FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Windows XP the best?





ocalhoun
I theorize that everyone who says windows XP is the best OS have never used anything else...

If you think that XP is the greatest and have used non-Microsoft OS's That are actually new (such as fedora core or macOS X), feel free to shoot this theory down.
Donutey
linux, mac os are much better than other OSs, but as microsoft likes to rub in your face, they have the biggest software compatibility which is a result of their monopoly (paradox?).
blackant
windows is eye-candy only.
best? definitely not in reliability and security. Razz
misterdimiz
Actually I've use only Win. I have no chance to use othet Operative System. I'd like to try in the future, so can't say which is the best, but using Win, I've found it quite good.
Arnie
I've used DOS, (FreeDOS, MS-DOS, PC-DOS) Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98 and SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, SkyOS, various Linux distributions. Which I prefer depends on the situation. On the old computers I recycle I usually install lightweight Linux distros. The problem is they require pretty much inside knowledge, and using all-GUI stuff is no option because the hardware can't deal with those distros. I don't have time to go really deep, so the only OS I really know a lot about is Windows because that's what's used most. That's why I prefer Windows - because I want to be able to do as much with my system as possible, and I don't have time to explore the advanced opportunities of Linux on a lightweight system. I've tried, but it's different from having new hardware and the common, well-known distros.
Ping
Ive used win 3.11, win 95, 98 se, ME, 2000, XP, server 03 & R2 Vista and MACOS 8-X and mac os is well lame. IMHO MSFT makes a good OS and its a poular, pretty much it is the best thing we have got.
boringest
if you don't do programming, go and use windows otherwise there's not much point in using linux unless your computer's really slow.

most games nowadays are still on windows anyway.
niceboy
I don't think so

The Linux system are also very good

and the freebsd
.....
lockwolf
Windows is Far from perfect.

I got in a discussion with one of my friends about windows vs linux. One of the main points we talked about was simplicity of each operating system. We both said that Windows is very easy and really just touches the surface of what an operating system is compared to Linuxes complex learning style but more funcitionality. Also, we talked about software that comes with the operating systems. With Linux, you get probably $1000 dollars worth of software that you would have to buy seperate for Windows. Also with linux, there isn't just linux, theres Red Hat, SUSE, Fedora, Debian, Mandriva and so on. With Windows, theres Windows XP and Media Edition, really not much flexibility with stuff.

Heres how I think of it:
Windows: For Grandmas, Gamers and People that want to scratch the surface
Linux: For those who want to know the true potential of their PC
SunburnedCactus
Windows: For people who want to use their computer.
Linux: For people who want to spend hours setting up their computer.

Wink
Arnie
lockwolf wrote:
With Linux, you get probably $1000 dollars worth of software that you would have to buy seperate for Windows.
Windows also has freeware. I never bought any extra software for my computer. The only non-freeware I have is Windows and Works which both were delivered OEM with my computer. Works I hardly use because I have freeware alternatives. A lot of good Linux applications are also available on Windows, for example Audacity. $1000? No way!

Getting the 'full potential' isn't just a Linux thing. Somewhere on this forum I mentioned that on old hardware you're usually better of both in speed and functionality with Windows 98 than with some lightweight Linux distro. Besides that you have to invest a lot of time to get the full potential out of Linux - there's a lot of stuff you have to learn before you can really do things.

SunburnedCactus: On the other hand when you've finished setting up your Linux system, it's a powerful tool. Linux really can be useful.

The problem in discussions such as this is that there's no nuance. The majority of prejudiced opinions usually is that Linux either 'pwns' or 'sucks'.
SunburnedCactus
Arnie wrote:
The problem in discussions such as this is that there's no nuance. The majority of prejudiced opinions usually is that Linux either 'pwns' or 'sucks'.


That's because most opinions on the subject are uninformed. Surprisingly few people have used Linux to it's maximum capacity when compared to Windows, and so don't really have a lot to say. I admit if you spend a bit of time you can get a lot more out of Linux, but I don't have that sort of time, and plus things work well enough under Windows for me.
corey
Hey, if its got a network stack and a browser, its ok for me! Smile (but, of course, I've used FreeBSD, NetBSD, Windows 3.1,3.11,95,98,ME,2000,XP,NT, Linux - Gentoo, RedHat,Mandrake,Yoper,etc, BeOS, DOS, ...so I don't care...)
Ping
SunburnedCactus wrote:
Windows: For people who want to use their computer.
Linux: For people who want to spend hours setting up their computer.

Wink



touché i tend to agree! Razz
bananaphone
Arnie wrote:
I've used DOS, (FreeDOS, MS-DOS, PC-DOS) Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98 and SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, SkyOS, various Linux distributions. Which I prefer depends on the situation.


Basically the same here. Windows is useful in the sense that you can sit down and use it straight away - Linux usually needs to be modded a bit. Older Windows distros were a pain in the ass - Windows ME was terrible and so was 98. At home - (now) - I use Windows XP Professional, DSL Linux and Xandros.
ruff_ryder
Windows is something of a necessary evil. Everyone complains about it, but they are more or less bound to it. True, most of the stuff Windows can do, Linux can do just as well, but there are certain things that the Linux community needs to work on; WYSIWYG web-editors and gaming are a few. At home, I use Win2000 pro and SuSE Linux.
Arnie
I think every major OS such as Windows, Linux, MacOS, can be powerful if you know how to work with it. I've been on 98 for a long time and if you know it well it's easy to work with and maintain. ME is another story, it's just buggy Wink
mOrpheuS
I have used almost all versions of Windows and several flavours of Linux as well.
and I think XP is a pretty good operating system.

Few days back, out of curiosity, when I was cleaning my PC (formatting and reinstalling stuff) I decided to install FC4 as well as XP.
I installed both the OSs for bare minimum usability - no office suite...nothing.

I noticed several performance differences -
  • XP boots faster than FC4, it takes about 20-22s for XP to startup and settle down and more than 40s for FC4. Similarly FC4 takes more time to shut down.

  • XP's idle RAM+pagefile usage was about 1/5 that of FC4. XP was using 60-70 MB whereas FC4 was using 350+.

  • I launched Opera 8.50 (the only software I had on both the OSs) - It took <1s to lauch in XP, and more than 4s on linux. (internet is one of the prime uses of my PC)

  • I also ran Quake 3 demo (which is again the only common game I have) on both. It did ~350 fps on XP and ~300 on linux. Using the latest official drivers off nvidia and the same in-game configuration. (gaming is the other use for my PC)


Not to mention the moment, when after running FC4 for about 3-4 hours, I noticed Disk thrashing...
That's right ! my PC with an expensive 1.5 Gigabytes of RAM was actually disk thrashing severely Shocked .
I immediately fired up the KDE system monitor (it took a while to show up, mind) and noticed that "X" was eating almost 1.4GB of memory !
After that it didn't take me long to shutdown and reboot in Windows. Wink


My current machine is a decent P4 + 1.5G RAM + UDMA5 HDD.
I have had similar experience with my ancient Pentium 133Mhz + 32 MB RAM + 2gb non-DMA HDD system.
same with a P3 866 Mhz + 256 Mb RAM + 20 Gb UDMA4 HDD system.


