What Operating System Do You Suggest

[Dark Ride]

I'm runing WinXP Pro currently.My question is which OS would be perfect for my PC specs:

Intel Pentium 4 , 1.8 GHz
256 RDRAM
GeForce 2 MX/MX 400 64 MB
ASUS P4T Motherboard
Samsung 40 GB HDD (7200 rpm)
Creative Soundblaster PCI 128
Lucent (Agere) 56 kb/s PCI Data/Fax Modem
Rockwell/Conexant 56 kb/S HCF PCI Data/Fax Modem (yes, I have two crappy 56k modems )
Samsung CD-R/RW 40x/12x/40x
Samsung DVD 16x/48x

And don't tell me to switch of some gfx settings in WinXP pro, I want a new OS which fitts my PC specs.

:gunsmile:

[shn]

Linux IMO.

Although Windows 2000 Pro would work better than XP for thoose specs.

[peat moss]

XP pro . More memory tho.

[tesco]

XP Pro would work flawlessly on that computer.

edit: oh you already have it. having any problems?

[peat moss]

Originally posted by ROSSCO_2004@17 June 2004 - 18:31
XP Pro would work flawlessly on that computer.

edit: oh you already have it. having any problems?

My thoughts too, mabye just curious , thats a good sign .

[shn]

Originally posted by ROSSCO_2004@17 June 2004 - 20:31
XP Pro would work flawlessly on that computer.

Trying to convince someone is one thing.................lying to them is another.

Now we all know nothing with a Windows Logo will ever work flawlessly.

[peat moss]

Originally posted by shn@17 June 2004 - 18:30
Linux IMO.

Although Windows 2000 Pro would work better than XP for thoose specs.

Shn why ? I never really tryed 2000 pro , But just wondering why you said that.


Edit not the linux part !

[shn]

Originally posted by peat moss+17 June 2004 - 20:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peat moss @ 17 June 2004 - 20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-shn@17 June 2004 - 18:30
Linux IMO.

Although Windows 2000 Pro would work better than XP for thoose specs.

Shn why ? I never really tryed 2000 pro , But just wondering why you said that.


Edit not the linux part &#33; [/b][/quote]
2000 Pro is lighter and more efficient IMO and without all the unecessary bloat.

[peat moss]

Oh ok makes sence I&#39;m sure the memory requirements are much lower too .


http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/profe...eqs/default.asp

While I swear by XP PRO here&#39;s some info .

Love this : At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM; more memory generally improves responsiveness.

[tesco]

Originally posted by peat moss@17 June 2004 - 21:48
Oh ok makes sence I&#39;m sure the memory requirements are much lower too .


http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/profe...eqs/default.asp

While I swear by XP PRO here&#39;s some info .

Love this : At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM; more memory generally improves responsiveness.

peatmoss, it SAYS 64mb, but so did XP, and u don&#39;t see anybody with 64mb of ram running XP do you? lol. 2000 is also a resource hog. Both can be tweaked down to use the same amount of ram if you want to, and XP will be better then too.

While all microsoft OS are crap, i agree Shn, windwos XP is microsoft&#39;s most stable OS (for workstations). i&#39;ve seen 2000 freeze a few times, lock ups and crap are less often than 98 and me, but they do occasionally happen. XP, on the other hand, I haven&#39;t seen freeze EVER. It automatically restarts the explorer service, recovers all of your open crap, and continues as if nothing happened (but it gets annoying if it happens a lot, still better than complete lockups.

Linux probably never locks up either, right?