Windows--98, 2000, ME, XP???

[gws]

If you want to save yourself a lot of troubles go with win98. Its what most people have, what most software is written to.
Skip ME, its just a half baked idea.
win2000 is ok, but for the average joe, just adds some complexity that really doesnt matter.
XP, find out which version your going to get. There are at least 4 levels of XP available.

Your MS apps will run on all the same, your digital camera will most like be support on all platforms.
If your using a camera, then you will be using some graphics editor in time.

As for having differnt drivers for win98 vs win2k. It should, not that thats bad or anything.

Your not going to be boxing yourself in regardless with what you get. Figure your laptop will old, underpowered and on the verge of being usuless in 3-5 years. In that time, win98,win2000 and XP will have changed and you will get something new when its time.

Overall, for the average Joe, win98 is still the best to go.

Gary.

 

[MikePA]

After reading through all the responses, I think you've received recommendations to run each of the operating systems. /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif

 

[MossRoad]

There you go, install DOS 6.22, Win98 and Win2000 and throw on Linux for good measure. You can then boot to any system and all of us will be satisfied, except you, who will be sorry for asking. Just kidding. In my humble opinion, Win98 is fine for most people and is an excellent gaming platform. There are bazillions of programs that it will run and drivers for most hardware. Stay away from ME. Win 2000 Pro is an excellent laptop platform. It can be cranked down for very good security. Win 2000 has specific harware requirements and will not work with lots of older hardware but should not be a problem with a new laptop. Don't know about XP. I would by Win 2000 Pro if you aren't going to be a big gamer(laptop graphics for gaming aren't usually the greatest anyway). It is a very good office platform. Hope this helps.

<font color=green> MossRoad </font color=green>

 

[Alan L.]

If you really want nightmares go with Linux. I have lost half my hair farting with it, to no successful end. Its not end-user friendly at all. Easy for a pro like Scruffy, but not for you and me.

2000 is an upgrade from NT and is relatively stable they say. ME is an upgrade of 98. We have one copy of it and I don't like it.

Everything I read about XP is good. It supposedly has the stability of NT/2000 with the large database of drivers for hardware support of 98 and ME. NT, 2000, and XP are supposed to be more stable because they don't allow poorly written programs to bring the whole system down. With XP, if you do any major changes to your computer you supposedly just have to call Microsoft and they will give you a new code at no charge. This bothers me, as a Microsoft tech can give the code or deny it at his whim. I don't trust them myself, but the next machines we have planned for next spring will have XP and we will take our chances.

I would use 2000 or XP as they are more stable than 98 or ME, BUT you should check and make sure everything you need to do is supported. Some games and DOS programs won't run under these systems. Sounds to me like 2000 or XP would both work for you. Between XP Home Edition and XP Professional, I'm still not sure what the difference is, but it probabaly has to do with gaming capabilities.

Alan L., TX

 

[MikePA]

I am fond of saying, "Linux is free if you don't value your time." /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif

 

[MossRoad]

May I quote you on that? We have some young pups that are just itching to use Linux. I was a UNIX guy for many years. The only UNIX guy. No one else to support me in house or even locally. Now most of our systems are NT based, all have similar directory structures, the support base is huge and there is training readily available. Local classes. Microsoft Tech Net reference. Just tons of support and information. Hey, I hate Microlimp and all they stand for. Their operating systems are big pigs and work through brute force rather than competent programming. But they have made my life easier and I would never go back to where we were several years ago. (where's that fife and drum music coming from?)

<font color=green> MossRoad </font color=green>

 

[scruffy]

Linux up until just recently could be and was a pain in the rump....it helped to have a unix background, BUT LINUX/MANDRAKE V8.1 is geared for the Windows CrossOver user! The new manual, install, etc, is a breeze to use, and it is written for that Windows Migrant that wishes to go for a quality O/S. It has a windows type interface, (KDE) that is easy to use. Of course, you can also drop down to a command prompt and work from the command line, but I wouldn't recommend that for most people. Is it better than RedHat? I think so. One of the major improvements, is the fact that someone got their head out of their backsides and wrote the use manual for the migrants that have no knowledge of Linux. IBM is now offering ONLY linux for their servers, and later this year, I think you will see that transition apply to desktops. The U.S.Navy is doing a transition to Linux, and many other corporate/govt agencies will slowly start moving into it also.
Me a Pro? Nah. Y'all must be thinkin' of someone else.

 

[MikePA]

Permission is granted to quote.

While I currently support WindowsNT and Windows2000 servers, I used to have responsibility for Unix servers. We run AIX and Solaris and someone somewhere thought Linux would be a good idea. I donated an old Compaq server for them to experiment on with a copy of SUSE Linux, the same Linux IBM runs on their mainframes. SUSE Linux did not recognize the SCSI array controller and they could not get it to install until the card was removed and the on board SCSI controller was used. Then they get to emulate mirroring and RAID5 in software. Makes sense to me! /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif

 

[MossRoad]

Who gets this?

rm -rf /bin/laden



<font color=green> MossRoad </font color=green>

 

[MikePA]

Nothing if laden isn't a file or directory.
Obliterates it if it is there.