From: Matt Winston (mattwinston_at_ameritech.net)
Date: Sat Jun 15 2002 - 13:14:38 EDT
You've got to be kidding about ME right?
Seriously, Either W9SE or W2000 will run fine on that machine. Slow, sure a
bit.
Windows 2000 is ancient? Doesn't recover from crashes?
I've found just the opposite running W2000 and XP, but your mileage may
vary.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve C." <stevec50_at_yahoo.com>
To: <pioroman_at_gmx.net>
Cc: <thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [560x] Running Win2k on it...
> Yeah, it will be a lot slower. Why would you want an
> ancient OS like that? I wouldn't install W2K on
> anything since it's over 2 years old now and was just
> a facelift for NT which is 7 or 8 years old.
> It has lots of problems like not much support for
> multimedia, can't be recovered if it crashes, etc.
> Use Windows ME and it should be a lot better. Your
> Win98 programs will still run, most drivers will work,
> etc.
>
> --- "pioroman_at_gmx.net" <pioroman_at_gmx.net> wrote:
> > I have an old laptop running win98 on a 560x with
> > 96Mb of ram... I believe
> > it's a P233Mhz... is anyone using Win2K on it ? I am
> > thinking of upgrading
> > to Win2K but I am afraid that it will be slower than
> > Win98... given the low
> > spec of the 560x..
> >
> > Has anybody else tried this ?
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:58:59 EST