|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Best OS is: | |||
| XP |
   
|
23 | 67.65% |
| 2000 |
  
|
10 | 29.41% |
| ME |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 98 |
  
|
1 | 2.94% |
| 95 |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Other |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
02-08-2003, 01:57 PM
|
#1 |
|
The Procrastinator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,653
 |
Windows 2000 Pro OR XP Pro?
Choose, and give your reason.
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 02:43 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mt Washington, KY
Posts: 4,927
|
XP Pro. It's the latest and will in all probability have the longest supported life.
For instance MS is getting ready to drop support for WIN98. Chas
__________________
I may not be much, but I'm all I think about. |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 03:41 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,049
 |
I agree with Confused.... Only because you didnt list Win 3.1
__________________
Computer: 486 Ram: 8 MB CD Rom: None OS: Windows 3.1 |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 03:48 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member (14 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Kelowna, B.C., Canada
Posts: 9,138
|
XP, more toys, more stable, less hassles.
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 04:03 PM
|
#5 |
|
HOT ROD
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: On the Edge
Posts: 4,565
|
XP, more toys, extremely stable, greater driver support and faster.
__________________
Fast enough 2 get by.....old enough 2 know what not 2 try -You know it was me 
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 04:37 PM
|
#6 |
|
Barefoot on the Moon!
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northeastern USA
Posts: 13,385
|
XP for gaming and 98SE for general useage.
__________________
There are two secrets to staying young, being happy, and achieving success. You have to laugh and find humor every day, and you have to have a dream.
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 05:01 PM
|
#7 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,729
|
XP Pro, stable, compatible and fast.
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 06:30 PM
|
#8 |
|
Member (12 bit)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,261
|
XP Pro - Runs more hardware and software with better stability than anything else that I know of.
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 08:07 PM
|
#9 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Asia-Singapore
Posts: 461
|
My view is - Depends on what kind of machine you have
If you've a 486, then Windows 3.1 would run just fine. And also what kind of applications you intend to play -whether it's a high powered graphics software or just a Microsoft Office.But these days, the most current OS seems to be the logical choice, whether we like it or not. |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 08:32 PM
|
#10 |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,576
|
I said XP, but I will not say XP Pro. I personally think most people spend the extra money to get the designation of "Pro" for status reasons when they really don't need any of the other features of Pro and will never use them. As far as I'm concerned, unless you have a dually system, or a need to login to a domain, XP Home is the OS of choice.
__________________
-At Ford, quality is job #1, job #2 is making them explode. ~Norm MacDonald, SNL News -Switching to Glide..Balancing in my head..inside of me... taking the glide path instead. |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 08:42 PM
|
#11 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Iowa
Posts: 413
|
XP....stable...latest thing.
I have XP Pro because I had the opportunity to purchase it for $39.00. I agree with Hal, however, that XP Home would fit all of your everyday needs. |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 10:01 PM
|
#12 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Premium Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Burb of Detroit, Mi
Posts: 874
|
I just installed Windows 2000 on my main computer, so far I like the stability better than Windows XP Home, although there really isn't too much of a difference. I agree with HAL that Windows XP Pro isn't really needed for the average home user, I have that on another computer and I really haven't used its potential yet. As for Windows 2000 pro, I decided to pick it up because I was getting a good price on it. It seems to me so far, as a solid OS without out the bells & whistles that you get with Windows XP, but that might be a good thing because sometimes they can cause some minor problems.
__________________
Life is a Fig Newton of Your Imagination! |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 11:20 PM
|
#13 |
|
Mondsreitersmann
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Skingrad
Posts: 8,781
|
XP Pro all the way. It's newer than 2000. It's stable, though not as a rock or as a Penguin.
__________________
Darum still, füg' ich mich, wie Gott es will. Nun, so will ich wacker streiten, und sollt' ich den Tod erleiden, stirbt ein braver Reitersmann. |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003, 11:51 PM
|
#14 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tyler, TX.
Posts: 67
|
XP! I will have to agree with some of the above, that I should have gotten XP home edition instead of Pro. Pro has a lot more stuff that I don't use.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 03:20 AM
|
#15 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
|
Win2000.
