Just a point

Instar · #1 May 22nd, 2002, 02:34 AM

Well, I have never used NT before, but the guy who owns his own computer business uses Win2k exclusively on his machines. I can tell you that Win2k is pretty dang good from personal use.

I swear I should go into business working on computers because I could fleece these poor ignorant people. (Hey, computers are easy man!)

Atrocities · #2 May 22nd, 2002, 09:08 AM

Win2k is a damn fine program once you get it up and running for a while. Honestly it has been my misfortune to discover that Win2k desires a "break in" period before it will run smoothly.

98 and 98 SE were good programs in there own right if you didn't mind the BSOD every 12 hours of continous operation.

Win2k has performed very well for me, and I have spent a lot of time getting it to work well with my AMD Atholon. (NOTE: I even used up both of my free MS help sessions to get it too work smoothly. Simple stuff that took about 4 hours apeace to fix.)

Right now, I am considering XP. I thought I would wait until I needed to build my next super system before venturing into XP territory.

Instar · #3 May 25th, 2002, 05:44 AM

man I have seen a beta for XP in action on a laptop... man it started in about, oh, maybe 1/5 of the time needed (maybe exaggeration, but man that was pretty FAST!)
I worked on a friends XP system once (he wanted an old DOS game to work and his scanner set up, stuff that was easy for me

) It was nice. Plus the guy had a cable modem! Grrr
biggest problem with XP will be that dang activation code (They want to protect their stuff, but still....) For the average joe its no big deal but for power Users who change systems often... big problem

PvK · #4 May 26th, 2002, 07:52 PM

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

tesco samoa · #5 May 26th, 2002, 08:05 PM

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.

Instar · #6 June 2nd, 2002, 04:54 AM

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.