Lets Vote for the best O/S !

[susie]

Will it be Win95, Win98, WinMe, Win2000 or Win XP ?

[susie]

So far I have used win95, win98 and currently with win xp.

Win98 and Win XP are both ok.
I have yet to try win2000.
Win Me sucks.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 09:10:26, susie wrote:
Will it be Win95, Win98, WinMe, Win2000 or Win XP ?


</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[themamboman]

Ah, the Unix and Macintrash guys are going to go nuts that you didn't even list them.

XP is okay. Win2000 is good. I'm through with the Win9x/ME line myself.

[susie]

Well, I have no knowledge in Unix and Mac and thats why I didn't mentioned those two O/S.

So if you had to choose between win2000 and XP , which one would it be ?

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 09:15:40, themamboman wrote:
Ah, the Unix and Macintrash guys are going to go nuts that you didn't even list them.

XP is okay. Win2000 is good. I'm through with the Win9x/ME line myself.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[jfebus]

Hi,

Win2000 is the way to go!!!!

[mikewg]

I'll put a vote for Windows 98 only because I have 95 and 3.1 to compare it to. Windows NT is just a pain in my butt(I've used it at my last two jobs), but probably just because I'm not super familiar with it.

[susie]

Read the rest of win xp review at the link below

http://www.pcworld.com/features/article/0,aid,63223,00.asp

Windows XP Inside & Out

Easier than Windows 2000 and less crash-prone than Win Me, XP is Microsoft's biggest and most controversial OS upgrade in years. We tested it to see what works, what doesn't, and if you should make the leap.

[susie]

Reason please...because if you convince me then I might switch to win2000 Professional sp1.


<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 09:20:30, jfebus wrote:
Hi,

Win2000 is the way to go!!!!



</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[susie]

I like win98 too. But not win3.1 & win95.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 09:21:23, mikewg wrote:
I'll put a vote for Windows 98 only because I have 95 and 3.1 to compare it to. Windows NT is just a pain in my butt(I've used it at my last two jobs), but probably just because I'm not super familiar with it.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[Bullworth]

Even thought I've only messed around with it in our computer labs, I think W2K is the best. 98SE does a pretty good job as far as I'm concerned. I've never had many stability or compatibility problems with hardware or software. ME was a resource hog and couldn't get it to run well. XP will have to wait about a year ftom its release until they work out all the bugs and see what it can do.

[lmichiel]

Windows XP Professional!!!

Apps start 25 percent faster than 2000 and up to 45% faster than 98Se. It's solid as a rock and easy to use.

cheers
Leo

[sean madison]

ShiZZoN-

I have ran 98, ME, and 2000 sp2

In terms of video editing, here is what i have concluded-
98-
Windows 98 runs very nice. It supports all video editing software and if you have ddrram, WHOA! does it do a good job. Sicne win98 has been out for around 4 years, it is compatible with everything.
NOTE: i just wonder how much longer i can keep win98 before it becomes outdated with future software?

ME-
Windows ME completely SUCKS! It is not compatible with all video editing and some dvd ripping software it can run just crashes. My friend has winME and most progs i use on win98 to fix video will crash or stop working later on in winME

2000-
Windows 2000 is ncie just like 98 but it has its limitations. 2000 has its own resources which can kep the cpu running faster and longer but it has trouble with some drivers for hardware use if you have an older tv tuenr card which i got.
I could not run my tv tuner card in 2000 since the company did not support 2000.

I would say 98 but I hate to see what happens when win98 becomes outdated! If anybody thinks about this, feel free to reply back. win 95 is just about outdated and 98 runs everything 95 does jsut about so I wouldnt think it would be too much longer before 98 is also.
Any comments or disbeliefs greatly appreciated

[susie]

A lot of people agree with Win2000 being a very good O/S.
The only reason I haven't installed it yet is because I have some win98 software that I like and would like to run on my PC...therefore I choose XP because it is backward compatible with many win95,win98 software etc.


<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 11:10:57, Bullworth wrote:
Even thought I've only messed around with it in our computer labs, I think W2K is the best. 98SE does a pretty good job as far as I'm concerned. I've never had many stability or compatibility problems with hardware or software. ME was a resource hog and couldn't get it to run well. XP will have to wait about a year ftom its release until they work out all the bugs and see what it can do.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[susie]

I am currently running XP but found a few bugs so far.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 11:31:13, lmichiel wrote:
Windows XP Professional!!!

Apps start 25 percent faster than 2000 and up to 45% faster than 98Se. It's solid as a rock and easy to use.

cheers
Leo
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[susie]

I like win98 too but not many new software are being released for the O/S

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 11:35:59, sean madison wrote:
ShiZZoN-

I have ran 98, ME, and 2000 sp2

In terms of video editing, here is what i have concluded-
98-
Windows 98 runs very nice. It supports all video editing software and if you have ddrram, WHOA! does it do a good job. Sicne win98 has been out for around 4 years, it is compatible with everything.
NOTE: i just wonder how much longer i can keep win98 before it becomes outdated with future software?

