Comments on: Loading A Older Computer With A Newer OS http://www.pcmech.com/article/loading-a-older-computer-with-a-newer-os/ Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:29:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robert Plumerhttp://www.pcmech.com/article/loading-a-older-computer-with-a-newer-os/comment-page-1/#comment-6274 Robert Plumer Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:45:19 +0000 http://1130879622#comment-6274 I've loaded Windows 2000 in a few older machines and they do quite fine by me. Plus it's compatible with most anything made for XP. I think of it as XP without all the bells and whistles (or you might say stripped down version of XP). I've got two similar PC's(hardware wise) one running 2000 Pro and the other XP Pro and the 2000 Pro is my speedier machine and just as dependable(if not more) than the XP one. Like Jason did you have to think of who is using the machine. If someone is an advanced user(geek) then perhaps Linux would be great, but for the average or casual PC user Windows is the way to go. I’ve loaded Windows 2000 in a few older machines and they do quite fine by me. Plus it’s compatible with most anything made for XP. I think of it as XP without all the bells and whistles (or you might say stripped down version of XP). I’ve got two similar PC’s(hardware wise) one running 2000 Pro and the other XP Pro and the 2000 Pro is my speedier machine and just as dependable(if not more) than the XP one. Like Jason did you have to think of who is using the machine. If someone is an advanced user(geek) then perhaps Linux would be great, but for the average or casual PC user Windows is the way to go.

]]> By: Jason Faulknerhttp://www.pcmech.com/article/loading-a-older-computer-with-a-newer-os/comment-page-1/#comment-6273 Jason Faulkner Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:36:11 +0000 http://1130879622#comment-6273 The machine wasn't for my use. The person using it is most comfortable with Windows, so that is why I loaded it over Linux.On a side note, Windows 2000 seems to perform better on this machine than Puppy Linux did. Don't get me wrong, I really really liked Puppy Linux, but after using the two, Windows 2000 (once I disabled all the unneeded services and effects) is slightly faster. The machine wasn’t for my use.
The person using it is most comfortable with Windows, so that is why I loaded it over Linux.

On a side note, Windows 2000 seems to perform better on this machine than Puppy Linux did. Don’t get me wrong, I really really liked Puppy Linux, but after using the two, Windows 2000 (once I disabled all the unneeded services and effects) is slightly faster.

]]> By: Larry Thompsonhttp://www.pcmech.com/article/loading-a-older-computer-with-a-newer-os/comment-page-1/#comment-6271 Larry Thompson Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:58:23 +0000 http://1130879622#comment-6271 Just wondering why you loaded windows 2000. It sounds like you could have left it as linux as she will be using firefox and open office ? Just wondering why you loaded windows 2000. It sounds like you could have left it as linux as she will be using firefox and open office ?

]]> By: Floyd Bufkinhttp://www.pcmech.com/article/loading-a-older-computer-with-a-newer-os/comment-page-1/#comment-6272 Floyd Bufkin Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:09:34 +0000 http://1130879622#comment-6272 Quote:"Since the machine is mostly going to be used only for Internet browsing and very basic office document editing, I did the following:"Why not just use Linux? Quote:”Since the machine is mostly going to be used only for Internet browsing and very basic office document editing, I did the following:”

Why not just use Linux?

]]>