REASONS: XP is a good system if you have a computer fast enought to support it and dont mind all the hidden little gems that make it a pain in the arse. i do like the self configuration and the do-the-thinking-for-you approach as well as the general look of XP - i'm a nut for skins and apperances. the downpoints are the kind of processing speed needed to run it without constantly crashing, the sp1 issue with Java script and the little automatic-update thing that reports the state of your machine to bill gates at regular intervals. also the single use thing is a bitch. this computer has been through 3 complete formats. i cant use XP cause it's a single use code. Win2000 does nearly all the things XP does, just in a slightly different manner. and not as cute. but it's more stable than XP appears to be and the everything-goes-to-microsoft crap isn't there. and it runs on the slower systems. there are still plenty of computers that cant run the newer systems and XP is hideuosly system resourse intensive. |
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 07:50 AM
|
#16 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Northeast, Michigan
Posts: 1,063
|
Windows 2000, Because I'm running a 450 Pentium, and basically I don't want to upgrade my computer just to run XP, I'll hold out until someone releases a real impressive Operating System.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 09:17 AM
|
#17 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,729
|
I can't remember the countless times I had to re-install 2k. Had a lot of issues with my hardware, had to hack my promise drivers for the raid controller to be recognised, had to re-install after adding a MS Strategic Commander controller, and numerous other issues. And god forbid I ever tried to use the recovery console
 Havent had a single one of these problems with XP Pro. And I have XP-Pro on 5 PC's and 2kserver on the, yep you guessed it, server, simply cos im a lazy git and I use Terminal Services instead of going from box to box. But of my 5 licences, 1 was free from MS and 2 others were $40, the others were $150, so the extra cost didn't really apply.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 09:21 AM
|
#18 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mt Washington, KY
Posts: 4,927
|
I voted XP Pro because that is the only flavor of XP that you gave as a option, but I agree with Hal about XP home. I've done XP home and Pro (got the $39.00 deal) and home is all that the using community needs.
Chas |
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 11:29 AM
|
#19 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tyler, TX.
Posts: 67
|
Confused
Where were you able to buy XP Pro for $39.00? |
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 12:30 PM
|
#20 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mt Washington, KY
Posts: 4,927
|
Smooth
MS had a promotion about a year ago. Sign up to become a partner and get Pro for $39.00. A lot of people on this forum took advantage of it. I think it ended last July. Chas |
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 12:39 PM
|
#21 |
|
snowboarder
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,462
|
XP Pro, the only reason i say Pro is because it runs a network with no hassle, whereas Home is a fussy bugger. wouldnt work no matter what anyone tried, bang on Pro, worked first time.
pff, Pro for status reasons, i wouldnt spend the extra money if i didnt have to. thank god for ebay,, bye bye XP Home
__________________
Antec Sonata - Abit IS7-E - P4 2.4/800 @ 3.0 - 1GB OCZ Gold DDR500 - FX5950 Ultra 256MB - Audigy 2 - WD JB 80GB - XP Pro |
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 12:42 PM
|
#22 |
|
Red-eyed Moderator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 17,576
|
Not sure why you had so many networking probs with Home, I've done literally dozens of them now without networking issues.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 02:35 PM
|
#23 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tyler, TX.
Posts: 67
|
Confused
Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 08:00 PM
|
#24 | |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Asia-Singapore
Posts: 461
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 10:11 PM
|
#25 |
|
Mondsreitersmann
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Skingrad
Posts: 8,781
|
Neither here.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 10:55 PM
|
#26 |
|
Member (2 bit)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2
|
I have xp mainly because i like to have the latest and greatest software.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2003, 11:30 PM
|
#27 |
|
Member (14 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Christmas, Florida
Posts: 10,661
|
I like xp because it has been so far the only os that has never given me any kind of problem, never crashed, never had any issues with any software so far, stable as a rock for me, I have two running home and this one pro, I see no differance in the performance with the software I use for for work, programming plc's.
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2003, 01:07 AM
|
#28 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 406
|
I`ve upgraded, well clean installed, from W98 to 2000 Pro and I don`t think I`ve rebooted in a month. No ,more freeze ups, BSOD`s etc. I`m running a 550 P111, 384 megs of ram and I`m more than happy with the performance plus I can reinstall as much as I want\need to with out activation to Uncle Bill.
I ran XP Pro on this machine for a little to try it out and could see little if any difference. I`m personally not big on multi media or gaming so 2000 Pro is the best OS investment I`ve made in some time. ($139 OEM...Multiwave) |
|
|
|
|
02-10-2003, 01:44 AM
|
#29 |
|
Member (12 bit)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 3,261
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2003, 02:27 AM
|
#30 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: nowhere.com
Posts: 4,819
|
I've been running 2000 on my gaming machine since before SP1, and have had no major issues with it.
Can't complain. |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
