Posts: 788
Threads: 53
Joined: Nov 2002
Win2k was great, but there were a few things i missed on it. Like changing users without logging out. XP on the other hand had that, but the default theme is so damn ugly. So i changed it back to the classic windows theme and voila, the perfect windows so far. XP hasn't dissapointed me yet, unlike any other windows. Especially the 9x series. Man were those a disgrace to OSes. And longhorn, very skeptical. I tried running it on my 2 ghz athlon with 512 mb ram. It took around 15 minutes to start up and by the time it had started up 600+ MB of ram was used up. Sure it was a beta, but i'm still very skeptical.
oship me and i will give you lots of guurrls and beeea
Posts: 961
Threads: 81
Joined: Apr 2005
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
Screwing with your reality since 1998.
