Re: Just a point
 

Win2K is more stable that Win98, but also hogs more memory and CPU. WinXP is less stable and less tested than Win2K, but it might hog a bit less.

Personally, I'm still seeing best results from Win98SE. Lightning boot speed and pretty much only has crashed due to software errors, and then only rarely. I much prefer this speed and reduced hogging of resources, though it is nice in Win2K not to have to reboot when program blow up. That and the improved Notepad are the only things I like Win2K for.

I'm convinced though that people who think WinXP is faster than Win98 are being misled by comparing experiences of Win98 on old computers with bunches of applications installed versus WinXP on newer machines without as much installed.

So, my preference is Win98SE, Win95OSR2.0, Win95OSR2.5, Win2KPro, and for WinMe and WinXP I'd rather wipe the hard drive and reinstall an acceptable OS than use them.

PvK

Re: Just a point
 

Atrocities.

I have a box running win xp at home.

It is stable.

With MS O/S's each one is an improvement over the Last one.

In 5 months of operation. XP has crashed once.

It can recover from alot of errors.

It is light years ahead of the old 9x series.

To date I think it is the best O/S that Microsoft has offered.

It is worth checking out.

Re: Just a point
 

PvK, actually, I have read some reviews of XP in PC Mag, and the boot up time is faster (on the same machine). XP is supposed to be self tuning for performance, and will over time (supposedly) get slightly faster. Whether it does or not, I dont know.