Return To Windows 95, Xp Sucks.

[zivan56]

If you want the fastest speed after booting, go with Windows NT 4.0, the server version of it is the fastests version of Windows I have tried. Of course it has many driver problems, etc.

[aaron901]

Okay let's hear it. Which is better windows 95 or windows XP pro? Face it win 95 takes up much less space on the disk and offers much in the way of performance. On modern machines Windows 95 flys. Cranks out faster, boots fastest, and takes less space.

Only down side is that it crashes more often, won't run many programs, drivers are extremely incompatible. Other than that, it does very well when you fix it.

Okay let's hear it.

what the ... ? aren't those enough to keep you away from windows 95?!

cranks out faster? i don't think so.

boots fastest? i wonder how many times you reboot a day, given that you care so much about boot time. btw, my experience tells me xp boots fastest.

takes less space? oh c'mon, HDD is as cheap as a burger nowadays man.

so you want to boot very fast into windows 95 and stare at the screen? look into my computer and smile coz of the extra space you got? :wacko:

[LonghornXP]

For the record I am not saying 95 is better than XP. I am pointing out the positive of 95 as compared to XP. And yes 95 does actually boot faster than XP.

In fact, Windows Me that I run now boots and shutsdown a good bit faster than XP. I use XP primarily, and equally maintain both. I have two versions of Me, both shutdown and boot faster. I have run bench mark tests and compare the three. Both Me rate 574 as to XP being 647. Pretty close. Video perform much better in Me. Just a fact.

I love XP and will always use it. I will not use 95. I use Me though.

[MxxCon]

the only reason i still use win95 is becuase it's on oldass toshiba P60 laptop that doesn't have drivers for anything else. but its' very small :) so small that it's lcd screen can't even show 640x480 :) you have to scroll around to see whole desktop.

[CtotheJ]

Hey, am I the only one that likes 3.1?

Seriously! You had EVERYTHING you need. Very small, very fast! Alas... now I'm using XP. (shell=progman.exe ;)

...

...

(alright, I'm joking. 95 VS. XP? What's next... Fisher Price VS. HP?)

[Glowstick]

I don't know what's with you guys. Apparently you measure an OSes performance on the boot time. Good job, never apply for a job in IT with this way of judgement! :hmmm:

I use NT since 3.5, and apart from boottime, the overall performance owned the DOS based crap from Win3.1 to Win9x/ME.

[dysektor]

WinXP should be used just for its stability, IMO :rolleyes:

[uniacid]

WinXP should be used just for its stability, IMO :rolleyes:

yea, If I could I'd put winxp or at least win2k on all the pc's at my school :) (with real licenses of course :p)

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

For the record I am not saying 95 is better than XP. I am pointing out the positive of 95 as compared to XP. And yes 95 does actually boot faster than XP.

In fact, Windows Me that I run now boots and shutsdown a good bit faster than XP. I use XP primarily, and equally maintain both. I have two versions of Me, both shutdown and boot faster. I have run bench mark tests and compare the three. Both Me rate 574 as to XP being 647. Pretty close. Video perform much better in Me. Just a fact.

I love XP and will always use it. I will not use 95. I use Me though.

right, I really don't see how the statement that you are using windows ME lends any credibility to your initial argument.

If you are going to dual boot any 9x based OS with XP, go for Win98SE.

For me switching from XP to windows 95 would be like going from Jag to OS9 *shudder*, yes it might be faster but jag is a much more enjoyable computing experience.

[LaraBoft]

Okay let's hear it. Which is better windows 95 or windows XP pro? Face it win 95 takes up much less space on the disk and offers much in the way of performance. On modern machines Windows 95 flys. Cranks out faster, boots fastest, and takes less space.

Mine starts in 15 secs.... :blink: Haven't tried it with 95, but i guess it will boot in 2 secs ..... XP is way better then 95..... :) :D

[sanctified Veteran]

For the record I am not saying 95 is better than XP. I am pointing out the positive of 95 as compared to XP. And yes 95 does actually boot faster than XP.

In fact, Windows Me that I run now boots and shutsdown a good bit faster than XP. I use XP primarily, and equally maintain both. I have two versions of Me, both shutdown and boot faster. I have run bench mark tests and compare the three. Both Me rate 574 as to XP being 647. Pretty close. Video perform much better in Me. Just a fact.

I love XP and will always use it. I will not use 95. I use Me though.

lol, you said in the thread title that xp sucks and now you love it? :rolleyes:

[Chipi]

besides, your nickname is LonghornXP.. i can almost assure u that Longhorn will boot longer than 95 too... ;)

[mr_daemon]

I recently went back from WinXP to Windows 2000.

I don't ever want to touch a non-NT windows ever again.

Win2k is WinXP without the bloat and userfriendlyness to me.

But... win95...yuk...

[Groovedude]

Win XP to Win 95...

taking things a bit too Extreme i think :p

and u saying 95 boots Faster ummm NOT !!!.. u must have XP installed with loads of start up goodies or something XP is listed as the fastest Windows ever... mayb u compared it to a clean 95 install and a XP system thats had things installed uninstalled, and has slowed a bit :(.. either way.. i dont see the point of going from Win XP to 95...but then ur choice then again u will miss out on XP goodies i suppose.. and im sure u will miss them...

