EggXpert.com

Feel free to tell us why you voted for a specific Operating System and what your experiences have been with other Operating Systems.

I voted windows 2000, dont get me wrong it is slightly outdated but a solid operating system none the less.  I remember running my 2000 machine for 8 months without a reboot, we were using it as a file server and occasional unreal tournament server also used it as a Emperor battle for dune server.

I also like XP almost just as much but have had many more little things on the OS that bugged me. lots more bluescreens

Found XP better for gaming.

Vista is the worse gaming OS yet. Hope they fix this.

Different Operating Systems are used for different things but I am assuming you are meaning simple every day use (Word, Surfing internet etc). I would have to put my vote down for XP.

defiledfrog:

I voted windows 2000, dont get me wrong it is slightly outdated but a solid operating system none the less.  I remember running my 2000 machine for 8 months without a reboot, we were using it as a file server and occasional unreal tournament server also used it as a Emperor battle for dune server.

I also like XP almost just as much but have had many more little things on the OS that bugged me. lots more bluescreens

 

If I'm not mistaken, XP & Win 2k is based on the same kernel so they should remain fairly similar minus the GUI. Then again, I've been out of the PC loop since my senior year in high school 4 yrs ago....  

aZTEK:

defiledfrog:

I voted windows 2000, dont get me wrong it is slightly outdated but a solid operating system none the less.  I remember running my 2000 machine for 8 months without a reboot, we were using it as a file server and occasional unreal tournament server also used it as a Emperor battle for dune server.

I also like XP almost just as much but have had many more little things on the OS that bugged me. lots more bluescreens

 

If I'm not mistaken, XP & Win 2k is based on the same kernel so they should remain fairly similar minus the GUI. Then again, I've been out of the PC loop since my senior year in high school 4 yrs ago....  

Windows 2000 was very stable when XP came out and XP was not as stable is what i am trying to say. I do agree with you they are very similar and the GUI on windows 2k was quite ugly compared to the visual style of XP but again XP not so stable until SP2.  Have had alot more bsod's with XP than 2000

Hi,

My vote goes to Windows 2000.. 2000pro actually, I ran that os with hardly a hiccup for a long time, In fact when I first got a pc with XP on it, I had so many problems I reverted back to 2000pro. I only just in March switched over to XP again and I still say 2000pro was better, its just XP supports some apps I run that 2000pro does not, so Im stuck.

---

I find XP is the best Windows operating system for several reasons:

1. can run on low end hardware (300MHz w/ 64MB)
   
2. driver maturity and support
   
3. software compatibility
4. extended support thru 2014
5. better for gaming (at the present time)
6. lack of DRM
   

Vista isn't over or under rated IMO. The people that want or know they 'need' it have switched by now. I'm more concerned with the XP and Vista 64-bit than I am about the 32-bit. Right now, the 64-bit support and drivers are very poorly done and nonexistent for some hardware, and that's a huge problem for a lot of enthusiasts. Microsoft is dragging their feet developing 64-bit apps, and it's no wonder the industry is doing the same.

From a technical standpoint, I'm curious as to how many people complaining about Vista have really used it. I don't like a lot of the things that people complain about, but it's possible to disable UAC, set your desktop to classic, and dump the Aero experience. The hardware requirements aren't as friendly as 2K/XP so be prepared to have have at least 1GHz w/ 1GB of memory at a bare minimum. Optimal would be somewhere around 2GHz w/ 2GB of memory. This means that a lot of people are going to have to spend several hundred dollars to upgrade from 2K/XP to Vista. The costs associated with the upgrade doesn't net a lot of return on investment for the casual user.

Vista all the way!

 As a power user, the benefits that Vista brings to the table are undeniable.  The search and sidebar are super nice.  Media Center rocks.  The GUI is very pleasant- nice when you use it a lot.  For the most part, Vista is very stable.  I've only had one crash and I've been using it since the beginning.  Drivers were no problem for me, but there were no TV tuner drivers for an install I did one a one year old Sony VIAO desktop.

