Digilogic

I want a version of windows that is more stable than xp. I like 2000 pro, but it is getting sort of old. I have access to windows .net 2003 server but I know next to nothing about it. I won't be doing any "serving", only games and programming and apps for school.

Any suggestions?

goddfather40

I don't know why you would want to switch from XP Pro. To me XP Pro is stable as hell, I can only remember it crashing maybe once.

__________________
My name is goddfather40 and I approved this message.

I got ho's and I got bitches,
In C++ I branch with switches
-MC Plus+

Lasereth

Windows XP.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

nanofever

I'm going out on a limb, but I believe that you will never find a more stable version of windows than 2k Pro w/ SP3. Also, XP is the devil and I'm trying to keep from being seduced by its pretty GUI...

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

arch13

I feel you pain Nanofever. I refuse to give in to that gui and give up my 2000 pro. it's everything i've ever needed.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

The_Dude

i say you go with xp pro!!!! DONT TRY AND RESIST THE TEMPTATION!

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Redjake

Anyone who is running Windows and ISN'T running Windows XP Professional needs to be tarred and feathered. If you like having to go through hell and back for installing devices, finding drivers, and all that other bullshit, then stick with something else. If you like ease, go with XP Pro.

__________________
Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

ToolBag

I love my windows XP, I have had it for over a year now and NEVER had it crash on me. The ease of everything is priceless and would not switch to anything else, until Longhorn makes an appearance

__________________
Jesus was a ruffies victim!

Dan 3:20

arch13

I won't touch Longhorn with a ten foot pole. And neither should you. It will have "Trusted Computing" built in. If you aren't aware of what a danger to our civil liberties that is, search the forum and look it up. it's an ongoing discussion and is not acceptable for any product i pay for.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

propaganda

I would say XP. Never crashed but I had a bit of an odd encounter with it.

I was uninstalling a game and I went the standard Windows user type of way click next twice but when I finished the uninstall all the programs I had installed on Windows was gone. All just went in that 15 seconds it took to uninstall the game. On top of that System Restore didn't work so I just decided to format... Was getting kind of bogged down by useless files anyway.

yakimushi

XP Pro, the best thing since DOS

VF19

*gasps* trusted computing! I heard about that, wasn't it some thing about having to get like you hardware stuffs signed or something? Could someone breif me on that? thanks.

XP Home here, too cheap for Pro but I see no difference and I have Pro on my other comp. But I dont really network, except for a shared file on the Home comp..

KnifeMissile

I use XP Pro at work and I use 2000sp2 at home. I much prefer my system at home. It's much less buggy and more stable than my machine at work. I also dislike the new GUI. Some people find it's pseudo-Aqua look pleasing but I find it a waste of screen realestate.

So, I would recommend Windows2000. I would almost recommend WindowsNT (for it is even more stable) but it lacks too many (now) useful features for me to do that...

For the record, in what manner is 2000 old? I mean, it's been around since the year 2000 but how does it not run what you need?

ToolBag

Holy spanks, I must get informed on this, I have heard of it but never in referance to Longhorn

__________________
Jesus was a ruffies victim!

Dan 3:20

arch13

Previous disscusions on "Trusted Computing":
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=40289

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=40546

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&threadid=8676

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

Lasereth

I don't understand why everyone bitches about the new GUI. I dislike it too, but it takes 3 seconds to change it to the Windows classic style like 95/NT/98/2000, etc. It's the first thing I do when I install XP. It actually speeds up slower computers by changing it to classic style.

I love XP because of the plug and play networking, plug and play hardware and USB installations, and DRIVER SUPPORT!! I barely remember what it was like to have to install a driver for a piece of hardware to work. And finding the damned drivers could take days...now you just plug it in and it works.

I also enjoy my computer working on Cable, DSL, and a huge university LAN powered by T3 lines without changing any options at all. Plug the LAN cable in and it works. All networking problems are basically fixed with XP.

I personally think it's the best damned OS on the market. Using an older Windows is fine, but no one can deny the extreme importance of XP's driver and plug N play support.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

hahaha

Xp works great for me. I can't imagine anything being much better than it. I would stay far far away from 98 and ME, both give me more problems, ME moreso.

__________________
"find what's good and make it last"
-Bouncing Souls

kel

I am a microsoft free person :-)

__________________
"It better be funny"

KnifeMissile

Oh, sorry. I had meant to mention that I do have the classic look on so I wouldn't elicit responses such as yours but I must have forgotten. Oh well...

I'm not sure what you mean by plug and play networking. If there's a DHCP server lying around, all the MS OS's of the last decade "just work." I also don't understand what a "USB installation" is. You're installing universal serial busses? Every USB device (although nothing uncommon) I've ever plugged into my machine has simply worked.

