BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 73d, 4h, 32m | CPU: 29% | MEM: 6416MB of 12287MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

which os is the best
Windows XP Home 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Windows XP Professional 43%  43%  [ 22 ]
Windows 2000 27%  27%  [ 14 ]
Windows 98 SE 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
Windows 95 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Windows Me 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Other Windows version 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 51
Author Message
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:59 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
@idontknow
That boot up time is not that bad for such a system, I'd expected it to be longer. Heck, I do see so much 2-or-3GHz-ish boxes which take an awfully long time to boot because there's so much bloat on them...

@prx984
My notebooks' graphics would probably be good for some games too, but the only games I play when I play are the 2D ones from the early 90s, so these graphics are more than sufficient. I can even play these games I am so fond of on my PDA, i.e. wherever I like! :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:37 am 
Reply with quote
I would have voted for Windows Vista, except that was not an option; therefore, I have voted for "Other Windows version".


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:53 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
xp home/pro rarely ever crashes without me making it


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:17 am 
Reply with quote
98SE definatly. Combine it with the unofficial Service Pack and you have a computer capable of playing modern games still (tho I've not tested this my self) that are designed for 2k/XP, you also have a machine which requires less resources to run nice.

Sadly though support for more current hardware has almost gone completely and as the 64bit scene fully impliments itslef this OS will all but go as will many of the others. I grew up on 95/88 so to me 98SE will be always loved and remembered.

From that first time I played Unreal Tournament to the time I Played TR3, from when I first saw a cd rewriter (Had seen a cd writer on 95:P) to the first DVD video I saw playing on a PC. (It was Jumanji at a computer fair near Hull).


Last edited by Lupin3rd on Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:57 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Posts
400
Windows 2000 SP4 Hands down.

I'd also have to say Windows 3.11 for Workgroups would be next on my list for running older MS-DOS games, applications, and Windows programs in general.

_________________
Since January 2005, I've been in the Operating Systems Prototype Community. I've enjoyed learning more these past four years about the development of the Windows and Macintosh operating systems, as well as learning of new user-based projects that optimize system performance.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:11 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Posts
514
On the topic of low power machines and modern OS' the craziest I've done I think is something I've mentioned here before; Longhorn (a 3xxx build) on a PII 233MHz w/32MB RAM. Quite slow, almost usable but could've stood some thinning out. I used a 500MHz K6-2 system with 32MB RAM and XP Pro for a long while as my one and only system, it ran fairly nicely once I upped that to 64MB RAM... IIRC the main reason was that it supported my graphics card out of the box and gave me much better performance than 98 did...

On topic though (Nominations, please!), it's hard to say... 95 made the interface much nicer to use, but it was that extra step away from working in the CLI... so it did a lot to improve the interaction between computer and user especially for people who hadn't used computers. 98(SE) was the best 9x OS for me though I think, a few more features, a little more stable and slightly nicer interface.

3.x and earlier are nice but really I don't count them in this because they're shells for MSDOS... I do like them though and I'll never forget my experiences with them, it's where I started in Wintel world.

As far as NT goes, I liked NT4 but then 2000 came out. 2000 for me was NT4 completely revamped. Nicer to use and much better compatibility and while it had the newer interface/theme it still felt like it meant business just like NT4 did.

XP's themes put me right off, they're horrible in my eyes. It's generally very stable though and highly compatible in my experience. Turn off the 'eye candy' and it's a great OS, probably the best consumer MS OS to date I think. MCE versions are also nice, 2004 being better than 2002. I've not tried 2005 or Vista's Media Centre stuff yet. Server 2003's also nice, installed as a desktop it's basically XP but without the horrible themes, I've not used it as an actual server.

Longhorn's nice, some interesting new touches and features. For some reason Longhorn 'feels' nice. Vista's not something I've really played with too much though it seems to be an interesting step. I don't think I'll be using Vista as a primary OS for some time to come, I much prefer XP/2003 for now.

I think ultimately though that it's a matter of preference, there's no OS that's perfect for everything, it depends what you look for in one. It's great to think of all the great times you've had with a given OS though, configuring hardware, installing stubborn apps, frolicking in the... wait, never mind... ...and so to the actual point of this post, the winners:

Summary:
Favourite Pre9x OS: MSDOS 6.xx
Runner Up Pre9x OS: MSDOS 6.xx w/Windows 3.xx

Favourite 9x OS: 98SE
Runner Up 9x OS: 95

Favourite NT OS: XP
Runner Up NT OS: 2000


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:00 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
XP Pro, but only with SP2. The original was complete crap.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:14 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
ppc_digger wrote:
XP Pro, but only with SP2. The original was complete crap.

I'm afraid I have to agree here.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:46 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
ppc_digger wrote:
XP Pro, but only with SP2. The original was complete crap.


In what ways? Just the security issues, or are there other things too? I used XP gold from 2002-2004 (I never installed SP1 because I had Fckgw and didn't know so much about computers back then, so didn't bother trying to change it, plus we only had dial-up so downloading SP1 would have taken forever) and rather liked it, and I only had 256 MB Ram in the PC I was using then (I can't understand why people say XP on 256 MB is terrible, as I never had any issues whatsoever).

