the best MS O/S!?!?

[Soren]

I'm a hardcore gamer and I understand the faults of each O/S.

I'd really like Linux to support Diablo 2.. but, until then...

I have heard a lot of back and forth buisness about XP and ME?

Aside from ones opinions are there any facts supporting one Microsoft O/S over another!?!?

Please, help ---

[el]

well for gaming and stability stay away from the BSD OS which is ME. if you have the money go XP pro very nice and full of features.

the question truely depends on what machine you are running. v5 don't get XP. 128 ram stay away from xp.

[Yodums]

Win9x is horrible for gaming IMHO.

I'd say Windows 2000, once SP3 comes out its going to be rock stable and way fast! And it doesn't eat much resources at all while XP does run lots of things in the background and its basically Windows 2K with some gui.

[trey_w]

XP is great, but Me sucks

[vlovich]

When is Microsoft planning to release SP3?

[Yodums]

Originally posted by vlovich
When is Microsoft planning to release SP3?


Expect it soon I think their near the final beta's..

[JAWS]

XP Pro is awesome! I'm still learning the ropes though!

[JAWS]

Originally posted by el
XP pro very nice and full of features.

el, I'm very new to Pro! Are there any features that I should know about. (performance wise) Thanks

[Ploaf]

I'm going to buy an all out version of either XP Pro or win2k Pro. Current main system is running ME and is upgraded from 98se, upgraded from 98. Anyway. I have not done a fresh install of an OS in years because I have a ton of software that I purchased as a download instead of retail boxed. It's licensed but all of the registration codes have been scattered about a huge HD and email address has been changed several times since purchasing which is why all of the upgrades. It was an easy way out of messing with it. Just install the OS, dl patches for software as needed and forget about it. It's always gone smoothly(never had any real problems) but XP and 2k are very different and I also want the stability and a newer file system as was mentioned above.
This one will be completely clean on a new HD and I will transfer what I need to over or just get some new stuff. There are only a few titles that I really care about.
I am curious about a few things. What are the advantages/disadvantages of XP or 2k and which would be the best choice? Is XP completely out of beta or is MS just finishing up testing by releasing it for sale before it's ready? Are they the same OS and will win2k have most of the features available in xp or is XP really that much better? The eye candy doesn't mean much. I am leaning toward 2k thinking that most of the problems have been worked out of it and I have a copy on my notebook and am familiar with it, but am open to suggestions. Another thing. If I upgrade my MB, proc, ram, and vid car at or around the same time will I need to phone in for a new code from MS? That's enough questions for now. :)

[Yodums]

Windows XP is just Windows 2K with some GUI and a newer NTFS based partition version.

It is expensive and once Windows 2000 SP3 comes out it will be the bomb!



I would recommend Win2K no matter what.

From gaming to heavy programs.

-Peace

[JAWS]

I've had XP Pro about 5 days now, and the overall system performance is untouchable! The layout is amazing in it's own right! Games and Internet are faster, even to the naked eye! Games are more stable too! (that was a big problem for me with 98) Boot time increases! It's like comparing dial-up to cable/dsl! That's the only way I can describe it! There's pros and cons to everything, I just haven't found a con yet!

[Ploaf]

Thanks :). 50/50 split :p
Something else occurred to me. If I buy hardware at most shops on the web they will send an OEM copy of XP Pro or win2k Pro for 110 or 130 or something which is much less expensive than grabbing the full install version off of the best buy shelf. It's something like $300 retail isn't it? For the price difference I can get a new MB or proc and the OS by getting them at the same time. Is there any difference between an OEM version purchased with hardware and the full retail version?

[Yodums]

Originally posted by Ploaf
Thanks :). 50/50 split :p
Something else occurred to me. If I buy hardware at most shops on the web they will send an OEM copy of XP Pro or win2k Pro for 110 or 130 or something which is much less expensive than grabbing the full install version off of the best buy shelf. It's something like $300 retail isn't it? For the price difference I can get a new MB or proc and the OS by getting them at the same time. Is there any difference between an OEM version purchased with hardware and the full retail version?

