Choose your favorite

[comda]

I have a computer running under 400MHz and wonder which os is the best meaning less problems the fastest............... Thanks!

[BC_Programmer]

How much memory?

My recommendation would be:

if you have less then 128MB, go with windows 95, 98, or 98SE-

if you have 128MB or More, use windows 2000.

with 256MB or more you might be alright running windows XP, too. Depending on the graphics adapter you might need to disable Luna for best performance.

[Allan]

I have a computer running under 400MHz and wonder which os is the best meaning less problems the fastest............... Thanks!

And you felt a poll was the best way to get your answer?

[patio]

I voted....
Course i also voted for Daley many times...early and often...

[Allan]

Senior?

[BC_Programmer]

I'm feeling a bit daft, so I think I'll vote for taft, hope he doesn't give us the shaft, and leave us in a raft.

Now whose up for a draught?

[patio]

Guinness ? ?

I'll buy...

[Computer_Commando]

How much memory?
My recommendation would be:
if you have less then 128MB, go with windows 95, 98, or 98SE-
if you have 128MB or More, use windows 2000.
with 256MB or more you might be alright running windows XP, too. Depending on the graphics adapter you might need to disable Luna for best performance.

I would recommend the same.

[Veltas]

How much memory?

My recommendation would be:

if you have less then 128MB, go with windows 95, 98, or 98SE-

if you have 128MB or More, use windows 2000.

with 256MB or more you might be alright running windows XP, too. Depending on the graphics adapter you might need to disable Luna for best performance.

*censored*, I'd just go for 2000 anyway, doesn't get much better than that, but I'd recommend 98 over 95 ANYDAY.

[BC_Programmer]

but I'd recommend 98 over 95 ANYDAY.

what about with 32MB of RAM?

[neelchauhan]

You should try to use Windows XP. If not use Windows 2000.

[Carbon Dudeoxide]

My favorite in that list is Windows 2000.

[patio]

You should try to use Windows XP. If not use Windows 2000.

Classic.

[talldude123]

No matter what hardware, anything under 400Mhz will handle Windows 2000. I once had a 233Mhz computer, 128MB RAM, and a 10GB Hard disk, and Intel 82810 graphics 8MB, ran Windows 2000 without a hitch. Only problem is that it's quite "Boring"

[Veltas]

what about with 32MB of RAM?

If it can't run 98 then there's not much you can do other than install 95.

[BC_Programmer]

If it can't run 98 then there's not much you can do other than install 95.

The comparison refers essentially to the memory requirements of Windows 98; to windows 98, 32MB is hardly anything- to windows 95, 8MB is considered "gobs" of RAM.
Actually, this requirement is solely because of Windows 98's "Explorer.exe" and the new web-based features it adds. One can replace explorer with the windows 95 equivalent in command prompt and have a nice slim 98 system if memory is tight (I've run Windows 98 with 16MB on a 486, but I don't remember much about the experience so it must have been traumatic and I blocked those memories ).

No matter what hardware, anything under 400Mhz will handle Windows 2000.

Sweet...

I'm digging out my 12 Mhz 286 and running w2k on it! 

[Veltas]

Well yeah, 98 was a real memory hog in its day.  But if it can run 98, then do that cos 95 just isn't as good in my opinion.

Also, thanks, I had no idea explorer.exe was introduced in 98, I thought 95 had it.

[BC_Programmer]

Well yeah, 98 was a real memory hog in its day.  But if it can run 98, then do that cos 95 just isn't as good in my opinion.

Also, thanks, I had no idea explorer.exe was introduced in 98, I thought 95 had it.

No, 98 does have explorer, I was saying you can get a "lite" windows 98 (like, say for a low spec machine) by replacing the windows 98 version with a copy from windows 95.

[Veltas]

No, 98 does have explorer, I was saying you can get a "lite" windows 98 (like, say for a low spec machine) by replacing the windows 98 version with a copy from windows 95.

Oh, well that has fixed my mental image of 95's kernal again I guess, thanks again.

I just realised my cat's eating my headphones...

[BC_Programmer]

Oh, well that has fixed my mental image of 95's kernal again I guess, thanks again.

their kernel's are pretty much the same.

the desktops look pretty similar too; by default win95 doesn't have a quick launch bar, you need to install Internet Explorer 4 to get that. IE4 is built into win98 which is probably the only reason it has the quick launch bar out of the box.

[Veltas]

Yeah I don't miss IE4 

I don't miss 95 much either but 98 was okay in my opinion...

Then again I never went that far with 95, so I'm not the best judge... I last used it in a school about 4 years ago breifly trying to help someone out with something.

[BC_Programmer]

heh, I had ot for a month or so on my Pentium... then the integrated graphics chip failed and I couldn't see anything on the screen. I learned what a heatsink was then, so it wasn't all bad.

Win98, is essentially win95 with all sorts of stuff preinstalled, but it also adds some system-level stuff like FAT32 (also supported by 95 OSR2) as well as USB support (much better with 98SE, absolutely none in 95 retail, and most vendors didn't support the implementation provided by OSR2).

Windows 95 was the first release of windows that had a "taskbar; all previous versions used program manager- including NT 3.51. NT 4 took the taskbar and used it for itself, as well.

It was a rather messy time to be programming windows- a lot more  variables then there are now. In order to have coolbar/rebar controls, you'd have to either be running windows 98 or later, or running windows 95, and then check (i nthe win95 case) that Internet Explorer 4 or later is installed- and of course you need to change the functions you call if you discover your running on NT. Even big software companies couldn't get the version checks right.

Now all the "API" changes are really isolated to .NET, which is really more of a separate platform then the win32 API, too.

[Veltas]

heh, I had ot for a month or so on my Pentium... then the integrated graphics chip failed and I couldn't see anything on the screen. I learned what a heatsink was then, so it wasn't all bad.

Win98, is essentially win95 with all sorts of stuff preinstalled, but it also adds some system-level stuff like FAT32 (also supported by 95 OSR2) as well as USB support (much better with 98SE, absolutely none in 95 retail, and most vendors didn't support the implementation provided by OSR2).

Windows 95 was the first release of windows that had a "taskbar; all previous versions used program manager- including NT 3.51. NT 4 took the taskbar and used it for itself, as well.

It was a rather messy time to be programming windows- a lot more  variables then there are now. In order to have coolbar/rebar controls, you'd have to either be running windows 98 or later, or running windows 95, and then check (i nthe win95 case) that Internet Explorer 4 or later is installed- and of course you need to change the functions you call if you discover your running on NT. Even big software companies couldn't get the version checks right.

Now all the "API" changes are really isolated to .NET, which is really more of a separate platform then the win32 API, too.

I still kind of miss the old days, before I started using NT (XP was my first NT OS, but since then I've used 2000 a bunch and I have to give it a lot of credit).  I always felt like I had a lot more control in the MS-DOS client days...

I have to admit I love DOS, I still use it all the time.  I also love cmd.exe, I'm always making NT Command Files.  I have to admit making batch files in MS-DOS was a real pain and still is, cmd.exe just seemed to go through most of the problems and were it didn't provide immediate solutions there were still workarounds.

[BC_Programmer]

Yeah, I felt the same way upgrading from 98SE to XP. (I had used 2000 and XP a lot at school before this). my main issue was that I would no longer be able to boot into "DOS mode" to fix issues. I learned about the recovery console and that worked on several occasions to clean out viruses and fix issues with my graphics drivers. As of yet I haven't needed to run any of the Vista or Windows 7 repair tools on their respective discs, which I guess in a way is a testament to increased reliability (although TBH the reliability is probably due to the fact that this is on a fresh build rather then older machines with bugs in their AGP chipsets). Most of what I know about the older Operating Systems is simpyl based on what I was able to do with them programming; mostly from (the late ) Paul Dilascia's C++ Q@A column. I still remember re-creating Internet Explorer's ability to move around the menu bar as part of a rebar band. it works great. This is the main reason I'm dead set against most people's claims that MS uses "undocumented functions" in their applications; this was used against IE, but really the IE team wrote the stuff themselves; the "menu bar" is really just a standard toolbar, and anybody can use those, and they are well documented. Certainly some of the stuff that people claim is "undocumented functions" is really just tough to do; like with Word 95, which for some stupid reason had it's own gradient title bar (Gradient title bar's weren't added to windows until windows 98). It wasn't a specific function but rather catching of documented messages and drawing the title bar themselves, something which according to MS's guidelines they shouldn't have done (and this was Microsoft office, lol). Anyway, that whole "undocumented functions" thing is a whole other can of worms.