Changing OSes. Need advice.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eurythmic
  • Start date Start date
Eurythmic

Eurythmic

majordomo plasticomo
Hey all, I need some help here.

I'm sick of Win98SE. Sick of the fact that it can't manage RAM, sick of the crashes, sick of the fact that my less than six month-old installation already looks corrupted...

The other day, I was working on a CD for a contest of sorts. The idea was that the CD had to be done from start to finish in 24 hours. I slept for eight hours during this time, which means that I worked on the CD for about 16 hours, right? I was curious, so I decided to count how many times I had to reboot my computer while I was working. I rebooted it six times. SIX!! I just can't trust my computer at all to be stable when I'm doing something important.

I think it's time to enter the 21st Century.

I'm planning to upgrade to either Win2000 or WinXP. I can get the corporate version, or whatever it's called, of WinXP through my local college's IT department, so my understanding is that I won't have to bother with that calling Micro$oft everytime I upgrade my hardware garbage that I keep reading about. I'm also going to set up a dual-boot configuration with Win98SE, just so I don't have to worry about not being able to run 16-bit software when I need to.

If I understand correctly, Win2000 can use DirectX and it can read FAT32 partitions. Is that right? So I'm kind of confused as to what I should go with.

I use my computer basically for recording with Pro Audio 9, games, and web surfing. Here's what my hardware looks like:

Celeron 566 @ 593

256 MB RAM

Voodoo3 3000

SB Audigy

And other stuff that I'm sure won't cause any problem. I'm mainly concerned about whether one of Win2000 or WinXP won't like my sound card or my video card (though hacked XP drivers for the Voodoo are out there, I know)... or just any other random thoughts. What should I consider when I'm deciding between Win2000 and WinXP? I'm also concerned about the speed. I've heard that WinXP is very slow. Don't know about Win2000. It might help to know that I'll also be getting a PIII Tualatin 1.13 GHz soon. So as long as the OS runs fast on that, I'm good to go.

So, any advice?
 
I can get the corporate version, or whatever it's called, of WinXP through my local college's IT department, so my understanding is that I won't have to bother with that calling Micro$oft everytime I upgrade my hardware garbage that I keep reading about.
This is true.
If I understand correctly, Win2000 can use DirectX and it can read FAT32 partitions. Is that right?
yes.
So I'm kind of confused as to what I should go with.
XP Pro.
Here's what my hardware looks like:

Celeron 566 @ 593

256 MB RAM

Voodoo3 3000

SB Audigy
Looks like it's aboot time for an upgrade my friend. :p
I'm mainly concerned about whether one of Win2000 or WinXP won't like my sound card or my video card (though hacked XP drivers for the Voodoo are out there, I know)...
this should not be a problem.
What should I consider when I'm deciding between Win2000 and WinXP?
Get XP.
I'm also concerned about the speed. I've heard that WinXP is very slow.
You heard wrong.
It might help to know that I'll also be getting a PIII Tualatin 1.13 GHz soon. So as long as the OS runs fast on that, I'm good to go.
It will.
So, any advice?
Yes... Get XP. I have used every Windows version since 3.1 and I have never been more satisfied. M$ still has their issues and XP is far from perfect, but I was previously running a server on W2K, and my system is more stable now than it has ever been. I have not noticed the least bit of a speed decrease (in fact, it's common knowledge that the boot time on XP is considerably faster). And some of the new features actually appeal to me. I use less third party apps because of the built in features and therefore, I have less 3rd party clutter in my registry. If you go to TweakXP you can get some valuable tips on how to maximize performance too.

Quite honestly,.. there isn't much of a difference in the "guts" of W2K and Win XP... but it's the little things in XP that make it worth it... and it's much more future proof than W2K, obviously.

Not to mention the fact that you will thank God every night for finally delivering you from Win98SE... :p


WATYF
 
Last edited:
Cool, thanks a lot for your thoughts. I've been asking around quite a bit - I had been leaning toward Win2000, but pretty much everyone that I've talked to has said that I should go with XP Pro all the way. I guess that's just what I'll have to do!
 
Definitely ...XP

Signed,

...A Current Win2k user

(Happy with Win2k, but only thing I'm missing is the "future proof" part of it). Upgrading sucks, I should've waited.
 
Well folks, I've been using XP Pro for about a week now. The installation was COMPLETELY painless.

I'm quite impressed with XP so far. Still learning the ins and outs, but the thing I'm really happy with is that it doesn't feel a bit slower than Win98SE on my hardware. In fact, some things like browsing the web and booting up/shutting down are actually a lot faster.

And now I can actually have more than 256MB of RAM! 512, here we come!

Well, erm, as soon as I have the money. :)

Thanks for the advice. I'm very happy with the switch.
 
Eurythmic said:
And now I can actually have more than 256MB of RAM! 512, here we come!

Errr... I used W98se for a year with 512ddr (still do, until my sound card accepts the fact that i want it under xp :p )..
Do you mean it just didn't took any advantage of it ?? The ram was the reason I switched from w95se to 98 in the first place.

Must admit, using XPpro for a week now (still have to install the audio) and liking it a lot.

GrtZ,
Herwig
 
Congrats. Many people can't run Win98 with more than 256MB of RAM, if they have a large AGP aperture.

Not that there's any point. Win98 basically can't manage more than 128MB.
 
if ur not planning on running a dual setup u should go with XP Home(if ur purchasing it from the IT department)
 
Back
Top