Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Win 95 or XP?

i have 2000 and everythings cool with me, youre safe with 98 too cause that goes with a lotta programs and what not.

i have a friend who has XP and she gets frustrated since some things are not as compatible, and things are weird and different for her.

then this one guy i believe he had XP too and some camera he got didn't work with XP so he gave it to me haha

i think you should get more RAM hehe

I have two pretty good computers, one has 2000 and one has XP. I think 2000 is a bit faster but certainly more stable than XP.

As to your situation...get XP, and buy another 128MB of RAM. RAM is cheap these days, and you'll benefit from it with almost every program you use.

I would choose XP. I haven't had any problems on any computer I've installed on it, and since I'm an aging geek....my patience for getting hardware drivers is dwindling. There have been only a handful of software(s) that wouldn't work with XP for me....most were old and out of date anyway, and the others...mainly tied to my cd burner, for, uh, software piracy I have windows 98 on a seperate partition should I need to use those. 128mb will get you by. 256 is optimal, however, if you want to boost your windows xp performance go to www.blkviper.com, follow his how to on disabling useless system services and freeing up memory! Oh, and get windows xp professional, it supports dual CPU's as well as lots of win2k/server stuff, just a better version.

XP runs fine on 128 ram... still has some compatibily probs to be worked out... when i use kazaa i can't type in IE cuz it shuts IE down... can't run most older games

Go with XP, that's why I gave it to you. 2000 would be my next step down. I think they both run better than 98.

At home I have 2000 Advanced Server, 2 XP boxes and a 98 machine. I prefer the 2000 and XP. XP runs well on my laptop too, thats what I would go with.

Am I the only one that like Windows ME? I upgraded from 98 the ME and like it alot better.

Although the question was between Win 95/98 and XP, let me just say, for those who love Win 2000, that neither I nor our techhies at work can get my Dell laptop, with Win 2000, to work with my Compuserve software (something about a security issue that won't allow Win 2000 to send a user id and password at the same time). So, yes, Win 2000 is a great, stable operating system, with the small problem that it doesn't work....

The bottom line is that none of the current operating systems is really that good. Steve Wozniak, long ago, when asked if PC's had gotten to the point where they were as easy to use as any other household appliance, is credited with the quote "well...you don't see too many Maytag users' groups"

Yeah I think so because I hate ME and I am glad we do not have to use it at work and I will not use it at home (yes I have tried it but it was slower5 than 98SE on the same machine and nothing I saw was any better with it than 98se)

XP may feel bigger, but it manages resources much better than the 9x predecessors. I benchmarked three old P2/266's at work, each with 64 megs of ram. I don't remember the numbers, but with minimal installs, XP was the fastest, 95OSR2 in the middle, and NT4 at the bottom.

I might mention that the boot times were in the same order, XP being the fastest. XP also runs on the newer NT core, and not the shotty old w32 core that has taken way too long to die. The IP stack is also taken from it's NT brethren.

One of my goals is to find the slowest machine that I can get XP to run on. So far an ancient 166 at work (48mb ram) has been it.

ME is the worst OS microsoft has ever delivered. It's said to be 93TE (third edition) because it was such a lackluster upgrade (downgrade?). If I had to run any OS from the 32-bit Microsoft corral, ME would be my last choice.