So... should I get Windows XP?

[Esn]

Well, I'm currently in the process of replacing my old "Pentium1 200Mhz, Windows-95-OS" computer, with a new ATX 2000Mhz... which thankfully was not a big strain on money as it cost only about $300USD ($500CAD).
Thank god for little chinese computer stores.

Anyway, my problem is that I don't know which OS to install on it. The most popular choice right now seems to be WinXP.
However, while I've heard people say that it is "a more professional system" than the earlier Windows OSs, I've also heard some people say that it makes a lot of older programs unuseable.

So, what would you suggest? Windows 98, or 2000 perhaps? Is there really any difference between the different versions? :blink:

Oh, and please don't suggest that I get Linux. I know that it's more usuable than any Windows, but I want to be able to run some new software.

Thanks in advance for any replies!

 

[sloth]

Just as long as you go with a 'pro' version (win2k pro, XP pro) and not a 'home' version (win me, xp home) you should be right.. alot of its personal preference. I like win2k pro Theres a huge difference between 98 and 2000... mostly stability, cos win2k is based on NT.
Im assuming your talking about a workstation here... if its a gateway/router theres no excuse for not using linux (except maybe openbsd..)

 

[Meonlyeviler]

The home edition of win xp is like a zoo full of animated animals

 

[Swiss_Cheeseman]

XP or 2K pro. Either is fine.

 

[smash]

I've had problems getting old dos games to play, or even install. But other than that XP is much much more stable than 98 ever was. I wouldn't worry about the "Professional system" thing, other than having being a multi-user OS (meaning you can have multiple users :rolleyes: ) I don't think you will notice much difference (other than the stability ).

 

[Axeman]

Xp is, al-in-all a far superior OS to anything 9x based (95, 98, me), and is much easier to use and more intuitive than 2000. The hardcore techies still love 2000, but XP is the choice for most now, with a higher compatibility level fo just about everything.

XP is very stable. If one app goes down, it GENERALLY doesn;t take the whole machine with it. You just let the machine get on with things for a minute or so, and it'll usually manage to close down the app and keep the OS running. (unlike 95/98/me where you usually got the good old 'Blue Screen of Death').

Basically, as XP is the current standard, it is (for better or worse) the way forward, so you'd be a bit misguded to go for a 9x system.

Hope that heps

 

[sassdouille]

i just have one thing to say win2kpro is the best! u get the nt core, so it's very stable and plus u get the multimedia support and the games suppport, what else can u ask? i have a small network at home and with win2kpro it's awesome! XP is way too "protected" to do easy advanced user stuff.

 

[timthepig]

My vote goes to windows 2000(pro if poss)

I have windows xp pro - and its simply caused more problems than any other OS -- but it does have better features and boots up damn quick

 

[Rico]

You guys and your new-fangled OSes...

I suggest DOS, it's stable, boots up in a second and never crashes. Plus it runs all your favourite programs, from Wolfenstein 3D to Microsoft Word (1.0)!

- Rico

 

[Esn]

Alright, I've made my choice. What is it?

Well...

After Win95 I really wanted something STABLE, but I wanted to run a lot of software on it, so no Linux. By software I mean mostly games, as all of the other things I would use exist in one form or other on almost any OS.

Since one of the major reasons I got a new computer was to be able to run DOSBox (an x86 DOS emulator) on it, I needed something that would have support for it. All I've heard from WinXP users is that it wouldn't run DOSBox and a lot of older programs without a lot of hassle, so that was out of the question as I really wanted to play Star Control 2 again! (http://www.star-control.com )

On the other, I also wanted it to run Warcraft III. So... there's no point in getting DOS as an OS if there's an almost perfect emulator for it anyway, is there?

So I chose Win2k Pro.

Thanks for all the tips, everyone! Now I just need to set up this new computer...

P.S. I said I bought an "ATX 2000Mhz". Well, that was a rather bad typo. It's actually an AMD 1667Mhz, which is the equivalent of an Intel 2000Mhz because of the higher efficiency of AMD products.

 

[Rob Simpson]

Er, actually, I've got XP running DOSBox just fine (Star Control II with it on my 2.4GHz P4 and 19" Samsung LCD is sweeeet ). 2KPro is still a good choice, though. Regarding DOS - unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to get a motherboard with an ISA slot*, so a PCI card with SB16 emulation** is the only option, which is a much bigger hassle than running DOSBox...at least for the games that aren't protected mode.

*If anyone knows where I could get a new, complete, and fairly cheap system with an ISA slot, I'd like to know.

**Which is usually crappy compared to DOSBox.

 

[Arutha]

Matter of opinion there, DosBox is harder to set up and slower than VDMSound for me, I run Win2k Pro, have gotten 95% of the old games running and have a VERY large collection. Link's below, DosBox is good too, its a matter of opinion more than anything else.

http://ntvdm.cjb.net/

 

[Rico]

DosBox is taking the piss really, XP /2000 has a built-in dos emulator, better coded I expect (as it is official). Sound support is lame but VDMSound will fix that as Arutha said.

As for Linux not running games - WineX runs a damn huge amount of them, from The Sims to Unreal Tournament. In fact UT2003 has a native version for Linux. Most distros come with about 500+ programs, from FTP to Chat to Image editing to word processing to games, all in one package and all free! Can't really fault with that.

Oh and DOSBox/Emu are ported to it as well.

- Rico (Debian Linux, Screen / Mandrake Linux, KDE 3.1 / Windows XP)

 

[Mofokubik]

whats wrong with winxp home?...fine in every way for me.

I say you try longhorn...ive heard good things about it. Or you could put Winxp Home/Pro and Win98se on the same system.

 

[Rico]

Longhorn is in beta, illegal to own and buggy as hell. It has no real features over XP yet, aside from the sidebar.

Why would you want to try that?

 

[Mofokubik]

Why not. I heard it was more stable than anything else. But most of the stuff is no where near finished. <_<

 

[Rico]

I take it you didn't quite read my "illegal to own" statement. Now we're not all strangers to pirated software, but Longhorn has no support, no updates, no patches.

 

[Mofokubik]

trudat

 

[Rob Simpson]

DosBox is taking the piss really, XP /2000 has a built-in dos emulator, better coded I expect (as it is official). Sound support is lame but VDMSound will fix that as Arutha said.

WTF? The XP Dos emu sucks, and VDMSound runs incredibly slow and crappily on my computer (a P4 2.4GHz that runs DosBox perfectly).

 

[Tobriand]

IMHO 2K Pro is identical to XP pro except for a few things...
1) Less DRM
2) Less patronising (if you don't have a mouse plugged in, XP replies in a nice and friendly way "Windows has not detected a mouse... we suggest you go and purchase this one" or something similar)
3) Slower to load (XP from turning on to the user screen is ludicrously fast... in the regision of 10 seconds; 2K takes nearer 25 for me)

Other than that they're essentially the same (this from my experience, but correct me if I'm wrong, which I very well could be... I only used XP for a month because my 2K install was up the spout)