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:53 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12545

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
It works great on 256MB RAM. Infact it works pretty well on just 96MB RAM with a 200Mhz PI processor behind it :)

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:04 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
@Andy, Vista Ultimate R2: Yes, I agree that 256MB of RAM is a good amount for Windows XP if you're not doing heavy multitasking. Even 128MB is enough if you don't have ore than 1 or 2 apps open at a time from my experience. Anything under 128MB might be a bit "rough on the edges", but still usable, after some tweaking this situation will improve. :)

As for XP pre-SP2 in my eyes, it was a) the security issue thing and b) beginning with SP2, XP felt like, err, a "round thing". Fast, stable, and pretty safe. And the Security Center kept an eye on the system, so that a certain level of security is maintained automatically. And while I am not very fond of it (I prefer to have such things done manually), I think it's a good feature certainly helping the unexperienced users. But as I said before, even if you don't count these features into consideration, there are multiple ones that make XP with SP2 a nice Windows OS. I got a genuine copy of XP Pro as soon as it came out and had been using the Whistler betas before, so I went straight from Gold to SP1 to SP2, and I felt after SP2, XP was in a nice shape. :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:23 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
256mb ram used to be ok for my families computer until there antivirus did a rather large update, then it took ages to boot. it ran fine, but my parents got angry with waiting


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:29 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
[rant alert]

Urrgh, Security Centre :evil: An extra process running in the background all the time, sucking up system resources and sticking an annoying icon that sits in the system tray ALL THE TIME, and even having the nerve to flash up a big thing every time I start Windows, only to tell me that I don't have anti-virus software installed and I have auto-updates disabled? Well yes, Mr Security Centre, I ALREADY KNOW THAT, because I don't want my PC slowed to a crawl by half a ton of AV bloat clogging it up all the time (edit: just saw post above :lol: need I say more?), and I certainly DON'T want Microsoft installing BETA updates that serve NO purpose for me WHATSOEVER except for adding YET MORE junk to process on Windows startup, without me even knowing about it (cough cough Genuine Advantage Notifications)

On one of the Vista CPP builds (probably beta 2) it was harder than in XP to disable the notifications from Security Centre (I think you had to disable the service in services.msc, and there was no option for this in Security Centre itself) and I actually told MS that I thought it should be easier to get rid of than that, and they did seem to make it easier to get rid of in the RTM.

[end rant]

Sorry about that, just had to let it out somewhere :) Yeah, I guess for really novice users Security Centre might be a good idea, but personally I hate it (along with the other “novice” features of XP, like that stupid message you get when you try to look at C:\ on a new XP installation).

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
ppc_digger wrote:
XP Pro, but only with SP2. The original was complete crap.

In what ways? Just the security issues, or are there other things too?

Extreme instability, slow boots, etc.

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
because I don't want my PC slowed to a crawl by half a ton of AV bloat clogging it up all the time

Some AVs are not bloated. I've been using AVG for years and I've barely noticed a difference when it was off.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:57 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Posts
514
I agree with the stuff about Security Centre I think... As R2 said, I don't NEED a big notice telling me that I have no AV working... especially when I know I have! On saying that though, I think AVG now supports Security Centre so it doesn't bug you like that any more... IIRC though it'll still bug you when you need an update...

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, I may be thinking of something else... :/


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:49 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
AVG is supported by Security Center (or the other way round). And I agree, it's not bloated and I barely notice it during daily work on Windows machines, even if they are quite slow compared to today's standards
I don't particularly like Security Center either, it's disturbing me so I disable it, but I find it to be useful for less experienced members. When I'm setting up a PC for friends, I can just install all the security updates once, set up a firewall and AV and tell the center to watch them. And then, I can forget about it and don't need to tell the users again and again to update their AV, or look for new updates or check if their firewall is still running etc. etc. . That saves my time...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:33 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:37 pm

Posts
177

Location
UK, Home of RISCOS
To be fair My Centrino XP MCE laptop only ever generates a BSOD when I hibernate it with the DSL modem plugged in, which is due to flaws in the driver.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:25 am 
Reply with quote
The best is Windows 2000, because is very professional and this is very fast and have little requirement (sorry for my bed english)


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:33 am 
Reply with quote
i think win 2000 is the best


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:44 am 
Reply with quote
For me Xp Pro or 2000 are my favs, mainly cos of the NT kernel being more stable then 9x,
In terms of UI i perfer 2000 since it feels more reponive and xp seems just like a kids version of 2000


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:59 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
No OS is better than Windows NT 4.0 except the older 3.xx-versions.

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:59 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Posts
422
The best is Vista 8)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:28 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
i wouldn't say that yet, not until there is good driver support


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:48 am 
Reply with quote
my favorite is XP pro.... I don't know whether Vista Ultimate is better than XP, maybee I'll change my oppinion in a few weeks...


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:46 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
Windows 98 ran like a rock.
I never had any problems with it and it ran programs faster then 2000 on the same hardware.

Unfutunatley I am unable to use it nowdays as its driver support is bad, and no x64 version exists.

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2019

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS