PCDos "Stand alone" Dos 6.22 WFW 3.11 OS/2 v4 "Old Favorite" Knoppix "Very handy fixing M$ problems" Linux "To many to mention" NT 3.51 - NT 4.0 2000 Pro "Most favorite by far" 98 - ME "Old beater boxes" XP Home "Most stable M$ platform I have run" Keep the old stuff running

0

The best thing about Vista is the install disk, makes a great coaster. "I'm still learning Vista, the biggest thing being the Control Panel." It was at about that point that I decided a learning curve is a learning curve, regardless of the OS those efforts are dedicated to. Hello Linux. With the exception of the computer in the garage which is Linux only, the machines in the house are all XP Pro or W2K Pro/Linux dual boots. Once the Linux boxes are set up they are not complicated at all. The KDE (4.1 is buggy)GUI is more Windowesque and seems to have eased the transition for my family. I don't really see the need to progress beyond XP and once we get around "the curve" I don't really see Microsoft products in my home. Their coasters are nice though, keeps birds out of the garden too when attached to a string. Mobile for the grand kids? God gave us beer so we would know he loves us. Ben Franklin

0

I've used more then a dozen Linux distros all the Windows versions and the one that still wins in the end is XP pro. It just works with everything I do and use. The only OS I have not used is anything from Mac so I cannot comment on if Mac OS X is better then XP. Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. ~Homer Simpson~

0

dos 6.22 dos 6.22/wfw 3.11 win 98se win vista home premium puppy linux ds linux

0

I agree with yellowbelt in #9. I have 4 working PCs at my house... AMD Sempron 1.6GHz / 512MB of RAM (Family PC) Windows XP Pro AMD Sempron 1.6 GHz / 256MB (fixing to be 1GB) (my main PC) Windows XP Pro Pentium 3 650MHz Notebook / 256MB of RAM Windows XP Pro Pentium 3 1.0 GHz / 256MB of RAM (a PC that I test my software on) Windows XP Pro / Vista Ultimate Lite As you all can see, I have XP on all my systems. I use Vista on my spare system so I can play around with it and test my software on it. It still hasn't earned my respect yet, though. I too have tried many Linux distros, and have used lots of Windows versions, but XP is still the most compatible out of every Linux distro and every other version of Windows that I've tried. I've never used a Mac either, so I couldn't comment on that. I have 2 friends that don't like Vista. They bought a new laptop about a month ago. They needed me to come to their house to show them how to get the integrated wifi to connect to the internet with Vista. This laptop had 3GB of RAM, and a dual core AMD Turion processor. But it was so much slower than my Pentium 3 1.0GHz system on XP (no joke)! It took 2 or 3 minutes just to boot up. I was really shocked. WinSimple Software

0

"Pentium 3 1.0 GHz / 256MB of RAM (a PC that I test my software on) Windows XP Pro / Vista Ultimate Lite" Holey cow, that must be super slow with 256MB of ram! I use Vista Home Basic for my main rig and Home premium for my Laptop. Both run great and as fast as any XP system I've had. Both have C2D and 4Gig of RAM. I see 2GB as a minimum for any version of Vista. If you have any less, complaints about speed are void. My favorite thing about vista would have to be the way the start menu works, I really like the search function better than the traditional way. I do think that XP was Microsoft's best O/S though and Run it on my Super P3 and my sisters PC. I still use 98SE on my old machines (P1 & P2 Machines) but I really dont like it because of how terribly prone it is to crashing. Will be changing them all to win 2000 one day. I think Windows 7 looks interesting so far, I like the few extra features like dragging a window to the side of the screen and it automatically snaps to half the screen etc. I think MS will be a lot more careful with releasing Win 7. Mattwizz3 Gigabyte P35-DS3R E4500 @ 3.2 4GB DDR2 800 9800GT

0

Yeah I'm actually looking forward to Windows 7. I've heard better things about it than Vista. "Holey cow, that must be super slow with 256MB of ram!" It is, in fact alot slower than XP, but it's really not too bad. My software runs differently on Vista than any other version, so I use it to find out how my software is going to do. I also boot it up once in awhile just to play around with Vista and see what all I can learn. Recently I had to develop a Vista specifc program, so that really came in handy. The Windows Experience Index is a staggering 1.0! The highest rated component in the system was the hard drive at a score of 5.3. I agree that the Start Menu is a plus for Vista over XP. It's so much more convenient to just type the program you want to open and then hit enter. By the CN poll results, it seems that alot of people still haven't been persuaded to go to Vista. The poll is still early yet, so that could change (but I doubt it). WinSimple Software

0

You should jump on ebay and grab some more ram for it, I'm guessing it would use PC133. Should be cheap for a couple of 256MB sticks. Would be well worth it and make it better to use. Running vista on 256MB is like running XP on 32Mb. I think the reason for the poll putting XP ahead is because XP is very well established. It's been around for 7 years, Vista been around not even 2. I cant wait for free betas to make their way around for Win 7 though, should be good to play with until its released. Mattwizz3 Gigabyte P35-DS3R E4500 @ 3.2 4GB DDR2 800 9800GT

0

I suppose Vista would be up to par in the speed department on an SATA HD. I think it's the whole Windows formula thats keeping us away from Vista. What I mean is, Windows XP still uses the interface and layout that debuted with Windows 95 - that was over 13 years ago! In the 6 years between 95 and XP, MS made only a few changes to how we actually use Windows. When 98 came out, we had no problem learning the few new features. Same with 2000 and ME. The new features were great. And, lets face it, Windows XP still looks and acts like Windows 95! (On the Windows NT kernel, however, it's a heck of a lot more stable.) We had no problem welcoming XP because it was (almost) the same as the previous versions of Windows that we had used before. Vista, however, looks so much different, has so many new features, and the way we interact with it is so different, it would discourage any new user! It's like finally getting rid of your 1970 Ford F-150 and getting a 2009 model. When you get in that drivers seat for the first time, and your looking at this steering wheel with 20 buttons on it, and this dash with 15 gauges and an information display, you can't help but wish you had that 1970 back, just because it was simpler and easier to maintain. That I think is why only a handful of us have switched to Vista. (Unless you switch Vista to the Classic interface, but then you still have to deal with the slowness.) "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving may not be for you." -Our tour guide at Fenway Park in Boston, MA.

