I’m currently running WinME and, due to stability problems, want to change (please do not recommend Linux).
I’ve heard of the nightmares of using XP Home. Since Microsoft is no longer supporting older OS’s, I figured the sooner I change over, the better off I’ll be in the future.
So, what are the primary (dis)advantages of these:
Win2K
WinXP-Home
WinXP-Professional
Also, when converting to one of the above, do I need to get the full version or can I get the upgrade?
I’d go with Windows XP Home. Back when I had a Windows computer I had no problems with it. As a home user, you’d get no use out of the extra features you’d pay $100 for in XP Pro. Windows XP isn’t very good, but its still the best OS Microsoft has ever shipped, and it should do ya pretty well.
What’s wrong with Linux?
I ask merely for information.
Isn’t this really more of an IMHO question?
Anyway the bottom line is that if you have the horsepower simply switch over to XP Home. XP Pro (typically) is not really necessary unless you are connecting to an NT domain on a large system with it’s own NT server. This is typically only a consideration in large, distributed corporate or academic networks that you would be logging onto the domain of. XP Home is essentially the same as XP Pro for 95% of whatever a home user would be doing. There are a few additional networking and drive mirroring toys in XP Pro but these are of limited utility for most home users.
Although the share essentially the same OS kernel Win2K is not as well supported (driverwise) as XP for gaming, multi-media and home uses and XP has a nicer interface.
I’m not really sure what you mean by “nightmares”. XP is leagues more stable than 98/ME. If you have a load of older 16 bit apps XP may well refuse to install or run them until you upgrade to the 32 bit versions. I had to do this with Winfax, WordPerfect and Photoshop on my system when upgrading. If you run DOS apps you might also want to stick with Win 98 or lower as XP and DOS are not best buds.
As to hardware to run XP with any degree of smooth functionality you really shoud have a minimum 700 mhz - 1 gig + CPU , 20-30 gigs of drive space and 128-256 megs RAM.
Compared to what? What other OS shames XP by virtue of it’s superior power, ease of use and functionality for the majority of home users? Just curious.
I must admit that while XP is very good in some respects and doesn’t crash as a whole as much as my ME used to do, it is completely and utterly useless when an application does crash. With the magic Ctrl-Alt-Del I could always close something down in ME, now in XP 4 times out of 5 it doesn’t do a thing. Very, very frustrating
I’ve run XP on a 350 Mhz, with 256 MB of RAM, 8 Gig harddrive space and not had any problems. Currently I run it on 450 Mhz, 256 RAM, and 8 Gig harddrive space just fine.
I don’t do much gaming on this machine though. That, certainly, would not run as smoothly. 
I’ve been using Windows in various forms for over 10 years now and I’m not interested in having to re-learn everything.
I didn’t think so, but I’ve seen way too many OS wars, so I put it here. At least here, the various pros and cons can be discussed without anyone stepping over the line.
I’ve seen otherwise sane people lose it when their software won’t run AND there’s no upgrade. Speaking of which, what would I be able to do if my software is not upgradable? I thought about adding a second harddrive and running a dual-boot system.
My computer is capable, I believe - AMD 1.2 Ghz Athlon w.128Mb memory (which I plan to max out to 512Mb)
If you have truly mission critical 16 bit apps that cannot be upgraded or replaced with equally (or more) functional 32 bit XP compatible versions, then you are really better of sticking with 98SE or ME. It’s important to understand that XP is not a true “upgrade” to 95/98/ME in the sense that MS presented windows upgrades in the past. Despite desktop and interface similarities, internal OS structure wise XP is a completely and utterly different animal from past 16 bit windows implementations, and while it can try to run 16 bit apps unless you are willing to say goodbye to a lot of old 8/16 bit software then XP is not your best bet.
How do I tell if my apps are 16- or 32-bit?
As someone who has done a large migration before where all of these have been mixed up together, I favor W2K.
ME is the last of the 9x OSes and is a buggy mess. Avoid it at all costs.
W2K is very stable and secure - as long as it is installed on a NTFS partition. Why people insist on keeping FAT32 with W2K, I don’t know, it eliminates all of the security advantages of NTFS - and that’s the sole reason to install the friggin’ OS in the first place.
XP Home is a pretty, network-light version of W2K. XP Pro is the same thing with the networking power of W2K pro. In my experience both versions of XP are slightly less stable than trusty W2K Pro, but everyone is writing their drivers and such with XP in mind these days. So I’d advise either flavor of XP.
Windows 98 still has some use for gamers as it agruably runs some games faster. But it lacks NTFS, and while less notoriousl y bug-ridden than ME, it’ll still crash for no good reason just like 95 loved to do. All the Windows machines I own run W2K or XP Pro.
XP will tell you during install by testing the app. For general information without installing see…
OS.X
Hey—I recommend XP Pro, simply because that’s what is on my PC right now. My PC Geek advisor recommended Pro over Home. Even though he knows I won’t be doing any complicated high-end networking. He just likes it better, and since I trust his opinion (he’s very knowledgeable), I went with XP Pro. And so far, I prefer it over any other Windows OS I have ever used.
As a matter of fact, my sister is still struggling with Windows 98 and I am her default tech support. She complains about this and that, and I usually blame the problem on Windows 98. Because it’s usually the fault of Windows 98! 
I am trying to convince her to get XP Pro.
But, with all that said, I agree with spectrum. Since I have a choice (having both Mac and PC) I prefer OS X. OS 10.2 Jaguar, to be more specific. Today I was working on both systems, and while I still prefer XP over 98, 95, 3.1, etc., it just doesn’t compare to OS X. Just my opinion—and not really relevant to a person who is seeking to upgrade the OS on their Intel-based PC.
I’ve not used XP Home, but from I’ve read here, it’s not as stable as XP Pro. If you ditch the Play-Skool interface, it’s as good an OS as MS has put out. I’ve used W2K, and prefer it to XP Pro (it’s smaller and seems to run faster), but because of certain hardware considerations I have to run XP Pro.
Fair enough, but it isn’t as if it would be difficult. There exist many, many books designed specifically to help someone in exactly your position (skilled Microsoft user) migrate to Linux. Most of them come with a full Linux distro ready to install.
The jihad continues whether or not people want, ask, or need it.
You’re as obnoxious as the fundies.
:rolleyes:
…and the Beta fans said the same about VHS.