Thread: Considering new OS...

I swear...I must be the only one with a good copy of winME. I use it because of hibernation feature. Win2k is too slow to boot everything up. ME works without problem. Never crashes on me. Have been using it for 2+ years now in carpc. I have the "corporate version". Dont know if that makes a difference.

I assume that you are upgrading your carpc. If its your homepc...win2k all the way!

edit: Whoops, jumped to conclusions too...I still say winME works for me in carpc (that wasnt supposed to rhyme). But win2k is definitely the way to go for desktop. I dont care how much you can make XP look like "classic windows" win2k, its still not the same. Ive installed XP 3 times thinking I'll just get used to it...Ive taken it off after a week every time. Win2k just "feels right".

PoBoy

Originally posted by Aaron Cake
Win2K. Most of the benefits of WinXP, but without the slowdowns due to eye candy. Though XP should run just fine on that system as well.

NEVER, EVER, for any reason, load WinMe.

That's very strange of you to say Aaron... in my experience XP is much much faster. It really isn't even close. XP was specifically designed to have the features of w2k but be a fast booting os.

so in my opinion... don't waste your time with w2k because boot times are just painfully slow.. xp boots up and running in around 30 seconds.. much faster if i use suspend. But I may be switching back to 98 on my carpc although I seem to have forgotten the reason :/

edit: now that I've gone back to read the post more carefully.... of course, if you leave your pc on 24/7 then boot times mean absolutely nothing.. also it's less important for your desktop to boot up quickly.. so w2k should work grandly for your desktop although I am using xp with much enjoyment.

okay, personal prefs...

* either W95/W98/hybrid of both in the car...... easier to work with

* Windows XP / Win 2000 on the home desktop. My pref would be XP tho, I find it to boot alot quicker than Win2K and the stability is really A1..... even better than Win2K in my experences, its a great OS all round.


having said that I now have a Athlon 2000XP with 512MB DDR 333Mhz and Geforce 4 video card..... but not to get into a '****ing' match! looking at your specs Dima, either XP, W2K would be great... but if you can up the RAM to 512MB it will be worth it...... RAM is cheap and windows will thankyou for the extra headroom...... and its gonna give you a much greater boost than any CPU upgrade....

Windows XP.

I have it running on a Pentium 233 w/ 256MB, and it is faster and better than Win98.

Memory is the real key with any OS. The more the better.

I have to say i like XP, but sp1 seems to have slowed it down a little....

IMHO , stay with win98se until microslack stop supporting it. then again i am a gamer. If you want the most out of your hardware (albeit at the cost of a wee bit of stability) stay with win98 , XP or 2000 is a waste on a desktop. Also when you _have_ to upgrade next year (when mickyshaft stop supporting 98 i think) XP will be cheaper. Dont upgrade for the sake of upgrading , or because your bored. I havent seen anything in XP to compell me , except for being stable , but i spend half my time in linux anyway so my computer is not in win98se long enough to become unstable. ME is lame. its win98se with nicer icons. Waste of time when you have 98.

then again , its fun to play. so go for it. I think you mean XP and 2000 (and the rest of the NT's) use the NTFS (NT File System) , but they can read fat32 partitions so you only have to have the booting partition NTFS.
FAT32 dosent have things like file rights built in , whereas NTFS does. For example you could have a whole directory where the only permissions on it are yours so you can hide your pr0n so when your kids log on they wont see it. Or if your not a pr0n afficianado (read "dirty bugger") you could have your wedding photos or important documents and your kids wont be able to accidently delete them etc....

Originally posted by samael
IMHO , stay with win98se until microslack stop supporting it. then again i am a gamer. If you want the most out of your hardware (albeit at the cost of a wee bit of stability) stay with win98 , XP or 2000 is a waste on a desktop.

games run ALOT better on a Win2k/XP box IMHO..... your talking about an OS that is running on a 16bit base (Windows 98) compared to a true 32bit OS in the form of windows NT/2K/XP.. NT4 sucked for games due to many incompatibilities, but win2k and XP shattered that expectation...

also Dima, I think your meaning NTFS, not FAT32......