I favour speed over anything else, and from my own experience I found XP to be better. Smile
raver
ok here`s my opinion
1) My system : P3 celeron at 700 Mhz, 128 sdranm pc 133, video geforce2mx 32Mb.
2)OS`s that i am currently using: Windows XP PRo, Vector Linux(a flavour of slackware)

3)Linux Pros
It comes preinstalled with a lot of packaged software: audio/video players, codecs, games, 3 browsers(Mozilla, Dillo and Lynx), ftp agent, gtk-gnutella for file sharing, gaim for Instant messaging, etc etc etc. all this with 4 desktop managers everything being completely customizable. Ignoring the internet applications this is for start a better choice for someone without an Internet connection. All the applications work about 50% faster than in windows. For windows there are about ...what...300 trillion viruses out there? For linux there are only about 40 or 50 i think...not trillions....just 40 or 50 Smile
Also...stability is an important issue....Windows should be reinstalled at 6 months to work acceptable whereas a Linux instalation once properly installed can go on for years without problems.
Furthermore, Windows XP takes up 2,15 Gigs of HDD space, whereas Linux takes only 1 Gig (BTW i didn`t count Program Files:) ) .
4)Linux cons. WINE is pretty sucky and you can`t play the top of the line games.

All this should be enough reasons for a medium computer user used only with a graphical interface to choose the "Open Source Choice". About more advanced features it will require another thread and a whole lot of time...
So..this was my opinion...hoped it helped
Arnie
I don't like preinstalled software. I want small distribution packages, and I can get the software I want myself. In its' latest version, unlike many software delivered with the distro. So that can be a con-argument as well.

The fact that applications are faster on your system doesn't mean that's a general fact. Look at the posting above you. It's a comparison between XP and Fedore Core, and XP was faster in every way. It depends on what programs you use, what hardware you have, and how you configure the OS and applications. Things also may appear to load faster to you because the window appears while the program isn't fully loaded, or when you want a certain function it has to load that still, etcetera.

I use Windows without having had viruses and without reinstalling for a good while. Fools are able to wreck Windows just as they're able to wreck Linux. The only difference is fools don't know how to get Linux on their system, they can only work on their preinstalled Windows, so that's what they wreck. It's not just the OS that's responsible, it's the person operating it.

Your Windows takes up 2,15GB? My 98SE takes up 400MB and XP 1,5GB. Look at the size of modern harddrives. Let's say Linux and WinXP differ 5GB (very much overestimated). On a 80GB harddrive, that's only 6,25%.

My conclusion is your arguments are unbalanced and not nuanced. Both Windows and Linux can be a good choice, it depends on a lot of factors. People ignore a lot of significant factors and then come to the conclusion that "Windows sucks, Linux owns" or "Windows owns, Linux sucks". Start speaking for yourself instead of generalising your opinion and saying that Windows/Linux is best for everyone.
quartz
Quote:
For windows there are about ...what...300 trillion viruses out there? For linux there are only about 40 or 50 i think...not trillions....just 40 or 50


Never heard about virus for linux... is it true?
mOrpheuS
OK...I'm not fighting you, but only disagreeing upon certain points that you made.
raver wrote:
It comes preinstalled with a lot of packaged software: audio/video players, codecs, games, 3 browsers(Mozilla, Dillo and Lynx), ftp agent, gtk-gnutella for file sharing, gaim for Instant messaging, etc etc etc. all this with 4 desktop managers everything being completely customizable. Ignoring the internet applications this is for start a better choice for someone without an Internet connection.

I agree, linux does contain a lot of pre-installed packages, but there are a lot of users who consider this as "not good". Wink
when installing Linux, I usually end up spending a lot of time going through the documentation and de-selecting the packages that I don't ever use.

raver wrote:
All the applications work about 50% faster than in windows.

All the common programs that I've run, seem to be more like 50% slower on linux.
You can always find some fansites claiming such performance differences, but I've never found any such claims to be very true.
Dragging or resizing a window causes the CPU utilization to rocket to 80-90% (as long as the window is being dragged or resized)
That means "hiccups" in media players like xmms or amarok if I move a window around ! (yes...the latest graphics drivers are installed)
I don't experience the same if I'm listening to songs on winamp and if I happen to be juggling around with explorer.

raver wrote:
For windows there are about ...what...300 trillion viruses out there? For linux there are only about 40 or 50 i think...not trillions....just 40 or 50 Smile
Also...stability is an important issue....Windows should be reinstalled at 6 months to work acceptable whereas a Linux instalation once properly installed can go on for years without problems.

Call me lucky or a slightly experienced windows user, but not a single one of those 300 trillion viruses has infected my computer since I assembled it...that was about 2-2.5 years ago and I'm been running XP all this time without any antivirus whatsoever.

As Arnie said, it's all up to the user... if a user wants to wreck his computer, he probably will.
Only in windows, all the virus authors will gladly help him in doing it more comfortably Laughing
and re-installation troubles ensue.
Just why do you think windows needs to be re-installed every few months ??? Confused
Is it not just because the users install too much junk on their machines ? and because badly written software uninstall routines don't do a good job ?
But overall Linux definitely is more secure by default and whereas Windows needs to be tweaked to be secure by limiting the most commonly targeted "weak spots".

raver wrote:
Furthermore, Windows XP takes up 2,15 Gigs of HDD space, whereas Linux takes only 1 Gig (BTW i didn`t count Program Files:) ) .

What can I say ? my winXP installs to ~750 MB.
And after spending about 5 minutes stripping it down, I've been able to install it to less than 350 MB of space (CD image size ~160 MB).
The main difference is the GUI being a non-separable part of OS in windows, not so in Linux.

raver wrote:
4)Linux cons. WINE is pretty sucky and you can`t play the top of the line games.

If you play the so called mainstream "PC games", you have no option but to use windows.
And I do play a lot of games.
It's a different thing that I even prefer listening to music and surfing the internet on windows. Wink

raver wrote:
All this should be enough reasons for a medium computer user used only with a graphical interface to choose the "Open Source Choice". About more advanced features it will require another thread and a whole lot of time...
So..this was my opinion...hoped it helped

I won't argue about :-
being opensource and free ...there's nothing to disagree with.
the advanced features...I don't know much about that.
enough reason to use Linux rather than windows...again debatable to no end.

p.s. - I'm writing this post from Firefox on SuSE 10.0 Wink
gonzo
best.... how?


"Oranges are the best"


See how that assertion is a little empty?
simplyw00x
Right, time to clear up some crap:

Linux is not hard to use
The main argument against it is that it is too hard to use. This argument comes in several flavours:
"Windows: For people who want to use their computer."
"Windows: For Grandmas, Gamers and People that want to scratch the surface"

So, let's examine things that are 'difficult' in Linux:
Installation: I find Linux installation easier than Windows, as it auto-detects far more of your hardware. Sure there's some scary partition-shizzle going down, but if you're not technically competent you probably couldn't or wouldn't install Windows anyway. So let'[s ignore installation for the time being.

Hardware installation: Which is easier; having new hardware auto-detected and just work, or having to fiddle around with driver disks and help forums? And again, if you're a 'grandma' user you're not going to be installing your own software anyway.

Software Installation: Windows installation process has far more steps than the apt, yum or emerge process. Also, install files are larger and less compatible across systems. Finally, there is not a standardised interface for installation in Windows and this makes it harder to learn. Also, if you're a 'grandma', you're not going to install software yourself or want to complie anything anyway.

In short, the only things that more difficult on Linux are those that an inexperienced user wouldn't attempt (or need to) on either system, and the things they would need to do are far easier.

Linux runs games
OH NOES I CAN'T PWN NOOBS IN CSS WTF DO I DO?
Calm down, 1337y, you can pwn noobs in CS:S on Linux. Or Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Or Unreal Tournament. Or any version of Quake. Or Neverwinter Nights. Or basically any mainstream Windows game through the $15 Cedega (which you can get, legally, for free by CVS).
Stfu n00b.

Linux is only for geeks and programmers
"if you don't do programming, go and use windows otherwise there's not much point in using linux unless your computer's really slow. "
Shut up. I don't do programming (except PHP, which I can do just as well in Windows). I use Linux. I can do things faster and more easily, have greater HW compatability, better performance, more money not spent on software, more time not spent on reinstalling Windows and also a clearer conscience.
Linux is for everyone.

Linux is for power users
I'm a Windows power user, with a working registry knowledge, a passing love of gaming and some pretty 1337 admin skills. I'm the one type of person that shouldn't like linux but I do, and I was prepared to bear with the pretty easy learning experience for some good in the long-run. I'm probably not as good in Linux as I am/was in Windows yet, but I'm already faster than I was in Windows.
Linux power users can put Windows power users to shame in terms of speed; the commandline, whilst sidelined and lampooned on Windows is rightly held as the best tool available to the true power user in Linux, and makes most tasks into a careful single line of instructions.

Just so you don't think I'm some fanboy, I've used:
Windows 3.1 for Workgroups
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows XP Home
Windows XP Pro
MacOS 9
MacOS X
Slackware Linux
SuSE 9.1 Personal
Ubuntu Hoary Hedgehog
Ubuntu Breezy Badger

Favourites are Windows 98 SE, OSX and my (current) Ubuntu Breezy. Least favourites were Win3.1, 95, 98 and SUSE.
hrtorrent
Try Mac OS Tiger x86, some newest Linux distribution or maybe Solaris 10.
Windows is only "user friendly" - "dummy outside" designed, and nothing else.
Concurent OS from above have better memory and disk management, better network performace, stable shell, better security etc.

XP urgently need to be replaced, but I heart Vista will be nothing more but face lifting XP.
Arnie
I wish it would be true that Linux autodetects hardware. Try installing a minimalist distribution on a Pentium I or II. While Windows 98SE autodetects everything, Linux is a real pain. I still use Linux on P2 but the autodetection is worthless. Nearly everything needs manual installation or configuration.
thermaltake
Well i use both however i like to change between my os's because i like them both. but seeing that linux is much more powerful i stick with it. and for all those people out there who have only used microsoft windows xp. think again. never by those expensive cheap microsoft bill gates products because they rip u off buy or download linux. it's the best os in the world for me. but if u haven't used any other os before other than windoes i'd stick to it becos more software adn hardware it more compatible with microsock wnidows xp. for now. (read below)


Go LINUX ENTERPRISES!!
thermaltake
i found out like sum people have noticed that u have to manually install everything for linux. because the autodetect is so pour. but when u do it manually u choose a better driver and it yor choice not the computer. but windoes xp properbly has the 1 of the best autodetects. however LINUX ENTERPRISES beats all the OS"s

Go Go Go LINUX!! Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Rolling Eyes Razz Razz Razz Razz
sunjay
Hey,

Best Operating System?

Here's what i think. Windows is great because there is a lot of programmes out there for it. Almost every software supports it. The bad, it looks ugly, bloody prone to viruses, worms and crashes.

Linux is for people who knows their computer. It's hopeless if you know nothing. Just like giving someonw a top of the line SLR camera, if they dont know what to do, it's a waste. The good, it's free, more flexible than windows and looks better than Windows.

Finally, there is Apple. Apple looks the best, the sexiest. You go in a shop and the first thing that cateches your eye would be the elegant design of the macs. People in the design and arts industries mostly used macs. The bad, limited software, thou, the software available for it is top notch. Lastly, bloody expensive.

So, i think windows is okay. for the computer illiterate maybe.

Linux for those who know what 'they're doing. I reckon people who has got 2 machines at home should install Linux on one of them and learn it when they've got time.

Lastly, Macs. They're lovable. Best for arts and design. For the rich.

SunJay
BCobos
MACs rock!!!

XP is my 2nd favorite.
leat397
No software would be the best ever...for the progressive tech.

But I do agree XP is quite good to this moment.
slashgrab
XP sucks, I mean it's the worst you can find!!!
Mac OS is very beatiful, stylish, much more effective and reliable than XP... much better!
Linux is free, it includes all free software needed and you run much MUCH faster with the same hardware. If you think watching the sand thing in Window$ whenever you switch from one window to another with a few programs running is normal, try and see Linux-based systems!!! No interruptions!!!!
And where do most servers run? In UNIX and Linux of course!
Haven't tried BSD based ones, but they look great too!!!
Hikaru
Simplyw00x, you claim that Linux auto detects your hardware and just works.

Sorry, I've installed Linux many times, and I've had hardware problems every single time. With current or old hardware.

First, it may or may not detect all of your hardware. For example, it could not detect many onboard built-in video accelerators such as those on laptops, it could not detect my GeForce 4 Ti 4200. (It did detect my X850 XT, to my suprise.)

Hyper-Threading. I'm not even sure if Linux liked HTT on.

X64-84. I was too afraid to try installing Linux on my AMD64 systems, though I haven't done much research on Linux's 64bit support. I'm pretty sure Windows supports it better.

Software. Windows has support for a lot more softwares, a lot more easier to use ones. Linux, believe it or not, is really not for the casual computer user who just wishes to enjoy their time on their computers.

Dual-Core. Would Linux support my Dual Core Athlon64 like Windows?

Games. Many games do not work on Linux. Graphics drivers may also not be avaliable for certain cards.

Need I continue?
Cano
Windows is the best OS? Is this a joke? Very Happy
Everybody laughs at Bill Gates and Microsoft, but what can we do? Most of programs, games are designed for Windows - it's simply the most popular OS. Fortunately it's changing.
Probably everybody have already seen an alert, that you can't delete file because it is used by other user or aplication. Razz
I am using poish version of Win XP and there is a very funny bug in translation. When u use Search u see a dog, wizard or other character. When you click right mouse button on it you have 3 options. The first is "Wybierz inna anonimowana postac" in polish and it doesn't mean "choose other animated character" but "choose other anonymated character" Razz. The second option is to turn anonymated character off Very Happy. LOL!

Greets
Cáno
grantmaster
Well, as a M$/INTEL PC repair person I say...

LET THEM TAKE OVER!

and I'll have every one of those PC's in my shop at least once a year, some of them two or three times

and its $75 an hour with a two hour minimum. H3ll, I make $300 a day Part Time!

Stop raggin about windoze and go get A+ certified. Easy work for life...
gonzo
slashgrab wrote:
XP sucks, I mean it's the worst you can find!!!


worse than Windows 95?
mars
I don't think so. I think Linux is best.
Cano
gonzo wrote:
slashgrab wrote:
XP sucks, I mean it's the worst you can find!!!


worse than Windows 95?


Maybe not worse (blue screen Razz), but you could normally delete files in Windows 95, and you had acces to DOS Very Happy.

Greets
Cáno
hrtorrent
Well, past weeks I try Mac OS X86, I try several Linux distributions, and finaly install again Windows XP.

It's true that Mac OS or Linux are superior operating systems. Better graphics, great network performance, better security,... But Windows have one little advantage above others: EVERYONE AROUND ME HAVE WINDOWS !!!!

Windows is like Volkswagen Golf, nobody is satisified with it but everyone buys it.

I work in tipical Croatian high school. Our "Department of Education and Science" made an contract with Microsoft (I believe that other countries also have that kind of contract) and in all schools Microsoft programs are common and Windows too. So if I teach students operating system, I must teach Windows XP (thats in all regular books), but I always take a time showing students work in Linux. About 80% 1. grade high school students in Croatia never heart about enything else about Windows!!! That's apsolutely true.

I also work as a programmer in small educational software development team, but we must developt Windows applications, becouse over 90% our customers use Windows!.

So I try other way - If I must have Windows, I will have Windows on my way. Visit several XP tip & tricks & hacking sites, messing with registry and system files, and finaly I got windows I like it - fast and nice. I also removed several stupid limitations (like 20% network broadband limit).

Better days maybe come with further Internet develop. Maybe some day will be irelevant wich operating system you have, couse most programs will be run from Net... or something ... i think ... or we all doomed...
shishir_bit
I have only used XP and Linux. So dont know about Mac , i find XP handy as i always get its compatible software.... I have experienced it so much that it is difficut to switch any other operating system.

so XP is the best
corey
Arnie wrote:
I wish it would be true that Linux autodetects hardware. Try installing a minimalist distribution on a Pentium I or II. While Windows 98SE autodetects everything, Linux is a real pain. I still use Linux on P2 but the autodetection is worthless. Nearly everything needs manual installation or configuration.
Nobody can claim against a system like you just did. I have a P-III and a Duron system. On neither of them did I have support for the network card, video card, sound card, or DMA enabled by default with Windows 98 (the stuff was newer than the OS). On the other hand, this hardware installs without problems at all with any of the 20 or so Linux distributions I've played with in the last year alone.

With Windows XP, you'd think that I'd get along fine as well, too. Not so. My generic Rage 128 Pro, which is in many Dell and Compac workstations all ver the world, for years now, and the SB Live! sound card that is just as common, both install and get recognized under XP, but I have no 3D accelleration without going to the ATI site and downloading their own driver, and I don't get proper 4 speaker or 5.1 support without going to the Creative site and getting their own driver either.

There are many other things that are equally annoying and difficult on Linux, but I'd have to pick it over Windows if I had to choose just one.

Installation? Who installs Windows? Their computer comes with it. But, lets say you had to...1 hour for Win 98 and XP (sorry, haven't installed '95 for 4 or 5 years). And then, you have to spend another hour hunting down drivers and comfort apps before you can get to work. With some Linux distros, that's cut to as low as 10 minutes. I can say that if anyone wants to get going with a few mouse clicks and 2 or 3 things filled out, they can install a distribution like Mepis or Linspire in 15-20 minutes and all the apps you want are all there. Ubuntu or Kubuntu are about 1/2 hour. That's from disk in hand to surfin the net all good to go.

Like I said before. I don't care either way, but the record should be set straight. Its no picnic sometimes on ANY operating system.


To each his own, I guess.
ocalhoun
I agree with the previous post.
For an easy to install linux distro, use SuSE.

Here's my experience with it compared to windows XP on the same computer:

    Auto-detected all hardware (XP auto-detected most hardware)
    Nice looking GUI from the start (XP had a nice GUI for some of the proccess)
    Boot from CD to install (XP also)
    No command line to mess with (XP also)
    Auto-detected my tv-tuner card (I still havn't gotten that to work in XP despite hours of work)
    Automaticly set up my partitioning to suit me, although I changed it (XP insisted to be installed on the primary partition of the primary drive)
    Automaticly set up a dual-boot with windows (XP refuses to recognize linux)
    Automaticly set up my dual video card system (XP can only use 1 at a time)
    Automaticly resized my XP partition (XP didn't need to resize anything)
    Automaticly detected my network and proxy server, and made itself internet-ready (XP had to install the network, then be told where to find the proxy)
longjack
ocalhoun wrote:
I theorize that everyone who says windows XP is the best OS have never used anything else...

If you think that XP is the greatest and have used non-Microsoft OS's That are actually new (such as fedora core or macOS X), feel free to shoot this theory down.


I maintain several smallish networks. For the most part our end users can choose Mac OS X or Windows XP for their workstation or Laptop,. I use Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and FreeBsd for various servers.

They all work great, and play well together.

Macs are especially good for software out of the box and the friendly user interface sitting on top of the unix I use for tuning and maintenance.

Windows XP requires more work up front keeping them crap free, but when up and running they are great.

I don't particularly care for the Linux flavor desktops, but for my server purposes linux/unix are great to have.

I think they're all good.

My 2 cents.

longjack
voteforsamuel
I've used many different operating systems and have found most of them confusing. I use Windows XP because it's what I've always used and because I'm familiar with it, it is the least confusing.
lineagetoday
once mac turns all their hardware to the new intel chips and dump the powerPC chips will mac be able to play mainstream games or even run Microsoft OS software??? If it does I think everyone who is a dummy at computers will probably switch to mac at some point since mac is definaletly easier to learn.
djclue917
I have to say that Windows XP sucks in many ways. I haven't been able to use a Mac but I've been using K/Ubuntu as my primary OS for the past 4 months or so. I am really impressed with the hardware support of Linux and I really love the Linux experience. I still haven't removed XP from my machine because I still do not have the time now and I still use some of the applications that are exclusive to Windows. I love those applications but I hate Windows. Anyway, there are many FOSS-counterparts to proprietary software that are even more powerful.

Windows XP has many bugs and if you do not install the latest patches, a firewall, and antivirus program, your machine will surely be compromised. I've been enjoying Linux now and I have no plans of going back to Windows.

Linux will surely gain more market share in the desktop when KDE4 is released. I am also looking forward to seeing a very significant improvement in GNOME.
whoa
Like said before Windows has and does own the OS world, heres a little explanation why.

PROS

90% of programs are either made for, or are compatible with a Windows system % Older programs = Windows 98/Me/2000, Newer Porgrams = XP
Leaving Mac the next best system for compatibility followed by Linux

Recomended/And advertised by many retail outlets

Many computers only run with Windows and are not compatible with others OS

Sometimes comes free with some computers

For those *less wealthly* people, there are many pirated and serial numbers everywhere

XP GUI alright, although not quite up to scratch with MAC OS X

Lots of hardware can only be used on a Windows OS

Very well advertised and promoted

Large support for Non-English langauges

Lots of patches/mods/features are availble due to its popularity


CONS

Very Bad Security Issues, BUT...
Windows security really isnt that bad Compared to other Operating Systems. Its just that its popularity has led it to be a targeted OS to hack (Why would you want to hack 5 MAC users when you could hack 90 Windows users)

Sluggish when compared to *nix, Mac

Cost, and who wants to give ther money to Bill Gates anyway

worse for bugs

Dosen't use all of its possible potential

Windows is more restrictive

"Classic" GUI is a bit daunting, Although some like it

Is made by M$ lol


CONCLUSION

MAC and *nix are both overall better actuall OS, However due to windows great popularity and coverage Windows tops the tables
Red_Storm
BCobos wrote:
MACs rock!!!
XP is my 2nd favorite.

yeah.. mac's are the best Very Happy
the first and last computer i bought was a mac ^^
mark
I have worked on other OS's but I still like Windows XP.
ocalhoun
whoa wrote:

