| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 32955 | 2003-05-02 11:10:00 | OS OS OS | Ron Bakker (356) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 140817 | 2003-05-02 14:10:00 | >Which is the worst operating system & which is the best . 1:Win95 2:Win98 3:WinMe 4:Win2000 5:WinXp 6:WinXp pro . what did i not leak you all a version of Windows . NET or Windows Server 2003 ohhh . . . . . Win 2K Pro most stable and the best for me |
sc0ut (2899) | ||
| 140818 | 2003-05-02 14:46:00 | very good post whetu, cheers. although some ppl here may not realise that win9x includes winME..... ;) i use XP pro myself (it has taken a lot of time to configure it how i like it), but for any business machine i'd wholeheartedly recommend win2k, if it weren't for the price hike that M$ put on it after winxp pro came out.... |
AlexF (2316) | ||
| 140819 | 2003-05-02 17:34:00 | Best OS is most definintely XP Professional in my case. Closely followed by 2k. I prefer to get nice UI and lose some of the in the face stuff. Worst OS would be Windows ME, though I've never actually had it installed on any of my own computers. I did use it at a school. It wasn't nice at all. |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 140820 | 2003-05-02 18:53:00 | I have to agree with what you are saying, except for the severity of what i quote below. I'm from a complete "point and click" doze background, and fortunatly for me i have never had to look at source code yet. Sam my darling server/workstation has been a learning experiance, but 99.9% of what i do, i do from a GUI. >the major setbacks for nix at the moment are the unintuitive UI, lack of driver support, and the narrowmindedness of the nix community. They expect joebloggs to be able to compile and install from a bash terminal session, and they wonder why linux isnt taking off like it could? Whereas any joebloggs on a win32 machine can download and install an .exe or .zip without much problem... show me an installer where you have to open up cmd and type out lengthy strings and i'll show you a program that is hardly used at all. Most progs seem to be coming in as RPMs, and are as easy to install as doze software. If i had not decided to more adventurious things with SuSE Linux like samba and ftp server, i probably would never have looked at a .conf file. Certainly, if it come as a preinstalled system, and all i did was surf the net etc, it would be simply plug it in, tell it my IP address, and get on with it. So far, with the exception of a slight hitch with my second hard drive, hardware installation has been simpler with nix than doze ever was. I'm just rebuilding things at the moment, and juggling hardware as i go. Shortly i get to install Red9 on a computer i shall call Slug-beast, and dual boot red9 with win98 on Vanessa. I have been told Red9 is even easier. Rest assured, the PF1 community will hear how difficult these installations go. :D .Clueless |
Clueless (181) | ||
| 140821 | 2003-05-02 20:35:00 | Well said Whetu, As for XP, Its probably a lot more friendly to the average n00b to computers, due to its eye candy etc... But I still say ya cant beat a good strong Win2K setup, if ya do it right.. and get the startup time right down! I have my Linux installation boot time down to 20 seconds... Win2K down to 25, and WinXP.. down to 27 :( |
Chilling_Silently (228) | ||
| 140822 | 2003-05-02 20:39:00 | Well... Lycoris dude... That's all I can think of if you're wanting something that's familiar for Win32 users! Otherwise, Clueless> Rehat 8/9 has the nicest and easiest GUI Installer Ive ever seen, on any software ever! It was so simple, and easy and intuitive! If you're new to Linux, Mandrake 9's setup is a REAL put-off, go RedHat! |
Chilling_Silently (228) | ||
| 140823 | 2003-05-02 21:15:00 | Win2K down to 25 Wow My win98 machine is about 2'n' a half minutes & the task bar has only got about five things on it. That for a 2gighz pc is probably quite bad. |
Ron Bakker (356) | ||
| 140824 | 2003-05-02 22:38:00 | > I have my Linux installation boot time down to 20 seconds... Win2K down to 25, and WinXP.. down to 27 Geez Chill, what are you whining about? Seven seconds longer? :D Haven't actually timed my Win XP but I know it would be less than 30 seconds from whoa to go, whereas with the old Win 98 box I can go make a cuppa while waiting for that to boot up. It would be at least 2 minutes I reckon, probably more. At that is with it as lean as it has ever been as far as installed programs go. |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 140825 | 2003-05-02 22:53:00 | Whetu: Excellent sum-up on operating systems . Have you ever checked out the FAQ section on the forum? (Link top right of this page) . I have been thinking that we could keep you rather busy adding to that collection with some of your very informative replies . :D This topic is one that crops up here fairly regularly and usually results in a flame war so it would be good to have your reply made into a FAQ to prevent that . The other topic I was looking at was the one on choosing parts for a system . It would be a shame to see that disappear into the archives . I realise that hardware is constantly changing and people have different requirements but there is some good general information in your replies that I am sure would benefit people trying to put a system together . It is pretty much just a copy and paste job and would save you lots of time repeating yourself in the future . Interested? :-) |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 140826 | 2003-05-03 00:32:00 | > > I have my Linux installation boot time down to 20 > seconds... Win2K down to 25, and WinXP.. down to 27 > > Geez Chill, what are you whining about? Seven seconds > longer? :D ...Just making a statement :-) |
Chilling_Silently (228) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||