What version of Windows should I use? (on my old laptop)

edited September 2015 in Software
a0SW6HF.jpg

Hi, I'm maxell, and I have a laptop. I've been running Arch Linux on it for a while, and after it gets repaired, I'm going to have to start school which requires me to use a lot of Windows software, specifically Rosetta Stone, and I should probably get Office as well if I don't want to get yelled at for using the "weird Linux office" program.

However, my laptop is horrible. It's a Celeron 900, and not even Vista ran on it all that well. So I think I might go for XP. XP is technically out of support, however I can always configure it to receive POSReady 2009 updates.

But then again, Windows 2000 is even lighter. The Rosetta Stone box says it will run on 2000 just fine. However I think it might be underkill and using software as old as 2000 wouldn't be a very good idea. I'd be using a SATA drive for instance, which plays well with later versions of XP, but I don't know if 2000 would support it.

Or, I could chance it with something like Windows Thin PC or Tiny7. These might run smoothly, but I don't really know if the version bump is really all that useful, other than getting the most recent version of HexChat running.

Comments

  • I'd recommend XP, but you should try 7, it probably runs better than Vista, but it'll still be quite slow. Avoid 2000, since barely any software supports it nowadays.
  • How much ram does it have?
  • If you're going to install a modern Windows, I would avoid 7... go for 10 or 8. They can run decently on old machines.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxqMxUnWUUg

    Otherwise, have you tried wine?
  • jamie1130 wrote:
    How much ram does it have?
    2GB.

    Yeah I think 2000 is out of the question. It's too old to actually get anything done.

    Wine would be sluggish if I'm running something like Office or Rosetta Stone probably. Maybe Minesweeper? But anything more complex and I bet it'll freeze up.

    8 or 10 would be good to try. 10 is rather bloated though.
  • I wouldn't go beyond XP, regardless of the amount of RAM you have. That 900MHz Celery is basically a chopped-down Pentium III, and Windows 7's CPU requirements are, at minimum, 1GHz for decent performance.
  • maxell wrote:
    10 is rather bloated though.

    Not really.
  • BlueSun wrote:
    maxell wrote:
    10 is rather bloated though.

    Not really.
    My little brother has windows 10 and he loves it. If you are looking for compatibility I would say go for windows 7. It's stable and it is user friendly towards people who are use to the windows environment.
  • I initially found Windows 10 good-ish and expected some hiccups to be fixed in updates like they were for previous OS-es, but I really can't help the feeling of bloatware anymore. It's a chore getting older stuff to work on it, and its settings are stupidly and nonsensically split between two menus, one built for retards and one being a stripped-down version of the conventional Control Panel, but you have to use both.

    I've even written myself a pro/con list to see if cons outweigh pros when considering going back to Win7 (which seems like a good idea more and more).

    PROS:
    - free Maps app that lets you download individual countries or, in the case of larger countries, individual states/counties for offline use
    - a compatibility troubleshooter*
    - fast startup option
    - easy-to-use Search function (albeit sluggish)
    - Action Center with some handy option shortcuts
    - lets you return to the Windows version you upgraded from
    - lets you burn an ISO of the OS
    - very stable environment at launch

    CONS:
    - lack of SafeDisc support completely wrecks compatibility for some older games unless you decide to seek out cracks or re-releases that are coded differently (if any)
    - perpetuated black screen problems
    - sluggish standard startup/reboot
    - loss of user control over a considerable part of the OS
    - inexplicable compatibility issues with some non-gaming programs (VirtualBox, COMODO Firewall at Win10 launch...)
    - lack of customization options
    - still a chaotic Start menu
    - *the compatibility troubleshooter has some games/programs incorrectly recognized
    - can't remember a chosen action for a CD/DVD for the life of it
    - the overhyped MS Edge gives nothing to compete in functionality and customizability of Firefox, Chrome, Opera and even Internet Explorer (!)
    - overusage of Metro apps
    - replaces old, fully functional and usable applications (Photo Viewer, Media Player...) with far inferior Metro counterparts (the exception is the Calculator, which has moved to Metro, but retained usability)



    As for the original poster, if Vista (I'm assuming we're talking a later version with service packs and not the glitchy initial one) couldn't run properly, you seem to be stuck with XP. To make things easier when installing certain programs, I'd like to recommend that you visit http://www.oldapps.com/ - there you can narrow down versions of individual software that are supported on individual OS-es (though some lists like WMP may be slightly wrong).
  • Yeah I think 2000 is out of the question. It's too old to actually get anything done.
    You can run Service Pack 5.1 and the UURollup for Windows 2000 by experienceRCOS. This allows you to run any software designed for XP on 2000. :)
  • If you are going to use anything windows on your old laptop, I suggest Windows XP or Windows Vista.

    In my other opinion, get a linux. :roll:
  • XP is not worth your time; "modern" but unpatched. Hacking 2000 to be is a waste of time. Windows 7 is pretty peppy on old HW (I run it on P3 867) and if you have the CPU flags and GPU drivers for it, 8/10 will be even better.

    And if you're preferring Linux... just use it.
  • I just can't get my head around on the fact that Win7/8/10 can run on old systems such as a celeron.
  • I would probably go with 2000 or XP on your laptop. I can't imagine any newer versions of windows running well with a Celeron 900, though I don't have much experience with 8/8.1 and 10. 2000 with the unofficial updates installed would probably work better on that laptop than XP, though they are both good choices.
  • Spaghetti's run out, time's up, over, blaouw!!!

    So, I got a new laptop, I don't know why, but my parents just bought a laptop. I didn't even boot Windows up before immediately installing Arch.

    That laptop is dead as a doornail. I'm probably going to run some sort of virtual machine on this laptop for Rosetta Stone.
Sign In or Register to comment.