I have Windows 2000 pro right now and i was wondering which is the best operating sytem in your opinion. Like which is the most stable, easiest, fastest, etc.
Printable View
I have Windows 2000 pro right now and i was wondering which is the best operating sytem in your opinion. Like which is the most stable, easiest, fastest, etc.
I've found windows XP to be the best overall. Very fast, hard to crash, a little tricky to configure, but worth the extra effort.--
Jibbler
Moving this topic to General Problems and Questions, as it's not KaZaA Lite Related...
Although I am currently using 98SE, I would reccomend XP to anyone. I have used it a few times, waiting on new HD before I start using it myself
I too use Windows 2000, but I think overall I would *just* go for XP... but I'm put off by 'Product Activation' and stuff - if it still applies, I don't really know.
I do get annoyed with 2000 a bit - not being able to play certain games, video-conferencing wouldn't work with MSN messenger or Netmeeting, takes AGES to startup and shutdown... but it definitely has advantes over XP (at least as far as I can remember - I used XP for about 3 months).
The most off-putting thing was the lack of control. I was trying to get a b*st*rd Diamond SupraExpress V.92 modem working, and it was having huge problems - the CD that came with it didn't work. Anyway, trying to un-install and re-install devices with different drivers was infuriating - as XP kept doing the "Add new hardware wizard" in the background without even letting me cancel it. So I had to keep deleting the drivers each time.
But being fair, XP does grow on you! My feelings for wanted 98 back are slowly diminishing...!
I heard XP made it easier to get new updated drives and is easier but can get annoying. Also you can get Windows XP Pro Corprate and that uses a corprate key and no activation required so i guess i could find one of those.
XP Pro.
WinXP Pro. on an NTFS partition.
LINUX!!! It's faster, more secure, and more stable than enything from microsoft.
True but so much harder to get to grips with if uve used M$ all ur life.Quote:
Originally posted by Sid@26 February 2003 - 01:17
LINUX!!! It's faster, more secure, and more stable than enything from microsoft.
I'm running 98 but looking into dual booting with mandrake-if I can force myself to learn it!
WIN XP IS NICE!!! When you take away the 3 year old colors n shit. \
WIN 2000 NICE!!! Very relible, almost never crashes! only bad thing iz the blue screen of death
NikkiD, I suggest Windows Xp Professional. It is fast, stable, full of configuration options, and great with networking. If you want to take full advantage you have to either force windows into the physical memory (if you have enough) or put your page file/s on a different drive. Although I would not suggest this if you are running a celeron system.
Ya I was thinking of Windows XP Pro too. I never used Linux so i dont know whether it is easy or not. Ya ive been using Windows all my life too.
XP Pro runs beautifully on my 600Mhz celeron. Got the swap file on a second HD.Quote:
Originally posted by gumbydancin@25 February 2003 - 20:38
NikkiD, I suggest Windows Xp Professional. It is fast, stable, full of configuration options, and great with networking. If you want to take full advantage you have to either force windows into the physical memory (if you have enough) or put your page file/s on a different drive. Although I would not suggest this if you are running a celeron system.
I've used all windows from 95 to XP (except for NT) and also MacOS. XP Pro is best of them all. Mac isn't as stable as people make it out to be. Don't know about linux. Support for it is practically non-existant. It has many compatibilty problems too, since almost everything is designed for Windows.
It runs just as well on a FAT32!Quote:
Originally posted by pch@25 February 2003 - 19:10
WinXP Pro. on an NTFS partition.
It runs just as well on a FAT32! [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by I_DONT_SHARE_PORN+26 February 2003 - 09:01--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (I_DONT_SHARE_PORN @ 26 February 2003 - 09:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pch@25 February 2003 - 19:10
WinXP Pro. on an NTFS partition.
I have both options on different HDDs . Using the same hardware. I see no difference, so I use FAT32.
Win XP Pro, excellent. System recovery works and is a life saver.
I turn off all of the telly tubby options and have a classic look. Basically it just looks like Win 98, but with all the advantages of the NT kernel. Best of both worlds really.
XP is tha best neva crashes but are sum compatability issues
True but so much harder to get to grips with if uve used M$ all ur life.Quote:
Originally posted by namzuf9+26 February 2003 - 02:28--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (namzuf9 @ 26 February 2003 - 02:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Sid@26 February 2003 - 01:17
LINUX!!! It's faster, more secure, and more stable than enything from microsoft.
I'm running 98 but looking into dual booting with mandrake-if I can force myself to learn it! [/b][/quote]
Give Mandrake Linux a space of 5-10 GB of Your HD and install Linux Mandrake on it.
DOS, on my old 8086.
I'm not an expert, but that stuff never crashed. :P
http://www-iea.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/hci/intstyle/dos.gif
That's why I don't use NTFS I sometimes boot to dos.Quote:
Originally posted by Bender@26 February 2003 - 13:32
DOS, on my old 8086.
I'm not an expert, but that stuff never crashed. :P
http://www-iea.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/hci/intstyle/dos.gif
Incidentaly it would have to be
type C:\install.doc or type A:\install.doc
as the type command needs to know where the file is located. Otherwise you would have to CD.. to get to the root directory before running the command. Of course if it a file on A you want the CD A: would be required.
