Which Os Do U Think Is The Best?

[Monkey]

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

[gumbydancin]

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.

[the-ninja69]

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.

[Supernatural]

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.

XP Pro runs beautifully on my 600Mhz celeron. Got the swap file on a second HD.

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.

[I_DONT_SHARE_PORN]

Originally posted by pch@25 February 2003 - 19:10
WinXP Pro. on an NTFS partition.

It runs just as well on a FAT32!

[J'Pol]

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.

It runs just as well on a FAT32&#33; [/b][/quote]
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.

[al_birkett]

XP is tha best neva crashes but are sum compatability issues

[[B][O][T]]

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&#33;&#33;&#33;&nbsp; It&#39;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&#036; all ur life.
I&#39;m running 98 but looking into dual booting with mandrake-if I can force myself to learn it&#33; [/b][/quote]
Give Mandrake Linux a space of 5-10 GB of Your HD and install Linux Mandrake on it.

[Bender]

DOS, on my old 8086.
I&#39;m not an expert, but that stuff never crashed.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Bender@26 February 2003 - 13:32
DOS, on my old 8086.
I&#39;m not an expert, but that stuff never crashed.

That&#39;s why I don&#39;t use NTFS I sometimes boot to dos.

Incidentaly it would have to be

type C:&#092;install.doc or type A:&#092;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&#39;s really for system commands. Anyway I&#39;m not sure that the astronaut would work with the type command. I think it&#39;s only for specific files.

Good luck