0

Main rig: WinXP Server: Server 2003 R2 x64, VMWare Server, ClarkConnect 4.3, CentOS 5.2 Missus: WinXP Kids: MacOS 10.4 Laptop: MacOS 10.5/WinXP Other Rigs: WinXP, Win98, DOS 6.22, various flavors of Linux, MacOS, Amiga Workbench, GEOS It's a mixed bag at my house! MOS 6510 rockin @ 1MHz!!!

0

I also use a program to emulate an SOL-20 microcomputer with an 8080 processor running at 2 Mhz. I use CP/M on that. And I play with CP/M-86 on a bootable floppy once in a while. I have also played with Every version of Windows, Mac System 6, Mac System 7.5.5, and Mac OS 10. Sadly, I have never owned a Mac to really try the OS. "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving may not be for you." -Our tour guide at Fenway Park in Boston, MA.

0

The Dell in the office xp home The Acer in the garage xp pro The home built in the garage xp pro ,2000, 98

0

I agree that XP is very well established. I think too that maybe part of the reason that the poll is so high with XP users is because of rumors and tales of Vista's slowness. It really is noticeable, even on my friend's HP Touchsmart with 2GB of RAM. A PC like that would blaze under XP. I might just end up stuffing that P3 to the capacity in RAM (which I think is 768MB) sometime soon. I too want to try the Windows 7 beta when it's released. I agree that XP is pretty much like Windows 95 except a whole lot more stable (as already mentioned) and with countless new features and changes. WinSimple Software

0

Rayburn: "Other Rigs: WinXP, Win98, DOS 6.22, various flavors of Linux, MacOS, Amiga Workbench, GEOS" GEOS!! Coooooool. I only ever used that once on a computer that I found. Was really interesting, never seen it since. I'd like to get it going on a VPC. Is there much software for it? Mattwizz3 Gigabyte P35-DS3R E4500 @ 3.2 4GB DDR2 800 9800GT

0

GEOS was a GUI environment for Commodore and Apple based machines from the mid to late 80's. I have it running on both my C64C and C128D. It was quite cool for what it did, however, it was also quite buggy. I can recall many occaisions where it would take three or four goes to get it to boot and even then it took more than five minutes to get to a usable state. If you want to have a go without having to shell out cash for an old machine, why not have a look at emulation. MOS 6510 rockin @ 1MHz!!!

0

Almost forgot, I have also used a little bit of OpenGEM - very nice GUI for 8086/8088 PC's. It's up-to-date, too - the current version was released in 2005. Has anyone else used OpenGEM or FreeGEM, or even the original Digital Research GEM? It functions almost like the early Mac OS (System 1-6). I have also used Tandy's DeskMate 3.69 - very nice and easy to use GUI for 1990. Comes with a spreadsheet program, too! It competed with Windows 3.0. I tried to use QuarterDeck's DESQview/X, but it kept crashing on startup on the emulator. "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving may not be for you." -Our tour guide at Fenway Park in Boston, MA.

0

The Version of GEOS I used was on a Pentium 1, along with Win 3.11. I looked around on the net and it looked much newer than what I'm seeing what was on the C64. OpenGEM looks interesting! I'll probably resurrect a 486/P1 system and Get some of this software going. Heh, one of my 2GB drives is going to be enough for several of these old O/S's. Mattwizz3 Gigabyte P35-DS3R E4500 @ 3.2 4GB DDR2 800 9800GT

0

Yes, back in the 1980's they called GEM "Macintosh for the PC". Then Apple sued DR for GEM having the "look and feel" of the Mac System. "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving may not be for you." -Our tour guide at Fenway Park in Boston, MA.

0

Old Latitude from Dell: Win98lite. Newer Notebook: Windows Vista Ultimate. Test machine: Windows XP Pro. Test machine: Windows Home Server. Main Multiboot Rig: Kubuntu, XP Pro, Vista Ultimate & Windows 7 Ultimate (Build 6801). Jabbering Idiots: Everywhere You Look!

0

Win 3.1,95,98,me all in parts drawer for now. W2k pro and xp on main rigs no vista. Linux (many distros but mostly ubunto for fun lately). Mac who? Lol. Nt4 and 5. Think nt 5.5 still around here somewhere. No room in my truck for xtra rigs so most idling in drawers or on vms. on the road again!!

0

Windows NT 5? Isn't that the version number for Windows 2000, and also what 2000 was called in it's beta stages? "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving may not be for you." -Our tour guide at Fenway Park in Boston, MA.

0

Not sure what it was called in beta anymore. Think I got my nt's from an old dec rep friend. We used to haul a lot of their systems before compaq took over. on the road again!!

0

And yes I think 5 was the core for w2k. Rusty and comps not setup right now. (Cleaned truck last week and haven't set it back up yet). on the road again!!

0