Unless of course it was listed in the path, but what are the chances. That's really for system commands. Anyway I'm not sure that the astronaut would work with the type command. I think it's only for specific files.
Good luck
But it didn't crash... :PQuote:
Originally posted by JimF@26 February 2003 - 13:48
Incidentaly it would have to be
type C:\install.doc or type A:\install.doc
as the type command needs to know where the file is located. Otherwise you would have to CD.. to get to the root directory before running the command. Of course if it a file on A you want the CD A: would be required.
Unless of course it was listed in the path, but what are the chances. That's really for system commands. Anyway I'm not sure that the astronaut would work with the type command. I think it's only for specific files.
Good luck
Look i think windows Me is the best but you lot are going to disagre with me :angry: i downloaded it off KaZaA and it works fine
Windows XP Home Edition if you want a personal desktop I guess, And XP Pro if you want to network
Go with XP....Full install....NTFS....Takes a bit of getting used to.....But it finally won me over from 98/SE/ME/2000. To be quite honest...I wish Linux would get their shit together....But that is another story....
:lol: That's just a sad cry for attention. :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Spidy@28 February 2003 - 14:21
Look i think windows Me is the best but you lot are going to disagre with me :angry: i downloaded it off KaZaA and it works fine
SolidWing, pro is exactly like home, except with more administrative features. Any OS can be personalized, not just XP home.
XP pro.......can't go wrong....
im between xp pro, and linux. both are nice in different ways. OS X for the mac is nice too, but i haven't really gotten into that much. No mac user wants to give up a computer that long. (NOTE: this is not to start a mac fight) o:)
AMIGADOS, best ever. Nowt more to say
There is actually, I still love my Amiga :)
I think i would rather not have sex the rest of my life, then have a home pc with Win ME on it, yuck.
Anyhow, its XP for me. Very stable, a little bloated, but what ms product isnt.
And compatability wise, it cant be beat by any other os.
Same me, product activation is the only thing stopping me from upgrading. As for windows 2000, its not true, its just you. :angry:Quote:
Originally posted by geprobert@26 February 2003 - 00:47
I too use Windows 2000, but I think overall I would *just* go for XP... but I'm put off by 'Product Activation' and stuff - if it still applies, I don't really know.
I do get annoyed with 2000 a bit - not being able to play certain games, video-conferencing wouldn't work with MSN messenger or Netmeeting, takes AGES to startup and shutdown.
What's with with all this product activation in XP. I have it, tried it with no problems of activation or anything else, i just can't get to grips with it, folders, folders every bloody where, theres more folders than files.
XP is ok if you let it do it's own thing & not interfere with to many of the settings.
I use 98se which is no different to 98 apart from you can expand it a bit more.
I say that Window XP Home Edition is much better.
I had Window XP Home Edition once but I upgraded to XP Pro but I really regret that.
Window XP Pro Edition is so easy to crash. I had Window XP
Home Edition for 1 and half years and it never had a problem with it.
I had about 3 crashes in less than 6 months. :ph34r:
I'VE USED ALL THE WINDOWS APPS AND I WOULD SAY XP IS THE BEST FOR SURE B)
Can't really agree there. I have XP Pro and have changed a lot of settings, to make it look and run the way I want.Quote:
Originally posted by Grim@3 March 2003 - 21:34
What's with with all this product activation in XP. I have it, tried it with no problems of activation or anything else, i just can't get to grips with it, folders, folders every bloody where, theres more folders than files.
XP is ok if you let it do it's own thing & not interfere with to many of the settings.
I use 98se which is no different to 98 apart from you can expand it a bit more.
98 SE is very different from 98. Particularly in dealing with USB. SE is the finished product, 98 was a beta.
All presentation, no content. Waste of time and bandwidth. Please don't do that again.Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX@4 March 2003 - 00:17
XP
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
My 2 http://realgar.mcli.dist.maricopa.ed...near/penny.gif :)
You are also wrong XP Pro is better, or couldn't you find a picture.
You want a stable OS? Get XP.
You want a dumb OS? Get XP.
You want an OS that completely rapes your privacy? Get XP.
You want to make rich bastards (Micro$oft) even richer? Get XP.
You want an OS just to download 125 updates and patches to fix it? Get XP.
You want an OS that treats users like kids? Get XP.
But what do I know, I'm still with the old 98 SE.
Micro$oft is very smart in using the placebo effect.
If it's newer it has to be better, right?
Well I can only say that Windows 98 SE has never given me any kind of serious problems.
Sure I have some blue screens, but who doesn't?
What I really like about Windows 98 SE is that you could even install a coffee machine and the drivers for it. It's compatible with pratically everything.
It's not picky like all the other Windows' versions.
But time will probably show me that I'm wrong and Micro$oft money will eventually find another way of selling crap over and over, and as always, the users will be the ones who get screwed.
Just don't forget the old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" ;)
The product activation thing is nothing to worry about really, less u need to reinstall it over and over, and on diff hard ware configs.
Just get the winxp pro corporate version that i have, and udont even have to worry about the activation.
let me know if u guys need a link to it. i can prolly make it
Hey I really like my XP, and have never had any problems doing with it what I need.
No it isn't perfect but then what OS is?
Cause I like XP more than 98 personally.
-SJ™