TheWahbinator Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 2003, it's all I need without the bloat (by default). And obviously after that comes XP and then 2k for those slower systems circa 2001 and older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batbeef Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 XP SP2. It runs really good for me and can never understand why people always crap on XP because its "unstable". Well i guess if you click on every ad, open every email, downlaod and run cracks, your bound to have problems. If you are just cautious, you'll most likely nevr run into a problem on XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coneneo Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 98. Didn't like 2000 that much, while ME sucked. 95 was just too old. Using XP right now, but hate the bloat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsquirle Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Windows 2003 Why would somebody vote for a future version of windows? (vista) God knows what kind of crap they'll put in there (or what they'll leave out?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cvrt7.62Ghst Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 2003, it's all I need without the bloat (by default). And obviously after that comes XP and then 2k for those slower systems circa 2001 and older. What is the difference between 2003 and XP anyway? Aren't they basicly the same thing with more server tools added? Won't all the XP stuff run on 2003? :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_f Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 What is the difference between 2003 and XP anyway? Aren't they basicly the same thing with more server tools added? Won't all the XP stuff run on 2003? :blush: Yes pretty much. Windows 2003 has been optimised for performance and therefore many services which normal users would use (such as CD burning and direct x?) has been disabled - these can be activated though! Correct me if I am wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted December 17, 2005 Veteran Share Posted December 17, 2005 ME :D :rofl: XP :p 98SE wasnt too bad either :) hey you missed that out :o :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von_Beard Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 my xp hates me right now :( but i still like it ne ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZappBrannigan Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 nonoe.....where the none option.... :wacko: oh well if i had 2 id put xp :| No ones forcing you to vote :D My vote goes to XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.M.K Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Um, ME ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 XP for me ! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I'm a Mac user with Virtual PC running Windows 2000 Works perfect, better than XP. My vote goes for Windows 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogerjones Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 What is the difference between 2003 and XP anyway? Aren't they basicly the same thing with more server tools added? Won't all the XP stuff run on 2003? :blush: Well one major difference is that if I connect remotely to XP, it will log off whoever is using the computer locally :angry: (MS: please change this in Vista). 2003 allows more connections, 'cause it's a server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts