Now, I have been teaching my friends a
lot about computers since they don't know as much as I do. Now, a person
declining on my belief has caused my group to argue with me and me as the
teacher has been considered the false teacher to say that.



This argument is mainly about which OS is the best weather is it Windows 2000,
Windows XP or Windows Vista. Here is what I have said:



Windows 2000 is what people with Pentium 3 or below should get because it has
the smallest memory footprint compared to the 3.



Windows XP is a bit slower than 2000, since is a larger OS, but has more
features and is best on a Pentium 4.



Windows Vista is however very large and most PC's nowadays won't run as fast as
Windows XP or 2000. It will be if it is on the Pentium 4 1.2 or higher. I have
tested Vista and have experienced slowness on a Virtual PC and plus it isn't
developed until late.



I have also stated that you should get Windows Vista late instead of now,
because most computers aren't optimized yet and the corporate rather use the
older OS than the newer ones because of compatibility issues. They test before
they buy.



When I have made my Windows Vista and last statement, a guy who's brother is a
computer person like me said that Windows Vista is the fastest and is way better
than XP and below. He said that I was wrong to say that Windows 2000 and XP is
faster and has a smaller memory footprint. In fact, he did not say that it had a
smaller memory footprint or anything technical. He just believes that Everybody
should get Windows Vista because it is Now The Best.

NOW, I am asking weather this is true or
not. Weather I am right or he is right.

Who knows if it is now the best as it is not even available as a released product.

You are mostly on target about relative speeds, as 2000 needs the least and Vista will be a worse pig than XP.

Of all the people who get excited about Vista, I can't get one good answer why the worlld needs that other than Microsoft is bringing it out as the "latest and greates". Many of the early touted features have been scrapped, and even running the thing, regardless of apps. will require a hardware upgrade or a new machine for most people.

I'm sure it will sell because it's new and "kewl" but we'll see what people say when they see what it is they have gotten.

Well, the weather here could be better - I see yours is pretty bold.

It's usually best for folks to form their own opinions, rather than dictate to others (ymmv)

The right OS for the right machine and tasks required of it - there are other solutions besides M$

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

jboy, you're absolutely correct: The right OS for the right machine and tasks required of it

There's no such thing as a best, or one-size-fits-all, operating system. One of my clients runs a 3 gig XP Pro powerhouse because his own business requires computer-intensive tasks. Another client is an older lady who's still running Windows 95 with a printer. She uses the PC like an electronic typewriter for writing snail mail - she hardly ever uses email!

Incidentally, thanks for the link to Writing and Readability 101. I spent long minutes ROFLMAO. That webpage should be required reading for more than a few people I know.

IronMan

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

Heh - thanks. It's a little... blunt, sure, but it's hard not to share that sentiment after reading a great many near incomprehensible posts, here & there

The nice thing these days is that folks do enjoy considerable choice in what hardware they wish to run, and what System (or Systems) & software to install

For the newest machines, it'll be difficult to run anything but the most recent Operating Systems, as driver support for old versions soon disappears - but for the older boxes, lots of options

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

What do you mean by mine is pretty bold?

"...any time you feel the pain, hey, Jude, refrain
Don't carry the world upon your shoulders..."

Jude, I'm just guessing, but. . .

BOLD

Report Offensive Follow Up For Removal

In terms of heirachy, it is a no-brainer how the three stack up. Win2K ⇒ good, XP ⇒ better & Vista ⇒ best.

It is easy to speculate that what a particular individual ends up with, is greatly influenced by a host of factors that has very little to do with M$ - the cold hard truth is OEM licensing (because of the way it is designed) will determine where most chips will fall and I can bet it's on Vista.

The OS is far from what it is demonized to be and with the extended use that I've had with it, main thing for me was security & I don't see myself on XP for very much longer after it is out & that's just me.

You missed out NT4 and MS-DOS.....

'which one is better?'

what a silly question to ask in a room with more than 3 ppl :-)

it's foremost a matter of the machine's specification AND personal likings.

p.s.: it takes a helluvalot to earn a nickname like 'mr. reliable' in the computer world (certainly more than bullsh*tting the customer :-). the operating system is supposed to be a rock solid platform to run your applications fast, safe and with as little interference as possible. microsoft has left this path in 2001 and doubt they will return in 2007.

Today's subliminal thought is: 'Calm down ... it's only ones and zeros.'

icq 10183575

In 2001 there were two choices - XP Home or XP Pro.

In 2007 there will be four - Vista Home, Vista Premium, Ultimate & Business (forget about the fifth volume-license based Enterprise). Now you tell us which is better.

i_XpUser

For me I'd eliminate Vista Home - it is a fundamentally flawed product. It has no Media Center functionality and no Aero Glass.

i_XpUser

media center and aero glass you can have for free NOW ... even virtualization and 3d desktops of all sorts. no need vista for that unless you want it pre-installed and all enabled by default (isn't that just another term for bloated? :-)

i doubt that areo glass and 3d desktops will make great impression on performance and productivity advocates ... but if you want some really cool desktop enhancements, then snoop around at stardock.com or themexp.org and you'll find plenty of desktops lightyears ahead of aero glass ... including desktop widgets/gadgets way better than anything vista will have to offer.

p.s.: linux 3d desktops are a lot easier on system resources than vista will ever be

Today's subliminal thought is: 'Calm down ... it's only ones and zeros.'

icq 10183575

I believe that people should wait for Vista to be Fully tested and released, for businesses also to start using it before you get Windows Vista. When getting it now, you will experience a lot of driver and software compatibility issues, like when we upgraded to XP in 2001, we should have used 2000 that time and waited for XP in 2003. Same with Vista. That is what I believe.

Very nice

DerekW