SHouldn't be... I don't see how it can be different in anyway.

[Tbone1]

I have all the ms os's (yes I bought them all) and to be honest
the best bet is either Win2000 w/ the service packs(Not ME!!!!)or
WinXp if you have the $$.

[Ploaf]

Thanks guys. This one may come down to a coin toss. Wouldn't be the first time :)

[Blackearth]

i preferred win2k when i had it because it could overclock much higher. but some games wouldnt run on win2k, so i installed xp pro. alls right now. if i could run all of my games on win2k i think i might would rather have that (sp3?). one thing that keeps me on xp is that fact that it looks so different, i was gettting tired of the traditional windows look. . .but windows xp does suck on some more resources. . .my, this is quite a boggle. anybody got a coin?

[Ploaf]

OK. so I weighed the options and went with XP. I wanted 2000 but I figured that most XP users are satisfied and I generally have good luck with OS's, except for USB support in 98. I am even running winME and have never had any real problems unlike a lot of people. 2000 is very stable and may be more solid overall at the moment, but XP is being reported as rock stable even though there are some security/compatibility issues that need to be worked out. Hopefully they get it worked out in the next couple of days ;) It's a risk, but what the heck. It's different, gets good reviews and I can make it secure even if MS can't. :)

[whooping_a_panda]

As a hard-core gamer i was shy to installing my copy of win2k for quite a while (6months before i even installed it) because i was afraid of the "incompatability issues". Well after i did finally install it i was amazed at the stability, in 2 months its only crashed on me twice. As opposed to the BSOD i was accustomed to at 20 miniute intervals with Win98se. And for that compatability thing, im yet to find a game in my library that doesnt work right, save my old dos games :( ohh well i still have win98 just for them.... mabey i should axe win98 and just put dos on... ohh well... i hope ive helped sway you to win2k

[outhouse]

I run Me and game heavily, overclocked to the max and i run Seti 24\7 i reboot once a day and before i get online to game and i never get a BSOD. if you set up your OS rite i'm sure they all do fine your question is apples and oranges i think some people have hardware compatability issues that help to make there next choice. I will stay with WinMe until all the bugs are out of XP or something better comes along [we'll see] I do like the new kernal of the new OS's much better then the 9x platform but if set up rite you can game your little heart out with a 9x system.

[minoukat]

I just reinstalled Windows ME, got tired of my Win98-WinXP dual boot. (and I used 98 most of the time, not XP !). XP was alot too slow on my comp, now with it's FAST !!! And didn't crash on me once. (actually once, but it was Midtown Madness 2's fault !)

[Liquidsky]

I think Win2k is probably THE best OS you could ever have right now. Win XP looks real good but man is it full of ****. Lots of features and apps but most of them are aimed towards the uninitiated (newbies/normal home users). Most of us will probably be using third-party software anyways because of the more advance features. By the way there's also a ton of spyware. Win98 was cool but ME was a total rip off. Win95 was the fastest OS even though it didn't look perfect nor was it bug-free. Linux is an excellent OS but it's just missing the UNIVERSAL compatibility with most apps.

In the end Win 2k is a real winner IMHO. Lots of apps and games. Stability and it's pretty much a mature OS now. It's had like over a year to do so.

[minoukat]

DOS and Windows 3.x were faster than Win95 I htink

[Liquidsky]

DOS and Win 3.11 WASN'T faster than Win 95. I've used every single Microsoft OS so trust me I know which one is better. DOS and Win 3.11 were ok OSes but they were still 16bit. Win95 was 32 bit. You could tell the difference eventhough Win 95 wasn't a 100% 32 bit. The hard disk was a perfect example and still is. In DOS and Win 3.11 it took forever to copy files but in Win 95 it was just 10 times faster.

[nil_esh]

I agree with Liquidsky. One thing that really sucked about Win3.x: an application had to give back control to the OS itself, which meant if an app went into an infinite loop Windows stopped responding.

As for my OS opinions in a nutshell:

WinME: garbage
Win2k: best of windows
WinXP: way too new, wait a year