PDA

View Full Version : best windows OS



Mystic Muse
2009-06-03, 05:45 PM
this seems to fit best here. which is the best? I've only ever used XP other than when I was a kid and I have no clue what that was. even if I knew it probably wouldn't work for what I need it to. so my question is which one is the best? best includes

most capabilities.
user friendliness
fable TLC and phantasy star online blueburst compatible.

I don't care much about anything else. I just don't want to go back to XP if there's something better.

chiasaur11
2009-06-03, 05:55 PM
Not Vista.

I have it, and it works passably enough, but it takes a bunch of memory and some reasonable tasks need roughly a billion confirmations at prompts to complete.

RTGoodman
2009-06-03, 05:55 PM
Unlike what a lot of people, I've never had a single problem with Windows Vista. Now, as far as capabilities and user friendliness, it seems about the same as XP, so it might not be worth switching if you've got XP already. Either of them, as far as I'm concerned, are better than earlier versions. Don't know about the gaming stuff, though. Sorry.

(Note: I did disable the thing that makes you confirm everything you do multiple times. That could be part of why my relationship with Vista is better than some others. It does take up a bit more memory, but for a newish computer and your standard needs, I don't think it's excessive.)

Note, though, that Windows 7 is set to debut October 22nd, I think, and (from what I hear), it's like Vista, but BETTER. I don't have personal experience with it, but I can't imagine it being outright BAD.

chiasaur11
2009-06-03, 06:00 PM
Unlike what a lot of people, I've never had a single problem with Windows Vista. Now, as far as capabilities and user friendliness, it seems about the same as XP, so it might not be worth switching if you've got XP already. Either of them, as far as I'm concerned, are better than earlier versions. Don't know about the gaming stuff, though. Sorry.

(Note: I did disable the thing that makes you confirm everything you do multiple times. That could be part of why my relationship with Vista is better than some others. It does take up a bit more memory, but for a newish computer and your standard needs, I don't think it's excessive.)

Note, though, that Windows 7 is set to debut October 22nd, I think, and (from what I hear), it's like Vista, but BETTER. I don't have personal experience with it, but I can't imagine it being outright BAD.

Hey, I never said it was awful. Just not much better than the predecessor at anything, and I once needed roughly ten prompts and a reboot to download a gametap app.

Hazkali
2009-06-03, 06:15 PM
I've mostly only used XP too, and I have never had a problem with it. Never a blue screen of death, fairly intuitive Explorer. I have used GNOME for a bit, and found it less easy than Windows, but then I didn't really make an effort to learn about it, and just kept to what I needed to run the particular problems that I was using.

bluewind95
2009-06-03, 06:19 PM
I have not tried the Windows7 release candidate, but I have the first beta version of it and it is, in my experience, like Vista... only awesome. Vista is pretty, but icky if you let it be pretty (I only got it to work efficiently by switching to Windows Classic mode). On Win7 beta? I didn't need to do that. It worked efficiently from the start. And it still looks prettier than Vista.

I wonder what its final release is going to be like. I mean... I heard the Vista beta was great... but the release wasn't.

Other than that? XP. Unless you want to have over 4GB RAM. In which case, you'll need 64-bit Vista.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-03, 06:28 PM
Windows 2000 Professional. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000)
Functional, still supported, and low, low requirements. It's about as pretty as Windows 95, but it WORKS.

RTGoodman
2009-06-03, 06:36 PM
Hey, I never said it was awful. Just not much better than the predecessor at anything, and I once needed roughly ten prompts and a reboot to download a gametap app.

Oh, yeah, I'm not just directing that at you - there are just a lot of folks out there that hate all things Windows- and Vista-related, but most of the problems they seem to always bring up are things I've never really seen. The only time I've had a big problem was when I tried to run Firefox (with a ton of tabs going at once), the D&Di Character Builder, Windows Media Player, Excel, and I think InkScape all at once, and that was probably my fault.

(For the record, I'm running 64-bit Vista Home Premium SP1 on an HP Pavilion dv6700-model laptop with 2GB of RAM and (I think) a 1.87 GHz Intel Pentium Dual-Core processor. Or something like that.)

Mystic Muse
2009-06-03, 07:48 PM
okay. so far the candidates are XP and 2000. I'm not in it for being photogenic.

Lupy
2009-06-03, 07:58 PM
Vista. Now before you all gasp and say "But you run Linux, you hate Vista!" I want to point some things out.

XP was release in 2002. It was released before webcams, modern gaming technology (and hardware has advanced leaps and bounds), was written for computers with 256mb of Ram and 900mhz single core processors, and when the internet meant IE6, which had no support for modern flash, xhtml, and terrible support for CSS.