What options did you expect to need changing? What magic can XP do that gives it sufficient information to participate in a network that the other OS's couldn't determine? As far as I've ever experienced, the other OS's are just as "automatic," if your network is set up that way.

Plug and play is such a buzz word that I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. The OS has built-in drivers for all the hardware you're likely to install on your system?

The fact of the matter is that while we all have our favourites, it really depends on what your needs are. Everything I've ever stuck into my computer "just worked," including a mac keyboard with volume controls! However, I don't exactly use exotic hardware, so this might not be too impressive. Win2000 just happens to supported all my hardware, although I did install the graphics driver to use the more advanced features of my card. This was not a hardship for me so I don't find native XP support so compelling. However, it does upset me greatly when the Window Manager goes buggy on me, if the system is less than responsive, or if it ever hangs are crashes. These are values that are important to me which have contributed to my choice in OS.

What's important to you?

SiphonX

i'd have to hop on the bandwagon and agree with pretty much everyone here. XP Pro and even home are damn good OSes. Both are stable to the max. I'll probably stick with it until longhorn's SP 1 comes out.

__________________
/Knowledge is Power/

nanofever

I love how everyone had an uproar about "pallindrum" so they renamed it "trusted computing". I'm so deep in the "fark off my computer means MY COMPUTER, not a platform for your software" that I could never be a user of any firmware or software that won't run unsigned code.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

steveincolumbus

of course xp's plug in play will work better than 2k's will because its newer.... it has more drivers in it duh....
It also has more netowrk problems then 2k....
2000 is a more stable build in many cases than xp pro for network computing.... I have a domain full of xp machines and always having little glitches ....
I prefer 2k pro workstations, with 2003 servers..

Lasereth

I've ran 95, 98, and ME, and none of those allowed easy networking, even using DHCP server-style hubs or routers. It took hours to get all computers on the network working properly, especially if they weren't in the same workgroup. With Windows XP, you simply plug all of the computers into the hub or router, and they automatically work. I can go from DSL to Cable to huge LAN with the network settings adhering to the changes without moving a finger. The previous Windows OS's would NOT do that. You had to change the settings yourself, sometimes taking a very long time with Windows 9X.

Yeah, I'm talking about USB Devices. On previous Windows versions, I've never been able to get USB devices to work by simply plugging them in. You always have to use a CD or a floppy to install the drivers. If a friend wants to connect a USB device on your computer, you couldn't unless you had the driver. Windows XP has a ton of drivers built into it, and everything I've plugged in from printers to webcams to flash drives has worked instantly with no drivers needed. The previous Windows versions do not have this support -- you have to have the drives or it won't work.



Ever tried to connect multiple computers together with Windows 9X or 2K? It's not that easy, and it's sure as hell not automatic. I'd consider XP's networking automatic, since it works every damned time with any computer that has XP on it. Maybe my network isn't "set up that way," but everything was solved one I got Windows XP. Ever been to a LAN party? Everyone that has XP is able to join games immediately while the Windows 9X and 2K users have to configure their settings to allow this and that, with half of them NEVER being shown on the network.

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle [BPlug and play is such a buzz word that I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. The OS has built-in drivers for all the hardware you're likely to install on your system?

Plug and play is basically "plug it into your PC and it works." The driverbase is a good example. Like I said earlier, you couldn't just plug in something in Windows 9X or 2K and it work, you had to install the drivers 95% of the time. With Windows XP, that's gone for the most part. Some oddball components still require driver installation, but it's a hundred times better than needing it for every single component you owned. Hell, in the earlier OS's, Windows didn't even recognize if you plugged anything in -- you had to TELL it that you plugged something in, then it scanned to see if you weren't joking, and THEN it told you it had to have the drivers. XP immediately sees you're trying to install something, installs it if it has the drivers, and asks for them if it doesn't. A big step if you ask me.

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle [BWhat's important to you?

Yeah, I suppose it is what's important to each individual user, and easy networking, driver support, and plug and play component installation is worth it to me. I've used all of the Windows versions since 95 came out, and XP is simply above the rest in my view. I wouldn't go back to even 2000 unless I wanted server stability.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

meembo

XP is modern and is the targeted base for all new apps

It loves to gobble up memory, though. I wouldn't recommend less than 512 MB RAM, more if you can afford it

Pro really is da bomb, balancing ease of use and support (drivers, games, apps, etc.)

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

merkerguitars

Heh its way better....I had to tweak XP to my liking....like disabling system restore and putting it in classic look....sure it eats up more ram but I've found it way more stable than 2k pro.

__________________
Donate now! Ask me How!

Please use the search function it is your friend.

Look at my mustang please feel free to comment!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=26985