spookymulder90 Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Hello, I apologise for my English, it's not my native language. I want to try something from 9x or old NT line, but... I don't know which will be best for me. I thought about Windows 95, NT 4.0 or Windows 2000. Hardware: - Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz - 4GB DDR3 RAM - Geforce 8400GS - 60GB IDE HDD - ASUS P5LD2-VM Later a help in the installation of the update and everything will be needing me what needed for normal everyday use (Word, old games, maybe Internet ). If you need something more - write. Bye and thanks for any help, spookymulder90! Edited August 19, 2015 by Tripredacus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
submix8c Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 With that hardware (as little info as you gave), you might want to go with Win2000. Can you provide more info, e.g. the Make/Model of the Motherboard/Chipset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathwiz Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 You'd need a 64-bit OS to use all 4GB of RAM. Not sure about Windows 95, but 98 and ME will use 3+ GB with rloew's RAM Limitation patch. It's not free but it doesn't cost much. Haven't tried NT4 or Win2K but I assume both will use the same 3+ GB. No patch should be needed for them. Win 9x/ME also won't use both CPU cores. Again I'm not sure about NT4 or Win2K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
submix8c Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Win95/NT4 - I wouldn't...Win2K *will* use both cores.The rest of above is (more or less) true.There are "free" work-arounds for RAM (98/ME) but the patch is the best. Read the Stickies. And again, it all depends on the MoBo/Chipset, but *probably* will "work" as already stated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spookymulder90 Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 My motherboard: https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P5LD2VM/Chipset: Intel 945GSo, Windows 2000 will be the best for this PC? I think, I have too PC with one-core CPU, i need to find it in my home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netbookdelgob Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Well, you can install 9x anyway, but it wont use the cores, also maybe you will have problems with ACPI and usb. In some cases, without acpi support, if you connect something to a usb port while windows is running it crashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FantasyAcquiesce Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Windows 2000 is probably the best choice for your laptop, but why not consider Windows xp since you have plenty of ram? Windows NT 4.0 doesn't support too many programs, especially in terms of games but I've never tried it. The only reason I could think of choosing 9x over W2K is the real time DOS, but drivers are likely to become an issue if you install a 9x operating system. I don't think your chipset even supports Windows 98 and without patches you can only use 1gb of ram, 512mb in Win95. Sadly Win9x lacks NTFS format, so you cannot have files over 4gb. TL; DR short summary of why Windows 2000 is a better choice-Drivers are avaliable (At least for your graphics card, not sure about the rest)-Can see all 4gb of ram-Two cores can be seen-More stable/reliable than 9x (Or at least that's what they say)-NTFS format which allows files to be more than 4gb-There are no drivers avaliable for Windows 95-Windows NT 4.0 doesn't have many programs and is limited for games (At least I've read somewhere) Note: If you're going to attempt wireless internet connection (LAN) you're gonna be in for a nasty surprise. Windows 2000 lacks zero network configuration. Some computers/laptops will require a few more installations/updates for W2k in order for some drivers like Audio to work (Personal experience) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Windows 95, 98 or ME will NOT support the 8400GS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spookymulder90 Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) Okay, so, I need to install Windows 2000. Windows 7 > doesn't working nice on this PC... I have too a other PC: - ASUS K8V/MX-S (VIA K8M800 / VIA VT8237R)- One-core Sempron 3000+ s.754- 3 graphics cards: HD3650, 9200SE or old graphic card from 1999 Rage II C- I have many DDR rams- 15 GB HDD And which old Windows I should install on this PC? I don't want XP >, last good Windows was W2k. WXP was nice, but worse than 2000. I hope that you understand me. Edited August 20, 2015 by spookymulder90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FantasyAcquiesce Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 If you don't want Windows xp, then 2000 is your only other choice if not Linux http://support.asus.com/download.aspx?SLanguage=en&m=K8V-VM&os=17(Offical Driver page for ASUS K8V drivers) I don't really understand why you would choose 2000 though. The only reasons I could really think of why you would choose W2k is less ram usage or software that doesn't work with xp. In my own personal experience setting up W2k's drivers were extremely difficult and time consuming and it lacks Zero Network Configuration, I couldn't even get the wireless internet working on the laptop. When I installed xp on the EXACT same laptop, it was a breeze to get everything working since lots of software didn't need to be installed (ex: Windows Installer, Codec's, etc). To top it all off, Windows xp still works with most modern software and you don't need to worry about web pages rendering incorrectly. W2k is still very usable I'm aware, if you do choose W2k I would recommend installing the unofficial service pack 5 and unofficial updates to get latest software working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spookymulder90 Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 But it's not a laptop. It's a normal PC. I preffer W2k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 You'd need a 64-bit OS to use all 4GB of RAM. Reallly? I guess that until 64 bit systems came out the world servers must have been very short of memory. jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spookymulder90 Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 So, for 2nd PC, the best OS is Windows 2000 too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Your biggest problem is going to be graphics cards. I believe that in Windows 98, GeForce support goes up to either 6 series but possibly 7, but that's as far as it will go. ATI Radeon support goes up to the X600 I believe, but I'm not sure on that as well. Let me make a suggestion, if you have the $22 to spare, buy RLoew's RAM patch if you're going with 9x. ($20 for the patch and $2 handling) I use his RAM patch and it works great. I'm using it on this very machine and I'm running the max 2GBs that it'll support. As for hard drive space, use an 80GB hard drive in the 98 machine and network with your other machines in the house. I can access my external hard drive on my main computer from my 98 machine so I don't have to worry about disk space or other issues arising from going over 137GBs. Although, for the first machine, I'd totally go with Windows 2000. With unofficial updates, it's very useable in today's world and on the internet. I use it as my main operating system and it hasn't let me down yet. The graphics card will be supported but Windows 2000 Professional will only see 3.1GBs of RAM unless you put the /PAE extension at the end of the bootloader which I don't recommend because it was unstable for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 To provide some context, a typical 2K desktop machine (new, in the short time time the OS was mainstream) had 128 or maybe 256 Mb of RAM (and was typically set with a 512 Mb pagefile), typically with 512 Mb of RAM it was very, very fast, and I doubt that nowadays you can actually (in normal use, not "intentionally" in a benchmark or similar) fill up the 3 Gb of RAM, the exact amount available depends on specific motherboard/chipset/etc.:http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx jaclaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now