ME-
Windows ME completely SUCKS! It is not compatible with all video editing and some dvd ripping software it can run just crashes. My friend has winME and most progs i use on win98 to fix video will crash or stop working later on in winME

2000-
Windows 2000 is ncie just like 98 but it has its limitations. 2000 has its own resources which can kep the cpu running faster and longer but it has trouble with some drivers for hardware use if you have an older tv tuenr card which i got.
I could not run my tv tuner card in 2000 since the company did not support 2000.

I would say 98 but I hate to see what happens when win98 becomes outdated! If anybody thinks about this, feel free to reply back. win 95 is just about outdated and 98 runs everything 95 does jsut about so I wouldnt think it would be too much longer before 98 is also.
Any comments or disbeliefs greatly appreciated
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[d4n13l]

What about Linux everyone? A truly great OS; hugely flexible, highly configurable, FREE, mostly free software with massive developer following, modular... need I go on? Its evolving leaps and bounds lately and is fast gaining more support.
What about OS/2, MSDOS (old skpool DOS rules! Ever crashed DOS? hehe), BSD or even BeOS?
As far as M$ goes... Win9x/ME are crap - far too unstable to even contend with any heavy weight OS. Win NT is OK. Win 2000/XP is their best OS yet, a much better OS than any previous M$ efforts. The only good things about any Win9x/ME based OS is that Win95 was revolutionary which kickstarted a PC boom. It is also an easy OS to use/configure. However, just because it is easy for the masses doesnt make it a good OS. Microsoft has the biggest share of the desktop market by far, which is why only mainly M$ OSes have been mentioned. MAC OS is better than Win9x/ME, yet no one seems to say anything about MAC OS.
Oh, lets not forget the "security" that M$ provided us with - ZERO security with Win9x/ME and relatively bad with NT which was only secure when it was offline. If you are browsing now under Win9x/ME then it is probable that you have an open netbios port - A port that invites the whole world to look into your computer. Lets not forget the "great" Internet Explorer: A crappy 'shell' based browser that is highly lax in security.
These are not traits of a good OS.
A good OS is something like Sun Solaris or most unix based OS. And yes, MAYBE even W2k...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-10-11 14:17:38 ]</font>

[rbruner2]

In defense of Windows ME (although that doesn't mean I would necessarily pick it as best), if you download all of the latest patches and fixes from Microsoft, it runs beautifully.

When I first got my computer about a year ago, ME crashed constantly. I hated it. At least once every time I used it it would crash. I was tempted to ask for Windows 98. Anyhow, over the months, I would install the latest updates to ME using ME's Update feature (which basically just takes you to Microsoft's website, checks what you have already, and then recommends the things you need or might want.

For the past 6 months, I can't remember the last OS-responsible crash I've encountered. ME is extremely stable now. Any crashes I've experienced since then have been due to bugs in applications, not in ME. And, most of the time, the crashes do not require a reboot even when it is the application's fault.

I understand the negativity of ME based on a year ago...but it simply isn't true any more. ME is just as stable, if not more stable, than 98.

[d4n13l]

Win ME was Microsofts last ditch effort to milk the little there was left in the Win9x code base. The new M$ OSes are a clean break from this code base: Win ME only was good buisiness sense. The final revenue earner from the ageing code.
Ironically it is Win 98SE that is regarded as the best of this OS family.

[susie]

Linux Rules !

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 14:16:17, d4n13l wrote:
What about Linux everyone? A truly great OS; hugely flexible, highly configurable, FREE, mostly free software with massive developer following, modular... need I go on? Its evolving leaps and bounds lately and is fast gaining more support.
What about OS/2, MSDOS (old skpool DOS rules! Ever crashed DOS? hehe), BSD or even BeOS?
As far as M$ goes... Win9x/ME are crap - far too unstable to even contend with any heavy weight OS. Win NT is OK. Win 2000/XP is their best OS yet, a much better OS than any previous M$ efforts. The only good things about any Win9x/ME based OS is that Win95 was revolutionary which kickstarted a PC boom. It is also an easy OS to use/configure. However, just because it is easy for the masses doesnt make it a good OS. Microsoft has the biggest share of the desktop market by far, which is why only mainly M$ OSes have been mentioned. MAC OS is better than Win9x/ME, yet no one seems to say anything about MAC OS.
Oh, lets not forget the "security" that M$ provided us with - ZERO security with Win9x/ME and relatively bad with NT which was only secure when it was offline. If you are browsing now under Win9x/ME then it is probable that you have an open netbios port - A port that invites the whole world to look into your computer. Lets not forget the "great" Internet Explorer: A crappy 'shell' based browser that is highly lax in security.
These are not traits of a good OS.
A good OS is something like Sun Solaris or most unix based OS. And yes, MAYBE even W2k...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-10-11 14:17:38 ]</font>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[susie]

Win Me for me ?

