Hi all. I have a old laptop from 1998. It's a Hi-Grade Notino AS6000T. It used to run Windows 98SE until I destroyed it!
Basically, the HDD is 2.6 GB. I had a spare one from another laptop which was 12 GB so I wanted to replace it. I took the HDD out (it was the first time I did so), but realised the 12 GB one does not 'fit' in it (the size is different). So I put the old one back in again and when booting... 'No OS found' ! So basically I touched the HDD and presumably killed the OS! (please note: Yes, I put everything back in CORRECTLY, so don't ask)
Now I want to install an OS on it again, but Windows 98SE ran quite slow on it (even though I upgraded from 80 MB RAM to 144), so I want advice which Windows (not Linux) OS I shall install on it. Here are the specs:
Intel Pentium II, clock speed: 233 MHz
144 MB RAM
HDD total space: 2.6 GB
The RAM is good but the CPU has a very low clock speed, so therefore a OS like 2000 or XP will run slow on it, let alone the 98SE was not satisfactory. Which OS shall I install on it then? I'm thinking about 95 but what do you lot think?
Ok, I'll phrase it another way. A laptop of that vintage will really only run 2 OS's (3 if you count ME), and drivers for any current hardware simply don't exist. You will not be able to run any current software on it. That laptop is obsolete and is not usable any longer.
As for a waste of time, hey, it's my time and I'll use it as I see fit.
Windows 98SE should run comfortably on it. Windows 95 is an option but I would prefer 98. ME can run under those specs but it would be a bit slow and possibly unstable. Windows 2000 isn't really an option if you plan on fully updating it to SP4.
Windows 98SE needs at minimum 32MB of RAM, 1.0GB HDD and a Pentium I processor. Your OS was probably suffering from winrot and that would explain why it was slow, otherwise you should not have a problem with Win98.
No computer is too old, all of which has usable and redeemable qualities. Hope you have fun with yours.
How the hell can Windows 2000, and especially server, run properly on even lower specs?! It's NT-based and requires a much higher CPU and RAM to work properly, so it's surprising to see it worked for you.
2000 can work on that low of specs, but I honestly don't know how well at 144MB and a Pentium II. I thought it'd react in the same way as XP with service packs (SP1 and SP2 demanded a little more RAM and a Pentium 3/4 processor as opposed to the original version. SP3 required at least 768MB and a Pentium 4 to run without issue. So I thought that would be the same with Windows 2000 SP4.).
Winrot huh? OK, maybe that was the problem. I won't run Windows 2000 on it because I'm sure it will struggle on these low specs. I'll try Windows 98 SE, but what about Me? (yes, I know Me is unstable, buggy etc. but it has better driver support, Movie Maker etc.)
ME is honestly fine once you download the (unofficial) fan-made service pack. Back when I had time on my hands I tried Windows ME with SP1 for two months and experienced far less problems than vanilla ME.
RAM is the main issue for Windows ME. It can run on 128MB but older webpages show that anywhere between 128 and 256MB is where ME will run at it's best. My ME computer ran with 256 so try to max out your RAM for the best experience if you want to use Windows ME, otherwise stick with 98SE.