Reply to: Small OS for a laptop

[Shimano105]

I never used OS/2 but I always liked the idea of it - seemed to be more advanced than Windows but VHS won over Betamax...

[Churchill]

OS/2 v1.3

[Shimano105]

What about antivirus though?

[bogeyman]

Me too. I have fond memories of Win2K. All XP really added was the ability to switch users without logging off, and remote desktop server in the workstation version. I still use the Win2K style toolbars.

But I do like the idea of a more lightweight OS. OS's, and especially Windows I think are designed around a problem that doesn't exist anymore: not having very much RAM. These days with 2GB as a minimum, it really ought to boot, pre load whatever choice programs you configure, and then switch off the hard disk.

Also W2K in not encumbered by all the 'activation' shyte. You can just install it and run it on any number of machines.

When you pair it down to its essentials, Wk2 is a very good general purpose OS.

[VectraMan]

Agreed. All the gloss applied since W2K has added nothing.

Me too. I have fond memories of Win2K. All XP really added was the ability to switch users without logging off, and remote desktop server in the workstation version. I still use the Win2K style toolbars.

But I do like the idea of a more lightweight OS. OS's, and especially Windows I think are designed around a problem that doesn't exist anymore: not having very much RAM. These days with 2GB as a minimum, it really ought to boot, pre load whatever choice programs you configure, and then switch off the hard disk.

[Sysman]

If you're on a Mac use NeoOffice - a long-ago forked project intended to make a native OS X version of OO - it's much faster and tons more reliable IMHO.

I have both OO and NeoOffice under 10.4 and 10.5 and OO sucks in comparison.

I last tested NeoOffice vs the X11 version of OO, and on an ancient iBook. I'll give NeoOffice another whirl. Ta muchly.

[Shimano105]

well I see that you can nLite Win2k as well so its a possibility.

What antivrus bloatware do you use for server OS's?

[DimPrawn]

Probably not much difference. XP is essentially the same kernel and underpinnings as W2K as I understand it. It's only the stuff that runs on top that is different.

I quite like W2K because it is the most reliable and transparent of all Windows operating systems, in my experience. I still do all of my (dwindling) Windows development on it.

When you get it running right, W2K is utterly reliable. W2K was a milestone in software engineering (this from a Mac-head!).

Agreed. All the gloss applied since W2K has added nothing.

Lean and mean, stable and fast. But MS have to keep selling new OS's to people who don't need or want them or they go bust.

[bogeyman]

Would a stripped down Win2k be any more lean than an nLited XP though? Cos that's what I have at present.

I only use lightweight opensource where I can (Thunderbird instead of Outlook etc.)

Thanks for the Open Office tip though, I also thought that its (lack of) performance was down to me somehow!

Probably not much difference. XP is essentially the same kernel and underpinnings as W2K as I understand it. It's only the stuff that runs on top that is different.

I quite like W2K because it is the most reliable and transparent of all Windows operating systems, in my experience. I still do all of my (dwindling) Windows development on it.

When you get it running right, W2K is utterly reliable. W2K was a milestone in software engineering (this from a Mac-head!).

[Shimano105]

Would a stripped down Win2k be any more lean than an nLited XP though? Cos that's what I have at present.

I only use lightweight opensource where I can (Thunderbird instead of Outlook etc.)

Thanks for the Open Office tip though, I also thought that its (lack of) performance was down to me somehow!

[bogeyman]

Oh, I thought that was just because I'm not running on the "latest and greatest" kit.

P.S. I've just swapped one data entry spreadsheet from OO into iWork Numbers because the latter is faster than OO. That wasn't true when OO was still available as an X11 version. Price of progress eh?

If you're on a Mac use NeoOffice - a long-ago forked project intended to make a native OS X version of OO - it's much faster and tons more reliable IMHO.

I have both OO and NeoOffice under 10.4 and 10.5 and OO sucks in comparison.

[Sysman]

Still run an old version MS Office though. Open Office runs like frozen penguin shyte in winter.

Oh, I thought that was just because I'm not running on the "latest and greatest" kit.

P.S. I've just swapped one data entry spreadsheet from OO into iWork Numbers because the latter is faster than OO. That wasn't true when OO was still available as an X11 version. Price of progress eh?

[bogeyman]

I'd be inclined to get a copy of Win 2K with all available patches and use FOSS apps for email, web etc.

Once you strip out all the unnecessary services Win 2K is pretty lean and efficient. I have it running on my old Thinkpad - no AV, never had a problem.

Plenty of articles on the web about how to strip W2K down.

Still run an old version MS Office though. Open Office runs like frozen penguin shyte in winter.

[Shimano105]

I am going that way for work related stuff (think 8GB with Win 2008 and multiple VMs).

But the laptop is 2GB and with a minimal Linux type OS there are just as many full-featured apps but the hardware stresses are much less, hence the machine performs like a Vista machine could only ever dream of.

An OS that fits your machine rather than t'other way round.

[DimPrawn]

I'm just running bog standard t'internet, office apps - which is why I'm interested in minimal footprint really.

Shame to have a fairly powerful machine hindered by slow, bloaty OS's when it may as well run as quickly and as silently as possible. Dunno, but this minimal, lean and mean stuff always strikes a chord with me.

If you've got 4GB of RAM you may as well use it. Get Vista and load everything up. It's a joy.