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

TerryinMD · Oct 20, 2001

Yes, that is what MS is basically recommending for XP.

However, no matter what version of Windows you are running, the more memory you have - the better. The difference between running 128MB vs 256MB is very obvious. Nowdays, you can buy 128MB SDRAM for $29-39. That's cheap.

I have an 800mh PIII with 256MB and XP loads and is ready to go in a minute or so (to the login screen). Much faster than ME.

[Soapbox]

Todays programmers are lazy!!!! They take the easy way out because they figure that hardware is cheap and you can just add more resources. Why optimize code!!! They forget that most people just want their machines to work and not have to fuss to make them work effeciently.

[Off soapbox]

Terry

scruffy · Oct 20, 2001

Memory....Windows versions are limited. ME runs into problems normally at anything over 512mb RAM memory installed, although I have an AMD 850mhz with 640mb ram running, and a like machine (both using KT7 Pro 2A M/B's) running WIN98 SE SP1 using 640mb ram memory also. The general rule is you will start getting out of memory errors over the 512MB mark. The limitation comes in when the config program will ONLY let you enter 999MB...no matter what your mainboard will support. Windows pukes on the higher amounts of RAM.
Linux will run 64gigabytes ram before you have to modify the kernel....once software gets ported for it, which do YOU think will be the better O/S for heavy hitting CAD programs etc.?

JayC · Oct 20, 2001

More RAM is always a nice thing. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif But, if you get too much RAM that could lead to hardware/software conflicts. That is one thing about alot of RAM that troubles me. Actually, that is the one thing that bothers me about any hardware upgrade. I just replaced my modem about a month ago already. Had a hard choice to make in choosing the right modem. Luckily the one I got works rather well...so far.

GlueGuy · Oct 20, 2001

Glenmac,

Been sitting this one out. See there is the usual diversity of opinion here at TBN.

If I were buying a new machine today, I'd probably just get it with XP. Contrary to what some have said, it is probably the most secure and stable version of Windows ever produced. I've used Windows NT/2000 since it was a public beta way back when. Even the early versions were (generally) better than OS/2 at the time.

If you get a new machine with it installed, you should not even have to do the system registration, as all machines getting it installed at the factory should have it pre-registered.

Be careful about getting a machine with Win9x (including ME). There is no guarantee of it being upgradable to XP unless you do a lot of homework checking it out before hand.

The GlueGuy

scruffy · Oct 20, 2001

GlueGuy, I have no problems at all with your statement that XP is a stable platform....not a one! I do have a problem with the fact that it is ALSO a seive! It is a hackers dream. I have three machines capable of running XP, but not a one of them will ever see it. WINME is a joke, the antithesis of XP's stability. 98 SE, while not a GREAT O/S, is much more stable than ME ever dreamed. It is also more secure, but ANY windows O/S needs a firewall to tighten it up, PARTICULARLY XP!
I am openly against the M$ O/S's and their policies. I make no bones about that....but each to his own.

GlueGuy · Oct 21, 2001

Scruffy,

We couldn't disagree more on the security of 98se versus XP. 98se has virtually no protections whatsoever. XP is by no means perfect, but it is at least an order of magnitude better than 98se.

If you want an OS that is safer, go to OS/X, or NSK. Obscurity is the safer place to be; not enough targets; too hard to find expertise.

The GlueGuy

scruffy · Oct 21, 2001

One of many such concerns:
Windows XP Home Edition
Must be Made More Secure

Page last modified: Aug 31, 2001 at 14:37 by Steve Gibson

TechTV asked me to briefly explain my concerns
about Windows XP and its threatened support
for unrestricted full raw sockets.

Playing Time: 4 min. (See Media page for help)

WMV Video: 6.7 MB MP3 Audio: 0.9 MB
(Right Click on the link to SAVE the file before viewing.)

I believe that Microsoft and I have been locked
in a misunderstanding. But it is one that is too
important to ignore . . . and not too late to fix!

Due to a misunderstanding right from the start, Microsoft and I have been talking about different issues relating to raw sockets: I have been saying that raw sockets are not necessary and are dangerous, while Microsoft has been saying that they are necessary and are no more dangerous than alternatives.

Each of us, from our perspective, has been
correct, but we have been talking about
different aspects of raw sockets.
I have been talking about USER access to raw sockets being dangerous and unnecessary, while Microsoft has been talking about SYSTEM access to raw sockets being necessary, and no more dangerous than other networking technologies available in the system.

What's so odd about this . . . is that we agree with each other!

Please take a look at this page containing excerpts from Microsoft's own current web pages explaining how all access to raw sockets is deliberately restricted to administrative users.

It is clear that raw sockets are not necessary for typical personal computer users, and that Microsoft themselves never intended common users to have them. This is in keeping with traditional industry-wide support for the Berkeley raw socket interface.

Ask yourself this: If the raw socket interface, originated at U.C. Berkeley 20 years ago, were not a security risk for users, for systems, and for the Internet, then WHY has this interface always been restricted from casual use everywhere it has ever appeared?

I have NO PROBLEM with RESTRICTED access to the raw socket interface, and no problem with the SYSTEM having access to the interface. That is traditionally what has always been done on Unix, Linux, and similar systems and, as we have seen on Microsoft's own pages, in Windows.

But HERE is what has suddenly changed:

Under the Home Edition of Windows XP,
ALL users are Administrators by default.
Microsoft's reasons for doing this are clear, reasonable, and understandable: Many Windows 9x/ME legacy applications would fail to operate within an environment that suddenly imposes security restrictions. Microsoft's solution to this for Windows XP has been to run all users in the system as administrators.

For much more detailed information of the problem, read the article at: http://http://grc.com/dos/winxp.htm As previously stated, there are many such reviews on different techie boards. All pointing to the fact of XP's being an open portal to your computer. While some may maintain XP's security is the best since..... I will not take that stance, until this area at least is taken out of XP common user access.

Edited by scruffy on 10/21/01 11:53 AM (server time).

MossRoad · Oct 21, 2001

It seems if I wait a while, I can get machines with XP.

It seems if you wait a while you will only get machines with XP. We attempted to purchase 2000 Professional at my office last week and were told Microsoft is pulling it from the shelves in order to force all into XP. Has anyone else heard this?

 MossRoad

MikePA · Oct 21, 2001

Yep, I heard the same thing. I just bought 2 desktops from Gateway for my church and it took a while rooting through their site to find ones that came with Win2K.

gws · Oct 22, 2001

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 · Oct 22, 2001

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

MossRoad · Oct 22, 2001

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.

 MossRoad

Alan L. · Oct 22, 2001

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 · Oct 22, 2001

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

MossRoad · Oct 22, 2001

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?)

 MossRoad

scruffy · Oct 22, 2001

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 · Oct 22, 2001

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