 9.x series has only become worse. I have zero respect for 98, 98se or ME. I have seen all of them blue screen without even running a damn app at the time. They are pathetic. 2000 will run on that machine and if it's just for e-mail/internet I'd say - maybe, maybe it would be OK. A guy I work with has 2000 on a very similar machine (a p150mhz) and he says it's fine though the boot up time is about 10 minutes (but with 2000 you only need to reboot about 1 time per week). Thing is that the OS takes up over a gig with service packs and the HDD would be maxed out after the apps got on it so you might want to rule it out even though it seems like a good idea.

Let it be up to her. Tell her the pros and cons and show her the prices and let her decide. Personally I think that Gabrial is on to something with NT.

**myramp** · February 18th, 2002, 10:02 PM

id put win2000 pro, i currently run 2000 on a p166 with 128Mb and 6.4 gig drive, runs fine. stable, has support for more older hardware.

Shep926 · February 19th, 2002, 07:33 AM

TangleWeb
Windows ME ? How could you even consider this OS. WinME and stable are extreamly hard to put into the same sentence. Id recommend Win98SE. WinME is the most unstable OS ever released by Microsoft. Agreed is looks good, but the OS is problematic. By your own account you know of horror stories surrounding WinME. Ive seen them first hand. It got to the point that a WinME problem equaled an automatic format, Win98SE install. If your goal is to fire and forget (setup, make few/none service calls) WinME is not recommended

Shep

**Kenny P.** · February 19th, 2002, 07:48 AM

Hmmm...

Given the hardware list, 98SE, followed by windowsupdate.microsoft.com, stay away from anything higher than IE 5.5 SP1, and either load Window Washer or the like or add these lines to AUTOEXEC.BAT :

deltree /y c:\windows\tempor~1\content.ie5
deltree /y c:\windows\history\history.ie5

That will keep the "bloat factor" minimal as IE's local cache and indexes are wiped out before the GUI starts.

You should find that you will have a servicable machine that will run and not get that slow down due to IE's wanting to store and index everything you do...

Hope this helps!

Kenny P.
Visualize Whirled Peas

**savagegerbil** · February 19th, 2002, 08:06 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Gabriel:
<strong>

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

I have to agree. The stability of NT and the overhead of 95 cannot be beat. the UI is not as smooth but for what she is doing it is a non issue

tempdir · February 19th, 2002, 09:05 AM

[quote]Originally posted by TangleWeb:
<strong>Greetings Gurus,

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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Here's what's important the system meets the requirments for each OS specified. Now what needs to be looked at, is the user requirements. She is a bit older, will not be using it for much, (probably doesn't have much experience with computers.)

I would recommend putting win982e with all patches or any other OS conformed to look like 9x, Ex: turn off the addaptive menus in 2000 pro.

BTW 98se will be stable for her needs.

**rscos** · February 19th, 2002, 10:16 AM

win2k will run, well, I say, run, maybe saunter along slowly stopping off for the odd ciggie break whenever you try and ask it to do something stressfull (like open the Start menu), and ME is just horrible, 95c looks a bit dated and I would personaly go with 98.2E with updates.

**Cygnus** · February 19th, 2002, 02:57 PM

I would have to say that Win2K would probably be the best option. But something tells me I would put Win98SE on there if it was just your basic e-mail & internet user.

**bbtech6650** · February 19th, 2002, 03:29 PM

u guys sound worried about using '00 pro on this machine...should have seen a p133 machine w/ 64m ram and 2g HDD mostly all devices legacy, booting 2000 pro ADV serv (Couldn't install any programs and it took about 15min to boot...ran DHCP though!)

**cookin chef** · February 19th, 2002, 10:34 PM

Don't bother loading win2kpro or nt4 on such an older system such as that.
Yes, that system could handle nt 4 workstation with no real major issues or just barely run win2k, but those os's cost alot more money unless you can find them cheap somewhere. May as well stick with win98se or win95 ver b or c.

Winme should run good too.
I know winme isn't a favorable os's among most of us, but it does have some good features in it as well. It just needs to be loaded right with the latest patches and latest drivers for the components inside the system and don't load up so much beta software or third rate apps that aren't known to properly run with winme.
Plus with winme, if you boot up a system with 2 nic's in it, it doesn't take a long time to boot up unlike win98se which takes almost forever to boot up with 2 nic's both connected to a cable line and hub.
I had three systems not too long ago running winme with very few to no problems.
One PIII 750 for my brothers to play games on, one PIII 500 dell used for internet, mp3's, music or audio streaming, cdrw, data storage and internet connect sharing for the other 4 systems on the network.
And a junky cel 433 system used for testing misc computer parts. I used winme as a tester os for those misc. parts.
My laptop had winme, but I used win2kpro and mandrake on it instead.
My dual PIII 450 uses win2kpro, but did use winme one time when I only had 1 pIII 450 in the system at the time.
Guess I'm one of the few who has had good luck with winme.
I like and recommend win98se as well. Got a nec 200 MMx with 64 mb of ram running it and works well for this old system.

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

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions