So you're only looking at MS OSes?

Between NT and 2000, it is my understanding that 2000 supports more peripherals with better drivers. Not sure. But why not XP then?

I like XP, once you've downloaded all of the security patches and turned the appearance back to the win2000 standard (rather than that bubbly teletubbie crap), its actually a very good OS.

@Kimk, Taw suggested I get XP Professional, and so far I really like it. But there is a bit of a learning curve as I skipped 3 generations of Windows because my last computer was Win98. There's also a lot of things I'm not using on XP Pro as I never intended it to control a network, but it so far is stable and even when I make mistakes it doesn't get all screwed up the way other versions could.

It is more expensive than XP Home, but I have XP Home on my new laptop and so far I think I like this better.


Sir Spectre

cost isn't a problem for me. any type of software is well within my budget range, if you know what i mean (hinthint!! i'm in malaysia)

but winXP tends to really drag my computer. i'm running on a korean winXP. its the OS my dad uses. but ever since my serious breakdown, i've been using this, and it takes forever even to load the start menu. so i'm passing with winXP.

and yes, i prefer the MS oses since they've got more programs running for them, freelancer for instance. and its the one i'm most familiar with.

so its really a question of windows NT or windows2000 (professional, for both) for me.

oh and someone recommend me a good antivirus software? (ignore the budget stuff) i'm thinking about norton antivirus 2003, as i already have the disc. but is there any out there tahts more stable?

thanks.

p.s, the professional and the home editions for both NT and 2000 don't have too much in difference do they? if they do have differences, what are they then ? anything i can't maneuver around?

@Kimk

I remember that NT didn't support as much gaming as was desired. I'm a little rusty in the remembering side but 2000 was meant to address that weakness in NT so you might not have a choice at all. You may have to go with 2000.

Note, neither NT nor 2000 have the broader support for gaming that XP has.

Edited by - Indy11 on 2/2/2004 9:57:07 AM

OSX! OSX! *ducks and avoid flames*

Just kidding. I have never used OSX extensively to judge it. It just looks visually cool, you have to give it that.

You'll get yourself laughed into oblivion if you put NT on your machine. It was built to be a networking only OS, is not at all suitable for gaming and was mainly used (god knows why) as a server platform. It was never a really good server either, I have 10 NT servers running out in our branches (antiquated network in the company) that run fine processing very small amounts of data in an PPP SNA network, but I wouldn't give them any major task to do as they still fall over on a bi-weekly basis. Security patches have not been released for NT for some time so security is incredibly lax. So much so that most organisations will refuse to give a company a security rating if they are running it. Basically if you put an NT machine on the Net, your a whore for every two bit hacker on the internet.

So 2000 is your only real choice bar XP. However if you really don't care about gaming then you can't go wrong with a Red Hat build. Cost you 30 bucks at your local newsagent and it's a helluva lot more secure than any Windows OS, bit of a b*tch to use though.

Windows 3.11 was ok, limited use - 98 and 98se both ok, liked the backup program ME died the second day and crashed there after, 2000 was NOT game freindly when it first came out plus too much Blue Screen of Death. Had XP since the midnight sale it came out on, zero problems and very game freindly except 1 or 2 old 95 games. Never had 95. Bought it, but a floppy was bad and never got to run it. 12 floppys at that.

Finalday

Until that final day. /Keith Green\ (1953-1983)

@Kimk

<creeps out from behind boulder>

There is of course...

<ducks head in case Taw is watching>

Windows ME. That's what I am running at present. Not planning to move to XP or whatever until after I buy a new rig ... which won't happen until after 64 bit processing has rolled-out in full force and software / games for it have rolled out.

Bad things are good in Bizzaro World

i actually have no problems with ME, i'm glad there's someone else on this bizzaro planet that uses it i used it till the day it blacked out on me, the cause of which i don't think is on the OS itself.
but i'm looking for one thats very game and internet friendly, and of course, friendly for other applications as well (eg. the msOffice, macromedia series) and i'm also looking for one thats small, runs fast, and is stable.

remember, budget is unlimited for me.

---

OSX! OSX! *ducks and avoid flames*

---

No, Linux! Linux!


BlazeME: Flameus Muchus n00bus

Help me on Outwar.com

anyone who is running ME needs their heads looking at. it's total rubbish and inherently unstable. The only version of ME that even approaches any sort of respectable performance is the upgrade because at least it sits on 98 which is acceptable stable (for MS)

why would anyone want to use 2K or NT as a home desktop platform? XP is from the same stable and is designed for desktops and multimedia, 2K isn't, it's a business and dev platform, NT too, with little gaming/multimedia support.

@FF I use OSX on one of my machines at work....its nice, but in comparison to previous mac OS's it runs very slow and is full of bugs. Also its not backwards compatible...we're having to re-buy all of our software because older versions don't work on OSX. Gutting!

2k can be patched up as a decent multimedia desktop machine, I've seen a few guys put some nice builds together. I presonally wouldn't bother though, XP is all to easy.

NT is crap though, you sneeze the wrong way and it wants to reboot. Especially when your finishing off a build, reboot after reboot after bloody reboot. 95 would be a better option for a desktop machine and that's saying a LOT!

Edited by - Mustang on 2/3/2004 5:02:42 AM