which OS?
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
>which os from Microsoft is the best? Is it ME, 2k, XP...
Though you're likely to elicit quite an argument with this one, personally I'd rank them as such: 2k, XP, ME. Concerned as to why? Well bugger off, since I'm too busy! Just kidding. Sorry, won't happen again.
I like 2k simply because it's NT without much in the way of fluff thrown in (unlike XP). Not to mention it doesn't have XP's horrid registration procedures and such. That's not to say that it's bad, necessarily, just that I agree with something that's so invasive of one's personal life. If MS wants people to register with Passport and keep an inventory of their hardware config, fine, just *ask* and I'm sure quite a few people would agree to submit such information. Additionally, 2k doesn't contain MS' little "extras": firewall (don't need it, as I have a dedicated machine to do this), CD Burning (I swear by a combo of Nero and CDRWin), [reduced quality] MP3 encoding (my Linux box does it faster). That's also not to mention the fact that XP has yet to be hardened, as it were. It's generally the consensus that with NT you wait until the first service pack is released before you upgrade. Granted, XP is mostly 2k's kernel, but that doesn't mean it won't have its own problems.
As for ME...ick. It's possible to configure it such that it runs moderately well but, face it, it's still the 9x kernel infrastructure. Likewise, I still run 98SE if it's necessary (old games and apps) because it's considerably more reliable than Millennium Edition (for me, excuse the pun, at least). That's also not to mention that you can add the features of ME onto an earlier version if you wished, as most of MS' improvements are mirrored in third party software.
So in conclusion, if you're looking for a general, home-oriented OS go with either 9x or XP (since the home version is geared more toward compatibility with older apps). I, personally, have a tri-boot of Win98SE, Win2k and Redhat 7. As I'd said, I use 98SE for the (few) old apps that won't run under anything else, Win2k for my day-to-day work (As it's ultra-solid. Uptime is somewhere in the month range now) and Redhat for my development tasks (it's also solid, I just happen to use Win2k more).
Wow, that was pretty long winded, no?
Though you're likely to elicit quite an argument with this one, personally I'd rank them as such: 2k, XP, ME. Concerned as to why? Well bugger off, since I'm too busy! Just kidding. Sorry, won't happen again.
I like 2k simply because it's NT without much in the way of fluff thrown in (unlike XP). Not to mention it doesn't have XP's horrid registration procedures and such. That's not to say that it's bad, necessarily, just that I agree with something that's so invasive of one's personal life. If MS wants people to register with Passport and keep an inventory of their hardware config, fine, just *ask* and I'm sure quite a few people would agree to submit such information. Additionally, 2k doesn't contain MS' little "extras": firewall (don't need it, as I have a dedicated machine to do this), CD Burning (I swear by a combo of Nero and CDRWin), [reduced quality] MP3 encoding (my Linux box does it faster). That's also not to mention the fact that XP has yet to be hardened, as it were. It's generally the consensus that with NT you wait until the first service pack is released before you upgrade. Granted, XP is mostly 2k's kernel, but that doesn't mean it won't have its own problems.
As for ME...ick. It's possible to configure it such that it runs moderately well but, face it, it's still the 9x kernel infrastructure. Likewise, I still run 98SE if it's necessary (old games and apps) because it's considerably more reliable than Millennium Edition (for me, excuse the pun, at least). That's also not to mention that you can add the features of ME onto an earlier version if you wished, as most of MS' improvements are mirrored in third party software.
So in conclusion, if you're looking for a general, home-oriented OS go with either 9x or XP (since the home version is geared more toward compatibility with older apps). I, personally, have a tri-boot of Win98SE, Win2k and Redhat 7. As I'd said, I use 98SE for the (few) old apps that won't run under anything else, Win2k for my day-to-day work (As it's ultra-solid. Uptime is somewhere in the month range now) and Redhat for my development tasks (it's also solid, I just happen to use Win2k more).
Wow, that was pretty long winded, no?
Joined
·
31 Posts
id have to go with 2k,ME, XP
plus XP pro sucks beyond belief, but it sure is pretty
plus XP pro sucks beyond belief, but it sure is pretty
...:emb:...my new computer came with ME, even though it said on the description that it's supposed to come with 98 with a ME upgrade coupon (which I had planned to burn
). Plus study showed that ME is (get this) 14% slower than 98. Thus I'd have to go the classic Win 95, which almost never crashese.
Joined
·
5,442 Posts
Hmm,It looks there is a huge anti ME wave going on here.
Btw I have been using ME for over an year now (you need some minor tweaks to make it work excellent)and I think it deserves some respect.Earlier I had Win 98 Se and Win 95 was the first OS I used.
14% ?I think most of it comes in office applications(where it surely is slower than win 98se but I still feel in gaming department Windows ME is always few frames better(that was the basic reason I upgraded to ME).Another thing in ME 's favour is it is much more crash proof than any Win 9x series OS.
2K I have heard is most stable(Cant say more as I havent used it).
Ok so finally ME isnt that bad but its not a necessary upgrade if you have Win 98 Se.
