What Windows Operating System do you use?

TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
edited November 2004 in Science & Tech
Fill in the poll with what operating system you use and why you prefer it. I tried doing some searching but didn't find all the answers I was looking for.

Has anyone ever gotten ME to run well?

What is a good OS for a low powered laptop (366 P2 192 MB in my case)?

Comments

  • TheSmJTheSmJ
    edited November 2004
    Windows XP. It's got the stability of Windows 2K, but with added features and continued support from Microsoft.

    Win ME is a joke. Whenever it comes in to the shop I want to shoot somebody in the face...

    I think Windows 2K will be the best choice for you. It's just about as good as Windows XP, but because it's missing the mostly unneeded "fluff" of XP it uses less RAM and CPU cycles for the same tasks. Otherwise Windows 98SE would work, but only if 2K is unattainable.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    I had obtained a Windows 2000 CD, but upon trying to load it, it says the NTLDR file is missing.

    How can I fix / circumvent this? My laptop does not have a floppy drive, only a CD drive (and the usual hard drive).

    And I got the poll set up.

    I have XP Home on the laptop and it runs great, but it's kind of slow. Takes a good 2 minutes to boot up, and some processes drag.

    I have a well tuned XP Home setup on my desktop system and it runs great for me. Lots of codecs and antivirus / anti-spyware programs.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    I use Win2k, as XP has failed on me for NO DAMN REASON more times than even Windows 98 did. Win2K has been the damn rock of Gibraltar for my computer -- no bugs, stable as all hell (My PC is on weeks at a time without fail), fast, more tweakable than XP.. I love it.

    I will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever use XP again.
  • csimoncsimon Acadiana Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    ME is the only version of windows I've never owned.
  • botheredbothered Manchester UK
    edited November 2004
    I had ME for quite a time and resisted XP for ages. I love XP but didn't really have to much trouble with ME. I had a couple of faults and XP fixed it, been with it ever since. Thanks Tex and Spinner. :thumbsup:
  • leishi85leishi85 Grand Rapids, MI Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    i run XP, longest up timei had was about 1 month, no problems at all, no slow down, nothing

    i lost that uptime, because my mom was cleeaning under my desk, adn she hit the switch on accident, damn uptime record lost!!!
    ahhh
  • madmatmadmat
    edited November 2004
    You should've allowed the option for multiple votes as a few might be running more than one OS.
    I run XP but I also have a backup PC with '98 on it and if Linux ever supports the ICH5R southbridge SATA setup (raid drivers) I might try my hand at a bit of dual booted XP/Linux.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    XP works great for me.
  • floppybootstompfloppybootstomp Greenwich New
    edited November 2004
    Win XP Pro, from about one month after it was released, never really had any probs with it. I like it :)

    Win 98SE, just for old games.

    Mandrake 10, cos I'm a masochist.
  • MedlockMedlock Miramar, Florida Member
    edited November 2004
    Whew! That was close. I almost voted for OSX, I think the prettyness of it is getting to me.

    Seriously though, I agree with bothered. Had no problems with ME, switched to XP, and will never go back. I really should experiment with Win2k though...
  • dragonV8dragonV8 not here much New
    edited November 2004
    All our puters use XP. Few XP Home, most XP Pro. Way better than all the previous versions, starting with Dos & Basic in our first puter in the 80's.
  • comfortablecomfortable Sugarland, TX
    edited November 2004
    Windows 2K :thumbsup:

    All of my hardware and software is supported, and it runs like a dream on several of my faster setups. :)
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    Here at house, we have one each of:

    Windows 98 SE (mom's computer, because that's all she needs and she is comfortable with it.).

    Windows XP Pro SP2 (my business box).

    Various Linux distros in cold-swap IDE config (my personal box, I have 4 Linux distros on cold-swap IDE HDs that I can slide in and out of case here, but usually I run Linux Mandrake 10+).

    I voted Linux, in number of OS's available to me conveninently, I have more Linux distros than Windows installs.
  • CyrixInsteadCyrixInstead Stoke-on-Trent, England Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    Windows XP for me all the way. I had 98 first edition originally, that crashed a lot. Windows Me was 10 times worse, I hated it!!

    ~Cyrix
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    w2k
    solid and easy to work with.
    I now have XP on my machine at work and I find it a real pain to find things and change settings.
    Ran 98SE before this, it was OK, but setting up new hardware could be a bitch.
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited November 2004
    Cough...cough...cough...

    Howdy there! Like I can ever resist a moment to chime in on my 9x insanity ;D

    I voted the 98SE and damn proud of it (sort of). Yeah for the umpteenth time I'll talk about my frankenstein 98SE with about 165 ME system files and housed in a cozy Win95 explorer and then stripped of all files and registry entries that don't pertain to digital audio recording/editing, leading to a just under 40MB install. Since using this monster (and upgrading to 999MB RAM from 512MB/Win98FE, Oh yeah disabling ACPI was a biggie) I have shaved off a conservative hour of worktime a day in the studio due to everything from faster boot up, zero system crashes, zero scandisk errors, blistering exploer navigation/program loading, fewer background processes running and faster overall application completion. It also became a very rewarding experience in learning Windows under the hood and knock on wood, I have been able to troubleshoot the system to greater satisfaction than I could have ever hoped.

    As far as internet stuff, I'll run with 98 SE as long as I can find the needed security in the 9x community and support system. You'd be surprised how many old farts are still breathing.

    Okay I'm not a prude by any means. I can't wait to aggrevate over XP pro, except the digital audio software manufactering community has yet to release a pure 64bit audio engine and no plugin manufactuers are thus inspired to write 64bit applications (yes there are 64 bit DSP applications that run on a 32 bit system (CPU intensive resource hogs that do sound better to me though) but if I'm correct they will not respond to a 64bit O/S CPU anyway due to how they are written.

    So when Adobe Audition and Steinberg Cubase unveil 64bit audio editing engines then I'll be there you bet.

    However many in the digital audio community believe that the word length of digital audio has reached the ceiling point (24bit audio which then has 8 extra processing bits in a win 32 bit O/S). The challenge is to increase the sample rate resolution (with 24bit/192k samples/second the industry standard). I have never heard of for example a pure 32 bit audio file with 32 extra processing bits which in theory a 64 bit system would be, or more practically a 24bit audio file with 40 extra processing bits. More than one source I have read says that the human brain can not discern audible resolution past 24 bits to say 28 bits or more practically speaking 32 bits, but that is in regards to the pure "sound" not in the e.g. echo, EQ, compression etc. added in the studio that would always benefit from more processing bits after the 24bit sound capture.

    Ultimately, even if the 24bit audio file becomes a "physical constant" the speed and resolution afforded with 40 calculation bits that need not dither until final media mixdown a true 64bit system would offer is very attractive.

    All this said, in plain talk if I record a band on a 24/192 system, and a 16/44.1 at the same time and then burn you a copy of each im 128kps Mp3, you should hear a preferred difference in the 24/192 master mp3.

    So I hope the powers that be consider faster development in the digital audio industry to catch up with XP and AMD and the 64bit world. At least so that I can rant about 128 bit processing plugins one day he, he.

    Now DSD/SACD is another animal altogether...
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited November 2004
    I've had XP Pro since before it was released to retail channels (OEM Licenses are a good thing :D)
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited November 2004
    merrick, it's people like you that make this site so great. So much knowledge out there :)
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited November 2004
    Prime, It's amazing what ya learn reading the back of a cereal box every morning!
Sign In or Register to comment.