which MS OS is better?

**gibsinep** · 06-10-2002, 02:43 PM

Also Xp has that cool compatibilty mode.

**wizard101uk** · 06-11-2002, 06:58 AM

Which I have found, NOT to work really all that well.

**ukulele** · 06-11-2002, 12:24 PM

Like louiedf77 I am considering a change in OS myself. Currently I am running Win 98se on an Athlon 700 classic with 256 mb ram and ati 128 expert 32mb video card. I built this system in '99 and aside from some crashes due to buggy software or junk hardware I have no complaints at all. I build and repair used computers as a hobby and have tested literally hundreds of hardware components and software programs on this system in the last few years with 95% success. Now what will happen if I tried this on XP or NT? I think we all know that the answer is half that stuff wouln't work right with NT or XP. Now I am considering upgrading to a system with double that speed. (No I am not going for the latest and greatest, been there done that, what a waste of money), and I will go with a dual boot Win98se and NT2000. I would not even consider XP because it was designed for beginners (which I am not) and will never have the flexibility that I want. Microsoft realized years ago that if it built an OS that only worked right with certified hardware/drivers and certified software that it could get a piece of the pie from every player in the PC market. XP is their solution. If you want to play around with used computers you will need a DOS based OS for quite a few more years. I fail to see even one good reason in the above posts to go with XP over NT for stability or speed. Just more useless **** in my estimation.

**JuNacy** · 06-13-2002, 06:50 AM

I prefer XP. Have been using it for a little while and have found it to be very stable and reliable.

**Ankerson** · 06-13-2002, 07:30 AM

I personally think Win 2000 is the best. I ran XP Pro from Beta 2 and it is a very good OS. I never had and problems with it, very stable and fast if you have 512mb of ram and a fast CPU.

I keep XP on one system all the time, but my other 4 run Win 2000Pro.

**gibsinep** · 06-13-2002, 02:57 PM

very stable and fast if you have 512mb of ram and a fast CPU.

I would go as far as saying XP is stable on any system with at lest 128mb ram and a 500mhz cpu.

When I say stable I mean no lockups. That has been my experieance with it at least.

**MoxManiac** · 06-14-2002, 05:48 PM

I love WinXP, and it apparently loves my hardware cause it runs wonderfully.

Of course I had some issues at first (BIOS

) but i resolved them.

I didn't want to use Win2k because I'm worried that my emulators would not work in it. I wanted WinXP's better backwards compatability. I have heard that Win2K is a stellar OS. But I am happy with XP!

**gibsinep** · 06-14-2002, 06:41 PM

Win XP loves my hardware also. Only problem I had was with my Network card, DFE-530TX, XP thought it was a realtech and those drivers didnt work for it so I just had to track down the XP drivers for the card no biggy.

**Acpsr** · 06-15-2002, 03:50 PM

Everything has it's place. For the last year I have been running a copy of the last Beta release of XP. It never crashes. I installed it over a copy of ME, upgraded from WIn98SE. I guess I still have pieces of both. I used Ghost to create partition images of my drive for backups, cause if the drives crash I don't think I could ever re-create the operating system blend.

I Install win2000K on all my office systems, but it doesn't like some of my older DOS utilities (old dog with tricks that work great!). My users like it OK, i've set it up where they can't screw with the settings, so down time is cut to the bone.

Still, nothing I've run (and my memory goes back beyond DOS1.0) works as well as the blend of 98/ME/Beta XP that I have!

**mickey_hwoarang** · 06-15-2002, 10:18 PM

why? because MS DOS let's u the user have the most freedom.. it is what they call most user friendly, that is if you know a little bit of programming. Plus it consumes very little memory and games run great on it.

**Ifish25** · 06-15-2002, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by mickey_hwoarang
why? because MS DOS let's u the user have the most freedom.. it is what they call most user friendly, that is if you know a little bit of programming. Plus it consumes very little memory and games run great on it.

It also is great for cleaning up Windows problems when Windows will not load. DOS Scandisk can be a real lifesaver.

**bassman** · 06-26-2002, 07:15 AM

The OS choice always depends on what you're going to do with it; checking your system's specs and your kind of use, I'd suggest Windows 2000 Pro (don't forget to install SP2); supports games, it's more secure and stable than ME.

**Ankerson** · 06-26-2002, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by gibsinep

I would go as far as saying XP is stable on any system with at lest 128mb ram and a 500mhz cpu.

When I say stable I mean no lockups. That has been my experieance with it at least.

Yea it will run on 128mb of ram, but the OS is going to take over half of it on boot up.

256mb is my recommended min ram for XP.

**nano** · 06-26-2002, 09:03 AM

I used ME for a day or two, my opinion is that ME was the worst ever produce by MS, after i Install 2K Pro, I haven't had a crash or problems ever since, very fast, very secure and good memory management.
When XP came along I removed 2K to install XP and its been great, as good as 2K with a newer look (XP Pro), networking was very easy, not a single crash so far, user accounts are great.
I still keep 2K on my laptop, no need to change it.

My opinion is get rid of ME and take your pick 2K (no activation) or XP (activate), they both are great OS.

**bushmaster** · 06-26-2002, 09:37 AM

Well! I tell ya.
I was running XP. And yes, it's smooth, loaded with the latest drivers for ease of installation on a homebuilt box, and the gui is by far the most attractive I've seen. "Crash proof" ???? It has it's problems. But by far it's prolly the most idiot proof OS on the market.
But one, not so little problem. Turns out if you read your eula you will discover that there are parts of it that the average user unknowingly violates on almost a daily basis. And that is file sharing. Ie; napster, WinMX, Kazaa, etc, etc.
Secondly is under the guise of Mr. Gates building a better OS we end up giving his jackbooted thugs the right to root around our hard drives whilst we are on-line to see what "software" we are running within "HIS" OS. Not our OS because we dont own the software after we plunk down our $$$ for it, we merely own, sorry rent a license to use it on one processor at a time. Further for anybody using it in a professional setting there are a group of rules and regulations that are amended and updated every 3 months.

So what happens on the day the richest man in the world decides to enforce his eula (that you agreed to) and you check the update site for patches unless you were silly enough to allow the OS to do it on it's own, and you download a patch that makes filesharing impossible. And then you have to either "hack" the OS yourself, or go to some rogue site to download what you hope is a safe patch or workaround to be able to do what you bought or built your computer for in the first place. OOOPs your now a criminal...well that is unless you pay Mr. Gates for a license.

Thread: which MS OS is better?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Totally MS DOS

Re: Totally MS DOS

win 2k Pro

Posting Permissions