Since then, XP has been periodically updated to do most of these things tolerably, and to do them faster than Vista because computers today are rediculously better than when it was released. Under the hood it has an ancient Registry system and no security on any port. While you can sort of fix these, it is about like butting bandaids on a cut Jugular, you barely improved anything.

ALSO: I have the Win7 rc. It's very nice.

Vista, while slow, unintuitive, and generally unpleasant, was built with modern technology in mind and supports them much better than XP. You would be amazed at how much of the software making XP do what you want it to today is poorly written and hapazardly written after the fact... While Vista's is poorly written in some unholy semblence of order for the things it does.

All said and done though, Windows is a poor alternative to Linux, you just didn't grow up using it unless your parents are amazing.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-03, 08:05 PM
I'm going to use Linux for most things but it doesn't support games or this one online game I REALLY like to play since a lot of people I know play it and it's fun to play with them.

Ubuntu seems to be better than windows except for that. also I can't use a few types of writing files. also I can't view files I put on my MP3 player with windows on Ubuntu.

The Glyphstone
2009-06-03, 08:14 PM
I've just used whatever was the easiest to get. Win2000 and XP for most of my life, till I got a new laptop that had Vista pre-installed and rooted into the hard drive, so I adapted. Has worked just fine for me once I dealt with the approval windows.


Anyone else wonder if this was an attempted trollbait/flame war spark that has, by all appearances, fizzled out due to our mature and intellectual nature? XP vs. Vista is one of the more prominently known Internet Backdraft topics.

Lupy
2009-06-03, 08:14 PM
You have to choose to save Open Office files as Micro$oft office files the first time you save them to be able to read them in M$O.

And you can get mp3 compatibility in Linux in Synaptic. Turn on the Multiverse and then search: "mp3 codecs".

EDIT: If you need help with Linux, send me a PM.

TheEmerged
2009-06-03, 08:48 PM
I have had exactly 1 problem with Vista: it doesn't like earlier versions of the NET Framework, which a particular legacy app I'm fond of requires, and none of the fixes I've seen for this actually work.

XP is better, though. There's a reason not a *single business account* at the helpdesk I work at supports Vista in the least.

Lupy
2009-06-03, 09:42 PM
Grr...

XP is not better than Vista. You may like it more, but it is in almost everyway inferior. XP was a great OS and Vista is a poor one, but that does not change the fact that years of amazing technological advances occurred between their releases. It's like saying '98 is better than XP! 98 is much stabler and uses significantly less system resources than XP, but it is infinitely inferior.

Jack Squat
2009-06-03, 09:47 PM
I like Vista better than XP.

I also never had any problems with ME, so go figure.

I've used Linux, and it's nice, but there's not enough of a reason for me to switch over...though I do have space reserved on my laptop for ParanoidLinux once it comes out.

Lupy
2009-06-03, 09:51 PM
Linux is not for everyone, I just think that if more people tried it that they would find out they liked it better than Windows. Especially on Desktops, where everything is supported. Laptops are a bit more touch-and-go with support at times.

Anteros
2009-06-03, 10:03 PM
Well, Lupy has a point about Vista being technologically superior. However, it's my experience that XP actually works better about 99% of the time.

Just because Vista is more advanced, doesn't make it better. When Microsoft actually gets its stuff together and fixes all the problems with Vista it will be better.

Erothayce
2009-06-03, 10:04 PM
Not to thread jack but i have a small question. Can you run windows games on ubuntu? For what it's worth I enjoy using Vista because I didn't have it when it was first released i got it after they fixed most of the bugs. As for the approval messages I just turned off my UAC. I'm paranoid about virus's anyway and my comp is very well protected so I don't feel that I need it.

Lupy
2009-06-03, 10:06 PM
You can run some, either the better supported pay version or the free WINE.

Vista is an example of Microsoft epic-phailing at something that could have been Great. Hopefully Win7 will redeem them.

chiasaur11
2009-06-03, 10:10 PM
Can't XP run the star wars script in command prompt by inputing telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl?

Worth considering if true.

Erothayce
2009-06-03, 10:17 PM
I only find one thing ridiculous with windows 7 in that they are releasing like 7 versions or something the last time i heard about it in pc world. Seems like overkill to me.

Lord of the Helms
2009-06-03, 10:17 PM
Between Vista and XP? Both of them are a clunkier, much slower version of its predecessor, with pretty much every single change in user interface design being worse than the tried-and-true way it functioned before. Both require extensive secondary software to be able to use it properly and to merely have a medium-sized light blue invitation to viruses and malware rather than a big red-flashing neon sign the size of Belgium. Neither is a master of system stability and I've had them screw up on me quite impressively, but compared to the old Dos-based Windows line, I suppose it could be worse.

In general, Windows XP does what I need it to do; Windows Vista does it much less comfortably and hogging much more power. They're both by neccessity systems of choice for me as a gamer, with XP being better there because it just plain hogs less resources (So you can't use 4GB RAM, but performance-wise, Vista essentially forces you to subtract a full GB from the RAM you have to determine how much a game can actually use). Outside of gaming, I can't say either is near as comfortable of Linux (PCLinuxOS being my favorite, though Kubuntu is also worth a shot; somehow normal Ubuntu never did it for me) with it's extremely easy-to-install host of awesome and superior Open Source software and the fact that viruses are pretty much a complete non-issue; oh, and its 3D effects are prettier, more fun and much less resource-hogging.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-04, 02:34 AM
believe me if I could get fable the lost chapters and phantasy star online along with another program or two I'd pretty much never look back. however the fact of the matter is they DON'T. they are not built to work on linux and I therefore need a competent windows OS. I will now go get windows 2,000 and shut myself up.

oh and I won't be getting online except for that game so there's no need to worry about viruses

Erloas
2009-06-04, 10:35 AM
I would say at this point just pick up the Win7 RC and use that for at least the time being. The RC will be fully functional until early next year, so if you like it then it would be easy enough to upgrade to the retail version without issue.

It makes no sense to buy Win2k or even XP at this point. If you already have a copy, by all means keep using it, but obviously that isn't the case or you wouldn't be asking the question.

valadil
2009-06-04, 10:41 AM
I didn't hate XP and Windows 7 looks tolerable, but I'll have to wait till it's properly released. I wouldn't use either of them for anything besides gaming though.

Mando Knight
2009-06-04, 11:50 AM
Just because Vista is more advanced, doesn't make it better. When Microsoft actually gets its stuff together and fixes all the problems with Vista it will be better.

Which is what Windows 7 is supposed to be, apparently. If the upgrade package is cheap enough, I'll spring for it, but the problems I have with Vista generally aren't worth switching to Linux... especially considering that I've already got Vista configured pretty much the way I want it, making it work fine with everything I've got, barring a few ridiculous bugs that go way out into left field...

GoC
2009-06-04, 12:14 PM
My problem with Vista is it's crippling memory consumption. Apart from that it's pretty meh.

Why don't people use Ubuntu+WINE?

Erloas
2009-06-04, 03:50 PM
My problem with Vista is it's crippling memory consumption. Apart from that it's pretty meh.

This is a complaint I really don't get. Vista is fine with 2GB of RAM, it just has issues with less. Of course I wouldn't recommend less then 2GB of RAM no matter what OS you are using. There was also a lot of misconception going around earlier about Vistas use of RAM with SuperFetch since it loads things into RAM that you use often, but it also dumps it and gives it to any program that needs it as soon as the program makes the request.
It does use more then XP, but not terribly so.

Given the price of RAM its really hard to justify not having 2-3GB considering that a 1GB stick of RAM is only slightly more expensive then a combo meal at your fast food restaurant of choice. Of course if you go back a year or two then it would be 2 combo meals instead of 1.

arkol
2009-06-04, 04:19 PM
The best windows is ALWAYS the one previous to the current one.

Zeful
2009-06-04, 04:30 PM
I'll toss my hat in and say Windows 3.11. It was small, very user-friendly and near impossible to crash.

Ichneumon
2009-06-04, 04:38 PM
I wonder... would it be safe to run Windows 98 today?:smallamused:

GoC
2009-06-04, 08:14 PM
This is a complaint I really don't get. Vista is fine with 2GB of RAM, it just has issues with less. Of course I wouldn't recommend less then 2GB of RAM no matter what OS you are using. There was also a lot of misconception going around earlier about Vistas use of RAM with SuperFetch since it loads things into RAM that you use often, but it also dumps it and gives it to any program that needs it as soon as the program makes the request.
It does use more then XP, but not terribly so.

Given the price of RAM its really hard to justify not having 2-3GB considering that a 1GB stick of RAM is only slightly more expensive then a combo meal at your fast food restaurant of choice. Of course if you go back a year or two then it would be 2 combo meals instead of 1.

I have 1GB RAM on my laptop. I'd forgotten you could install more...
Guess I'll be going out shopping.