May be my last question!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: May be my last question!

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    21

    May be my last question!

    I am going to have to reformat C drive. What I need to know is your opinions of what is the best OS to put on. I have 3.1. 95, 98, 98SE, and ME. I think I will even purchase XP.

    In just a small summary, please tell me the best and why. I'm tired of a system that is too unstable. I suppose I'm looking for perfection.

    I am looking for something I don't have to reformat 3 times a year. Or is it practical to reformat often? If so, I will soon learn how to do it more efficient.

    Thanks
    [glowpurple]How do you play the other side of a CD?[/glowpurple]

  2. #2
    Webius Designerous Indiginous
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    1,123
    1) I would suggest 98se out of those. I've never really had any problems like that with it.

    2) Always use the add/remove programs box to delete programs.. I think that may have alot to do with it. If you just drag and drop to the bin it still leaves reg entries and other unwanted stuff.

    Thats about it..

    BTW: Do not use ME.. it blows.. If I had a dollar for everytime I've had to fix the command.com on a ME box I would be very very rich.



    /me says... GO LINUX!!!!!!!!

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2
    If you have at least a P III 500Mhz 128+MB Ram, should opt for Windows 2000. It's much more secure and stable than 3.x/9x/Me. Running three visual development environments, connected to Internet, playing MP3s and more, Win98 reboots 2 to 3 times a day. Win2K has work for me for 4 or 5 days, 24 hours without a blink. Don't even think on XP: there are changes all over the interfase (that makes me crazy) and a new and dangerous Network core. And there is the old hardware drivers problem...

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    712
    If you don't need all the extra pieces/headaches from Win2k, stay with Win98se. Win2k will do nice things like kill games (about all a Winblowz box is good for, in my estimation) though it will add "security" to the machine (*cough*) -- ironically, it also comes with a lot more open holes in it, by default.

    And I wouldn't waste my time beta testing XP...

    Ideally, I'd just say buy VMWare and run Linux (Mandrake) and put whatever Winblowz system done in a sandbox where it belongs. (No, I won't go in to the whole "a poorly configured Linux box is worse than M$" argument)
    \"Windows has detected that a gnat has farted in the general vicinity. You must reboot for changes to take affect. Reboot now?\"

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    236
    If you have a good box with a minimum clockspeed of 500 megahertz then go for win 2000 or XP, but never use ME, Microsoft has never admitted that ME has serious problems, every OS has to be able to manage it's memory, only ME can't, what happens? it uses all it's memory and then uses your harddrive, result? instability and then CRASH

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    253
    Of the operating systems on your list, I have used 3.1, 95, 98 & 98se.
    Win 3.1, IMO, was the most stable.
    If I had to choose an OS from your list, it would be Win98se.


  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    281
    Live life on the edge like me. Get a firewall, Install Windows XP, and disable all this nasty visualization options. That way it looks like Windows 2000 but is really XP. Think of all the neat stupid pop ups that say you are an idiot this is how to do it. Or watch it ask you to take the DAMN tour 14 times a day. Or tell you to register for a .NET password. Of course there are registry hacks to fix these minor annoyances, but its more fun just to cuss at it. I have to say, even though Hogfly crashed XP w/ Windows Update, I have had no problems with Windows Update or stabaility or uptime. Though my laptop runs Linux......I wonder if that says something..
    You\'re either a 0 or a 1, alive or dead

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4
    I would have to agree with the almost everyone else I bought windows xp and upgraded my box from windows 2000 Big MISTAKE!!! crashed my box a few times sad to say it now runs 2000 once again.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    355
    I would go with 98se.
    \"SI JE PUIS\"

  10. #10
    str34m3r
    Guest
    You asked if it was practical to reformat three times a year. The answer isn't very straightforward, but let me give it a shot. If you own all of the software on your computer and have CD's for it all, then yes, it would definitely be practical to reinstal three times a year. You just back up your files tat contain settings, back up your data files, then nuke the drive from on high and reinstall. If you have a lot of pirated software, then it's not quite so easy because you'll probably loe a lot of it (unless you have the CD's copied). If you have another system that you can back up your data onto then it gets a little easier. That's what I always do when I reformat. I'll disconnect form the internet (VERY IMPORTANT) and then share my C drive with another one of my systems. Then I copy the entire directory structure to the other machine and store it in case something goes wrong with my reinstallation. Obviously, this takes up a lot of disk space, but if you've got disk space, you may as well use it. A reformat can be a painless thing if you have all your ducks in a row. The first time I tried it, I forgot a few things and had to rebuild my system the hard way, but I've got the hang of it now and I do it about every three or four months and never have any problems.

    As far as which OS to use, I have to put a plug in for linux. It's my OS of choice for a number of reasons. But if you're insistent on using Windows, then my favorite is still Windows 98. Windows 3.1 and 95 didn't have USB support, so that's no good for me. NT was just a horribly complicated beast that I'm still forced to reckon with occasionally at work. Definitely not a good idea for a home PC. Windows ME... bleh. Windows 2000 seems to be pretty stable to me, but there's a lot of hassle involved in getting it set up just right. Oh, and it's incredibly slow if you don't have a powerful computer. The same goes for XP, though I'll admit, I have only limited experience wth it, so I don't know if there's any way to configure it to use less resources. I also have a large issue with the whole registration "feature" of XP. I'm constantly changing hardware on my machine and trying new things, so I wouldn't enjoy sitting on the phone with Microsoft every time I added a hard drive or reinstalled my system. So to wrap up:

    Stability:
    1. Windows XP
    2. Windows 2000
    3. Windows 98
    4. Windows 3.1
    5. Windows 95
    6. Windows NT
    666. Windows ME

    Ease of use:
    1. Windows 98
    2. Windows XP (not counting re-registration)
    3. Windows 95
    4. Windows 2000
    5. Windows 3.1
    6. Windows NT
    666. Windows ME

    All around:
    1. Windows 98
    2. Windows XP
    3. Windows 2000
    4. Windows 95
    5. Windows 3.1
    6. Windows NT
    666. Windows ME

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •