Small OS for a laptop

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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!).

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.