Microsoft VirtualPC, and VMWare products can do this quite nicely. Neither are free as far as I know, though.
Best/worst Windows version ever?
- Thread starter bigred
- Start date
-
- Tags
- windows worst windows
Microsoft VirtualPC, and VMWare products can do this quite nicely. Neither are free as far as I know, though.
Nucular
Illuminator
Cheers gnome, Red & McFunley!
I'll check into these programs and see if I can 'do' any of them
Yep - old versions of Word and "Where's my work gone? What the Hell have you done with my work!" here we come!
I'll check into these programs and see if I can 'do' any of them
Yep - old versions of Word and "Where's my work gone? What the Hell have you done with my work!" here we come!
Win 2000 Pro or Server is cool, it does everything that XP does without the frills that slow XP down.
OK, I know it doesn't have the security centre etc but savvy PC users don't need it anyway.
In fact, a virus that crippled XP infected my 2K box but it kept going no problem.
Windows CE
Windows ME
Windows NT
Errrm, CEMENT.........???????????????
Worst Windows Ever, ME no doubt. Win 3.0 was great, had a real mode that let me install it on an Amstrad word processor and let me simulate multitasking.
Win 95b OSR2 + USBSUPP is the ultimate 16/32 bit Windows, does everything Win98 can do without the overhead (again).
OK, I know it doesn't have the security centre etc but savvy PC users don't need it anyway.
In fact, a virus that crippled XP infected my 2K box but it kept going no problem.
Windows CE
Windows ME
Windows NT
Errrm, CEMENT.........???????????????
Worst Windows Ever, ME no doubt. Win 3.0 was great, had a real mode that let me install it on an Amstrad word processor and let me simulate multitasking.
Win 95b OSR2 + USBSUPP is the ultimate 16/32 bit Windows, does everything Win98 can do without the overhead (again).
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I guess it depends on what you're running it on and what you're using it for.
I started out with Dos 3.2, which is similar to 3.3, except that it had a smaller footprint and didn't support 1.44 meg drives. It was ideal for small memories and it booted in 12 seconds on my 286. I'd be running it still if I could.
I liked Win 3.11. It crashed but it was easily mastered, easy to clean up and repair. Because it was overlaid on Dos you could have more than one version on the same computer, set for different configurations. It would even run from a zip disk. I also had a configuration changing utility that would reboot with different autoexec.bat and config.sys files for different apps. I stuck with it until it new programs I needed were unavailable for it. I also had NDOS as my command interpreter. I really miss that.
I used that until 2000, when I got a Dell PIII/500 running 98SE. In the 6 years I've run it I've never had to reinstall or reformat. It still works well, though it does crash occasionally, and I suspect that soon new programs will be unable to run on it as happened with the previous version.
I also have a laptop with WinXP home. I've had 2 blue screens with XP in the 4 years since I got it. I finally got around to installing SP2 and now it can't see my network printer, but it's otherwise pretty good. I also had a laptop with Win95b which worked all right until the computer itself conked out.
I guess I've been lucky, with very few really serious problems with any OS. Some of that may be to the credit of the computers themselves.
In terms of overall reliability, I guess XP gets the vote.
I started out with Dos 3.2, which is similar to 3.3, except that it had a smaller footprint and didn't support 1.44 meg drives. It was ideal for small memories and it booted in 12 seconds on my 286. I'd be running it still if I could.
I liked Win 3.11. It crashed but it was easily mastered, easy to clean up and repair. Because it was overlaid on Dos you could have more than one version on the same computer, set for different configurations. It would even run from a zip disk. I also had a configuration changing utility that would reboot with different autoexec.bat and config.sys files for different apps. I stuck with it until it new programs I needed were unavailable for it. I also had NDOS as my command interpreter. I really miss that.
I used that until 2000, when I got a Dell PIII/500 running 98SE. In the 6 years I've run it I've never had to reinstall or reformat. It still works well, though it does crash occasionally, and I suspect that soon new programs will be unable to run on it as happened with the previous version.
I also have a laptop with WinXP home. I've had 2 blue screens with XP in the 4 years since I got it. I finally got around to installing SP2 and now it can't see my network printer, but it's otherwise pretty good. I also had a laptop with Win95b which worked all right until the computer itself conked out.
I guess I've been lucky, with very few really serious problems with any OS. Some of that may be to the credit of the computers themselves.
In terms of overall reliability, I guess XP gets the vote.
Corpse Cruncher
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,754
I had 98SE, on my first introduction to computers, which gave me headaches. A friend upgraded it to ME and for me it worked wonders as I had no problems. I now have just the standard XP, that comes pre-installed on computers these days, it doesn't seem as nice as ME or as friendly. From my experience of it it XP seems very fickle, more so than 98SE.
A few people have said install Mac or Linux, but I don't know if my system is compatible or even how to do it. Aside from that, more software seems to be geared toward Windows than to the other alternatives.
