Please help me pick an OS

[EdgeBlade]

I don't actually "own" an operating system, but I'd like to. I'm strugling with a descision between:

Windows 98 SE
Windows ME
Windows XP Home

I'm looking for stability and compalitability. XP has just got on my nerves when it comes to running my games, especially when it runs them incorrectly.

I love the stability of XP, but I'm willing to give it up for a silightly less stable but much more compatable OS. I can always upgrade to XP later once support for it has grown (and a new OS will be on shelves ).

I would rather have ME than 98 SE, but I've heard lots of bad things about it. I'm curious if the problems people had were just due to hardware incompabilities or what... Maybe there are enough fixes by now.

So I ask, for any of you that like to share your oppinion and stick up for a certin OS, or degrade a certin OS, please do so. Any solid facts you can provide me will help lots for me to pick what OS I will use. Thanks.

 

[Rice]

XP, it is better in every sense then ME/98SE, just a little slower.

 

[Malcolm]

I'd go with Win98se, Windows "Mistake Edition" has problems with every person I've talked to. From constant crashes to hardware failure to lock-up on boot, WinME has its fair share of problems.

For me I'd go with (1st to last):
Win2k
Win98se
WinXP
WinNT (4)
Win95
Win98
Win 3.1
WinME

Haven't tride WinCE

 

[Eagle]

Well lets see, I'd disagree with that. Windows ME sucks, but I hate 2k just a bad. Here they are in my opinion best to worst. And 3.1 has to be at the end of the list seeing as there is no software for it anymore anyhow.

Windows XP Pro
Windows XP Home
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 98
Windows 95
Windows 2k
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows 3.1

 

[Eagle]

Honestly, if you have the disk space and the money, I think you should Dual Boot with XP as your main system and Windows 98 as a failsafe in case something isn't compatible with XP. Of course most things can run on XP at least in a compatibility mode, but some older hardware may not.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If you want the best stability and speed, W2K is definitely the way to go. I would also replace the explorer shell and use mozilla instead of IE6

 

[Allnatural]

Well lets see, I'd disagree with that. Windows ME sucks, but I hate 2k just a bad. Here they are in my opinion best to worst. And 3.1 has to be at the end of the list seeing as there is no software for it anymore anyhow.

Windows XP Pro
Windows XP Home
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 98
Windows 95
Windows 2k
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows 3.1

Win2k below Win95?

Explain. For curiousity's sake.

 

[mesman00]

id go with win2k first, id probly have to have win98 near the bottom (i never had good experiences with 98, although i used it for so many years), winME isn't even consisdered because it sucks so bad, and winXP somewhere in the middle. imho, win2k is the best.

to sum it up:

win2k
winxp
win98
win95
(lightyears beyond)
winME

oh yah, have ya considered linux?

 

[EdgeBlade]

I have many many games that won't run on XP with or without compatibility mode. And I have problems with video unless I use tweaking programs to set the AGP speed to 1x. Other than that XP is great.

I kinda want ME because I've had it before and had no problems. Many hate it even though they never used it themselfes. Anyone here like it at all?

Also does anyone know what improvments ME is suppost to have over 98SE, other than the more bugs thing

Linux is ok, but it won't do what I want, play my software...

 

[2bzy4ne1]

Also does anyone know what improvments ME is suppost to have over 98SE, other than the more bugs thing

I think that ME has a faster boot time than 98 SE.

 

[Eagle]

Well, XP and 2K are faster. 98 has more compatibility than XP and a lot more than 2k. ME all around sucks because it has more bugs than any other version of Windows. If you get ME, shake hands and get aquainted with the Blue Screen Of Death because you'll be seing him often. 98 is OK, but runs a little slower and has a few bugs so you will get BSOD once and awhile. Windows XP and 2K are about equally stable and I get the BSOD maybe once a month. XP has the better GUI in my opinion, but thats really your preference. I just like the new start menu and stuff. XP also has a lot of buit in stuff like zip file support and is much easier to install, but its built in Firewall and CD Burning are lacking so I don't use them. Anyway to sum it all up...

Windows XP
-Fast
-New Guided User Interface (GUI)
-Medium Compatibility
-Very Stable
-Built In Support for simple functions
-Some Stupid Activation Thing thats very annoying

Windows 2K
-I'm told Slightly Faster than even XP but not much
-Low Compatibility
-Very Stable

Windows ME
-Slower
-High Compatibility
-Extremely Unstable

Windows 98 Second Edition
-Slower
-High Compatibility
-Fairly Stable

 

[Eagle]

I think that ME has a faster boot time than 98 SE.

Not really, XP has the fast boot time, 2K and NT4 have the slowest boot time, 98 and ME are about the same. Really ME is almost identicle to 98 but has some added "features" that came with 2K that ended up making it so unstable.
Its all in the kernal used.
2k, XP, and NT4 are on the stable "NT Kernal"
95, 98, and ME are on the slightly unstable "9x Kernal"

The 9x Kernal is more compatible with hardware and software but the NT Kernal is more stable so it crashes less. This is why Microsoft is trying to merge the two Kernals. XP is actually their finished product of the merging of the two Kernals, but is closer to NT than 9x so its technically on the NT kernal.

EDIT: I might add that NT and 2K were built originally for networks and have slow boot times due to the extra network protection and functionality features that become enabled on boot up when the system is on a network. If the system is not on a network the boot time is about the same as 98 and ME

 

[Doomulation]

Eagle, XP is slowest of them all to load and shut down in some cases. Especially my pc.
Compare 98 to XP, which bots faster? 98 no doubt, i've seen it.
It took less time to boot 98 on a 830 mhz celeron than on XP on a 1.4 ghz athlon.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I wouldn't realy consider the boot time much, that could just mean that one OS loads everything at the start whereas one loads half of everything at boot, and the other half once you actualy log in (thats how XP and 2K mainly differ so far as booting iirc).

I have used every windows revision since 3.0, I would put em in this order:

2000
XP
95 OSR-3
98SE
98
95 OSR-2.5 to SR-1
95
ME
3.11 to 3.0

Also, anybody who is worried about compatibility in 2K, theres hardly anything that doesn't work with it that does work with XP. Go see www.ntcompatible.com

 

[Josep]

no this thread is pointless because it depends on the stats of someone's computer, the two computers i have both have winxp pro, the p3 866 takes longer to startup than the Athlon xp 1.4ghz with a ata133 7200rpms(believe it or not the HD did make a difference, i didn't know that till i tried it) Given by that last statement its based on preference, cause if you don't test every OS on the EXACT same system, then no shit your going to get different speeds.

 

[Josep]

Eagle, XP is slowest of them all to load and shut down in some cases. Especially my pc.
Compare 98 to XP, which bots faster? 98 no doubt, i've seen it.
It took less time to boot 98 on a 830 mhz celeron than on XP on a 1.4 ghz athlon.

yea, but what else does your system consist of on the 1.4ghz?

 

[AlphaWolf]

no this thread is pointless because it depends on the stats of someone's computer, the two computers i have both have winxp pro, the p3 866 takes longer to startup than the Athlon xp 1.4ghz with a ata133 7200rpms(believe it or not the HD did make a difference, i didn't know that till i tried it) Given by that last statement its based on preference, cause if you don't test every OS on the EXACT same system, then no shit your going to get different speeds.

My laptop came with ME, which I shortly thereafter replaced it with 98SE, and then dual booted 2000. Back at that time, most people were still using the 9X based OSes and NT was considered "crap" by many, (of which never even tried the NT OSes, they just assumed they weren't good, guess now that NT is the norm they think otherwise) so I had to keep 98SE for compatibility sake.

 

[Eagle]

Eagle, XP is slowest of them all to load and shut down in some cases. Especially my pc.
Compare 98 to XP, which bots faster? 98 no doubt, i've seen it.
It took less time to boot 98 on a 830 mhz celeron than on XP on a 1.4 ghz athlon.

One of the major points of XP is its super fast boot up. I have 3 PCs in my house and every one of them boots up about 30 seconds faster than they did with 98. As a matter of fact the first thing listed when installing XP on the features is faster boot up times. Your the only person I've ever heard complain about the XP boot times. Everyone else I've talked to is astounded by how fast it is.

EDIT: Granted shut down times are slow where as on windows 98 they were almost instantaneous. But I'd rather it boot up faster and shut down slower than vica versa. When I shut down, I click Turn Off My Computer, and the computer does the rest. Right down to switching itself off when its done. So I just set it to shut down and walk away (unless its lighning and I have to unplug it). But if the boot up is slow then you have to turn on the computer and sit and wait for it to boot and then load any tray programs. The faster the better.

 

[Trotterwatch]

Startup times for XP are very fast - sure you may see the desktop slightly quicker on 98 but it isn't usable for a matter of seconds afterwards as it is still loading in.

Shutdown times on XP I reckon are actually quicker, and to make matters better I haven't had a single crash on shutdown - whereas 98 used to quite enjoy doing so.

The main thing to blame for slow shutdowns in XP is the Nvidia Driver Help service - which can be disabled without ill effect in the services.msc configuration.

 

[Stezo2k]

i prefer windows xp pro cuz it's an improved version of win2k. It has a new GUI, new features, higher compatability, and keeps the ultra stable nt kernal that 2k uses. And is very twekable
best Os' in my oppinion (In order):

Win xp pro
Win 2000
Win xp home
Win 98se
Win 95
Win 3.x
Win ME