05-19-2005, 08:45 PM
XP has been fairly stable I have to admit. SP2 screwed things up for a bit there, but I found to overcome any problems there is to have a clean install of XP then throw SP2 on right after.
Long story short, 95 was stable til I'd QB something which somehow killed the HD. 98 was stabler, but more cluttered and a lot slower. I haven't used 2000. ME was by far the worst yet. No comments needed. NT 3.51+ wasn't too bad, but not my cup of tea for doing anything decent on.
I think all it comes down to in the end is having a lot of memory and processor power to handle the load an OS will demand. So far, XP and 256 works pretty well, but I'd recommend at least double that.
As for longhorn, I repeat myself - Why? Why not XP2? Keep building on a very popular and stable OS?
>anarky
Long story short, 95 was stable til I'd QB something which somehow killed the HD. 98 was stabler, but more cluttered and a lot slower. I haven't used 2000. ME was by far the worst yet. No comments needed. NT 3.51+ wasn't too bad, but not my cup of tea for doing anything decent on.
I think all it comes down to in the end is having a lot of memory and processor power to handle the load an OS will demand. So far, XP and 256 works pretty well, but I'd recommend at least double that.
As for longhorn, I repeat myself - Why? Why not XP2? Keep building on a very popular and stable OS?
>anarky
Screwing with your reality since 1998.