need an os reccomendation

“getting royally fed up with my new xp os... violin ,anybody ? do you have any leads to a system that is simple and ijit proof ?all im doing is running mail and info searches, but xp keeps going to sh!t on me, and is screwing up even with installs that are xp specific... thanks...”

“Linux Red Hat.”

“That's because XP is still a microsoft product. The entire Windows family is still a 1970's vintage operating system with extra bells and whistles added. Windows is the de facto standard because of MS marketing practices, not because it's any good.”

“What Gordon says. However, if you have need to interface w other apps you may still be better off w Windows in many cases. I have a new machine running XP & I am sorely disappointed that they couldn't do a better job that this, even on a first release basis, and I've been in the software biz for almost 20 years now & am (unfortunately) accustomed to too-early releases of bug-filled products. This is a sh!t OS, all things considered.”

“I've only had it for 2 weeks, and haven't had any problems yet.

But I haven't done much with it.”

“we've had xp for a few months and not any problems yet.”

“NT”

“I am a Windows Technician for a major internet provider and we have had more calls regarding XP crashing than anything else!
I personally recomend Windows '98. I have had absolutely no problems with it and I have had no serious issues from people calling in and using it.”

“I agree with hippiehiker 98 is the best release. Just to correct gordon XP is not a 1970s os because they did away with DOS making it a completly new os. I wouldn't go with any linux products unless your a programmer or a hacker or don't like any software because linux is junk in desktop applications but king in the server market. Just my two cents”

“win 2k is stable, 98 is ok if you know how to reformat often and do heavey matnaice.


I would recomend the abucus. Its not high-tech but it gets the job done.”

“If you list your setup, it might help a little in finding the problem. I bet it's not the OS, but a program or a hardware issue.

All 9x systems are incredably unstable. 95b was the best, but it has no USB support (BTW: USB support is what made 98 so crappy). I've been running xp pro for about a month and a half and have had no complaints. I've even put it under "severe" conditions and it ran without a hitch. It crashed once, but that was because I installed a corrupt driver, but I was able to fix it with a simple reboot and a click of a button. Are you running home version? I think the only difference between the two is that pro will accept multiple processors, but home might lack a lot of code or have a lot of extra that makes it more unstable. I would try a fresh install and see if that doesn't help, if you get a new OS you will have to do this anyway. If that doesn't help, try and get 2000 if you don't plan on doing much gameing. 2000 pro is made as a professional OS, so it is very straight foreward, no tutorials and not many wizards, so you will need to be half-way computer literate. Also if you are on a modem, downloading the service pack is a royal pain (it's on the order of 24 meg). It is certainly stabe, exect for the occasional blue screen of death, but the service pack eliminates that for the most part. NT is okay, but not as compatable or stable as 2000. If you want to get extreme, you can run a Linux box, but you won't be able to run normal Microsoft programs. Also, if you go with Linux it helps to know your way around a telnet prompt because that is the general form of the interface.

So in a nutshell, try a fresh install of xp and make sure everything is set right. Download all the right updates and make sure it's not an non-compatable piece of hardware or software screwing it up. (A detection wizzard is on the disk). If it still is not wrking to your level of satasfaction, then go back to what you had before. It will be cheaper then buying a new os. If you don't have an old one, or if you can get a new one cheap, then go for 2000 pro.”

“Let me start out by saying that I hate Microsoft. I dislike their anti-competitive business practices that have driven many companies out of business.

I've been working in the computer field since 1994. My current job is a computer technician where I use various flavors of Windows every day. I've used all versions of Windows because in reality, I have no choice. I've tried OS/2, Linux (still use it as a server, but it ISN'T a desktop OS yet), Unix, and BeOS. But for what I like to do - games, DVD playback, video capturing, etc. - I have no realistic choice but to use Windows. Linux can do much of that, but you have to spend a lot of time compiling applications, downloading libraries, and going through all sorts of nightmares. It's just not worth it.

Now, having said all that, I was quite surprised when I moved to Windows 2000 Pro last year. It's a memory pig and a bit of a CPU hog, but it was at least STABLE! Stable as hell compared to 95, 98, and especially the dreaded Me. This year I built a new system - Athlon XP 1.53ghz, 512mb DDR (bought it for $60 when memory hit an all time low) - I decided to put Windows XP Professional on it. My feelings about XP Pro are the same as 2000 Pro - a bit of a resource pig, but it's stable. And that's really all that matters to me. I used XP every day on both my Athlon and my laptop (Thinkpad Celeron 400 w/384mb RAM) - I do everything from DVD playback, scanning, video capturing and editing, HTML editing, running FTP servers, downloading various programs and movies off the net - via DSL, new games, and much more. I can assure all of you that XP is a solid and stable OS. Sure, you want to run Windows Update once a week to see if any new patches are available, but that can be said for any OS. Ever follow any of the Linux news sites (try Linux Today) - see how many patches are released each week for Linux.

Point is, 2000 Pro and XP Pro are the best versions of Windows yet. Windows has always been a resource big, and 2000 Pro and XP Pro are perhaps even worse, but I'm happy that it's finally stable. I always tell people - if you're going to use 2000 Pro or XP Pro, be prepared to A) sacrafice compatibility with older DOS/Windows programs, B) have a fast system (PII 450 or better should do it), and A LOT of RAM (256mb minimum, 512mb recommended).”

“Oh, and whoever said 98 is more stable than XP is absolutely crazy!

95/98/Me have the dreaded resource issue. Ever go into your system properties and see your resource drop to 30%? You know what happenes then? Serious destablization. And that resource has nothing to do with how much memory you have. You could have 2gb of RAM in your system, and your resources would drop just as quickly. I believe part of the resource issue was to maintain compatibility with older Windows and DOS programs. NT,2000,XP don't have this resource issue.

With NT,2000,XP, you don't have that same level of DOS/Windows compatilibity. DOS is only emulated under NT,2000,XP, whereas 95/98/Me are essentially Windows running on top of DOS operating systems. That's a big reason for the improved stability.

I have repeat customers who come in every few months needing Windows 95/98 reloaded onto their system. Someone mentioned that it had to be reinstalled every so often as part of system maintenance, and they were absolutley right.”

“but if you are frustrated by MS products, and you want easy to use get a Mac”

“I have found NT to be a stable operating system. A Mac is a graphics arts tool, not a computer.”