The Best Operating System

[DarkClown12]

What do you all think is the best and fastest windows os? and why is it the best and fastest to you?

mine is win xp cause it is new and pretty fresh

[shn]

Windows 2000 pro.

[TRshady]

Windows 2000 professional

Though if xps settings are right ... I find it just as fast. B)
(change the visual style to windows classic, turn off system restore etc)

[4play]

windows 3.11 for workgroups

just takes me back and i wonder how fast it would run on this machine :P

[NightStalker]

Windows ME. :rolleyes:





:lol: :lol: :lol:

[DarkClown12]

I hate ME

[ck-uk]

Originally posted by 4play@24 March 2004 - 18:51
windows 3.11 for workgroups

just takes me back and i wonder how fast it would run on this machine  :P
It would run like shit mate,it did at the time too imo.To much fiddlin and on floppies.


I agree with shn(hi)2k or xp.I havn't got a round to trin' 2k3server yet,so idunno :)

[Ariel_001]

Windows 2000/XP and linux. There the best if you know what you are doing.

[I.am]

WIN 3.1

[bulio]

windows 2000 pro, although linux is 10000.00077 times better than windows :P

[4th gen]

I'm gonna say XP (and get shouted at for doing so...;))

[delphin460]

alas 2000 has problems with mme extentions , always had and always will, windows 2000 was never realy ment for home users doing all the stuff we do , yes its great for network solutions and offices, but lacks mutlimedia extentions

xp was designed around win 2000, and includes 99% of mme required

win 2000 is quicker on older comps with less ram

but if you got a new comp with lots of ram , you cant tell the diff between 2000 and xp

go xp

[bulio]

2000 pro and xp pro a literally the same

[tesco]

windows xp is my favorite by far, next is win 2000, then 98se, then 98, then me, then NT, then 3.11, finally windows 95. mac and linux I haven't really used too much so i wouldnt put either into my favorites. but I do hate windows 95 so that should probably be after linux for sure.

[delphin460]

2000 pro and xp pro a literally the same

um , no i think not bulio

[Monkster]

2000 pro and xp pro a literally the same
XP is just less stable than 2000

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Monkster@24 March 2004 - 23:36

2000 pro and xp pro a literally the same
XP is just less stable than 2000
Anything to back that up?

[bulio]

i guess he doesn&#39;t <_<

[delphin460]

lol yer and its taken like 4 sp to get 2000 stable,

ive been using xp for a long time now and have no problems at all , ppl usualy blame operating systems , when usualy its hardware issues

older hardware might not be compatable with xp and thus the drivers wont work correctly

i wouldnt say thats a problem of xp, more a case of get new hardware that works with a new os

[bulio]

Originally posted by delphin460@25 March 2004 - 00:40
lol yer and its taken like 4 sp to get 2000 stable,

ive been using xp for a long time now and have no problems at all , ppl usualy blame operating systems , when usualy its hardware issues

older hardware might not be compatable with xp and thus the drivers wont work correctly

i wouldnt say thats a problem of xp, more a case of get new hardware that works with a new os
http://www.scorpioncity.com/images/crash/m/searchfoldererror.png
http://www.scorpioncity.com/images/crash/u2/ss_cancel_crash.png

you call that hardware issues? <_<

[shn]

Originally posted by 4th gen+24 March 2004 - 18:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen &#064; 24 March 2004 - 18:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Monkster@24 March 2004 - 23:36

2000 pro and xp pro a literally the same
XP is just less stable than 2000
Anything to back that up?[/b][/quote]
Nope, but 2000 pro performs better.

Walk onto a Corporate network that has 300 boxes plus on a Windows Domain, I bet you won&#39;t find any Xp boxes simply because their inoperablity with most Windows Server O.S. and primary Domain Controllers.

Guess that means their not the same too :)

[TRshady]

I have a friend with over 4 comps in the house, though two are for experimenting, linking, buidling etc. He runs xp and 2000 on computers which have exact same specs .. and there is no difference in speed ...

Win 98 is also pretty decent, lol ... have my second comp running it, and it performs better then my main comp, even though its a pentium 1 ... most probably because I haven&#39;t installed nothing at all on it .. or maybe I need a pc upgrade. :P

[Ariel_001]

http://www.scorpioncity.com/images/crash/m/searchfoldererror.png

What wrong with that? You (or someone else) forgot to put a folder name.

As for the second pic it looks like something is mis-config.

[peat moss]

Originally posted by TRshady@24 March 2004 - 11:46
Windows 2000 professional

Though if xps settings are right ... I find it just as fast.&nbsp; B)
(change the visual style to windows classic, turn off system restore etc)
XP And I have tryed them all a lot of tweaking tho.
:)

[4play]

Originally posted by bulio+24 March 2004 - 23:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bulio @ 24 March 2004 - 23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-delphin460@25 March 2004 - 00:40
lol yer and its taken like 4 sp to get 2000 stable,

ive been using xp for a long time now and have no problems at all , ppl usualy blame operating systems , when usualy its hardware issues

older hardware might not be compatable with xp and thus the drivers wont work correctly

i wouldnt say thats a problem of xp, more a case of get new hardware that works with a new os
http://www.scorpioncity.com/images/crash/m/searchfoldererror.png
http://www.scorpioncity.com/images/crash/u2/ss_cancel_crash.png

you call that hardware issues? <_< [/b][/quote]
you still have the the visual studio debugger running thats why your getting that message.

[delphin460]

yes bulio , again you mis understand what you are looking at, its a run time error, obviously a conflict generated by other software within your system

i dont think it comes standard with that bug now does it??????

i suggest you do some debugging , update your vb runtime enviorment, or maybe just reformat, you prob used a burnt copy of xp didnt you, more than likley a buggy burnt copy at that.

notice how its the ppl with little understanding of how their os work are the first to throw stones when they cause these issues themselves

[shn]

Originally posted by delphin460@24 March 2004 - 19:20

notice how its the ppl with little understanding of how their os work are the first to throw stones when they cause these issues themselves
Probably because the Windows O.S. is supposed to be designed for people who......................know little understanding of how their os works. :ninja:

[4th gen]

Originally posted by shn@25 March 2004 - 00:33
Probably because the Windows O.S. is supposed to be designed for people who......................know little understanding of how their os works. :ninja:
That&#39;ll be why M&#036; bought AOL then ;)