As I understand, it's possible to install and running such type of disk on our old buddy.

My question is whether it's worth to be taken into consideration?

Btw, from that article looks like, that in term of use SSD, another oldie (Windows 2000) is better than newer OSes:

http://www.liliputing.com/2008/12/whats-th...ndows-2000.html

Do give this thread a good read: SSD vs RAMDrive... while not focusing on 9x, there's a lot of interessting info on SSDs in it, some of it quite up-to-date.

Dencorso, thank you for the reply and interesting link.

I see the Computer World article has Win98 as the fastest OS for SSDs...

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/912...d_state_drives_

Way to go '98!

It just wears off the flash memory faster because writes to same sectors over and over, unlike Win2000. Even so, it is still the fastest.

Wow! hate to necro post but this is exactly the information I was looking for.

Especially since newegg.ca has recently listed SSDs under 100 bucks!

Was wondering about using W2kP (or even '98) because most of the reviewers at newegg

were talking about their netbooks or Win7 on their SSDs.

I only wonder because one reviewer of the 32Gig OCZ said not to format or de-frag the SSD

because of the built-in wear leveling[good for Linux systems].

So I'm wondering about partitioning as I stated elsewhere my need to dual-boot W2k and Linux.

Do you think it will work without harm to the SSD?

Anyone here, '98 or 2000 using an SSD to boot/launch apps from while still using their large drives for storage?

Edited February 8, 201115 yr by Browncoat

Hehe, nice info on the 98 bit ^^

Modern SSDs should all have their own internal wear leveling setups so this should not really be a big problem, especially when you get rid of the swapfile or place it in RAM.

I do have a two and a half year old Asus EEE PC with 16GB SSD drive. I've installed a Windows 98 on it over two years ago. It works quite well, so far. I decided to switch off the memory swap file. It seems the factory 1GB RAM is large enough for the memory swapping to be disabled completely.

So, far, so good. The computer works almost every day for over a year, now. I encountered no SSD related problems, so far.

Edited February 7, 201115 yr by Sfor

I do have a two and a half year old Asus EEE PC with 16GB SSD drive. I've installed a Windows 98 on it over two years ago. It works quite well, so far. I decided to switch off the memory swap file. It seems the factory 1GB RAM is large enough for the memory swapping to be disabled completely.

So, far, so good. The computer works almost every day for over a year, now. I encountered no SSD related problems, so far.

Could you say a bit more about your experience with SSD?

What is configuration of that Asus EEE?

Btw, do you think, it is worth to buy a cheap SSD like this one (32 GB)?

http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-onyx-series-sata-ii-2-5-ssd.html

The Asus EEE PC 900 series were sold with an SSD. Perhaps, that's why the whole netbook weights less than 1 kg. The reading speed is high, but the write speed seems to be much slower. I can not say if the device you mentioned is a good one, since I do not know the specifications or benchmarks of my own SSD.

The only thing I've noticed about the speed is the MHDD test of the whole 16GB drive takes about 20 seconds. It seems to be too unrealistic, I think.

I was told that there is no such thing as a SSD. Instead of accessing the drive like a regular Hard Drive, it still has to go threw the entire drive like a CD or USB.

I was told that there is no such thing as a SSD.

And I was told there are flying pink elephants...

I was told that there is no such thing as a SSD.

And I was told there are flying pink elephants...

Be careful - no matter the color - there may be issues with flying elephants :

As I glanced up in the sky

A bird dropped something from ahigh.

As I wiped it from my eye.

I thanked the Lord elephants don't fly.

jaclaz

Win 98 Now b... DING!