Best OS?

[Genesis15]

I currently have, Windows XP Pro Corp, Windows XP Home Upgrade, Windows 98 Se, Windows 98 and windows xP non upgrade... But I want to use th ebest one for stability and resources, i want one that wont take up tons of resources still has a good stable use and can run games fine.

Windows XP is a top choice but it has a lot of BAD problems, takes tons of resources and is about as stable as a drunk horse.

I can get just about any OS because I have almost all of them and a friend is giving me more, what OS is the best every? Linux is great but cant run XP stuff.

 

[MrChad]

XP is going to be your best bet, and the stability is similar for the different flavors (Pro, Home, MCE, etc.).

I don't know why you feel it's unstable. XP has been rock solid for me and many others. Any stability problems I've had on an XP machine can usually be attributed to faulty drivers, faulty hardware or poorly-written third party software.

 

[TGS]

XP stuff?

Using Win2k for a long time now. Other than the recently released AOE3 installer requiring XP to complete, 2K SP4 is good stuff. I don't plan on using anything past 2K myself though...

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Genesis15
Windows XP is a top choice but it has a lot of BAD problems, takes tons of resources and is about as stable as a drunk horse.

XP's stability depends on good hardware and near-bug free device drivers.

Funnily enough, that's the case with other operating systems as well. (except for Win9x/me that are unstable by design/compatibility reasons)

And yeah, compared to Win9x it does eat a "lot" of resources, but it is able to manage those resources better too... Today's computers should not run Win9x/me for any reason.

IMO you ought to find out why XP is unable to provide you with a stable environment.

 

[Genx87]

XP's stability depends on good hardware and near-bug free device drivers.

Funny how that works isnt it?

Win98 for all the crap it went through wasnt terribly bad for stability if you took the extra time and money and bought quality hardware.

The problem was every fool and his mother bought a compaq or packard bell or built a machine around budget parts and cried WIn98 sucked when in fact it was their hardware and buggy drivers that sucked.

 

[jjones]

I'd have to say XP for sure. Run it in classic mode for best performance.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Genx87

XP's stability depends on good hardware and near-bug free device drivers.

Funny how that works isnt it?

Win98 for all the crap it went through wasnt terribly bad for stability if you took the extra time and money and bought quality hardware.

The problem was every fool and his mother bought a compaq or packard bell or built a machine around budget parts and cried WIn98 sucked when in fact it was their hardware and buggy drivers that sucked.

Windows 98 was bad at quite a few aspects of resource management. Even with stable drivers and hardware, you still ran into issues because of limitations within the OS.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: MrChad
XP is going to be your best bet, and the stability is similar for the different flavors (Pro, Home, MCE, etc.).

I don't know why you feel it's unstable. XP has been rock solid for me and many others. Any stability problems I've had on an XP machine can usually be attributed to faulty drivers, faulty hardware or poorly-written third party software.

QFT

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Genx87

XP's stability depends on good hardware and near-bug free device drivers.

Funny how that works isnt it?

Win98 for all the crap it went through wasnt terribly bad for stability if you took the extra time and money and bought quality hardware.

The problem was every fool and his mother bought a compaq or packard bell or built a machine around budget parts and cried WIn98 sucked when in fact it was their hardware and buggy drivers that sucked.

Windows 98 was bad at quite a few aspects of resource management. Even with stable drivers and hardware, you still ran into issues because of limitations within the OS.

True however with good hardware = drivers a Win98 system could be quite stable. In the 4 years of using Win98 I can only recall 2-3 catastrophic errors that required either a reboot or pulling the plug. Certainly worse than XP which I cant even think of a single one.
But nothing terrible imo.

 

[scottish144]

Originally posted by: MrChad
XP is going to be your best bet, and the stability is similar for the different flavors (Pro, Home, MCE, etc.).

I don't know why you feel it's unstable. XP has been rock solid for me and many others. Any stability problems I've had on an XP machine can usually be attributed to faulty drivers, faulty hardware or poorly-written third party software.

XP Pro is your best bet for the time being. You might want to try Vista when it debuts.

Also: Some decent free PC maintanance/security software:

DIRMS Defragger & Buzzaw Background Defragger: www.dirms.com
Page File Defragger: http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/PageDefrag.html
Tweak-Now Registry Cleaner: http://www.tweaknow.com/RegCleaner.html
Tweak-Now RAM Manager: http://www.tweaknow.com/ramidleLE.html
128 Bit File Encryption: http://axcrypt.sourceforge.net/
Secure Deletetion (CL tool. Can also wipe free space): http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/freeSoftware/secureDelete.html

Also: W9x may be somewhat stable, but it lacks in security and many modern games are not compatible with it. In addition, Microsoft has stopped developeing updates for it.

Personally, I want MS to make a new OS structure. The NT structure is ancient and should be discarded. It would be nice if Mozilla or Google made one, but Google concentrates on organization, and Mozilla on web applications.

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: MrChad
XP is going to be your best bet, and the stability is similar for the different flavors (Pro, Home, MCE, etc.).

I don't know why you feel it's unstable. XP has been rock solid for me and many others. Any stability problems I've had on an XP machine can usually be attributed to faulty drivers, faulty hardware or poorly-written third party software.

QFT

"QFT"? that's all you have to offer? either explain why the poster who, unlike you, is actually making an effort to help/give advice to the OP should "QFT" or "STFU".. mmkay, jackass?

 

[TGHI]

Originally posted by: jjones
I'd have to say XP for sure. Run it in classic mode for best performance.

Why bother using XP in classic mode when you can use Win2k? The choice seems obvious to me.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: Genesis15


Windows XP is a top choice but it has a lot of BAD problems, takes tons of resources and is about as stable as a drunk horse.
.

I built my rig in February and XP has not crashed once since. Compared to Win 9x (which were nothing but DOS with a GUI), XP is as stable as it gets

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: ValuedCustomer

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: MrChad
XP is going to be your best bet, and the stability is similar for the different flavors (Pro, Home, MCE, etc.).

I don't know why you feel it's unstable. XP has been rock solid for me and many others. Any stability problems I've had on an XP machine can usually be attributed to faulty drivers, faulty hardware or poorly-written third party software.

QFT

"QFT"? that's all you have to offer? either explain why the poster who, unlike you, is actually making an effort to help/give advice to the OP should "QFT" or "STFU".. mmkay, jackass?

Whoa there bud. He's just voicing his agreement.

People get mad so easily on the internet 🙁

 

[Xyclone]

Windows XP ftw.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Win98 for all the crap it went through wasnt terribly bad for stability if you took the extra time and money and bought quality hardware.

You are confusing dumb luck with quality.

The difference is staggering! I can crash any Win98 installation with less than a minute's keyboard work (open a command line, DEBUG, o 21 ff, or f 0:0 L ffff 00 will do nicely).

XP can be crashed too, but you need either faulty hardware or code running in kernel mode. The latter can only be achieved by installing a bad device driver. As a software developer writing application code there's precious little (i.e. nothing!) I can do to crash the system if the user isn't an administrator (can't install a device driver then, see?).

Show me user-mode code that crashes XP, and I'll bet MS will release a patch before long. That was never an option with Win98, because Win9x's whole purpose was provide backward compatibility thus giving the industry an upgrade path to a clean operating system: Windows NT (which eventually became XP, or NT 5.1 according to the GetVersion() API function). Win98 MUST remain easy to crash because of backward compatibility with 16-bit device drivers. There's no way for anyone to fix that. Other than upgrading to a NT class OS. All the quality hardware in the world can't disguise that.

There are other issues as well. E.g. Win98 impose some 16-bitish limitations on GDI and USER resources. Modern applications just won't run as smooth. Where I work we stopped testing for Win98 a while back. We still have some Win98 users, but it's just dumb luck that keeps our app humming along and it is noticably more limited than it would be running under NT. (our app really isn't a resource hog, but the users will want to set it up to display _a lot_ of information and eventually this eats into resources big time)

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: ValuedCustomer

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: MrChad
XP is going to be your best bet, and the stability is similar for the different flavors (Pro, Home, MCE, etc.).

I don't know why you feel it's unstable. XP has been rock solid for me and many others. Any stability problems I've had on an XP machine can usually be attributed to faulty drivers, faulty hardware or poorly-written third party software.

QFT

"QFT"? that's all you have to offer? either explain why the poster who, unlike you, is actually making an effort to help/give advice to the OP should "QFT" or "STFU".. mmkay, jackass

Great, I look forward to more quality posts from you :roll:

Anyway, his topic has been done to death so many times, XP is a fast, stable OS. Problems with it are likely caused by the user or poor hardware.

 

[Seeruk]

Originally posted by: ValuedCustomer

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: MrChad
XP is going to be your best bet, and the stability is similar for the different flavors (Pro, Home, MCE, etc.).

I don't know why you feel it's unstable. XP has been rock solid for me and many others. Any stability problems I've had on an XP machine can usually be attributed to faulty drivers, faulty hardware or poorly-written third party software.

QFT

"QFT"? that's all you have to offer? either explain why the poster who, unlike you, is actually making an effort to help/give advice to the OP should "QFT" or "STFU".. mmkay, jackass?

I think you are misunderstanding him 🙂

QFT = Quoted for Truth

not Quit F**KIN Talking 😀

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Seeruk

Originally posted by: ValuedCustomer

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: MrChad
XP is going to be your best bet, and the stability is similar for the different flavors (Pro, Home, MCE, etc.).

I don't know why you feel it's unstable. XP has been rock solid for me and many others. Any stability problems I've had on an XP machine can usually be attributed to faulty drivers, faulty hardware or poorly-written third party software.

QFT

"QFT"? that's all you have to offer? either explain why the poster who, unlike you, is actually making an effort to help/give advice to the OP should "QFT" or "STFU".. mmkay, jackass?

I think you are misunderstanding him 🙂

QFT = Quoted for Truth

not Quit F**KIN Talking 😀

Pretty stupied for 1 abbr. to have 2 vastly different meaings 😛

 

[xanis]

In my experience, gaming in Linux isn't worth the trouble. Stick with XP and keep it updated.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BikeDude

Originally posted by: Genx87
Win98 for all the crap it went through wasnt terribly bad for stability if you took the extra time and money and bought quality hardware.

You are confusing dumb luck with quality.

The difference is staggering! I can crash any Win98 installation with less than a minute's keyboard work (open a command line, DEBUG, o 21 ff, or f 0:0 L ffff 00 will do nicely).

XP can be crashed too, but you need either faulty hardware or code running in kernel mode. The latter can only be achieved by installing a bad device driver. As a software developer writing application code there's precious little (i.e. nothing!) I can do to crash the system if the user isn't an administrator (can't install a device driver then, see?).

Show me user-mode code that crashes XP, and I'll bet MS will release a patch before long. That was never an option with Win98, because Win9x's whole purpose was provide backward compatibility thus giving the industry an upgrade path to a clean operating system: Windows NT (which eventually became XP, or NT 5.1 according to the GetVersion() API function). Win98 MUST remain easy to crash because of backward compatibility with 16-bit device drivers. There's no way for anyone to fix that. Other than upgrading to a NT class OS. All the quality hardware in the world can't disguise that.

There are other issues as well. E.g. Win98 impose some 16-bitish limitations on GDI and USER resources. Modern applications just won't run as smooth. Where I work we stopped testing for Win98 a while back. We still have some Win98 users, but it's just dumb luck that keeps our app humming along and it is noticably more limited than it would be running under NT. (our app really isn't a resource hog, but the users will want to set it up to display _a lot_ of information and eventually this eats into resources big time)

Um you are actively trying to whack the OS vs simply using it. I had a link to a website that ran a script that can hardlock XP. Does that mean XP is terrible? No it means somebody found a way to cause the memory management of the OS to grow the pagefile larger than the disk can handle and crash the OS.

And I wouldnt call it dumb luck considering over that time period I built no less than 3 computers. All of them with quality parts and all of them very stable.

 

[DRavisher]

Originally posted by: TGHI

Originally posted by: jjones
I'd have to say XP for sure. Run it in classic mode for best performance.

Why bother using XP in classic mode when you can use Win2k? The choice seems obvious to me.

I would say go XP since W2K apparently wont be getting any more security updates...

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Um you are actively trying to whack the OS vs simply using it.

I know a little about the underlying design. If you run a very limited set of applications, sure Win98 can be "stable". But where I with Win NT measure stability in months and years, I would at best be able to use days as a unit when using Win98. User mode code can corrupt the system in so many wonderful ways under Win98.

I've supported my share of Win9x users. They were all better off with XP.

I had a link to a website that ran a script that can hardlock XP.

I can't really see that you've actually posted the link you mention?

There are certainly some nasty things you can do with XP. E.g. if you increase the handle quota to 18000 handles (or more if you have 64-bit XP), you could create a process that creates 18000 invisible windows and then stand back and watch as absolutely nothing happens for minutes while the OS destroys all those handles... (The GUI will completely freeze, even the graph in Task Manager will stop and when it awakens again it'll just continue where it left off -- i.e. no clues as to what happened)

But it is still small potatoes to what normal user code can do with a Win98 system.

 

[Winchester]

I use Windows XP but in Classic mode. I noticed a huge difference in available resources after I did this even with 1GB of ram.

 

[hooflung]

32bit Linux is a pretty valid platform if you use Cedega latest. If you like UT series and doom 3 then you will run native. If you like MMOs then most ( exception is EVE ONLINE ) will run under Cedega. HL2 and CSS ( any steam game that I have tried actually ) run flawless with minor speed degration. WoW and Guild Wars run well on Cedega and Cedega is great on Mandrake/Mandriva, Ubuntu or Gentoo.

If you need the bleeding edge frames per second then running windows 2000/xp is a sure bet but if you want to convert Linux is a safe bet for most games.