Thread: Considering new OS...

My favorite Windows is Xp because of its stability - fast boottime ,
( the eye candy features can be disabled ) and it runs perfectly on my K6II-300-
XP takes more disc space but after an install I never inserted again the CD .

I once thought that i would nerv say the following of a MS OS but XP is great!

I would nerver use again win98 , me - perhaps win2k but for server only)

Regards


Felix

P.S: Hey what about a poll " What OS do u use for your Car PC "?
to see whats the preffered OS

Just to add my 2 cents like everyone else, im a Win2k person on every windows based computer in my network except for my car (98se). If you really want the best of both world when it comes to gaming and stability, dual boot, i used to do that when win2k first came out, rebooted to 98 to game on, and then back to win2k to do everything else. but at this point, except for older games, there really isnt a noticble difference between win2k and win98 for framerates. Win2k can read all MS file systems (fat16, fat32, ntfs1, ntfs2), and it doesnt need ntfs for a boot drive, fat works fine, you just loose the added features of ntfs (security).

Hi again,

I prefer the NTFS because i can switch PC of hardly by cutting his power without any loss of Data or a buggin scandisk screen ( i know that it can be disabled)
I never had problems by doing this and when i have no time to wait that the pc shuts down - a little press on a switch and its off

Regards

Felix

I think when i speak, ppl listen. Take it from me. Win9x these days, just dont cut it. I will leave it at this and for those that want to argue with me, please keep in mind i have being doing this for a long time. If you havent played/looked at 2k/XP, then WinME is what you need to run in the car. In the long run u will want XP. Once i get C4 done which is currently at RC2.5, i will get my box going and have XP running.

>and it doesnt need ntfs for a boot drive, fat >works fine, you just loose the added features >of ntfs (security).

interesting.... i thought about getting XP but it would be a pain in the arse to not be able to read/write to the boot partition from linux. Maybe i'll just wait till ntfs support gets better and install XP on ntfs rather than on fat32 , i dunno.

cenwesi : what do you that win9x "just wont cut it". Apart from the instability (which can reduced by not installing stuff willy nilly and maintanance) of course . I mean for a desktop machine that is used for playing games , and surfing the web , why the need for hardcore security? It dosent exactly take an age to boot either , around 60 seconds is fine with me.
I am not trying to argue , just increase my knowledge base

we (as in my freinds and i) have had trouble seeing winxp machines from the network neighborhood in win98 machines , and vice versa.We never resolved this problem (i'd like to). It can be done. Apart from that , your mp3's on a winxp machine arnt in a different format as such , i mean you can copy files from a cdrom and they reside on a filesystem which is not fat32 ,or ntfs. The bits that represent the file are the same , its the header??? thats different , probably for the permissions.
In linux if you are copying to a win9x/me machine across a network , the data is streamed over and the win machine writes it to the drive , i assume its the same between win98and/or winxp machines.
Some of this may be semanticly wrong , but the idea is correct.

win2k can read fat32 filesystems , if you take a fat32 drive and put it in a win2k/xp machine it will read it. Across a network it dosent matter what the destination filesystem is , fat32 or ntfs. There is an abstraction layer between the drives and the network