On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:52:03 -0700, Jim Dewar wrote:
>unless you are running marginal hardware, ie: less than P1-100,
>win98SE should be a better choice among the evils out there.
>
>win98 first edition, was notoriously unstable, a lot more than
>win95b.
>win98 Second Edition was generally very good (as far as windows
>goes).
>
>if you need firewire, try it with win98se.
>can't say as i recommend ME or W2K or even XP.
>either home or pro editions on xp or w2k.
>although i would pick xp over w2k given those as the only
>choices.
>my experience with w2k was not favorable - read that: A BIG
>PIECE OF S&^%T!!
>the only problem i have with xp (other than it's winblows) is
>that it doesn't support old hardware as the drivers are
>different (again).
>
>anyways, my two cents worth.
>

I'd generally agree, except about Win2K. Spanning over about 100
workstation Win2K Pro installs, I've had very little trouble=
 with
Win2K (yes, including Firewire/IEEE 1394).

If you have better than a 450 MHz CPU (PIII/Athlon class) and at
least 256MB of memory then I'd recommend Win2K for any kind of
professional/heavy duty use. Any of the NT core Windows OS's are
MUCH more stable than the Win9x versions. Their multitasking and
system resource management is an order of magnitude better.

I can't say as I'd recommend WinXP (although if it's your only
choice vs. Win98SE, then I'd consider it). I haven't seen much=
 it
does that Win2K doesn't already do -- other than being a little
"prettier" and running games better. Win2K has been out longer
and most all the bugs are shaken out of it. Win2K also does not
come with the onerous Microsoft EULA and product activation
scheme, as well as the boatload of "phone home" software=
 embedded
in WinXP.

My 2=A2 added to yours... ;-)

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics