View Full Forums : What OS do you run?


alyn cross
12-30-2003, 08:28 AM
putting together a new rig today, pondering picking up a copy of winxp to replace my now ancient win98se... which is still a workhorse as far as a gaming platform is concerned...

thoughts? if you're running xp have you had any driver issues? anyone running both on different pc's?

/cackles!

DemonMage
12-30-2003, 09:06 AM
Win2k. XP I won't touch until I'm forced to =-p

Rahjeir
12-30-2003, 09:28 AM
Running XP for a longtime, not one problem.

Aidon
12-30-2003, 10:20 AM
I actually very much enjoy XP. The only problem I've ever noticed is a tendancy to shut down wireless networking for no apparent reason. Nothing a few rodent sacrifices to the XP Gods doesn't rectify, however.

Seriena
12-30-2003, 10:34 AM
I'm running 2k on one machine and 98 on another. Love the 98. I don't like 2k that much though and will be upgrading to xp when I build my new computer.

B_Delacroix
12-30-2003, 10:39 AM
I had to go to XP when I built my last computer. Haven't had any problems. Just like when I had 98.

One caveat, I had to twiddle with the network settings because it would dump me out of EQ about every 2 minutes.

I also had to turn off that automatic resetting it does with fatal errors. I haven't had any but I didn't want my computer to just reset on me without me knowing why.

alyn cross
12-30-2003, 11:25 AM
anyone done the xp upgrade from 98se? 1 c-note as opposed to 2 c-notes is attractive, imo... /cackle

might put it together with 98se today and upgrade to xp a paycheck or three down the line, but wouldn't want to reload from scratch, i'm thinking...

Seriena
12-30-2003, 11:33 AM
I've always been told that it's better to do a clean install rather than upgrading from one os to the next.

Kerech
12-30-2003, 12:53 PM
Using XP Professional on 3 machines, 2K on one machine and XP Home on 2 machines. Have run EQ on all of them with no problems (until LDON when one of my laptop video chips was no longer supported :()

I've always been under the notion that a clean install is better than an upgrade. There's just too many possibilities for problems.

Ladred
12-30-2003, 01:26 PM
The XP upgrade is the FULL version. The only difference is if you don't have an operating system on your computer it will prompt you to insert your previous windows cd to verify that you are in fact upgrading.

Panamah
12-30-2003, 01:28 PM
I really like XP. So much nicer than 2000 or NT.

Don't forget to get updates and install them. Do it regularly too.

I read something recently about the wireless problem, I think it has been patched.

alyn cross
12-30-2003, 02:25 PM
yeah, i know it's the full version, i'm just not going to be ready to do 1200 hours of app instalations again, before at least another 5 or 6 months has passed.... /cackle

Tils
12-30-2003, 04:56 PM
Windows 2003.......and XP Pro atm..

have used.....Win Xp home (crap)......Win 2k (good)....ME (so so)....98 (so so).


Tils

Ravensign
12-30-2003, 05:09 PM
I think the upgrade scripts when XP is installed must be goofy. I always use clean installs of XP Pro, and its like UNIX-eqse in stability and performance, and 98-esqe in compatability and entertainment.

There must be an upgrade weirdness or something, because I just dont see how XP could scare people off. It has been the best OS in the history of Windows for me on multiple machines, so people saying they are scared of it blows my mind.

Cloudien
12-30-2003, 05:36 PM
XP. It's a real solid OS.

I've also used them all...

DOS Series:

95: Was bad, as espected for first of its generation. Extremely fast on newer machines, but obsolete and unsupported. Later versions (OEM2.5) were reasonable.
98: A decent improvement upon 95, but still buggy. Recently rendered obsolete.
98SE: Best of its kind (the older, DOS-based '9x' type). Fairly solid with good drivers installed, real fast on newer machines, but suffers problems with its DOS heritage and can soon be made unstable.
ME: A *joke*, thrown as a bone to the crowd when people got sick of waiting for XP. Some have luck with it, most people find it extremely buggy and unstable. I found it worse than all the others including 95.

NT Series:

NT4: Solid, like any NT based Windows, but old (win95 era). I think it was recently rendered obsolete. Can't install DirectX above about version 5...
2000: Wonderful, on par with XP. Solid as a rock. Some prefer 2000 to XP... understandable, but personally I still remember how 2000 was marketed strictly for businesses and shunned by gaming companies and the like with regards to support.
XP: Also wonderful, solid as a rock. It's 2000 with bells and whistles (most of which you can turn off / remove) but probably the most 'supported' OS being the most popular nowadays. Those with home networks might prefer Pro for the better file sharing options, etc. Home is also fine, just same thing with less features.
2003: A server OS. See 2000. There were some home-based things that actually *refused* to install on it, can't remember what they were but it was annoying.

Then of course there's non-Windows OSes like Linux which has a whole flurry of advantages that'd take forever to list. I have a separate box for that though, with Windows on the main/powerful one. Popular is good, that's where I want to pour my resources, whilst also supporting Linux and hoping it grows on the desktop market some day.

Oh, and *never* upgrade. Not a Windows OS, nor a Linux OS. It's easy to the user, but internally it's a very complicated process, and problems are inevitable... I've experienced them many times, just don't go there. Back up your stuff, format, and install from scratch. Yes it's tedious, but you'll be glad you did :)

Tiane
12-30-2003, 05:43 PM
XP Pro is really nice, and is what I use.

What they mean by not "upgrading" windows xp is that you should always do a fresh install of Windows XP, rather than doing it over top of 9x (i.e. installing it into the same directory), so that it doesnt try to save any settings or drivers or anything from your current install, and it is recommended to do it that way by Microsoft so.... do it! 8P Yes the "Windows XP Upgrade CD" is just the full version that makes sure you have an older version of windows somewhere, just dont install over top of your old windows 9x is all.

However, you can save some stuff if you use the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard... it's on the Windows XP CD, so you can just run it from there, or create a wizard disk from any xp computer to run on your 9x machine. It's worked pretty well for me in the past, and it's also a good way to just backup all your custom settings now and then if you are paranoid like me! You can back up your settings (and files if you like) and copy them across a network or put em on a safe spot of your hard drive, or whatever. For example, my settings backup thing is about 15 megs.

Tia

Wildaiena
12-30-2003, 06:54 PM
Win XP has been fine for me. I just wish I knew how to turn off all the extra stuff like I did with Win 98. XP has like 20 things running in the background, but my old system only had like 3 besides the game. I suppose I could shut each down individually and figure it out the hard way, but I always figured something I need would be off but it would still run XP or something. Anyway, not sure why people don't like XP, never had a problem, but then I just use MS Office and play games.

Tudamorf
12-30-2003, 08:24 PM
I use a combination of Win2K and WinXP on different systems. They're basically the same thing, and both solid OSs that are infinitely better than Win98.

When you upgrade your OS, <b>do a clean install</b> and reformat your hard drive for NTFS.

DemonMage
12-30-2003, 08:32 PM
I never really got why 2k was marketed more towards business then gaming.. well.. I kind of do, it's slightly less user friendly then ME/98/XP, but not really. I've been using it since litteraly as it was released, and besides some really old games, I think the only game I had trouble running that was fairly new (at the time) was Vampire: The Masquerade... that was a pain in the ass to install on 2k, but otherwise worked fine. Very solid and stable, and secure (as far as Windows goes anyways.....), though I know some people get annoyed at having to log onto their computer.. I prefer doing it though =-p

Panamah
12-30-2003, 08:35 PM
I suppose I could shut each down individually and figure it out the hard way, but I always figured something I need would be off but it would still run XP or something. Anyway, not sure why people don't like XP, never had a problem, but then I just use MS Office and play games.

There's been a few postings around about what to turn off for a good gaming environment, but I haven't seen them lately. Basically I turn off everything not in the microsoft directory. But the general command to get to that stuff is: Windows->run->msconfig

Then to turn off services the command is Windows->run->services.msc

Cloudien
12-30-2003, 09:26 PM
Wildaiena: Try this site http://www.blackviper.com/index.html

serberus
12-31-2003, 08:11 AM
I can't stand XP in any form, it's Windows 2000 made slower with a terrible GUI and covered in kid gloves.

It's got an entirely skinnable interface which seems to lag whenever you do anything (e.g. just clicking the start button). It has lots of unnecessary 'features' built in to make things nice and simple and easy which are just bloatware in my opinion, the interface has changed drastically from all other versions of Windows (this can be all be turned off) and so takes a little re-learning, I would recommend never using the newest Microsoft OS until it's on service pack 2/3 because they release them with HUGE bugs and just patch them up later.

I do focus on speed and efficiency incredibly heavily though and give no real thought to ease of use hence I prefer Windows 2000 (which isn't difficult to use at all, just 'harder' than XP).

Serberus

Cloudien
12-31-2003, 08:35 AM
Thankfully all the 'evil' bits in XP can be removed or disabled. Even those you didn't think possible, if you check out something like XPlite (http://www.litepc.com)

There is one more reason I use XP: it apparently handles hyperthreading better (2000 does it, but only for apps specifically written for it). I have a P4-3GHz-HT, it does seem to make things a lot more 'responsive' with a few apps open... less of this 'watch everything hang for a moment whilst a bad app like IE hogs the CPU to make a click noise'

But I agree, 2000 is a rocking OS. I just wish they hadn't been so negative whenever anyone suggested using it as a home OS (Microsoft probably insisted on this in their contracts, to give them a decent reason to push XP when it came out)

Sildan
01-01-2004, 12:53 AM
I built myself a new box about 2 months ago.
I put win XP on it and much to my surprise it has yet to crash, lock, blue screen, shoot fire out of the floppy drive. I am quite impressed. TONS more solid platform than Win98se was.

