Sorry to ask here...

[damianfaye]

I am about to get this computer:

Celeron 1400 (FSB 100)
Mobo Intel 815EP (AGP 4X)
512 MB SDRAM 100Mhz
PNY GeForce4 Ti4200 64 Mb AGP
Sound Blaster Live! 5.1
USR 56K
Compaq 10/100
---------
And some decent 5.1 speakers.

Now, the question is: Which OS is more stable for such computer??

Oldie Windows 98SE?
Newbie Windows XP Home Edition?

I hate ME.

Sorry about asking here, but THIS is the forum where SMART people come.

Thanks in advance,
Leonardo.

 

[Black_Cat]

I hate ME.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Get XP.

To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.

 

[MeTaLrOcKeR]

For the money ur spending on that CPU u DO know u can get urself an Athlon XP 1700+ ???? And Motherboard, and Ram and everything...

anyways...besides the point....

Best OS u should be using is Windows XP.....to bad u dont have Pro...its better than Home...but home is sitll better than 98SE or ME........

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>

 

[Teq]

I have a number of friends who are running win2000 on celeron machines and they are having no problems at all.

Essentially XP is win2000 with a bunch of eyecandy and gimmickery tossed in for good measure. Problem is, unless you go about turning off all the visual silliness and all the auto-play crap you end up taking quite the little performance hit in XP... on a 1400 Celeron it would be quite noticeable.

I'd suggest win2000 pro, with some good healthy tweaking it will be fast and stable on your system.


<b>(</b>It ain't better if it don't work.<b>)</b>

 

[jihiggs]

seriously man, what the heck do you want a celeron for?

my computer is so fast, it completes an endless loop in less than 4 seconds!

 

[Crashman]

Well, as long as the memory, board, and power supply are good quality, both would be very stable. Now, first question is, WHY PC100? PC100 is normally either remarked PC133, or reject PC133 (PC133 that crapped out at full speed). PC100 normally cost more than PC133 also.

Anyway, like I said, as long as the parts are good quality you won't have a stability problem with either. But 98SE would run faster, especially considering your slow memory speed.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[dhlucke]

First of all, unless you're getting that computer for under a couple hundred bucks, it's a horrible investment. Seriously, that's some really old and slow parts you've got there.

I prefer WinXP since I've never had a crash on either of my computers running it.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A></font color=red>

 

[damianfaye]

Nope, I didn't know I could get the AMD. However, I'm buying that motherboard because I have already got the Celeron ($50), and the Intel motherboard is only $40. I am 17 years old and I am not working too much to get the money. So, yeah, I am buying a cheap computer, but I'm going ot be proud of it.

Thanks for the answer.

 

[damianfaye]

Thanks, though I have heard that Win2000 is usually for office working, and servers, or even not good for gaming.
But, anyway...

Thanks for your answer.

 

[damianfaye]

Yo! I want it because it's CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEAP. Think man, seriously! Not every man has a lot of money!

I'm 17, and I have to work because my crappy Emachines 733 blew up!
I bought this CPU because it was $50!
Look for the P4 prices, its Celeron line, and then AMD.

Only $50!!!

I'm trying to buy a cheap computer coz I don't have that much money!

Anyway, thanks for answering.

 

[damianfaye]

Exactly!
I'm trying to get this computer for less than a hundred bucks because I'm 17 and I don't work that much.
Slow, yeah, I know! Tell me something that I do not know!
Knowing all the products that are out there, it will be very stupid of me to buy a CELERON!

Thanks for your answer...

 

[damianfaye]

Well, all of the components are good quality. I'm getting PC100 because I had a E-machines 733 with 64 mb that I upgraded to 256 Mb (All PC-100 because of the mobo)
So, I don't want to lose those 256 Mb. Since the mobo has the Intel 815EP the memory will work at the same speed than the CPU's FSB (In my case 100Mhz), so getting PC-133 will be useless unless I get a Pentium III (Above $100), when I paid only $50 for my Celeron 1400.

ALSO, I'm getting a CD-RW/DVD combo drive because I'm gonna be watching DVDs on my computer, so... is W98SE good at DVD playing? Probably not, bu as you said, my RAM sucks (Thing I know very well).

So... so far, W98SE is welcomed.

Thanks for your answer, a lot.

 

[MeTaLrOcKeR]

Well.....u want CHEAP...ur definently getting cheap.....

$54 coulda got u an AMD Athlon XP 1700+......i mena even a Palomino 1500+ is bette than what ur getting...or even a 1.2Ghz AMD Athlon T-Bird.......

Anyways....

As for operating systems.....since u keep insisting Win 98SE im gonna assume u already have this OS....

Win 98SE isnt a totaly BAD OS but ur MUCH better off with Windows XP.......u can most likely get ahold of a Corporate copy of Windows XP sumwhere......try and get that...it will serve u much better than anything else....

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>

 

[Teq]

Win2000 was indeed originally meant for office work...

But the PRO version, which comes from NT workstation does a very nice job on gaming, if you tweak it up a little. Where it falls down is on the older DOS games that use the "32bit DOS Extender". Other than that it's faster and a lot more stable than any 9X version of windows.

There are lot of win2k disks floating around out there, you could probably find somenoe who's willing to trade if price is an issue.

XP Home is essentially win2kpro with eyecandy. Both run NTKERNAL. But you take a performance hit for all the fancy stuff, making it a rather sluggish OS unless you have a lot of computer horsepower to offset it.

Win98se is ok if you don't need a system that can be left on for long periods of time. It was actually written for the home owner market with the idea that most home users will turn on their computer, mess about for an hour or two then shut them down and go do something else. Uptime and stability was never a consideration.

I still think you'll be happier if you use win2k in your machine...


<b>(</b>It ain't better if it don't work.<b>)</b>

 

[sjonnie]

To answer your question, windows XP will be more stable than windows 98.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A>

 

[RCPilot]

I'd recommend the XP PRO version. You've got it all then. Best OS I've ran & I've ran a few of them. If you want it to look like 98 with all the eye candy & overhead out of it, set it to Performance mode in Preferences & it will be lean & mean.

If it ain't broke, take it apart & see why not!

 

[Crashman]

I'm getting PC100 because I had a E-machines 733 with 64 mb that I upgraded to 256 Mb (All PC-100 because of the mobo)

What I'm trying to do here is dispell that myth. The only differences between PC100 and PC133 are:
1.)PC133 is tested at a higher speed
2.)PC100 COST MORE
What do they do if a defective module of PC133 test OK at 100MHz? Mark it as PC100 and sell it for more! What do they do when they run out of PC100? Remark PC133 as PC100.

How do they get away with selling PC133 as PC100? It's legal, because PC133 MEETS PC100 SPEC. How do they get away with chargin more for the stuff marked PC100? People don't know that PC133 is reverse compatable. In fact, I run PC133 on my old TX chipset Pentium 1 systems. Your old board was compatable with PC133 and you didn't know it!

Is it a waste of PC133 to run it at 100? No, becuase it cost less! And if your system ever dies, the remaining PC133 will be more "universally compatable" with other boards, so you can reuse the non-dead parts of a dead system.

LOL, Win95 was good for playing DVD's! DVD playback has always been 100% reliant on two things: the "player" and the hardware. Performance of DVD playback has never been reliant on the OS. I can't think of anything Win98SE doesn't do at least as fast as XP. The main reasons people move to XP are support (for the latest hardware and software) and stability (98SE not as stable on junk hardware, like VIA chipsets).

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>