A few people have said install Mac or Linux, but I don't know if my system is compatible or even how to do it. Aside from that, more software seems to be geared toward Windows than to the other alternatives.
Methinks you need to look in the mirror, pot. Yes, ME was worse than even 3.0. Although both were buggy, at least 3.0 offered a lot that previous versions didn't. ME offered nothing other than a way for Gates to keep making millions thanks to all the brain-dead lemmings who buy the newest version of Windows for no reason whatsoever.
Your experience was either drug-induced or extremely unique.
You sense reality. Run to the light.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Nucular,
I'd go with DOSbox over the VirtualPC platforms. First, Dosbox is free (big plus). VPC runs about $99 last I checked, for the software with an OS license. Also, VPC has serious problems with games. Anything requiring graphics in VPC slows down considerably...I get better performance in old games from DOSbox. Finally, VPC has problems running DOS level apps at all. I had to load Win95 on VPC to run DOS based apps, as the only DOS that would work within the VPC structure was their own proprietary version.
If you want to try VPC, I think I still have the license key and install files. I could probably mail it to ya. I no longer use it (or even have it installed).
Now, admitedly, I do have the 5.1 version of VPC. I think they're at 7 now (or so). Microsoft owns it now (bought if from Connectix right after version 5) if you want to see about trying the newer versions.
I'd go with DOSbox over the VirtualPC platforms. First, Dosbox is free (big plus). VPC runs about $99 last I checked, for the software with an OS license. Also, VPC has serious problems with games. Anything requiring graphics in VPC slows down considerably...I get better performance in old games from DOSbox. Finally, VPC has problems running DOS level apps at all. I had to load Win95 on VPC to run DOS based apps, as the only DOS that would work within the VPC structure was their own proprietary version.
If you want to try VPC, I think I still have the license key and install files. I could probably mail it to ya. I no longer use it (or even have it installed).
Now, admitedly, I do have the 5.1 version of VPC. I think they're at 7 now (or so). Microsoft owns it now (bought if from Connectix right after version 5) if you want to see about trying the newer versions.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
As to the 95/98/ME debate, I have a few things to add.
95B, I'll agree, was a pretty good system out of the batch. Very little argument from me there.
With 98 and, in a more serious case Me, it seemed almost like a lottery draw. I had severe issues with 98, including 98SE. ME, however, worked fine on my system (over a month continuous uptime was not remarkable). My wife's system, however, was the opposite...worked fine on 98SE but died within a week on ME.
My own suspicion with these two lies in the hardware interfaces and MS-provided drivers and support files. It seemed that 98SE, and ME to an even higher extent, were VERY dependent upon the type of hardware your system ran. Some hardware worked great (such as mine), some would cause almost irrecoverable errors continuously. My personal belief is that they kept trying to add hardware support as fast as possible, and dropped of quite a bit of quality control. There were a lot of new hardware and a lot of new standards either coming out or gaining in popularity at that time (CD-R's, DVD's, USB drives, Firewire, Gigabit networking, wireless, much larger hard drives, newer memory types such as the DDR RAM and RAMbus, etc), and it seems to me that they just started throwing in various files for support of this new hardware as fast as they could.
2000 was a very stable system, and I still use it on some of my system. In XP, I've noticed a strong difference between Home and Professional. Home has caused us several problems, but XP Pro has been running beautifully for me. IMO, it is definately worth the price to buy Pro instead of Home. If you can't afford XP Pro, then try to get Win2k Pro instead of XP Home.
95B, I'll agree, was a pretty good system out of the batch. Very little argument from me there.
With 98 and, in a more serious case Me, it seemed almost like a lottery draw. I had severe issues with 98, including 98SE. ME, however, worked fine on my system (over a month continuous uptime was not remarkable). My wife's system, however, was the opposite...worked fine on 98SE but died within a week on ME.
My own suspicion with these two lies in the hardware interfaces and MS-provided drivers and support files. It seemed that 98SE, and ME to an even higher extent, were VERY dependent upon the type of hardware your system ran. Some hardware worked great (such as mine), some would cause almost irrecoverable errors continuously. My personal belief is that they kept trying to add hardware support as fast as possible, and dropped of quite a bit of quality control. There were a lot of new hardware and a lot of new standards either coming out or gaining in popularity at that time (CD-R's, DVD's, USB drives, Firewire, Gigabit networking, wireless, much larger hard drives, newer memory types such as the DDR RAM and RAMbus, etc), and it seems to me that they just started throwing in various files for support of this new hardware as fast as they could.
2000 was a very stable system, and I still use it on some of my system. In XP, I've noticed a strong difference between Home and Professional. Home has caused us several problems, but XP Pro has been running beautifully for me. IMO, it is definately worth the price to buy Pro instead of Home. If you can't afford XP Pro, then try to get Win2k Pro instead of XP Home.
Corpse Cruncher
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,754
This sort of fits here.