90% of programs are either made for, or are compatible with a Windows system % Older programs = Windows 98/Me/2000, Newer Porgrams = XP
Leaving Mac the next best system for compatibility followed by Linux
A result of their monopoly, not a reason for it
whoa wrote:


Recomended/And advertised by many retail outlets
That's a great reason to spend $300
whoa wrote:


Many computers only run with Windows and are not compatible with others OS
A complete lie (unless referring to MacOS)
whoa wrote:


Sometimes comes free with some computers
Always comes free
whoa wrote:

For those *less wealthly* people, there are many pirated and serial numbers everywhere
That's illigal
whoa wrote:


XP GUI alright, although not quite up to scratch with MAC OS X
Why settle for alright?
whoa wrote:


Lots of hardware can only be used on a Windows OS
Linux hardware compatability is far better
whoa wrote:


Very well advertised and promoted
Again, a wonderfull reason to spend $300
whoa wrote:


Large support for Non-English langauges
Many versions of linux were made in other languages. Ex: SuSE is largely German.
whoa wrote:


Lots of patches/mods/features are availble due to its popularity
Even more mods/patches/features are available because its open-source
tfarrell67
Windows XP IS the Best...
.......resource hog
.......waste of money
.......way to make Microsoft wealthier.

Take your pick.
tfarrell67
"Windows rules the OS world"?!?
Windows owns a greater share of the desktops in the U.S., but most people I know in E. Europe use Linux. Not to mention all the web servers with Linux & Apache running on them.

On the cons list against MS Windoze did they mention viruses, adware, spyware, trojans, malware....

Many have argued that all those malicious code would start showing up in Linux/BSD if they were mainstream OSes. And it is tue that more code would be written to do just that. However, it is not as easy to remotely install progs on a linux box.

Just because many in the US want "freedom from choice" (Devo) don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone does.

Besides even former Windows programmers complain about what an awful OS it is.
tfarrell67
the three astricks in my other post was supposed to be assume...um I missed a few letters.

Sorry.
easydolphin
Hey don't Be so rude!!
I have used both Windows and Linux
and have found that Windows is much more better that LINUS

Thanx Bill!!!
I mean Bill-Gates!!
riv
I say Mac OSX is the best OS. And here's some information to back up my opinion.

It's more intuitive than all the other operating systems, and it's better looking. (Although that last bit was just my opinion) Macs are also fast, and it just feels better. People decide not to buy a Mac, however, because they think it's really expensive, they don't want to switch operating systems, they haven't actually used it a lot to see that it's better, and because everyone else uses Windows. (I know because I've switched from the OS that really, really likes the blue screen of death. A particularly annoying Windows box.)

You need to be really good at computers to be able to even install Linux, and once it's running, you need to be even better to be able to even install a application. But, I didn't really mind that, and when you finally got linux running like you wanted, it's great. But how many people do know how to do all that? I mean, I met a lot of people who don't know how to play a DVD on their computer.

And finally, the last major OS. Windows. Let's get started, shall we? First of all, it's annoying, secondly, it's just a bunch of updates held together by glue, and did I mention it's anoying? Well, Windows is kinda easy to use, I agree, but it looks bad (again, my opinion), and it's gone so long without a newer version. Vista coming out, and it looks like they just changed the look of it, thrown in a few features that's already on the other OS's, and stuck a 64 bit processor in it. (Depends on the version you get; as there's a 32 bit version too) Windows Vista also takes up way more memory, according to the review I read...

And an afternote: These information is probobly kinda biased, but I have used all the major OS's and this is just my view of things.

Also, I am not saying that all other OS's other than the Mac sucks, as they have good points also, but I am not writing a full fledged review here, or anytime soon.
chefur
I think if you are a novice at using comuters it is better to opt for an easy userfriendly OS such as XP. I've written my own programs and so on in XP but I have seen several advantages of Lineux. If you want a really good user try alien ware.
djclue917
chefur wrote:
I think if you are a novice at using comuters it is better to opt for an easy userfriendly OS such as XP. I've written my own programs and so on in XP but I have seen several advantages of Lineux. If you want a really good user try alien ware.


I think that what you just said is not true all the time. What if, for example, a person with no idea of computers suddenly uses Linux? Do you think that he/she would think that "Hey, this is not a user-friendly OS at all."? I think that that wouldn't be the case. If you are/were using Windoze before then suddenly switched to another OS, then you would probably get lost with that new OS because you are used to XP. I think that every OS is great in their own respects.

Windows is "great" because many applications are being developed for Windows. The software available makes Windoze "great". However, Mac and Linux are already great even without those bulk of apps. Anyway, most of those Windoze apps are probably crap.

For many people, XP is the greatest OS for them because it is the only OS that they use. Others reason out that most of the programs being developed are Windows-only. But if you asked me, using Linux or Mac is a better choice. Linux is not that hard to learn anymore and there are many FOSS tools that are very competitive in the market.
Arnie
Here's a question: what would Linux fans say if I called it for example 'Linsux'?
.::idealist::.
Arnie wrote:
Here's a question: what would Linux fans say if I called it for example 'Linsux'?

Nothing ! Razz

Well, I don't think Linux is too hard to use...

If you have been used only Windows, you may say Linux is not easy to use.

Who has learned Windows in just one sitting Question
tony
XP has 6 big problems.

1. it is tooo user-friendly. microsoft has sacrificed functionality for excessive ease of use.

2. ive had trouble with it in the past. it always seems to crash on me and thats an issue ive never had with win2k pro or windows 3.11

3. its bulky like noneother. creeping featurism has made xp about 4 times as large as it should be.

4. it takes too long to install - no os should take as long to install as xp does. ive installed distros of linux in 1 tenth as much time.

5. xp is far more ram intensive than any other win distro (until vista).

6. costs too much. linux is free.

although i like the security and functionality of mac and linux better, i have to choose windows 2000 pro as my favorite operating system. i find all my favorite software is compatible with it and it doesnt have the issues stated above.
ahmad`
iused ms dos,3.11,win95,98,mellnium,2000,winxp,and iam wait for windows vista ,linux is not able to connect through all modems
engalex
xp always good
Laughing Laughing
.::idealist::.
easydolphin wrote:
Hey don't Be so rude!!
I have used both Windows and Linux
and have found that Windows is much more better that LINUS

Thanx Bill!!!
I mean Bill-Gates!!

Are you sure that Microsoft/Bill Gates isn't rude ?

I think Microsoft(Bill Gates) is so rude.

They messed up again !

Why ?

They've marketed a -special- version of XP with great freatures(just an example in the following) in some countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Arabic Countries, Turkey...

Microsoft means that you're poor, your money is enough only for our this edition ! If you want to a real XP edition, you must pay more and more and make more rich Microsoft ! But this is not enough for Microsoft and will not anytime too...

You may be really very happy with your Xp and you may like Microsoft and Bill Gates too much but don't forget to the facts that some countries are really poor and they haven't enough money to buy licenses for each computer in their schools. Crying or Very sad

I just mean that they can price cut a little at least for these countries instead of 'Poor Countries Edition'. Wink

Microsoft wrote:

• Simplified task management: With Windows XP Starter Edition, first-time home PC users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes setting a maximum display resolution of 1024x768 and no support for PC-to-PC home networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC.


What a great features ! Shocked

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/08-10WinXPStarterFS.mspx


Please note that I don't mean that you shouldn't Microsoft products. I just wanted to try to explain some facts about Microsoft and I think they're very odd, so I wanted to share my thinkings about it. And I'd recommend that please don't forget to these facts !

Lots of love to you all,

Happy New Year,
vignesh_natraj
I have used RHL 9 and fell that Windows the best professional Operating System around.Windows is noted for its features and easy availability of softwares.Windows is the best Graphical User Interface Operating System
vignesh_natraj
.::idealist::. wrote:
easydolphin wrote:
Hey don't Be so rude!!
I have used both Windows and Linux
and have found that Windows is much more better that LINUS

Thanx Bill!!!
I mean Bill-Gates!!

Are you sure that Microsoft/Bill Gates isn't rude ?

I think Microsoft(Bill Gates) is so rude.

They messed up again !

Why ?

They've marketed a -special- version of XP with great freatures(just an example in the following) in some countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Arabic Countries, Turkey...

Microsoft means that you're poor, your money is enough only for our this edition ! If you want to a real XP edition, you must pay more and more and make more rich Microsoft ! But this is not enough for Microsoft and will not anytime too...

You may be really very happy with your Xp and you may like Microsoft and Bill Gates too much but don't forget to the facts that some countries are really poor and they haven't enough money to buy licenses for each computer in their schools. Crying or Very sad

I just mean that they can price cut a little at least for these countries instead of 'Poor Countries Edition'. Wink

Microsoft wrote:

• Simplified task management: With Windows XP Starter Edition, first-time home PC users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes setting a maximum display resolution of 1024x768 and no support for PC-to-PC home networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC.


What a great features ! Shocked

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/08-10WinXPStarterFS.mspx


Please note that I don't mean that you shouldn't Microsoft products. I just wanted to try to explain some facts about Microsoft and I think they're very odd, so I wanted to share my thinkings about it. And I'd recommend that please don't forget to these facts !

Lots of love to you all,

Happy New Year,

I donot agree with you in this matter.Microsoft has released Starter Edition XP with local language Support and not Poor countries Edition as termed by you.You cannot speak ill about any countries in this forum please we are not fighting any battle here avoid such racial remarks .I cannot digest such posts. Evil or Very Mad
netjunk
I would say windows xp is the best operating system for me personally purely for compatibilaty otherwise I would use Mac osX as I know someonje who has one who doesn't have antivirus software and hasn't had a problem with them for over 6 years. The only thing is with apple computers you pay for the quality.
.::idealist::.
vignesh_natraj wrote:

I donot agree with you in this matter.Microsoft has released Starter Edition XP with local language Support and not Poor countries Edition as termed by you.You cannot speak ill about any countries in this forum please we are not fighting any battle here avoid such racial remarks .I cannot digest such posts. Evil or Very Mad

I didn't want to make racial remarks...

One of these countries is my homeland. (Turkey)

I don't really understand some things...

- Why does Microsoft want to sell this edition only in these countries ?

- Why hasn't Microsoft released Starter Edition XP in the rest of the world ?

'Poor Countries Edition'. That's all, i think. It has no other meaning...

If they really want to make Windows XP more accessible and receivable for each computer user in all the world, they can price cut a little instead of a edition that has awful features.

It has released with local language support ? I wonder why haven't they forgotten this feature ? Have they gotten patent for this feature ? [ Microsoft® Windows® XP Starter Edition® Local Language Support® ]

I think these features are so awful. Microsoft has prepared it for only some countries. But there's a fact. Are these countries poor or rich ?

Users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running concurrently. Includes setting a maximum display resolution of 1024x768 and no support for PC-to-PC home networking, sharing printers across a network...

A great trade strategy on these countries ! I don't say anything more. I'm sure Microsoft/Bill Gates will make money only little several ten billion dollars from these poor people... The world is being directed by some clever worms. And then the people like them too much. I can't understand what the people can find with them.
Arnie
If he's a MS lawyer, you're obviously the accuser. But thanks for your highly nuanced opinion, I will probably use it as an example in the many occasions I come across this debate.

P.S. I'm not defending MS. I'm only noticing your black-white vision.
izcool
I believe that Windows XP is the best OS out there for computers that can support it. The second-best option is Windows 2000 Professional. Beyond that, go down the list with Windows 98, 95, and so on. I personally don't like Windows ME that much since I tend to get errors all the time with programs that crash in it. Yes, I have used other OS's, like Macintosh and Fedora Core (which is a distribution of Linux), but Windows is what I've learned on and want to really stay on. Yes, I know they're "different" in such ways, but Windows is the most popular and widely used OS there is nowadays.

- Mike.
.::idealist::.
Arnie wrote:
If he's a MS lawyer, you're obviously the accuser. But thanks for your highly nuanced opinion, I will probably use it as an example in the many occasions I come across this debate.

P.S. I'm not defending MS. I'm only noticing your black-white vision.

I messed up a bit too much. Wink I changed my post.

I'd like to apoligize to vignesh_natraj and to you all... I don't really like such posts and I've never sent such a post... I shouldn't wrote such a awful and stupid post... Nowadays, I don't really fell good myself...

So, I'd say a big sorry to you all...

Happy New Year.
nOScott
Windows works fine for me so why change Very Happy
Arnie
I really respect that idealist. I myself would probably not apologise like that. Surprised
dcshoes23
nOScott wrote:
Windows works fine for me so why change Very Happy


That's exactly how i feel, all my programs run with windows and i have no real reason to switch.
classv4
Microsoft Windows XP is good!
I don't know what will happen when Vista will be.
XP is the best operation system now.
KHO
l've used many a mac, and nothing ever works for them Neutral l love the sleek design of them, but they just can't do nearly as much as my XP Neutral and for linux SuSe l believe it is, l tried that for a bit, but l didn't really like it. Sure it was nice for a little while, but l have too many things that work only in windows that l cannot live without.
tefa_taftaf2010
xp is the best 4 ever

it's my opinion
Embarassed
primag
IMHO 7 rules XP
welshsteve
XP is far and away Microsoft's best ever OS. It'll take a long time before most people think otherwise.
gairo
Well I think my favorit OS depends on what I have to do...

For multimedia editing, videos images and sounds I think Mac is better...
For server, office, workstation, and personal use I think Linux. Not much viruses exist for Linux OS in general... and with newest Grafical User Interfaces like KDE and Gnome Linux distros are user friendly.
While most of windows versions are the best way if you are looking for the best way to have problems with crashes and viruses but at the sametime is the best way for software and file format diffusion. For example is very difficoult to find out a extremely good software suite as MS Office on linux. OpenOffice.org and others are good for normal user but if you need an advanced use of Office tools MS Office is better. But lastly it's true that OpenOffice is improving interesting functions natively (like save as PDF or compatibility with a wide range of file formats, included MS Office docx etc) that are interesting features. MS Office is interesting for file sharing and integration with MS Outlook...
Obvisly such software (OpenOffice) run both in Linux, Mac, and Windwos too, while MS Office just Mac and Win...

So as I said the best OS doesn't exist: the best choice depends on what you need to do...

Bye
welshsteve
Good post, and I agree.

99.99% of my computing has always been carried out on various incarnations of Microsoft Windows since 3.11. Up to now I would say that Windows XP is most certainly the most stable and easy to use OS that Microsoft has ever produced. However, my first/early impressions of Windows 7 are good. I think it's basically what Vista should have been.

