Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Computers & Website Forum' started by DanielS25, Apr 15, 2002.
What operating system do you use?
Good questions, Dan!
I still haven't found any of the Windows systems that surpasses 98. My Father-in-law has ME and I can't stand it. It is so limiting in what it allows you to see and do. A buddy of mine swears by XP but Margie and I had bought a computer with XP installed and it went back the same day. Even when we went to get a lap top, we still looked for one loaded with 98.
That's how us old folks are - stuck in our ways!
I have windows 2000Professional. It is much more stable that 98. 98 constantly crashed, locked up programs, and caused general problems. It made me think I was using a Macintosh (Most Applications Crash If Not Operating System Hangs).
Hi Pastor Larry -
We actually use 98 SE (second edition). They cleaned up a lot of the problems when they re-released it. I had heard that 2000 was good also but never messed with it. It's more of a business oriented system, isn't it?
We suffered one crash a year ago last December but I just installed 98 over itself and we retained everything! Lucky, eh? Margie asked her Dad for a recordable E drive that year and we backed upi the entire hard drive and then reformatted. I try to keep this thing organized enough that I can reformat at a moments notice.
Other than that, 98SE has been a pretty obedient system for us.
By the way, I have access to the stats for what systems are used when folks hit the site. After the poll runs for a while, I'll paste them here and we can compare.
So far, I'm the lone Win95 dinosaur.
Would you believe that right now, I'm using W 95; BUT I'm waiting on a call from my friendly neighborhood computer service to tell me that my newly built is ready all decked out with W 98 2ed.
This is mixing all of the forbidden topics:
Religion, politics and operating systems.
You think Baptist discussions are hot, just delve into the First Church of the Macintosh or read "The Iniquity of Bill Gates Revealed."
I'm running ME on three machines at home right now, and I like it, especially the ability to restore to a certain point in time. I've heard bad things elsewhere, but I've been very happy and it's the stablest version I've had -- and I go back to 3.1.
I never had 98SE, which may be why I don't have a high opinion of it. It is installed on my machine at work, and it's very tempermental.
BTW, I also use Macs at work; my first one was a Mac II. My first personal computer at home was a 386-SX25 with Digital Research DOS 6. Now that was a good operating system ... the best of the DOS versions available.
And I've also had IBM OS2/Warp and even tried Be OS. Linux, here I come ...
Yeah I'm not too fond of ME either. I didn't see it as a worthwhile upgrade when I had 98 2nd edition. It did have a system restore feature which is really good, but I get what you are saying Clint about it hiding folders and options. That part is lame. They do the same thing to some extent with XP on the C drive when you first open it. 2000 Pro is the most proven stable ms os there has been. XP is based on the same kernel and that is the reason it doesn't crash like 98 or 95 or Me which are based on the Dos kernel and handle memory sharing differently. I love XP. I use linux as well. Although I dislike Mandrake, Redhat is good and Suse I've heard is really good. Hopefully I'll be able to get Debian installed at some point or Slackware. Lycoris is a new version of Linux that could give Microsoft a run for the money. Its a very simple install from what I've heard. The latest Mac OS, OS X, I've heard is really good, but I'm not that familiar with Macs.
I have yet to try Beos. For most businesses I would recommend sticking with Windows 2000 Pro till XP 2nd edition comes out. For home users, go for it. Its good for gamers as long as you're not into 16bit dos games or something. The one thing that I didn't like about 98 was you can't run that many background programs at the same time or it will crash and the same was true for 95 and Me to some extent. XP doesn't really ever crash hardly. In 98 I was used to going into MSconfig and unchecking unnecessary programs so they wouldn't launch at boot. I still do that to some extent with XP, but not because I'm afraid it will crash, but because there are some programs I don't want running all the time. I use 98 2nd edition at work still and I don't know why my company doesn't upgrade. They blame all of the crashes we get on our network. To some extent they are right and they should upgrade it. I think they are operating on a 10g hub. XP also has a great system restore feature as well by the way. You really get the stability of 2000 Pro in XP with added features.
Well, we went from 98 to ME partly because of the good price offered at the time.
I'd like to go to XP or 2000, but the price isn't right. Right now, you can buy a good used computer for a little bit more than the cost of the software upgrade.
Believe it or not, I can get XP from a University bookstore for $30. Of course you can also get a cracked version on the web, but I prefer the legit copy.
I'm using Windows 98, but I'm getting ready to add Linux along with it for a little so I can decide if I want to use it for another computer.
Windows 98... I'm one of the old folk... Ifin it taint broke!... Don't fix it!... Brother Glen
Well, Glen, I knew if I were diligent for a long enough period of time, I would be able to prove that I'm more of a "primitive" Baptist than you - I'm using Windows 95.
Some may be surprised, but sometimes I take calls from people that actually still have windows 3.1. Windows 95 is really going the way of 3.1 though in that more and more applications are coming out that won't work with it. The latest version of internet explorer is one example. America Online 7.0 is supposed to work with it, but to be honest it may only work for a while if you don't have all of the updated dial up networking components and windows updates for 95. My guess is the next version of aol may not be supported on 95 at all. 95 can also be limiting in other respects. You can't really run that many programs in the background. It doesn't have a system configuration utility either which is not so great.
My son is building me a system using Windows 2000+ with all the Office and Publishing add ons (whatever that is). I was on top of everything in the computer field in 1986 when I built an 8088 with my high school-aged sons.
Now? Fossil comes to mind!
Windows 2000 Pro is a great system. You should enjoy it. It really has the best track record of all of microsoft's operating systems to date.
I took my first programming class in '77. Basic & basic +. I would sit in my leisure suit, with Peter Frampton playing in the background, typing...
if input a < input b then go to 25
if input a > input b then go to 30
if input a = input b then go to 10
let c = a/b
Now I use Windows 2000 on my PC. I have Unix programs at work, also some of the older equipment here uses DOS. At the Y2K thingy, our DOS programs moved the date to 1999 to 19100. We still haven't bothered to fix it.
I, too, believe that 98 is the most stable of all OSs I used. I personally see no need to upgrade, in fact, I downgraded one of my laptops to 98
However, keep in mind that Microsoft is in business to make money. MS will only make money if they can sell people on the need of new OS every few years. XP is not the end of the line
Okay guys -
For comparison, since the founding of the current Baptist Board, a little over a year ago, here are the stats on operating systems:
66.24% Windows 98
14.92% Windows 2000
08.35% Windows 95
05.84% Windows NT
00.92% MacOS (PowerPC)
00.50% Unknown Platform
00.49% Windows 95/98/NT (unspecified)
00.40% E-Mail Harvester
00.15% Offline Browser
00.05% Windows 3.1
00.02% Link Checker
00.01% Unix/Linux (unspecified)
00.01% Windows XP
I personally can't stand ME and my laptop has not worked right since I upgraded from 98 to 98 2nd ed.