Btw I have been using ME for over an year now (you need some minor tweaks to make it work excellent)and I think it deserves some respect.Earlier I had Win 98 Se and Win 95 was the first OS I used.
14% ?I think most of it comes in office applications(where it surely is slower than win 98se but I still feel in gaming department Windows ME is always few frames better(that was the basic reason I upgraded to ME).Another thing in ME 's favour is it is much more crash proof than any Win 9x series OS.
2K I have heard is most stable(Cant say more as I havent used it).
Ok so finally ME isnt that bad but its not a necessary upgrade if you have Win 98 Se.
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
wut about windows xo home version that any good?? i got home version on cd and didnt install yet...
I hope you're talking about Win95 OSR2 (i.e. Win95B).... I've had two different 95s before on my old computer, and suffice to say I like W95B a million times better than W95A.Originally posted by Gk1986
...:emb:...my new computer came with ME, even though it said on the description that it's supposed to come with 98 with a ME upgrade coupon (which I had planned to burn
W98/W98SE would actually run pretty fast and stable without the stupid IE "desktop integration" crap going on....
Joined
·
5,568 Posts
well one thing is for sure... stay away from ME.. (no.. not me... silly ehe)... i went back to 98SE which is probably one of the best moves I ever made, of course I only realized that after using ME for a couple of weeks... sucks..
Joined
·
158 Posts
winxp is the bomb, im running the final version (2600 build), without....er.....product activation.....hehe. it is so much better than win98/ME its unbelieve. theres practiacally no framerate loss between xp and win98, and everything is compatable. and my god it loads under 40s. theres so much to it, id recommend it to anyone and everyone with a decent machine.
it hasnt creashed once ive been running it for almost a month. definitely the oS to get. also i think product activation is a shame as without it, it installs hardware so easily, i mean every piece of hardware i hav has reasonable native drivers installed automatically, then all u hav to do is update. also the system restore feature is a lifesaver, i mean when ive ****ed around with like say for example creative lab's Live!Ware 3.0 for win2000 and ruined shit, i was able to restore my system to before i messed around with it. of course now the xp version of live!ware 3.0 has been leaked, so im happy.
it hasnt creashed once ive been running it for almost a month. definitely the oS to get. also i think product activation is a shame as without it, it installs hardware so easily, i mean every piece of hardware i hav has reasonable native drivers installed automatically, then all u hav to do is update. also the system restore feature is a lifesaver, i mean when ive ****ed around with like say for example creative lab's Live!Ware 3.0 for win2000 and ruined shit, i was able to restore my system to before i messed around with it. of course now the xp version of live!ware 3.0 has been leaked, so im happy.
I agree with cluthu. In terms of overall quality, and of course stability, 2k is better than the rest. Of course, we can't always play games normally as we do with the others.
Oh... XP is bad. Not that its quality sucks, but it's got a major security hole in it. Besides, attempts at cracking the activation have been pretty successful as of yet. Not that I'm promoting it, but it's exactly that kind of mentality that fosters illegal activities. Intrusion is definitely a no-no.
Going back to XP, I'm still trying to confirm this, but is it true that it has RAW Sockets capability?
That, my friends is VERY bad for a home-based OS.
Oh... XP is bad. Not that its quality sucks, but it's got a major security hole in it. Besides, attempts at cracking the activation have been pretty successful as of yet. Not that I'm promoting it, but it's exactly that kind of mentality that fosters illegal activities. Intrusion is definitely a no-no.
Going back to XP, I'm still trying to confirm this, but is it true that it has RAW Sockets capability?
That, my friends is VERY bad for a home-based OS.
OK, how about this. I'm a home user, with my PC use oriented towards lesiure (games, surfing, downloading) with a little schoolwork on the side. Should I go with W2K or stick with Win98SE? What I want is a stable OS that can play most games and doesn't slow down too much.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Well, how's Win98Se currently treating you? If it's been crashing at least 5 times a day, then an upgrade to W2k might be worth it. However, keep in mind that you usually get some penalty in terms of gaming performance..... so this is a tradeoff issue. The best thing, if you have the space, is to dual boot W2k/Win98.
Joined
·
31 Posts
ok well keep on saying ME is bad, fine.
Its not bad at all, it came with my computer so I t runs better, than that crap XP, well XP runs fast, and I also had XP, and it didn't support a damn thing.
ok if you want the best gaming quality go for ME
for steady speeds for hours for other computer uses go forXP or 2k
and dont even look at 98se,
Its not bad at all, it came with my computer so I t runs better, than that crap XP, well XP runs fast, and I also had XP, and it didn't support a damn thing.
ok if you want the best gaming quality go for ME
for steady speeds for hours for other computer uses go forXP or 2k
and dont even look at 98se,
Joined
·
10,134 Posts
have had my current install of win98se for almost a year now, and i can really count the times i've had BSODs. basically, keeping it nicely defragged and virus-protected should make it stable enough for our computing needs, particularly emus/pc gaming.
Joined
·
158 Posts
when XP is officially released on the 25th Oct it will be very compatible. only now r companies begining to release software and drivers for XP. give it a chance, the thing is damn stable for a home user platform. and the speed will be as fast/faster than win98 give it time!!
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Join the discussion
