Whistler vs Win 2000 vs Win ME vs Win 98SE

[Chipmunk 0]

Which O/S is gonna be best for games?

Which O/S is gonna be best for business & stability?

What is Whistler's best used for?

Voice all your comments!

[jdulmage 0]

......oh great, here comes another war....I better not even comment, but I will..

 

As of 2001:

 

Best OS for games: Whistler Personal without a shadow of a doubt.

 

Best OS ofr business & stability: Can't say much for the stable side, Whistler is rock solid, and for those of you that are having problems with it, i'm sure that'll change. So really, any of the ones you listed would be fine, except 98SE and probably millennium too

 

Business wise, get Whistler Professional or if you have to, stay with Win2k Professional.

 

Whistler will be best used for home users that want the power and stability of NT combined with the compatibility, features, and such of 9x with new gui features, and major customization. In other words, something that most of us have wanted for awhile now.

 

But above all, my choice for 2001, will be Whistler Personal and that is what i'm sticking to and that's what i'm getting when it's finished.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 17 November 2000).]

[ThC 129 0]

Im gonna have to agree with jdulmage, except on the flavor of whistler. I like and use professional because of IIS included in it. The FTP server for IIS is top notch and the best one ive used for a while now. Also if your going the SMP route then Pro is better. Only minus i have with whistler is that your going to need at least 128 megs (probably 192 or more) of RAM. Otherwise whistler is is going to be the best for everything. Its already starting to work it way up the king of OSes ladder and its only beta 1 right now.

[jdulmage 0]

yeah, but my cousin runs it on 64 MB of RAM and it's still fast even with the GUI enchancments on. I think it'll start to handle RAM better anyways

[SHS 0]

Whistler vs Win 2000 vs Win ME vs Win 98SE

None of them.

You went Speed & Stability "OK all most hehe"

Windows95OSR2 was the best MS OS there ever was................ only thing is that some of newer hardware don't work hehe.

 

 

[This message has been edited by SHS (edited 18 November 2000).]

[jdulmage 0]

Windows 95 eh? go ahead, run it, i'll be able to WinNuke you, crash you, attack port 139, all remotely because the security sucks. Then while your at it, run a server, watch it crash in 48 days or whatever it is from non-stop running. Not to mention that there is nothing in it, it's just Windows 3.11 with a new GUI slapped on top of it. I use it on my 486, that's about it.

[SHS 0]

That was Win95 & Win95a not Win95b better know as Win95OSR2

[jdulmage 0]

oh really? I have OSR2 installed on my other machine and I winnuked it very fast. But anyways, I don't care, i'm moving to .NET, and leaving this crap behind me, lol

[ThC 129 0]

Linux!!! Just whine your games to run on it

[jdulmage 0]

*snicker*...

 

now there's an example of something that is going down before it even got up.

[SHS 0]

That just my opinion jdulmage as far all pure Windows gameing OS gose, OLD & NEW Game, as far as best OS & must stability & security OS that BeOS or QNX how ever not very good at 3D gameing at this time.

As far as Whistler's gose it gonna be better for games & multimedia & business & stability & security much more then Windows2000 is.

How ever the system requirements are should be lot higher then Windows2000.

MS is say this

133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.

64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves responsiveness.

2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space.

Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems.

We all know this is B.S.

Win should been this

450 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves responsiveness.

4GB hard disk with a minimum of 1GB of free space.

Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems.

[DosFreak 2]

I like the way MS lists their specs. It's more realistic to the product. It lists what the OS requires. Not the optimal configuration.

 

Windows 2000 runs fine on a P200 with 96m of ram. Stable as heck. Good for writing letters or surfinf the net.

[jdulmage 0]

I understand SHS, believe me, that makes perfect sense. Except that somebody I know is running Whistler right now on 64 MB RAM, 233 Mhz, 8.4 GB drive, 8 MB Video Card. It's running smooth as any other OS he has ran. So those system requirements may be a little crazy for some, but perfect for others.

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 18 November 2000).]

[Intlharvester 0]

SHS: Just as a datapoint, I had Win2000 on my olde Pentium 133/112MB/SCSI-2 system and it was no slower than NT4-SP6 with ActiveDesktop. (The box is now repurposed as a linux mail server.)

 

Other than a monsterous boottime (made worse by EISA detection and a slow memory count), the machine was perfectly usable for web/mail/MSOffice. So, unlike in the past, I don't think MS is that off in the specs, although it's true that you can sorta make up for a slow disk and minimal memory with a faster CPU.

[Gambler FEX online 0]

I managed to install win2k in a 486 with 24 MB ram

 

Win2k with SP 1 and something geforce is the best if you have strong computer and lots of ram. When whistler is out, that sure is.

 

I agree with SHS, my experience with Win95 OSR2 vs win98/se/me is it is indeed more stable. But that is just a litte, win2k and NT is so much more stable, anyway using word "stable" with win9x in same sentence should be not allowed!

 

If you use more than one program at once and have newer hardware my experience is it's almost impossible to sit there witouth the feeling "it crashes every second now, Im sure, any minute now, right after this click"

 

Did I tell you about yesterday when I installed win98 (again) over winME? I couldn't in the first place because the win98 setup.exe file was not a "valid win32 exec" or something. But the setup.exe file from win95 (yes osr2) did run! Ok so I installed win95b first then, after it was done and ready for first boot I got BSOD hehehe.

 

I just booted to DOS (impossible in winME) and deleted c:\windows and program files, then I started win98 install wow it started super I can install it OK. So I did and got it up and booting. I installed drivers and ran a game. Closed it, wow error in runddll or something.

 

I installed DX8 in ME that's why I had to go back to win98 and other things too, rollcage 2 wouldnt run with DX8.

 

Lets just say this is tip of iceberg I HATE WIN9x I have used both linux and greeBSD and NT 4.0 and windows 2000 has their stability AND gaming opportunity and now Whistler has cum oh my I cant wait until it's finished so game developers, DVD program developers, hardware manufactorers ETC ETC ETC get things working for Whistler.

[Four and Twenty 0]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gambler FEX online:
I managed to install win2k in a 486 with 24 MB ram

I remeber seeing that post but i couldn't find it. Can you give me some info on how you did it. I have a 586 with 24 megs of ram and i wanted to try it with win2k just for the hell of it.

[DosFreak 2]

Insert 2000 CD. Install. If you have less than 32m of memory edit the TXTSETUP.SIF file in the I386 directory and change the RequiredMemory line from 33030144 to a lower value.

[8======D 0]

The best OS for gaming... right now, probably ME or 98SE. For stability, I'd go with MAC OS X or Sun Solaris. (I have seen great things done with the new Sun Ray systems).

[bug_666 0]

yes, win95b is good for lower end computers that can't handle win2k or strain their balls on 98.