I've used various Linux distributions, mainly Ubuntu and have been impressed. It is more technical when it comes to getting some things to work, and understanding how the OS works is more difficult, but again, if you're on a budget it's a great choice.

Macs I have never used so couldn't comment, but the high prices have always put me off, and it does for a lot of people I suspect. There's no doubting their popularity, and of course for multimedia and graphic design they are the "chosen tool".

All in all I have to agree that a perfect OS is a personal thing, depending on factors such as technical know-how, computing needs and of course budget.
gairo
simplyw00x wrote:
Right, time to clear up some crap:

Linux is not hard to use
The main argument against it is that it is too hard to use. This argument comes in several flavours:
"Windows: For people who want to use their computer."
"Windows: For Grandmas, Gamers and People that want to scratch the surface"

So, let's examine things that are 'difficult' in Linux:
Installation: I find Linux installation easier than Windows, as it auto-detects far more of your hardware. Sure there's some scary partition-shizzle going down, but if you're not technically competent you probably couldn't or wouldn't install Windows anyway. So let'[s ignore installation for the time being.

Hardware installation: Which is easier; having new hardware auto-detected and just work, or having to fiddle around with driver disks and help forums? And again, if you're a 'grandma' user you're not going to be installing your own software anyway.

Software Installation: Windows installation process has far more steps than the apt, yum or emerge process. Also, install files are larger and less compatible across systems. Finally, there is not a standardised interface for installation in Windows and this makes it harder to learn. Also, if you're a 'grandma', you're not going to install software yourself or want to complie anything anyway.

In short, the only things that more difficult on Linux are those that an inexperienced user wouldn't attempt (or need to) on either system, and the things they would need to do are far easier.

Linux runs games
OH NOES I CAN'T PWN NOOBS IN CSS WTF DO I DO?
Calm down, 1337y, you can pwn noobs in CS:S on Linux. Or Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Or Unreal Tournament. Or any version of Quake. Or Neverwinter Nights. Or basically any mainstream Windows game through the $15 Cedega (which you can get, legally, for free by CVS).
Stfu n00b.

Linux is only for geeks and programmers
"if you don't do programming, go and use windows otherwise there's not much point in using linux unless your computer's really slow. "
Shut up. I don't do programming (except PHP, which I can do just as well in Windows). I use Linux. I can do things faster and more easily, have greater HW compatability, better performance, more money not spent on software, more time not spent on reinstalling Windows and also a clearer conscience.
Linux is for everyone.

Linux is for power users
I'm a Windows power user, with a working registry knowledge, a passing love of gaming and some pretty 1337 admin skills. I'm the one type of person that shouldn't like linux but I do, and I was prepared to bear with the pretty easy learning experience for some good in the long-run. I'm probably not as good in Linux as I am/was in Windows yet, but I'm already faster than I was in Windows.
Linux power users can put Windows power users to shame in terms of speed; the commandline, whilst sidelined and lampooned on Windows is rightly held as the best tool available to the true power user in Linux, and makes most tasks into a careful single line of instructions.

Just so you don't think I'm some fanboy, I've used:
Windows 3.1 for Workgroups
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows XP Home
Windows XP Pro
MacOS 9
MacOS X
Slackware Linux
SuSE 9.1 Personal
Ubuntu Hoary Hedgehog
Ubuntu Breezy Badger

Favourites are Windows 98 SE, OSX and my (current) Ubuntu Breezy. Least favourites were Win3.1, 95, 98 and SUSE.






Well I admit I'm NOT a Linux Power User and I'm NOT an expert of these OS. I come from years of use of DOS (since about ver. 3.4 / 4.3 / / 4.5 Question (I don't remember exactly what version) on a Z80 CPU Shocked) and Windows in practically all home and pro version (but not server versions except for win2k3 that I have installed just few times, but not deeply configured).

But lastly I'm improving my knowledge in Linux and others OS like BEOS, OpenDOS, Sun Solaris etc.
I didn't try Ubuntu very deeply yet but just for an afternoon on a live CD, about tree years ago. I was impressed for usability, I haven't any problem. Yes Linux based OS are different from Win but at the same time all OS are very similar to each other. So this is because I dont' understand people who install and use windows but have huge problems on other OS: as I sometime say "when you try one you know all, with some adaptations, as well". I'm not an expert, I said it, but I didn't have any "huge" or insurmountable problems: every problem I had I solved reading comunities, forum, books... What best way? Is not the same in windows and about everything in everyday life? Is it?

So I tryed diferent linux distros: Linspire, Xandros, Mandrake, RedHat, Fedora, Suse (10 GB on first install Shocked Brick wall but great distro!), knoppix. And every time is an exciting adventure in a "little new" world of experience and discovering of interface and features. But after installing 3 or 4 times I realized that differences are not so huge between a distro and an other. And ultimately it is the same between all OSs (left and right click, drag 'n drop, start menu, GUI, consolle are not so different). I have to learn something new every time but that's all folks...

And, according to this topic, recently, just in these days I'm trying the Vector Linux 6.0-SOHO-Final (2 CDs to download and install). I installed it under VMWare and the first impact is very satisfing: I'm very positive impressed about speed (I have just a AMD 2400 with 1.5GB RAM bought in 2003 so it is not the last generation of PCs), beautiful grafic and the huge quantity of functions and softwares are in.

And it is very simple to upgrade and improve functionalities thanks to a little mask where administrator (root) can choice what download from the web. Setup under VMWare in my PC took more time than I calculated, but, under VMWare and both 2 CDs, installation proccess took about the same time as Windows xp installed in phisical machine and it is very simple to install. Maybe some little problems in partitioning but done this all went well. LAN and internet worked fine since the first run with differnt browser (Opera, Firefox, and others) I found in yet.
In Vector Linux as mostly all Linux distros users can use OpenOffice.org to edit docs, tables, database, presentations, etc... but not only. There are others editor in, some developing tools, etc...

...and unlike Windows two versions (for home and SOHO use) are free of charge...

So in my opinion Vector Linux is a very interesting Linux distro that can be installed and used by children even with a little experience at doing setup in general (If I did it, everyone can!!).

But into Linux environment my prefered Linux distro is Suse at the moment: huge installation (10 GB and more on HD) but the most complete I have tryed till now.

In Windows environment my prefered versions are Win 2000 with sp4 and XP with sp3.

For MAC I would like to try Leopard but with my PC hardware I couldn't. I tryed to install Leo under VMWare, but I failled... But I talked about it with other people and they are usually totally satisfied of Leo's speed and features and usability... So probably Leo is a very interesting OS, maybe the best of all if there isn't the need to use it as server, but for home and SOHO use, for its grafic features and speed with multimedial, video editing and photo retouching applications.

And for Virus as well?

Lastly all OS are going to be good if well configured (with administrator privileges) and used with limited privileges user acounts. But previously windows was not so: lots of viruses hit all win OS. While Linux / Unix based OS and Mac were ever very strong OS against virus attacks.
Alerrandre
I like windows XP,but i think it is not the best.

WINDOWS 7 WORK BETTER THAN XP TO ME.

Bye. Very Happy
ham65
I love windows xp,i think windows 7 is almost the same.


kkk
FunDa
Both Windows XP and Windows 7 are better than Vista.


7 has the eye-candy of Vista, but works better on computers with same configuration.
IF your computer does not have enough processing power and RAM for Wndows 7 either, then XP is a good relatively stable Windows.