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 14:22:04, rbruner2 wrote:
In defense of Windows ME (although that doesn't mean I would necessarily pick it as best), if you download all of the latest patches and fixes from Microsoft, it runs beautifully.

When I first got my computer about a year ago, ME crashed constantly. I hated it. At least once every time I used it it would crash. I was tempted to ask for Windows 98. Anyhow, over the months, I would install the latest updates to ME using ME's Update feature (which basically just takes you to Microsoft's website, checks what you have already, and then recommends the things you need or might want.

For the past 6 months, I can't remember the last OS-responsible crash I've encountered. ME is extremely stable now. Any crashes I've experienced since then have been due to bugs in applications, not in ME. And, most of the time, the crashes do not require a reboot even when it is the application's fault.

I understand the negativity of ME based on a year ago...but it simply isn't true any more. ME is just as stable, if not more stable, than 98.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[d4n13l]

Finally a Linux supporter!

P.S.
Win ME is a pile of poo.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-10-11 14:59:13 ]</font>

[susie]

like winnie the poo

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 14:58:08, d4n13l wrote:
Finally a Linux supporter!

P.S.
Win ME is a pile of poo.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-10-11 14:59:13 ]</font>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[susie]

If you were referring to me as a "Linux" supporter then you might be disappointed.

I have Linux but I haven't installed it yet so I can't really say that I am a Linux fan.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 14:58:08, d4n13l wrote:
Finally a Linux supporter!

P.S.
Win ME is a pile of poo.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-10-11 14:59:13 ]</font>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[Bullworth]

With all the different flavors of Linux that are around there is one that will suit your needs. Unfortunately it doesn't have that much software when compared to M$. There are many freeware and commercial packages that will do almost anything a Windoze app can do but I just can't afford to right now. A multi-boot system for now is the solution until any bugs in XP are worked out.
Any new OS is bound to have some problems in the beginning so while XP may be M$'s greatest end-user OS, I'd still rather wait until a year form now when popular use has uncovered most unknown problems and solutions

[timmy_boi]

win ME sucks the testicles bad
win 2000 is okay with me
win XP looks kool and all with all the goodies with graphics but i havent realy tested it to the full potential

win 3.1 is fun to play with

Mac OS is funny to look at

[spidey]

Win 2000 is the best.

Haven't tried XP yet, but I assume it'll only be even better.

As far as the 9x engines, there's a reason M$ killed them off. ME would be a curse to put up with !!!!!

[susie]

It all depends... so far I have only found one bug in XP that is of no significant at all. But many other user have so much problem with XP. I guess I am "luckY" ?

my hardware :

P4 1.5Ghz
256 RDRAM
16x Pioneer DVD slot
16x10x40x Yamaha CDRW
Intel DG850B MB
30 GB Western Digital HD
19 inch 950P Samsung Syncmaster Monitor


<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 15:09:48, Bullworth wrote:
With all the different flavors of Linux that are around there is one that will suit your needs. Unfortunately it doesn't have that much software when compared to M$. There are many freeware and commercial packages that will do almost anything a Windoze app can do but I just can't afford to right now. A multi-boot system for now is the solution until any bugs in XP are worked out.
Any new OS is bound to have some problems in the beginning so while XP may be M$'s greatest end-user OS, I'd still rather wait until a year form now when popular use has uncovered most unknown problems and solutions
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[ktnwin]

Win2000 is the best I tried so far:
1) no 4GB limits (same as Win NT
2) support USB, Firewire, sound card. No special drivers needed.
3) very stable

Win NT simply does not support enough multi-media hardware so I could not capture and output video, it's out.

Win 98SE is good but it has 4GB limit and you need to install device drivers based on your add-on hardware. This is where I got started.

[susie]

Win XP also has no 4GB limit if you use NTFS format.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 15:23:33, ktnwin wrote:
Win2000 is the best I tried so far:
1) no 4GB limits (same as Win NT
2) support USB, Firewire, sound card. No special drivers needed.
3) very stable

Win NT simply does not support enough multi-media hardware so I could not capture and output video, it's out.

Win 98SE is good but it has 4GB limit and you need to install device drivers based on your add-on hardware. This is where I got started.


</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[susie]

People with win2000 say that win xp is same as win2000 but with a prettier look.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 15:13:11, timmy_boi wrote:
win ME sucks the testicles bad
win 2000 is okay with me
win XP looks kool and all with all the goodies with graphics but i havent realy tested it to the full potential

win 3.1 is fun to play with

Mac OS is funny to look at

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>