[vespaman]

XP vs. 95?

XP is way better...professional one though. as m4ch1n3g0d mentioned i like XP because it's stable and it has the features where you see the beautiful of desktops! how many times you have reboot your computer in a day? sometimes it takes me up to 3 weeks w/ out rebooting *kinda slow though*

XP and 2k are nice....but 95? are you kidding me? :D

but everyone have their own perspective and reasons...i respect that... :cool:

[Zombie9920]

ROFLMFAO. Who in thier right mind would make such a ludacris claim like 95 is better than XP? If your computer isn't fast enough to run XP then tough, it is time for an upgrade. A computer that can't run XP well also won't be able to run alot of new software well. The advancement of technology and new software&OSes that take advantage of the better hardware is inevitable.

I for one will never go back to any incarnation of Win9x for the rest of my life. FYI, I've been swearing by the NT kernel since Win2k. Windows XP is what was needed to fill the gap between Win9x's legacy compatability and Win2K's reliability, stability and obviously better GUI. Heck, Win9x couldn't even use fading menu transitions.....how crappy of a GUI is that? Do you want file system security? You won't get it with Win9x because it can only run on an insecure, unstable file system(FAT) whereas WinNT can run on the insecure FAT filesytem or the reliable and secure NTFS. Do you want true multi-tasking support, support for more memory than 512MB, no memory leaks, efficient application memory management, etc.? You aren't going to get it with Win9x. Oh my god...but WinNT has all of that. Do you want to be able to kill a problem causing app without it taking your system down with it(in the form of a lockup or BSOD)? That isn't very likely with Win9x....alas the WinNT management console can do that with no trouble. Do you want to set a password for your account that is actually effective? You can't do that with Win9x(All you have to do in Win9x is press cancel and it will let you on the system as if there was no password there...LOL) but you can with NT. Do you want SMP support? You won't be able to utilize SMP with Win9x, but(you guessed it) WinNT can take advantage of SMP.

Win9x is a pile of steaming crap. I can't believe I actually used to like it. LoL

[reactionary007]

when i wack to internet porn on my windows 95 box, i reach a more fulfilling climax at a faster rate than when i wack to it on xp. we'll see what happens once microsoft releases xp's next spin off Windows xxXP Porno Edition though.

[nl|nighthawk]

Um... reply to the dude above... uh.. yeah; are you sure your all with it right now?? :blink:

Windows XP is alot more stable than Windows 95, theres better Driver Support, Application Support, and Help Services in Windows XP than there is for Windows 95.. if you want to keep using 9x, get Windows 98SE, or Windows Me.. But sooner or later the 9x line will be discontinued and there will be no drivers for new hardware for the 9x family, no new applications.. you may as well just use Windows 3.1 at that point.

Thats my rant for today.

[Zombie9920]

Um... reply to the dude above... uh.. yeah; are you sure your all with it right now?? :blink:

Windows XP is alot more stable than Windows 95, theres better Driver Support, Application Support, and Help Services in Windows XP than there is for Windows 95.. if you want to keep using 9x, get Windows 98SE, or Windows Me.. But sooner or later the 9x line will be discontinued and there will be no drivers for new hardware for the 9x family, no new applications.. you may as well just use Windows 3.1 at that point.

Thats my rant for today.

Heh, if one must use Win9x I think that Win98SE is the best choice. I don't know why someone would want to run Windows ME because it takes away the only thing that Win9x is good for. It takes away the ability to boot to Real Mode DOS easily(it takes a boot disk or a hack for the startup files to get Real Mode DOS in ME). Besides, Windows 98SE is more stable than ME. ;P

[Phil Gates]

thats like trying to install Mac OS 7 on a pentium computer.... absolutly pointless :huh:

[sdkaneda]

[Zombie9920]

http://futureworld.animefringe.com/bsod.gif

LOL. I like that one. ;P

[LonghornXP]

right, I really don't see how the statement that you are using windows ME lends any credibility to your initial argument.

If you are going to dual boot any 9x based OS with XP, go for Win98SE.

For me switching from XP to windows 95 would be like going from Jag to OS9 *shudder*, yes it might be faster but jag is a much more enjoyable computing experience.

I would never use 98se. It is the Sh*t Edition. I have and use Me cause it came with my computer, is a current operating system, and clearly out performs 98se in memory management, support, etc.. Granted Me will BOSD if NOT PROPERLY OPERATED. If you can't get Me to perform at it's best, then don't use it. Stick with 98se or win 3.1.

My using Me was not part of any "argument". Simply that I am saying I do not think 95 is better than XP. Only an idiot would think that I was actually making an argument at all.

Obviously no one realizes any concepts of advertising.

[LonghornXP]

http://futureworld.animefringe.com/bsod.gif

LOL :D :D :D :D :D :D :huh: :blink: :unsure:

[thingsforjason]

"concepts of advertising"?

what what? :blink: :huh: