Operating Systems

[Howard]

Again didn't want to hijack a thread about XP (styles, Start menu, etc)... So I've made a new one

Why do so many people prefer older OSs like 2000 or 98SE over XP? I think XP is far better than all of the older ones.. It is more up to date, has better support for newer hardware and processors, newer technology peripherals like cameras, wireless, Bluetooth, etc. And is much more customisable and can run nice and fast when kept clean and optimised.

I agree on slower machines 2000 and 98SE will run much faster, but IMHO there's really no excuse for newer high performance PCs (Like most of us here at Hexus are running )

So, opinions/facts/comments?

What operating system do you use?

[killgORE]

Linux is faster though ! I have used mandrake linux for a few months now. Its about time to step up to a better distrobution soon. I think I will slap 'slackware' on it soon.

I think xp is the best version of windows. However, I had to make loads of changes to the interface to get it to look like older version (don't like all those garish icon instead of the traditional control panel/start bar). The boot speed is much appreciated, the system recovery has saved my ass twice already. I also think that networking is easier in xp. Though I have had my problems with it too.

I hate the "your app crashed, would you like to help bill gates debug his beast" requests. Anyway to kill those ? Not that i have looked at this point.

[TiG]

Again didn't want to hijack a thread about XP (styles, Start menu, etc)... So I've made a new one

Why do so many people prefer older OSs like 2000 or 98SE over XP? I think XP is far better than all of the older ones.. It is more up to date, has better support for newer hardware and processors, newer technology peripherals like cameras, wireless, Bluetooth, etc. And is much more customisable and can run nice and fast when kept clean and optimised.

I agree on slower machines 2000 and 98SE will run much faster, but IMHO there's really no excuse for newer high performance PCs (Like most of us here at Hexus are running )

So, opinions/facts/comments?

What operating system do you use?

Erm, Howard how many systems do you run, have you experienced running things like 2000 for more than 5minutes as I find most of your comments quite frankly completely unfounded.

Lets start with how XP's themes are just a complete waste of time and space and processing power, I want the OS to do what I want it to do, not render pretty task bars etc. lets then look at Xp's search facility - ITS USELESS, its absolutely APPALING.

Since when does XP have any more support for devices that 2000?, Everything i want to use works in 2000, all the latest phones connect via usb without issues, I work in a Technology company and have done for the last 3 years, we wouldn't dream about using XP here, its a home OS for muppets and quite frankly I can't stand it.

If you are a developer you go 2003 or 2000.

I'm sure other people Like XP better, but I don't see anything in XP that makes me want to use it over 2000. And No Jiff that Graphical network display is not enough

Rant over
TiG

[Stoo]

XP is annoying, they've hidden too much of the really useful stuff away behind "user-friendly" interfaces, then they slow it all down with pointless skins and other junk *bah*

Once you strip it down it's actually okay though.

I doubt I'll bother with upgrading windows versions on my home pc anymore, really, the only thing holding me back from running Linux is the lack of the applications I use regularly (Before anyone says, yes I know there are alternatives available, but they *really* aren't the same )

I did think about going over to Mac, but the fact that you just can't hack about with the hardware as easily puts me off, along with the prices..

[këö¬t]

when i installing windows xp, it take me about two days to get the machine to act how i want it to work. installing debian or windows 2000, it takes two minutes.
windows xp hides too many things, tries to be clever when it isn't, and is not efficient enough. i don't want to use wmp7, i want wmp6.4 - the bloatless version. i don't want msn to plague my system.
windows 2000 works well, does what i want it to do.
debian is godlike.

... you did ask...

[joshwa]

ditto to all of the above. add to that the extremely ANNOYING Windows XP activation - which is completely and uterly rediculous.

Josh

[Jiff Lemon]

Well I was a HUGE w2k fan. I've gone XP on my desktops, with a 50/50 split between 2k and 2k3 server on my servers.

They are a few features in XP I simply love - yes, the network graph in taskmanager being one, the integration of WPA another. However, there is equal amount of things I simply despise - the search feature, the God damn annoying "ah, you want to add a network place, I scan the entire network, including the internet, to see if I can find it first" bit. So am I running pro? It's the future - its inevitable, get to like it now, because sooner or later you're gonna have to deal with it. I work in support, so I've got to know the OS.

Microsofts biggest mistake was not making XP pro for Pros. I don't need a bloody wizard to hold my hand. Switch them all on for home, switch them all off (or preferably, remove completely) for Pro.

[p0lish]

Lemme put my opinion ito that discussion.
-If you are a beginner and have an older PC - stay with an older OS. WinXP has too much unneccessary bells and whistles that slow u down.
-If ur an experienced win user - go for XP. I have used Windows since 3.11. After some useful tweaking - around 2-3 hrs of work, winXP will be a blaze compared to any other MS OS. It can be fully customized, for the looks, performance and behavior. I run winXP Pro Corporate Edition.

[joshwa]

the integration of WPA another.

what's WPA? - you can't possibly love Windows Product Activation

[BlackSheep]

With respect to Windows Media Player I fully agree ver 6 was/is the best version ever made - you can even open 20 instances of it (useful for testing your HDD *cough* pr0n *cough*) - it's bloat free and does exactly what it says on the tin - without trying to do everything else slightly worse than dedicated appz (e.g. ripping/burning etc...).

I prefer win2k by far, mainly for the stability and consistent performance. WinXP seems to have a nasty habit of degrading performance over time (and yes that's with system restore + indexing + themes + all the other unnecessary cr4p turned off!).

Win2k with SP4 is blissful (never liked SP3 - SP2 was pretty much perfect - seems like the opposite to NT SP's where odd numbers were more stable).

I take the point about win2k not having built-in support for Bluetooth, some Mass storage devices (digi-cams and the like) but this is simply because the drivers weren't included when win2k came out - it doesn't mean they don't support them once you have installed the driver - in fact I can't think of anything that winXP can handle which win2k can't!

WinXP Pro should have been more like Win2k Pro and not treated the power-user as a n00b - and trying to hide uninstall (within inf\sysoc.ini) options for unnecessary bloatware such as MSN Messenger ... tut tut M$

Anyway if you like all the nice image improvements of WinXP - themes especially - which I don't (if the desktop was rendered in OpenGL/Direct3D and fully immersive 3D themes were available at *no cost* to performance then I might) then WinXP is for you ... just be prepared to spend more time bending the system to your will than with good ol' Win2k

[Jiff Lemon]

what's WPA? - you can't possibly love Windows Product Activation

This sort of WPA , however, I've no axe to grind with product activation really.

[Zak33]

I use a Sinclair Spectrum....I think it's great.

I dont know what OS it uses though.....sorry.

[Furton]

Everyone has a different need from their OS so not everyone will want to use the same OS. I personally use WinXP pro on all of my machines because it does everything I need it do to. It runs 24/7 without crashing, all of the latest software will run on it, and well. I also think the new Start menu is great, I don't have anything on my desktop anymore except for the Recycle Bin (Which is something I've never seen the point for) and pictres

At the end of the day, it's PERSOANL preference which matters, too many people seem to forget about that these days and go banging on about how great Linux is (Where are the games?), which is fine by me but don't mock other people's decision to use different OSes as everyone has a different need from.

[Butuz]

Yeh its personal preferance - its no good ranting or getting agressive about what other people use, and why they use it.

I use Windows 2000 on the desktop and server simply because:

1) Its the most stable and mature O/S ive had the pleasure of using, thanks to 4 years of other people testing and bug fixing for me resulting in SP4 stability supreme.

2) Its got he Power of XP pro, but without the Windows ME style gayboy wizards and faffy logos and colours and generally, bloated pointless useless code. As others have said, i dont need a wizard to do something i already know how to do, particularly if my way of doing works out faster, better or more stable in the end.

3) It treats me as a valued customer, not as a thief. I enter my serial number off my licence, and its happy with that. Wheras windows XP treats you as a thief until you prove otherwise, which i do not like one bit. Admitedly this doesnt affect me in work due to volume licencing etc, all the install CD's at work ive got for 2k/xp dont require a CD key or any activation. But at home, i dont want to activate windows every time i change my pants.

Drawbacks?

1) Not quite as much hardware support as XP, for things like CD/DVD writers, scanners, cameras, printers, usb devices in general.

For me the benefits of Win2k far outweigh the drawbacks, and i wont be moviong to XP any time soon.

Butuz

[streetster]

basically they need to make SP5 which adds all the functionality extras of winxp, but not the stupid wizards and stuff, which would make 2k even better

mark