Angelsmusic
01-05-2004, 06:04 PM
My com teacher just upgraded all the machines in our lab from 98 to XP Pro over vacation.. needless to say she just did upgrade, not reinstall, and she ended up scrapping 6 machines out of 25, and now we're short machines!

I've got XP home now, if i want to run a network, can i? i've got one machine with XP home, one with XP pro, and one with 98, wondering if that will work?

Thanks!

Fyyr Lu'Storm
01-05-2004, 08:03 PM
98SE on partition 1.
XPpro on partition 2.

There are just some old stuffs I need, and some are not compatable with XP.

XP is(even given it's holes) a solid OS.

Every ME machine I have ever encountered was a kludge. I still have no idea why they made that. Worse idea than Bob. Well almost.


My only complaint with XP is it's size. 98 ran in about 100 megs. NT about 300 or less. 2K 500ish. XP is 2gigs. That is huge.

Tudamorf
01-05-2004, 08:43 PM
I've got XP home now, if i want to run a network, can i? i've got one machine with XP home, one with XP pro, and one with 98, wondering if that will work?
Peer-to-peer networking between Win2K/XP and Win98 is rather clumsy. The XP machine should have no problem accessing the Win98 system with the proper username/password, but the Win98 machine will have problems accessing the Win2K machine. There might be a workaround to this problem, but I don't remember what it is.

Drake09
01-05-2004, 08:49 PM
Bah! I am pretty sure they had someone ask that EXACT question on The ScreenSavers (techTV) a few weeks ago, but I can't find the article.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
01-05-2004, 09:06 PM
One quick and easy way to share files like that is to turn on the webserver on the XP machine.

If you are moving files, that is.

I like to keep the machines separated, but that is a good workaround a lot of times for just moving files from one machine to the other.

Turn the web services off when you are done.

Ndainye
01-05-2004, 09:08 PM
Basically what Tuamorf said is correct. Win 98 is 32 bit Win XP is NTFS. NTFS can access 32 bit no problem, but 32 bit can't access NTFS.

You can network them but the win 98 won't be able to access files from the XP.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
01-05-2004, 09:12 PM
You mean FAT or FAT32 right?

FAT=File Allocation Table.

And you can install XP as FAT32, don't do it, but you can.

Tudamorf
01-05-2004, 10:04 PM
Basically what Tuamorf said is correct. Win 98 is 32 bit Win XP is NTFS. NTFS can access 32 bit no problem, but 32 bit can't access NTFS.
That's true, but I was talking about peer-to-peer networking over ethernet, not directly accessing the hard drive. If you try to network a Win98 and Win2K machine you may have problems authenticating a connection from the 98 machine to the 2K machine, but not the other way around. I'm a bit foggy on the subject since I haven't touched 98 in years, so maybe this is only a 98-to-2K issue and not a 98-to-XP issue. I do remember reading an article on Microsoft's Knowledge Base about this, but I don't remember caring too much since I was all to eager to dump 98 anyway.

Tiane
01-05-2004, 11:29 PM
You dont need any special workarounds. 98 (and any other NOS) can access windows xp files on a peer to peer network no problem. It's easiest to just enable Simple File Sharing on the xp box and if 98 (or whatever) asks for a pw just use your xp's regular logon for Administrator or any other account that normally has access to that share and you're good to go.

My XP, 98, and Linux machines all can access each others files.

NT/2k was a little more annoying, since there want direct support for the old standard WFW network. But you could still do it, you just had to make the nt box a standalone domain controller, and have your 98 machine log in to the domain using the nt box as the verifier. I also had this setup (one of my machines can tripleboot between linux, nt and 98!) I havent used 2k, but afaik that part of the networking stuff was the same as NT.

If you mean direct hard drive access, there are 3rd party NTFS drivers for Dos at least. They suck but they work well enough to get your files off in an emergency.

Cloudien
01-06-2004, 02:08 PM
XP Service Pack 2 sounds nice. Beta review:
http://www.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/04q1/sp2-beta-1.html

Finally Microsoft are taking action on their biggest problem to date: Security.
Numerous impressive security tweaks, Zonealarm-style 'program access' firewall, etc.

And IE with download resuming and a popup blocker *built in* = woohoo!

Drake09
01-06-2004, 03:41 PM
Boo (( I don't wont it intereferin' with mah ereet GoogleToolbar ! <3

Regnon
01-12-2004, 07:14 AM
I use Windows XP.