windows 95, 98, or xp?
hello, so my question is about the lightest windows. what is the difference between windows 95, 98, and xp? I want a extremely light os for my netbook(intel atom), xp isnt cutting it. So if i install windows 95 will i see performance upgrades. I know some of the differences between windows 95 and 98, but what is the main difference between 98 and xp? i dont care about better security cause i dont use limewire.
You definately won't find drivers for the newer hardware under anything older than 2K... likely that won't even work. How much RAM is installed in that notebook? Usually a bump in RAM will help a lot when running less than 1GB with XP. Your only other option is Linux... but depending on what you install, that can be just as bloated or even more so than XP.
W95-98-98se-Me: no security at all, because good firewalls (and antivirus) don't run on them any more. I use these Win for offline computers.
95 is MUCH faster than Me which is perceivably faster and better than 98-98se. All cost just the postage at eBay, so prefer Me to 95 if you have at least 64MB and 200MHz.
Experimentally, Xp and applications on it start faster than W2k thanks to the prefetch, so prefer Xp if you have 512MB. W2k runs at full speed on 256MB and loses just 10% on 128MB.
About 95-98-98se-Me (Me is not 2000), I agree drivers are harder to find. Nearly impossible to run Usb on W95. And W95 (as well as Nt4) is a lot more difficult to install than Xp.
So Me could be an option IF your applications run on it, 95 might be possible if you find applications for it and you're willing to learn installing it and looking for drivers... Or stay with Xp!
My only experience with Ubuntu is with the desktop edition, it is significantly slower than W2k which is slower than Xp on 512MB. But if the notebook edition is lighter, fine! Truly easy to install.
Tuning the software installation improves a computer a lot. Removing Acrobat Reader and Open Office (or at least their so-called "quick launchers") accelerates Windows startup quite a bit. Remove any firewall and permanent antivirus if you don't surf. Make a massacre with MsConfig. Choosing quick applications also makes more difference than big hardware.
Did you consider replacing your hard disk? This is the huge weak point of any notebook. Changing from 5400/min to 7200/min, if possible with more GB per platter, makes a huge difference. A Flash disk would also be good - somewhat better than a 7200/min 2.5" disk, and comparable with a 7200/min 3.5" disk. Some people use a CF flashcard instead of an SSD: cheaper, but speed isn't guaranteed in neither case - it needs a precise investigation.
I know a computer with a 1400MHz PIII and 512MB but a good disk (7k160 or J8160), it boots in 28s and is very responsive thereafter. An Atom shouldn't be worse.
Actually due to TDP limitations the atom N270(1.6GHz) performs worse than 1.2GHz celerons. I would think the performance is comparable to that P3. Btw what HDD is that? I agree with changing start-up programs to quicken xp, my 1.4Ghz Pentium M takes like 10 minutes from boot-up to full responsiveness.
I just realize you've an Atom. From any benchmark I've seen, teh single-core computes a bit faster than my PIIIs 1400MHz does, and its Ram is much faster (bottleneck of the PIII).
So as my PIIIs is acceptable on W2k (50s boot including antivirus, then snappy) your Atom should be good on Xp. If it's lame, you definitely have an installation problem.
What your Hdd? A 5400t/min 2.5" can't make a quick computer.
There is no official W95, 98 nor WMe driver for any chipset working with the Atom. In case you have no InfInst and stuck at Pio, speed is a lost battle. Xp or Linux would be the only way then.