What is the difference between XP OEM, XP home and XP professional OS? I have the OEM XP version and a salesman mentioned I should upgrade it to XP Professional. Will an upgrade work over my OEM or do I have to buy the whole complete expensive OS?
I was only enquiring whether to buy a more up to date version of Microsoft Office package as I had the 2000 version. I didn't get my answer. I am still not sure whether to buy a more up to date Microsoft Office suite?
What is the difference between XP OEM, XP home and XP professional OS? I have the OEM XP version and a salesman mentioned I should upgrade it to XP Professional. Will an upgrade work over my OEM or do I have to buy the whole complete expensive OS?
I was only enquiring whether to buy a more up to date version of Microsoft Office package as I had the 2000 version. I didn't get my answer. I am still not sure whether to buy a more up to date Microsoft Office suite?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
XP OEM should still be a version of Home or Professional. OEM just means "Original Equipment Manufacturer", and it's the copy of the OS that came with the computer (from Dell or HP, for example). The only real difference between an OEM version and a retail version are usually some small changes made by the OEM comapny to some of the code. Genenrally, OEM is equivalent to the retail version. It would not be worth the cost to upgrade just to get a retail version instead of OEM. The salesman is either uninformed (and thus, can be ignored), or intentionally trying to up his commission (and, thus, can be ignored). I'm using almost exclusivly OEM versions of XP Pro (mainly because, as a former employee of a OEM, I can buy them MUCH cheaper than retail versions. Our OMN versions, infact, were exactly like retail except for the fancy packaging. We did no custom coding).
Now, there is a difference between Home and Professional. XP Home cannot be a member of a Windows domain, provides much less detail in setting user accounts, and has a few other limitations, mostly dealing with networking and security. If you plan to do much networking, have more than one or two users, or do anything requireing a high degree of security (such as your financial records, for example), I would say the upgrade to XP Professional is worth it.
Finally, as to Office, I'd ask you one question before I could tell you wether or not to update: Does what you have work for you? Unless you're ina business environment were compatibility issues are popping up, if what you have works I wouldn't upgrade just to be on the latest version. Unless there's some functionality or security problem, or some feature you want that's worth the extra bucks, keep 2000. 2000 will still open the XP and 2003 office files, so you aren't really losing much there. 2003 has a few new features, but nothing worth the price tag on a new version of office.
If you do decide to purchase a new Office, try to qualify for the Student and Teacher edition. It has Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Outlook, and comes with a license for three computer systems. It's also less expensive than the other versions. You do have to show some type of academic status, though.
Now, there is a difference between Home and Professional. XP Home cannot be a member of a Windows domain, provides much less detail in setting user accounts, and has a few other limitations, mostly dealing with networking and security. If you plan to do much networking, have more than one or two users, or do anything requireing a high degree of security (such as your financial records, for example), I would say the upgrade to XP Professional is worth it.
Finally, as to Office, I'd ask you one question before I could tell you wether or not to update: Does what you have work for you? Unless you're ina business environment were compatibility issues are popping up, if what you have works I wouldn't upgrade just to be on the latest version. Unless there's some functionality or security problem, or some feature you want that's worth the extra bucks, keep 2000. 2000 will still open the XP and 2003 office files, so you aren't really losing much there. 2003 has a few new features, but nothing worth the price tag on a new version of office.
If you do decide to purchase a new Office, try to qualify for the Student and Teacher edition. It has Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Outlook, and comes with a license for three computer systems. It's also less expensive than the other versions. You do have to show some type of academic status, though.
Corpse Cruncher
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,754
For the office part, what I have works for me. It would work far more if I was savvy enough and not such a technophobic-nincompoop. I can qualify for the education version as my niece is a student. She uses some another office type package at home.
On the XP frontage, I only intend to link to the upstairs spare computer. This would be used when my niece visits so she can surf or by myself to print off letters. It just saves on having all that clutter downstairs. There maybe a rogue laptop that visits on the odd occasion when it wants something. That is about it, not much of a network.
On the XP frontage, I only intend to link to the upstairs spare computer. This would be used when my niece visits so she can surf or by myself to print off letters. It just saves on having all that clutter downstairs. There maybe a rogue laptop that visits on the odd occasion when it wants something. That is about it, not much of a network.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Then you're probably fine. Howeer, I have noticed that XP Pro seems more stable, so I'd still probably upgrade if you can find a good deal on it. But as far as OEM vs. Retail, it's only a matter of how you purchase them.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I've for a long time had a "dumb" network hub for my home network, on which a couple of Win98 computers and an XP home laptop have happily coexisted and shared a DSL connection and a printer (although recently the laptop can't see the printer, owing to some screwup either when I installed SP2 or when I attempted to install a wireless router on the host Win98 computer which worked for 10 minutes and then died, but that's another story I think). Anyway, my point is that for this kind of basic networking, you really shouldn't need to upgrade your OS.