John C Flett 0 Posted December 23, 2003 Planning ahead somewhat but after my return to the UK I'll be wanting to replace my PC. My baby's just got too long in the tooth and I need something with a lot more ower. Now, most technical points I'm quite happy about but I just can't decide on the operating system. I like my current Win 98 and haven't really warmed to Win ME. More importantly I've heard horror stories about ME having real issues with compatability. Now for the stuff that really wants more power ( Flashpoint, IL2 FB ) I should do fine but I don't want to leave half my collection behind. So come on guys, give me your opinions. What OS should I get when I get my new machine? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JAP 2 Posted December 23, 2003 If you buy a new computer why not going to XP Pro ?? I mean next to Win 2000 there s no better Windows version on the market. If it needs to be either 98 or ME hehe, take 98 ! Cheers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted December 23, 2003 XP Pro is better. NEVER EVER get ME!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John C Flett 0 Posted December 23, 2003 Alright, mayby I should have opened the pole somewhat. Lets look at all the Windows varients. But I thought XP Pro was pretty much a business system. No advantage for the home user? Gods, its been to long since I really looked at these things. I got too fond of Win 98. Either way I can see ME is not winning support. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EiZei 0 Posted December 23, 2003 Alright, mayby I should have opened the pole somewhat. Lets look at all the Windows varients. But I thought XP Pro was pretty much a business system. No advantage for the home user? Gods, its been to long since I really looked at these things. I got too fond of Win 98. Either way I can see ME is not winning support. Windows 2000 is aimed for business users while XP is aimed for home users, however I would go with Windows 2000 since it seems to have less problems. Still, both of them are much more stabile than Windows 98 and ME. Anyways, the driver/patch etc. support for older half-dos-windowses (95/98/ME) is being killed as we speak, time to upgrade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0 Posted December 23, 2003 Get a version of XP. Â Very stable, fast and flexible. Â About the only thing its not good at is DOS games. Â (all relative to other windows versions, of course) But whatever you do, do NOT get ME. Â Its terrible, even by normal MS standards. *edit* I use XP Pro, having used 2000 before. XP is 10x better for gaming. Very few problems with it, compared with loads for 2000 (XP has better/ newer driver support etc) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 23, 2003 Windows XP. There is no reason in the world to go with 98/ME. Everything, including games run better under XP. Also, you can't count on drivers and software being updated to support 98/ME much longer. So it's really not a hard choice - since there is no choice. Installing 98 or ME would be about as good for you as installing DOS 5 and Windows 3.0. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted December 23, 2003 I hate XP because of that.Sure it runs youre games nice ,but then if you have a lan of a few computers and don't really wanna pay a version of 100$ for every pc in youre lan ,then youll easily have a problem. And i hate it that dos ins't included anymore in the Windows version's ,deffinatly a Dos boot possibilety is good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EiZei 0 Posted December 23, 2003 And i hate it that dos ins't included anymore in the Windows version's ,deffinatly a Dos boot possibilety is good. Ill rather get rid of the legacy shite and make windows much much much more stabile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted December 23, 2003 hehe LMAO It's fun to read about people bitching about WinME and how crap it is and how unstable it is. I ran WinME for allmost two years without as much as a single crash or "illegal operation". So between 98 and ME I'd go with ME. But now I've installed WinXP and all games run alot faster (including OFP). It does'nt matter if you get XP home or pro. They are 100% identical when it comes to gaming. XP home is cheaper... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kegetys 2 Posted December 23, 2003 And i hate it that dos ins't included anymore in the Windows version's ,deffinatly a Dos boot possibilety is good. I think its good that all that is in the past, the NT design doesnt seem that perfect either but at least its _alot_ better than the dos+win32 crap... Many old dos games can be used in w2k/xp with some tweaking (Vogons is a good place for help with that), if not then you can always put DOS and your dos games on a bootable CD-RW or USB flash memory or something and play them from there, I dont think keeping full dos compatibility is worth the troubles of using dos+win32 all the time. As for the OS, i'd go with Windows 2000 pro. Or if you like the candy stuff XP offers then XP. Stability, driver support and software support seems to be pretty much equal on 2k and XP now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted December 23, 2003 Yes, XP and 2K is pretty much identical in stability and driver-support. But XP has more built-in native support for more hardware than 2K which is a plus for those less "techie" users. Take Eicon's ISDN-card. In XP it is automatically set up without a single click required (except to close the dialog that say it is ready to be used). In 2K a driver from the supllied cd is required. It is these small things that I think would make the ordinary man's day alot easier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted December 23, 2003 XP pro. Never ever ever ever get ME. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grizzlie 0 Posted December 23, 2003 I have XP home installed for over year without any big maintenance and without crashes XP pro if i remember well has bigger net module, which for single user is not necessary ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John C Flett 0 Posted December 23, 2003 Thanks guys, thats kind of set my mind at ease about XP. Guess I'm just wary of change and Win 98 has grown very familiar to me despite various problems. Hopefully I'll be getting the machine soon after I'm back but will have to get a few minor details ( like work ) sorted first. I'm just looking forward to having a little more muscle than my PIII 667 provides. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Milkman 1 Posted December 23, 2003 Windows 2000, XP is just eyecandy version of 2000. If you install the right support pack it is the best windows system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted December 23, 2003 rule of thumb for MS products. get a version lower than current product. more fixes are available and less hassle to upgrade. so 2000 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted December 23, 2003 Windows 2000, XP is just eyecandy version of 2000. If you install the right support pack it is the best windows system. You're allmost correct  WinME and WinXP has better USB and Firewire-support. Read my previous post for the rest of it. Quote[/b] ]rule of thumb for MS products. get a version lower than current product. more fixes are available and less hassle to upgrade. No. That won't work. M$ discontinues the previous product as soon as a new one appears on shelves Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 23, 2003 Windows 2000, XP is just eyecandy version of 2000. Not true. There are a lot of changes under the hood. Everything from memory management to low level kernel support for the .NET platform. Some serious file system improvemets have been made and the networking system has been reworked. It's easy to think of XP as a 2000 with lipstick, but it's really not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toadlife 3 Posted December 23, 2003 Not true. There are a lot of changes under the hood. Everything from memory management to low level kernel support for the .NET platform. Some serious file system improvemets have been made and the networking system has been reworked.It's easy to think of XP as a 2000 with lipstick, but it's really not. True, but I don't think that for general gaming purposes, those low level kernel changes would make much of a dent. I would still have to recommend XP, simple for the fact that sooner or later, hardware that is only supported in XP will start to be common. Win2k has much less 'bloat' than XP, but with today's monster systems, it has become a non-issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted December 23, 2003 Yeah, I agree. I was going to say what Denoir said, but I don't think it will matter much for gaming. But sooner or later there will prolly be a big gap between Win2000 and XP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EiZei 0 Posted December 23, 2003 Well, theres Windows 2003 but that one actually requires some effort.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kegetys 2 Posted December 23, 2003 Not true. There are a lot of changes under the hood. Everything from memory management to low level kernel support for the .NET platform. Some serious file system improvemets have been made and the networking system has been reworked. Weird, even the MS comparsion table does not mention anything about such changes... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted December 23, 2003 Probably since it's aimed at the non-technical audience. I don't think the general XP home user is interested that the XP process heap is backward chaining with bloom filters as opposed to the windows 2000 which is a buffered feed forward only heap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