Before XP, the best windows was Windows98SE

All the others in between were not good.
xevo
If you care about what kind of software you use (large selection) Windows is still the only real choice. It's hard to find good, professional sw for Linux.
dude_xyx
XP works great. It's now already over 8 years old but still people use it because it's good and There isn't Windows Operation system which can seriously out dated it. Other wise people have already upgraded to Vista or Win 7.
rayxzero
Windows 7 is just like windows xp and it is really fast and more support for driver.
matin
Better than WIN7
FunDa
matin wrote:
Better than WIN7


Depending on what hardware you have, and what you want to use the computer for, Windows XP is the best , even better than Windows 7 in some cases.
emanuel2
I have use win xp for a really long time. I don't have made too much bad experience with it, not bad enough to change to another. I have use number of other OSs, but it often hard to compare one OS with another, since it really depend on what for you need it. So for playing computer games win xp is (or better was) a quite good chose. But I would never claim that win xp is THE best OS out there.
Since a few month I use Win7, which is quite nice, maybe even better then win xp...
uzzy22
OS by M$, XP, 7, 98,vista in order
FunDa
A few more to arrange


MSDOS

Windows 3.1

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows 98SE

Windows ME

Windows 2000

Windows XP

Windows Vista

Windows 7

Windows 8 (yes, its coming)



Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Now how should we arrange all these ? Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
Wingoboy
I think Windows 7 is at least as fast as XP.
FunDa
Wingoboy wrote:
I think Windows 7 is at least as fast as XP.


Depending on how fast the hardware is (CPU speed and RAM mostly)


In a slow, older computer, Windows XP is faster.

In a new computer with atleast 1.5Ghz processor and 1 GB RAM, Windows 7 will be as good.


In a better computer, Windows 7 will be better than XP
Cliffer
XP is not the best,but a very good OS.
rayxzero
Windows XP
Windows 7
mukesh
Microsoft OS windows 98, Xp is really great operating but currently i am using window 7. but this times i like to windows 7 butter then they both.
ProwerBot
Windows Tiny7 (which is 7 with all the crap ripped out and fits on a 700mb iso) is extremely fast. Microsoft has windows 7 starter which is comparable but they don't sell it to the public, which they should.
FunDa
ProwerBot wrote:
Windows Tiny7 (which is 7 with all the crap ripped out and fits on a 700mb iso) is extremely fast. Microsoft has windows 7 starter which is comparable but they don't sell it to the public, which they should.


Wow, I didn't know about this.
Fits on a CD ? I should get this.

Off to google, sorry Microsoft but its Microsoft's fault that they are not selling this legally.
menino
WIndows XP was a good stable software, but windows 7 is a better OS, I have something of a light version of windows 7 installed on an old laptop, but fortunately has 1.5GB RAM, and runs quite good on it.

Windows 7 stripped down edition should be available on the web.

There is also a Windows XP light version available, and has only the core components.

If you have the WIndows 7 or XP dvd / cd, and you want to strip it down, you can use a software called nlite, or vlite, available on [url]nliteos.com[/url]
FunDa
Wow, this nLite software is pretty cool. Awesome


I can't wait to make my own optimized version of windows.

I reinstall quite a bit, so a stripped down version with the software I want to use added would be perfect. I can even make a non-attended installation, so that I can simply start the reinstall and go outside.

Thanks mate
maoz
window xp is a commonly used operation system and having popularity all over the world
Cliffer
any good os for mobile phone?
flamepjlh
ocalhoun wrote:
I theorize that everyone who says windows XP is the best OS have never used anything else...

If you think that XP is the greatest and have used non-Microsoft OS's That are actually new (such as fedora core or macOS X), feel free to shoot this theory down.


I love Mac OS. It's more stable, secure, and elegant than XP. It's built on a more modern foundation, and Apple's consumer media applications are very close to perfect.

But XP's huge driver library and developer base are what keep me coming back to my XP box. If it's been dreamed of in the world of PCs, by now it's been dreamed of on XP.

Dozens of manufacturers build a wild range of XP boxes to satisfy all sorts of niche tastes. Don't like any of them? Build your own.

I love to mix and match parts and define my own PC experience, right down to the choice of the case and the fan.
achowles
Well it's certainly not the best anymore. Razz

Mac OS's limited compatibility is self imposed. It's deliberately not even in the competition by design. So if you want a closed platform and that one covers your needs and money is no object then that's your choice. But it's not even a consideration for me.

I've never tried Linux so I can't really comment. But the feedback from those that have used if does put me off a bit. I'd rather have an intuitive OS that doesn't expect me to do absolutely everything myself.
kourtaki
I am running windows 7 Ultimate.
I have Quad core proccesor and 4 Gb RAM
SultanMA
Windows 7 is my Favorite. Smile
soprafazertestes
Windows always(since 3.1) were mine sistems… until knowing the OSX
Camidoo
I like Microsofts Windows 7, but I have Linux too.
I thinks that Linux is very good and safer than Win7, but Win7 is more comfortable than the Linux.
So my favourite is Windows 7 from Microsoft.
silverdown
My favorite so far by Mircrosoft is Windows 7
Trigonomicationalistic
Windows xp best? no, windows 7? Yes, out of all I have used windows 7 is the best but I am working on trying the linux i think it will be better then windows 7 I have used ubuntu and I dont like it but for a linux beginer whats the best linux version for me? Embarassed
likeabreeze
XP is definitely the best for me.
I've used many other Linux OS such as Ubuntu(Ubuntu,xUbuntu,lubuntu), Fedora, Puppy Linux, Slackware Linux.
But none of them is really to my taste.
XP, faster, no compatibility problems at all.
Microsoft Office is really essential, anyway.
zaxacongrejo
hi the last time i checked i was running win xp pro sp3 fully configured in just 93 MB of memory
can you do that with dose OS?

93MB in idle
kmr_mukund
linux,unix operating system are more powerful than any microsoft operating system.but advantage of windows xp is it is user friendly.
zaxacongrejo
please define powerfull and user friendly
beacuse last time i check some of the linux distros, they loock like windows lol
but again im loocking for realiable OS that can run stable in less ressorces then 93MB does anyone know any?
darthrevan
My favorite Windows was win2K I had the best experience with it. it was stable and faster on my old pc.
sysna
win 7 is the best i think, but it took many years for it to become this powerful so we should never forget windows xp but now many games doesn't run on win xp for example the new CoD black ops II and you can not stick with xp if you want to play modern new released games.

but i don't say same thing about win 8 because win 8 is just win 7 with touch support and i don't have a touch PC or Laptop so i think microsoft soon will release another windows probably 9 which is better than 7 and non touch users will love it too Very Happy
samanyolu07
Windows8 innovation itself. Leave Windows 8
reg2009
windows seven best this today
imihaylov91
no, i think windows 7 is the best !
Ankhanu
This 8 year old discussion on the merits of Windows XP can probably be closed.

*Click*
Related topics
Shutdown & Restart Shortcuts for Windows XP & Window
751 Useful Windows XP Files
Which is better Xbox or PC
What cause Windows XP to freeze?
windows xp
Microsoft set to test security software
Webpage Design Programs
Windows XP 'nin anlamýný biliyormusunuz?
Windows xp service pack 2
Install recovery console without the Windows XP CD!
Windows XP Pro 64bit
Boot up Windows XP 60 times faster
which is better?
Change default booting from Linux to Windows XP
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Software

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.