Computer OS advice wanted.

[Cityscape]

I'm thinking about buying a old PC with specs something like these:
a 300-600 Mhz CPU and 64 MB RAM

I need to:
- be able to use the internet (LAN via Ethernet)
- view documents (including .docx)
- use USB devices
- run as many applications as possible

I want to know which OS you guys think is best?

Windows 95 is not an option because of no or very little USB support and it can't run Firefox 2.
Windows 98 FE is also not an option because of little USB support

So the options I have left are Windows 98SE, Windows ME or maybe NT.
What is NT USB support like, is it as good as 98SE or ME support?
Which of the 3 has most modern programs supporting it?

So far I think ME is my best choice.

[Aegis]

How about a Linux distribution? 

[Cityscape]

I have considered it. I love Ubuntu.
Do you think Ubuntu would perform good on such an old PC?
I don't mind using an older Ubuntu/Xubuntu release like 7.04 either.

[Karnac]

I had a similar situation ......

http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php/topic,86679.msg580025.html#msg580025

[patio]

Win2K if you prefer Windows...
If not ...Ubuntu.

[Helpmeh]

Well. If you want Office Word, get it now. You'll need 2007 to view .docx and I don't know if it works on anything earlier than XP.

[BC_Programmer]

I had XP on my 350Mhz K6-2 for a fairly long time, no problems.... but the RAM kinda precludes that idea.

NT didn't really have USB at all until W2K...

[Cityscape]

You'll need 2007 to view .docx and I don't know if it works on anything earlier than XP.

Not correct. Office 2000 and 2003 can use .docx files.
See Here: http://www.microsoft.com/nz/digitallife/software/microsoft_office_compatibility_pack_for_2007_file_formats.mspx#

[Cityscape]

Win2K if you prefer Windows...
If not ...Ubuntu.

I had XP on my 350Mhz K6-2 for a fairly long time, no problems.... but the RAM kinda precludes that idea.

NT didn't really have USB at all until W2K...

Will XP or Ubuntu actually run well?

NT is not an option then as I must have USB support.

Which is better then for application compatibility: 98SE or Me?
Which has better USB support?

I don't think 2000 and XP will be options, they'd run too slow on this PC i think.

[BC_Programmer]

On that machine, you'd need more RAM before considering Ubuntu or XP.... aside fro mthe RAM it would probably do fine.

Personally I'd go for windows 98SE, and then install the unofficial Service pack- ME is essentially 98SE with a change to prevent restarting in DOS mode.

[Carbon Dudeoxide]

I recently rebuilt an old computer with similar specs. Runs fine with Windows 2000.

I chose Windows 2000 because of the low specification requirements and its advanced USB support.

[BC_Programmer]

but, did it only have 64MB of RAM?

[Carbon Dudeoxide]

It had 128mb but the second RAM stick failed on me.

But hey, Microsoft says Windows XP requires 64MB of RAM.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865


Windows 2000:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297

[Cityscape]

It had 128mb but the second RAM stick failed on me.

But hey, Microsoft says Windows XP requires 64MB of RAM.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865


Windows 2000:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297

XP will be way too slow. I like speedy computers.

I see now that 2000 works with only 32 MB RAM.

I think I've decided that Windows 2000 will be good for my needs.
It has great USB support and program compatibility.

[Quantos]

I'm thinking about buying a old PC with specs something like these:
a 300-600 Mhz CPU and 64 MB RAM

Why would you buy something with those specs, I hope that the price is REALLY low.

So far I think ME is my best choice.

I think that Win2K is your best choice.