Pentium, ya. Or a top secret, never released PII. I do know what yer saying.
 
Out of sheer curiosity, I took a peek at tapek's website. According to his profile there, he's 17... ;(
I really don't give a rip what OS you use, whatever works for you. I do mind being told without any sort of backing that there is one superior OS, all other's are trash, and anyone to disagree is a moron.
 
If someone want's to use Windows 3.1, I don't care. If ya think one OS is trash, give your reason(s) why you don't like it.
 
This guy can't possibly be serious about WinXP being sooo much better than 2k. It has some good things about it, but that doesn't mean those extra's make it walk all over it's predecessor. XP is a slick version of 2k. It truly brings the best of both worlds together. It's not for me.
 
Also, as with any new OS, there seems to be some nasty problems popping up. One happens to be with the mighty GeForce 3...

I used both and must say they both have +,-
 
I used Win 200 Pro (final) for some time and really liked it. I must say it was the fastest OP Sys I ever had. No kidding...!
 
I did have some probs with it,
-games not working
-DSL f'd up (no technician or comp scientist could figure it out)
Eventually I fixed these things, after a lot of research and tweaking.
 
-Media Player would frequently crash after watching divx.
-actually after watching any type of media no matter what proggy, even DVD's I would have ocasianal crashes.
This I could never fix, no matter how much research i did. This was before SP2. It simply is not a media OP Sys, THAT IS FOR SURE!!! Even SP2 did'nt solve it. Perhaps it would have if i did a clean install again but who cares, you get the point.
 
Now for WINDOWS XP Professional(2600 Final),
I installed over Win 2000 Pro w. SP2. Oh my f'n ****, its so slow compared to Win 2000 Pro.
-After doing some cleaning and rearanging (4 days work) it is the coolest looking OP SYS ever. Win 2000 Pro looks quite gheto if you give into the truth.
-Very stable, a lot more so than Win 2000 pro. And this OP SYS is very much a media OP SYS unlike win 2000 pro. I think that the refinements, howeverso hidden, after takeing a good look under the hood are quite suprissing, i didn;t think MS would go there. Built in firewall, etc, built in burning etc (even though i don't give a sh it about the built in burning but I am suprised at how inovative this OP SYs is.
 
I just wish it wasn't so damn slow. Interestingly though, moving arround in the OP SYS is slower, but the games and programs work just fine. Quite interesting.
 
The truth is there are still some conflicts w. drivers, ex. SB live, Highpoint 370 etc.
 
AM I GONA KEEP XP?
To tell you the truth, I really get off on how cool my comp looks, and I do care about looks, sorry, I think i just might end up doing a clean install of it. Yep, thats how cool it is.
 
;( Someone dissed Win ME, to that person, Win me in many ways is a lot more stable & trouble free than Win 2000! It is not so regarding Progs, but all things taken into consideration & a properly built/cofig syst, it is very very stable...!

The other problem is that quite a few PC sold only come with 128MB of RAM, which is decent, but nowhere nearly enough for 2k or XP. Even worse, there are a few cheap rigs sold with a measly 64MB. Win2k was slow as hell with that, and adding a stick of 128 improved the speed dramatically.
Sure, you can run it on 64MB, but you certainly won't be speeding along. Systems preinstalled with XP shouldn't come with anything less than 256MB.
Some of the stuff is great to have in XP, but I did see a note from Symantec in a magazine regarding the XP firewall. It is not a complete solution, and only blocks some of the traffic. This is something that should definitely be noted, as people may very well assume that they are protected. This is something that should've been a complete solution, not a lite version like other apps in the OS.

Quote:
;( Someone dissed Win ME, to that person, Win me in many ways is a lot more stable & trouble free than Win 2000! It is not so regarding Progs, but all things taken into consideration & a properly built/cofig syst, it is very very stable...!

Games not working and crashes after watching some video could very well point at the issues with your vid drivers. What are the games that aren't working?

Brian Frank: it's all nice and cool when you have over 256mb and a 1ghz+ athlon but who really needs that kind of power for everyday tasks? Like i posted earlier, most tasks require little processing power and RAM. No one is stupid enough to spend money on comp upgrades just to put on a new OS.

However, for those that do, they will find that more RAM will be a necessity for practical use. RAM is about the cheapest upgrade you can do to improve speed, and may be the best. At least with Win2k, getting more RAM did much more than a faster CPU.
 
All the games I had trouble with worked fine under 98 and 2000. It's been so long since I switched from ME to 2k, I've forgotten what it feels like to be booted back to the desktop for no reason whatsoever.
Even people that aren't technically savvy with PCs really don't like ME at all. I've had hardware that didn't function correctly sometimes in ME, yet as performed flawlessly in Win2k. Drivers that did come didn't solve problems either.
With Win2k, I don't have to do any tweaking to get it to run stable. I can't say the same about ME.

hey don't get me wrong I too like Win 2000. There is no doubt that for all around use win 2000 is more stable than ME.
 
As for the person that sugested that media probs may have been corelated w. Vid drivers... nothing like that. The prob was Win 2000 & nothing else. Everyone had the same troubles. Anyway, for game comp, that is easily solved. No big deal. But the point is, that we all had to spend countless hours searching in forums and wait weeks/months to fix all our probs w. Win 2000. At least among us pioneers that got it first. Basically the only way you can get full operation from Win 2000 with media & games is if you are an above avarage kido that is willing and able to hunt down the solution like most of us in here.
 
This was recognized by MS and that is why Win xp is needed and was released. No other reason. For people that are are not able/willing to spend time finding solutions to get stuf to work but want the win 2000 stability.
 
Ofcourse if you spent the time setting up win 2000 already & found te work arounds, xp wont do much for you, except maybe give youa better looking OP, even if not necessarily a better one.
 
Win XP, is Win 2000 without the hastle for media junkies. 8)
 
------------------------
Oh i forgot to mention, i found how to speed up XP. I was wrong about it n=being slow. I also went on the RAM bandwagon, but it wasn't it. The registry needs to be edited and the start menu shadow turned off. After that its almost too fast I actualy had to slow it down, no kidding! I got this solution from another post in here. Just so someone doesn't say i took credit for it, i wasn't the one who discovered the solution to XP being slow.

i dunno. i watch video files quite frequently using media player 6.4 (never liked that wmp 7 garbage) and never had any persistent stability issues. i had some issues once but i think that up[censored] the vid driver fixed it.

Actually, I thought most of the same things about XP until I actually installed it. It really isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. You can turn off/uninstall all the other crap you don't like about it(except WPA of course). It is a very fast OS. Boot up time is around 15 seconds for me, and even with the new UI and all sorts of graphical enhancements, it is quite a bit faster than 2K was.

Guys don't get me wrong so hear me out.
 
I'm a firm Windows 2000 Professional Supporter. I had the good fortune to win two full boxed retail copies of it from microsoft in the prerelease contest they had for it.
 
I've used it almost exclusively since the day I got it in the mail.
 
To Me Windows XP is a more consumer friendly version of Windows 2000 with lots of very pretty eye candy to help win the average home pc user over, especially anyone who happens to like or use Macintosh Imacs or any Macintosh with the very visually pretty OSX on it.
 
while I hardly see the need for plunking down what it is going to cost for the upgrade version of win xp professional I'd highly recommend Windows XP Home to someone who has a machine it can run on with good performance and is tired of all the problems with windows98 SE or that horribly kludged Windows ME. Yes upgrading from Windows 9X to Windows XP could turn into a horrible nightmare, but I am sure that the upgrade version of WinXP Home will be the same as every other upgrade version of Windows that I've ever used in the past. In that it will let you do a clean install if you can show it that you do indeed have a previous version of the Windows OS when it searches for the upgrade qualifier.
 
I've been testing out a copy of Windows XP Professional RTM Corporate version (no activation) that I got from...*cough* *mumble* *cough* and so far I am very impressed with it's abilities to run programs that I could never get to work properly under windows 2000. I was very happy to find out that I could now get windows xp to run my favorite older FPS game "Shadow Warrior" just by changing some settings in the compatibility tab when i right clicked on the executable files for it.
 
In closing My humble opinion for windows xp flopping is... no way dude!!!

Quote: However, for those that do, they will find that more RAM will be a necessity for practical use. RAM is about the cheapest upgrade you can do to improve speed, and may be the best. At least with Win2k, getting more RAM did much more than a faster CPU.

Hey! How about expending one of these

in 1GB of DDR-RAM? (50 €x4=200 € ($184 )
We're certainly going to need a lot of ram for running winxp at decent speed.