Picture Gallery and DVD maker are good for beginners.  Picture gallery especially is pretty good if you don't know much, but there are better things out there.

Overall, I think Microsoft did a great job on their new OS.  I have been using XP for around 4 years, so I was eager for a new OS.  I did a clean install on my PC and never looked back.  It's that good.

Why would anybody in there right mind use Windows. Once you get a good dose of Linux (which is free), you WILL NOT go back. Linux uses a LOT less system resources, so you can run more things on there. And for people that Still want to use them goo' ol' exe files, download wine for linux. Works like a carm (even for office).

So pay $200 for something that crashes every other month or $0 for a system saving software?

 It's up to you ...
 

$200? 

Premium runs $111.95 on Newegg.  That's a big difference.

Plus, the best distros of Linux (from what I hear, Xandros) aren't free either.  Also, there are loads of driver issues with Linux, even Ubuntu.  With Vista or XP, you pop in the disk, install, and you've got a fully functioning system right away that can play DVDs, music, right out of the box.

 For your price of $200, you could by Vista Home Premium AND Xandros.  Not a bad combo.

I use Ubuntu and I have never had a driver problem, and it is free, and it has weekly updates. And I was referring to the FULL retail version of Windows XP HOME. And to be exact (with shipping) it cost $204.98. And for a new home user ... I know that nobody in their right mind would buy that, but that is what you have to buy if you go to Best Buy and you don't want to spend $500 on Vista Ultimate (most people do go there) and I just looked up Windows Vista:

Microsoft Windows Vista 32-Bit Ultimate for System Builders Single Pack DVD - OEM - $189.99 + 4.99 ($194.98) ($5 off,. ok)

- Item#:N82E16832116213

What about servers? Microsoft has not released a Vista Server to the public. Only to the big guys that buy in mass.

So you need a web server, or DNS server ... . You either have to spend $2500+ on Microsoft Server 2003 enterprise or 15 minutes waiting for ubuntu server edition to download.

 ....
 

I dual-boot XP Pro and Kubuntu, but I gotta say I prefer Kubuntu, overall.  I love being able to download and install apps so easily, and support for a big variety of multimedia formats is available in most of the default repositories.  I never worry about viruses or data corruption and even if I have to do a clean install on my root partition for an upgrade, I can identify my home partition and retain most of my config.  I also like the control and opportunity to fine-tune or simply spruce up the GUI, plus the support at ubuntu forums has been excellent.

XP Pro still gets my vote for gaming, though!  Plus there is a nice level of dependability and little need for maintenance since I installed a 32-bit version of XP Pro and a 64-bit version of Kubuntu.  The combination allows me a nice level of safe experimentation. 

etechship:

What about servers? Microsoft has not released a Vista Server to the public. Only to the big guys that buy in mass.

So you need a web server, or DNS server ... . You either have to spend $2500+ on Microsoft Server 2003 enterprise or 15 minutes waiting for ubuntu server edition to download.

 ....
 

What?

Windows Server 2003 Web Edition is ~$300, and far more stable with a far lower learning curve than any linux distribution out there.  Don't get me wrong, I'm using a linux-based PBX for my phone system, but I have web servers with over 350 days of uptime running Windows 2000 Server.  This Vista Server of which you speak is not ready to be released yet.  That's why we don't have it.

That said, Windows Server 2003 Standard, the OS that's used in probably 95% of all Windows Server deployments, is only ~$750.  For ease of use and reliability, I'll take that over any Linux distribution.

Linux is a nice toy, but it doesn't get you very far in the real world.

By the way, why do people think that if it isn't available on Newegg, it's not available at all?

Voted for XP, a lot more stable then Vista as of right now. API in vista is not as stable as people would have hoped. Manufactures are rushing to get this OS more stable and operable with in 2008. And DX10 in Vista need a overhaul.

As for the comment on servers there will be one in 2008. BTW this is really "Longhorn" now called server 2008.

---