What OS for my new PC? (1 Viewer)

[Ted Lee]

well, so far so good.
mb: asus p4b533-e (2.53/512mb)
case: antec 1080 performance plus
hd: probably western digital 80g/8mb buffer ata/100
cd-rw: probably plextor or yamaha
floppy: what's a floppy? some generic
i'll worry about audio and video later.
so i think all i need is an OS.
i think i'll go with xp-home, but was wondering if something else would be better. i already have 98, don't know much about ME and am not sure if enough software is supported for me to go with NT. don't know much about win2k either.
so, any thoughts or comments are appreciated.
thx,
ted

 

[Andrew Grall]

I have used:

DOS 6.22/Win 3.11
Windows 95
OS/2 Warp
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP Professional

Right now, if I were to give a recommendation, it would be for XP Professional. It is really a pretty nice operating system, and pretty stable too. Windows 2000 was pretty nice too, but not as user friendly as XP. XP Home editions should be decent too, but it lacks some of the "power" features that Professional has.

Avoid ME...definitely not worth it... 98se is okay, but XP and 2000 are much more stable.

 

[Gabriel_Lam]

I'd second XP. It's very tweakable, as well as fast and stable. It boots in under 30 seconds in most computers. After all of the hardware drivers are loaded, and system is tweaked, Task Manager shows it to use about 59mb, which is about as lean as Win2k.

 

[Andre F]

I'd also vote for Windows XP Home.

 

[Chris Bardon]

I think that XP is the way to go if you want to do any sort of gaming, but 2000 if it's a strictly enterprise machine. I'm using XP Pro right now (which I figure is the best of both worlds) and haven't had any major problems this time. On a side note though, I'm glad that you can reset everything to the "classic" windows look-I really hated the new XP start menu design etc (which will probably turn a few people off of XP).

 

[John_Berger]

I think that XP is the way to go if you want to do any sort of gaming, but 2000 if it's a strictly enterprise machine.

I disagree 100%. I use Windows 2000 Professional for my home machine and it has more than adequately played every game that I've ever thrown on it, including NeverWinter Nights, Unreal Tournament, Max Payne, etc. I can't think of a game that failed due to O/S incompatibility. in fact.

Whereas Win2K is designed to be an enterprise operating system, it is 100% adequate for gaming, it is more mature than WinXP, it has FEWER hardware incompatibility issues than XP, and XP is designed off of Windows 2000 anyway!

 

[Ted Lee]

hmm...looks like XP may be the winner. i'll go with the pro edition...suppose it can't hurt.

this is really just for my home desktop...i don't plan on doing anything too hardcore...gaming will definitely be on that list.

i'm glad chris mentioned the look of XP...it looks way too cheesy for me too...i'll definitely be giving it the classic look.

thanks guys!

 

[Steven K]

Whereas Win2K is designed to be an enterprise operating system, it is 100% adequate for gaming, it is more mature than WinXP, it has FEWER hardware incompatibility issues than XP, and XP is designed off of Windows 2000 anyway!

Amen... I'd go with Win 2000, a proven winner.

 

[Steve_Ch]

I have used and alpha and beta tested Windows from 2.0 (yes, 640K based) all the way to Win 98SE, and I've used ME, Win 98 Lite, and a number of variances. I am currently using W2K (2 systems), XP Home(1 system), and XP Pro(1 system).

My recommendation is to go with XP, it's not that either XP or 2000 has superiority over the other (may be some real minor edges to one or the other), but based on the fact that the cost is comparable, both uses the same NT code base, but XP being a newer OS. There has been talks lately that MS will not only drop Win9x, ME, but Win 2000. IMO, not likely to happen, but if you are paying similar $$$, same code base, why even sweat it?

As to Home vs Prof, Home is cheaper, and unless you are into pretty heavy duty networking and admin stuff, as well as encrypting your files (all these take a bit of work and understanding), Home is sufficient for most user.

 

[John_Berger]

Win 2000, however, has one HUGE advantage over Win XP -- NO ACTIVATION. This IMHO is a HUGE detriment to Win XP. I understand the reasons why they're doing it (although I do not totally believe their reasons); but the activation code is nothing more than an major annoyance, particularly if this system will be a test system that might get rebuilt on a regular basis. And I still strongly question the algorithm that they use to generate the activation code that must be called in.

 

[Jeff D.]

Another strong vote for XP. Windows 2000 is a great OS and it is very stable, but I think XP is just as good, if not better.

Win 2000, however, has one HUGE advantage over Win XP -- NO ACTIVATION. This IMHO is a HUGE detriment to Win XP.

First off, I have to say I don't see what the big deal is about Activation. Is it a bit of a pain? I suppose it is. But people bitching about having to 'beg MS to use something I bought' is ludicrous. If you buy the software, you agree to the EULA and Activation is part of it. It is an unfortunate, but necessary step in this day and age where everyone thinks they have a right to pirate software.
Some comments on Activation:
1. It isn't that bad. The first time you install XP Activation can be done over the internet in a matter of seconds. Now, if you do have to phone (because of reinstalling on a new computer), the process couldn't be simpler. There is essentially no 'on hold' time (at least not in my case), the person on the phone was friendly and I had XP reactivated in less than a minute.
2. There is a legitamate workaround for activation. After installing and activating Windows XP for the first time, you simply need to copy one file and keep it backed up on a floppy or CD somewhere. If you ever reinstall, you simply copy that file onto the new installation and your copy of Windows is activated.
Go for XP.
/Jeff

 

[Andrew Pratt]

Agreed I've used all the versions of windows over the years and XP has been the most stable and user friendly of all of them. If you are into digital camera's XP's got the best feature of all in the preview mode for your images...saves a ton of time.

 

[Ted Lee]

...but if you are paying similar $$$, same code base, why even sweat it?

ehh...why in the world i pay for an OS?
actually that brings up a good point. let's just say this will be the first time i'm not...umm..."worried" about licensing issues. i want this pc to be legit...especially with the OS since i'll be mixing it up a bit.
i don't think i'll mind the whole activation thing...but that remains to be seen.
maybe xp home will be good enough for me. i'm somewhat of a geek, but probably not that hard-core.
how much is xp home anyway? hundred bucks or so?
thanks again to all...
ted

 

[Kevin P]

First off, I have to say I don't see what the big deal is about Activation. Is it a bit of a pain? I suppose it is. But people bitching about having to 'beg MS to use something I bought' is ludicrous. If you buy the software, you agree to the EULA and Activation is part of it. It is an unfortunate, but necessary step in this day and age where everyone thinks they have a right to pirate software.

It may be only a "bit of a pain" now, but if people let MS walk all over them with this activation thing, just imagine what they'll try and pull on us in the next release... annual subscriptions perhaps? Having to pay monthly or annual license fees to MS to continue using the Windows OS you already purchased? Next, other software companies will follow suit. Next thing you know, you're paying a monthly software bill. By using and activating XP, you're basically telling MS that you're ok with this. I'm not, which is why I use W2K on my systems and not XP.

KJP

 

[Sean Eldridge]

Hopefully by that time, Linux will be simple enough to use that it won't matter anymore.

Sean

 

[John_Berger]

Hopefully by that time, Linux will be simple enough to use that it won't matter anymore.

This won't matter a hill of beans until it can pander to the anti-command-line crowd and everything that comes out for Windows will run in some way on Linux, even if through an emulator. Sadly, Windows and Windows-based software is too ensconced in the PC-user psyche for *NIX to be a real contender at this point.

 

[Steve_Ch]

I agree with Joh in that if your machine is kind of a test bench, when you shuffle stuff in and out, reformat, .., etc, then Win 2000 is simply more cut and dry (and I've done that with my Win 2000 laptops), no having to sweat activation at all.

>>The first thing that I did with my new system was install a new hard drive and install Win 2K. The XP that came with the system never got booted up -- not even once.

 

[John_Berger]

The XP that came with systems that I know, mainly Dell and HP do not need activation or registration, don't know about after a "wipe" and reinstall, but when it's new, you do not have to do anything.

My wife didn't have to on her Gateway either. The question is .. will that be the case if we ever need to reinstall XP? Hopefully, we won't need to find out, but Microsoft operating systems being what they are, she'll probably need to format and reinstall in - say - a few more weeks.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

If going the Win XP route, go for PRO, not the Home version. More stable OS from the experiences of some buddies of mine who are computer experts.

Dan

 

[Ted Lee]

steve - thx for the link in the coupons section. unfortunately looks like the offer is off. bogus...