Who here thinks win2k the most stable MS OS in history ?

[lucidguy]

<< But try multitaking in DOS. Can't can you? Didn't think so. >>



Actually you very well can. There are a ton of utilities that allow DOS to multitask. QEMM is the best known one. But you obviously know little more than to type &quot;dir&quot; when it comes to DOS, so how would you know?

 

[HansXP]

<< Actually you very well can. There are a ton of utilities that allow DOS to multitask. QEMM is the best known one. But you obviously know little more than to type &quot;dir&quot; when it comes to DOS, so how would you know? >>



Um, QEMM was just a memory manager.

 

[Shadow07]

Ditto. QEMM is just a memory manage, like EMM386 is. Of course, with your knowledge, you would've known that, right? Didn't think so.

 

[jimmystu]

Dos 3.1

 

[noninterleaved]

I think win2k is very stable. I have some hardware issues on my machine (dang FIC mobo) that cause it to freeze up every now and again... but I don't think it is a software problem.

Considering how buggy XFree can get sometimes (in my experience)... I think Win2K is the most stable OS w/a GUI. Linux or Unix might be a rock without a GUI, but XFree screws everything up.

I don't think XP will be any more stable, but I am looking forward to a skinable, more attractive user interface. I have to stare at this thing all day, I don't mind it being pretty at all.

 

[llew]

I'd have to say nt4 with sp3 or later is the most stable os. The only problem is you can't play any games on it.

 

[lucidguy]

<< Um, QEMM was just a memory manager. >>



I was thinking of DesqView/386, which is DesqView and QEMM packaged together. DesqView handles the multitasking, QEMM handles memory management. Quarterdeck makes and markets both apps. See details here:

http://www.non.com/news.answers/desqview-faq.html

The fact remains that DOS multitasks very well and there are tons of apps that enable multitasking in DOS.

 

[HansXP]

No, DOS does not multitask well. Any way you do it is basically a &quot;hack&quot; in the OS. I remember using a program called DoubleDOS, which could handle two tasks at a time by running a second version of the command prompt. Unfortunately, the second one was limited to >50% of the processor, so even if the first prompt was doing nothing, the second was still slow. W2K has a much better multitasking system.

 

[lucidguy]

DOS runs comfortably on a 386 with 4 megs memory. Win 2000 can't compete very well. Only Linux competes with DOS in this respect.

 

[HansXP]

The fact that you can't make a convincing argument is shown by your choice to go way off topic. We aren't talking speed here. We're talking stability.

 

[1921Photoelectric]

The most stable to me was dos with the Geos graphical shell. Wait that ain?t Microsoft?s. Though I love to through it on a partion of my 900 mhz just to see what it would be like (if I could only find the floppies in my attic some where.)

Windows 2000 is a diesel just keeps running and running. I?ve crashed it a few times ( Canada?s fault for making Molson Ice.)

 

[WyteWatt]

thank you everyone for yalls thoughts.
Its very interesting what yall think. Espically with being a great gaming OS ! Sometimes i tell that to people and they think i am crazy lol
but its pretty true if you got the right video card, drivers , etc i think.

if MS came out with something twice as stable as win2k i would be really amazed but i dont think that will happen anytime soon.
i think win2k pro for me will be for a long while cause windows xp just doesnt look that good with all that product activation not that i really care its just a pain in the butt with new hardware and such.
and is toooo much of a ram hoggg.

i guess i will try to stay on win2k for a long while if i can.

Hey do yall think when windows xp is released it will help win2k have more game support cause games that say they run on windows xp may work on win2k since they both use the same kernel ! ?

curious
thanks