I'll take decent compatibility over a bunch of lame bells and whistles, thanks. Anyone with experience running both systems knows the supposed enhanced stability of XP is negligible, at best.

quote:

Originally posted by Geed way to go dood. win.2k all the way

\m/

I think of XP as Windows for n00bs.

___________________
You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

haahaha win98 man, you must be extreeeeeemly lucky for it not to crash every 10 minutes or so. You must restart the machine every 2 hours because of the tens of memory leaks... win98 is garbage.

Since I went to win2000 from win98, I never ever touched win98 or dared reinstalling it. Now I'm on XP and everything is great. Sure its not perfect, yet, but its light years from win9x kernel, and not in the same universe as DOS/win3x.

And for those who say 2000 is better than XP, lighten up. XP is 2000 with less bugs, more device drivers, and a better looking user interface that you can turn off if you don't like. So all in all, XP is just a windows 2001 if you prefer.

And linux, oh my, where should I start. Just put this in your head, yes IT DOES CRASHES like any other OS. It need more tunning than an F1 car with the features/support of a Lada. It has good uses in some very specific domains, but that's it.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb IMHO Win XP is shit, I made the mistake of putting it on my 120 gig HD and I've been completely unhappy with it. The features it offers are completely useless to me and it's a resource hog. I guess how much you'll like it will depend on what you're using your computer for, but in my experience Windows 98 is still just fine. Frankly, if all my software wasn't only good for Win 98 and up I'd still be running Win 3.1 and DOS 7. I'm getting a new box put together by a friend soon, and I'm going to have that loaded with Win 98 as well, screw XP, all it does is slow down your system, and for what gain? Nothing practical that I can see...

new box with win98?? honestly, dont take this the wrong way but thats really fucking stupid. seriously. do some research, not just on parts but on how everything works together. im using xp on my machene that i built maybe 7months ago. it hasent crashed once. that says a lot.

___________________
i r teh hax
~~~Xxx(((TrancEaddicT Haiku/CQ Alliance 2005)))xxX~~~

quote:

Originally posted by Tranc3 Hardcore 2k/Mandrake user here. I use 2k for gaming and Linux for coding =)

Mandrake that is just a bad ripoff of redhat. Just Win 2000 for gaming and SlackWare for my codeing

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek And for those who say 2000 is better than XP, lighten up. XP is 2000 with less bugs, more device drivers, So all in all, XP is just a windows 2001 if you prefer.

True, win2k weak link was its driver support. But one huge difference between xp and win2k is that xp has that activation shit thats linked to the hardware. I've reinstalled my os many times and changed major hardware (hardrive, motherboard, etc). I've read that you would need to call microsoft each time to reactivate the OS. My feeling is when i buy software i should be able to do whatever i want without having to check with microsoft.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

I run XP with all the visual crap etc turned off.

I personally like it better than win2000 it's a bit more user friendly altho some the the 'user friendly' stuff pisses me off it can be disabled

and if you use the right serial number you dont have to activate it.

and win98 is crap compared to 2000 and xp i'd only use it if you have old hardware

___________________

My DJ Mixes - DJ.KevinMuma.com

not another XP Vs 2k , forum, these piss me off whats wrong with windoze 3.1 ,

___________________

" You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip
through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us will-
ing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert."

I have both Windows ME and Windows NT 3.51 on the same computer. Although many people hate ME, I need ME or higher for the shared connnection I have so I'm running it for the time being although I have been considering upgrading to XP. I had an HD crash back in March which I don't know was the fault of ME or not as my inside knowledge of how that kind of stuff occurs is somewhat low but since I reinstalled it I've had no problems so far.

As for Windows NT 3.51, I more or less run it for fun as I love the "old skool" feel of it and surprisngly it's very stable, I've not had one problem with it and one program crashing will never take out anything more than that. But since it's old, naturally there's a lot which doesn't work on it.

Windows NT 3.51:

quote:

Originally posted by cycloptor new box with win98?? honestly, dont take this the wrong way but thats really fucking stupid. seriously. do some research, not just on parts but on how everything works together. im using xp on my machene that i built maybe 7months ago. it hasent crashed once. that says a lot.

As I said, I think how stupid it is depends to a high degree on what you're using your box for. My main use of my computer is for MP3 purposes. I need to be able to run Soundforge, and I need to have word processing. The only games I play are ancient ones that aren't even compatable with XP.

The only reason I'm even upgrading is because the thing I'm running now is ancient and past the point of being upgradable without a new motherboard anyhow.

I never questioned XPs stability, but on the other hand, I've never had huge problems with 98/95/3.1 either. I've let my box run for days without rebooting without any problems. Maybe people are expecting more out of their Microsoft based OS than I am, personally, I'm a stark realist, the OS is shit, but given that it's the only OS that programs are seemingly made or marketed for these days it's kind of a forced situation.

IMHO the best windows to run is the oldest windows possible, 98 is about the oldest one possible in the year 2003 so that's what I'm going with. If and when 2k becomes the oldest one possible then I'll switch to that. As I said, I regard Windows as a neccessary evil, and if I can get away with using up less of my HD and resources I will.

Trust me, if DOS came back in vogue tomorrow I'd be the first one jumping on the bandwagon. Less is more IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb Trust me, if DOS came back in vogue tomorrow I'd be the first one jumping on the bandwagon. Less is more IMHO.

If you like useing the command prompt in DOS you should try Linux/Unix. BASH and other unix shells are soo much better then the DOS shell.

I have a webserver/NAT box running Linux Slackware, It doesn't even have a video card in it. I just SSH to it and do every thing from the command line.

___________________

My DJ Mixes - DJ.KevinMuma.com

I use to have w2k but nowadays I'm on linux redhat 8, so fucking nice to be free from microsoft =)