Frank Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I used to have Windows ME instead of Longhorn and I am planning to switch back to ME (2k) but im just weighing up my other options first :D 585430223[/snapback] ME does NOT equal Windows 2000. Two completely different Operating Systems. In 9x (not kidding) ME, i Have it runnig on my bros AMD K6-2 and i havent had one bsodIn NT besides xp, 2000 Pro In servers, besides 2003, 2000 Advnced 585430366[/snapback] And you have had blue screens with Windows 2000? Windows ME has been the WORST operating system for me. I immediately switched to Windows 2000 after I tried ME. W2kME? was the worst thing MS ever did IMO. Worse than getting nailed for anti-trust. W95 was a huge step in the right direction. 98 could have been avoided if MS went straight to NT (I think that is what XP to "Shorthorn" is trying to avoid) NT was great W2K? NT but better. XP Refined W2K 585430378[/snapback] I agree on your comment about ME, but Windows 98 was needed. It was the first OS that was based on FAT32 and its own software. It did not rely on DOS at all. It was (in its time) a very good OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KayMan2K Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Windows 98 was needed ... It did not rely on DOS at all. 585430538[/snapback] Incorrect, it very much relies (aka runs) on DOS just as Win95 and WinMe do. It is simply an updated version of Windows 95. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Windows 2000... As for Windows ME - I bought the upgrade for it straight after it was released. I got it home and installed it straight away... it locked during the install. It pretty much signalled how things were going to be in the future. I eventually switched to 2000 and found it to be a joyous experience - better than XP, even. Saying that, I couldn't go back to it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Horizons Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Server 2003 is great, so is 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anir Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Windows NT 4.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogerjones Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Windows NT 4.0. 585430786[/snapback] Uggh. You're crazy. Troubleshooting and configuring those things (especially with today's networks) is a pain in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Windows 2000 Pro without a doubt. The most stable version of Windows by far. I'd still be using 2000 if mainstream support for it didn't end in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 In this order (good to bad) 2003 2000 98SE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anir Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Uggh. You're crazy. Troubleshooting and configuring those things (especially with today's networks) is a pain in the ass.585430811[/snapback] I've chosen it, because it is not that bloated like 98, ME, 2000, XP and Server 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-hurley18 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 98 or 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexcollins Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Probably XP as that's what I use and have only ever used. Only had ancient Acorn RiscOS machines before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ficman Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Win2K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I've chosen it, because it is not that bloated like 98, ME, 2000, XP and Server 2003. 2000 was hardly bloated. What it added was a robust backbone and better configuration/driver support. Sure, it was slower than previous versions of Windows but it was worth the benefit of being an incredibly stable machine, even for 6 months+ at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8crash3r Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Definitely Windows 2000. Modesty aside, I haven't reinstalled my Win2k box since April 2002 and I also never had viruses or spyware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chconline Veteran Posted February 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 8, 2005 This pwns j00 all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amdme3200 Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 No such thing as best its just whats new and what works with all that new hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted February 8, 2005 Author Share Posted February 8, 2005 Windows 2000 is Windows ME right? Just checking :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Windows 2K3 :happy: But it's not given... :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesmithg Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Myself I have tried them all from 3.1 to Xp pro apart from windows 2k, well I have used it but not for more than 3 hours. XPpro sp2, nt4 then 3.1 in that order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Help Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I'd have have to say Win 2000 for stability Win XP pro for functionality Win 2003 for performance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itianuk Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Windows 2000 :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-byte Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I'd have have to say Win 2000 for stability Win XP pro for functionality Win 2003 for performance 585432799[/snapback] XP har the same stability that 2000 offer, don't know why people think 2000 have better stability. Windows 20003 is Windows XP with less resource hugging services etc, that a server OS doesn't need. I think XP is the better one. XP is the first Windows that have been cleaned up properly since Windows 95. 98/ME and 2000 have just added features on top of things with no special planning IMO. With XP everything is very clean and well arranged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iller Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Windows 2000 is Windows ME right?585432770[/snapback] Windows 2000 is built on NT kernel while Windows ME is built on 9x. In other words, no ME is not 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayzee Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I'd have have to say Win 2000 for stability Win XP pro for functionality Win 2003 for performance 585432799[/snapback] ...and Linux for life! Just kiddin, thought it fitted in there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rablet Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Windows 2000 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts