TR Forums

A little over a week ago I installed Windows XP build 2600 and upped to service pack 1. The clean installation went without a hitch. I installed just about all my apps and games that I normally use. At the beginning I was impressed, along with the desktop looking much nicer so did IE and Win Media player. My home network was a little more difficult to setup in XP than 2k but I got it. I really like the how windows explored looked and worked. All in all WinXP was 2000 with a better paint job and few extra bells and whistles. But and this is a big but, in the many months that I have used Win2k I can't remember having to use the reset button on the front of my PC. In WinXP I have had to hit the reset button at least a half dozen times and kill programs with task manager about the same amount. I might give XP another week but I doubt it.

I really don't understand the problems with XP and not with 2000, engine wise they seem almost identical.

Why have you had to hit the reset button? Has it locked up on you? If so, it might not be specifically Windows's problem. Did you get any blue screens or other error messages and have to restart it because of them?

Yes it's because of lockups. Why? I'm not sure. The only thing that I am sure of is that the same programs and drivers worked fine in 2000. I could have some hardware failing but that's going to take some time to figure out. We'll see after I put 2k back on.

Had sim probs (freezes, app errors, system recovered from serious error). App errors and file corruption came from a bad memory stick purchased on ebay for $3. (Serves me right for purchasing "as-is.")

Removed bad RAM. All probs gone, except explorer still freezes. Why? Because explorer.exe is a <a href="http://www.computing.net/windowsxp/wwwboard/forum/37719.html">pig</a> of a shell.

Replaced shell with cmd.exe. Freezes gone, everything smooth, 20MB more memory. Fixed!



But another XP box is having the same problem. This one will be downgraded to 2K. It's sad, because I liked:

- XP's 30 second boot
- system restore
- the extra res-kit utils that come with XP (shutdown, tlist, shutdown, sc)

You want the fastest and most stable operating system? Just get Linux ...only problem is not many games are supported but NWN, UT2k3, and DOOM 3 when it is released. Oh, btw I use XP right now and have used 2k also and they both pale in comparison to what you can do with Linux.

Linux on the desktop is a lost cause. It is just not a feasible alternative at this point. I am not saying that linux as an OS is bad, just not good for the desktop. As far as lockups go, EVERY windows OS has lockups, including 2k. Just have to deal with it till Microsoft switches cores.

Actually more and more people are paying attention to Linux. Guess which OS DOOM 3 will be released for first? LINUX!! Down the road I think that more developers will see that Linux is truly the superior OS for running just about anything. Also, with Microsoft supporting this copy protection bs (Palladium), I think that the enthusiasts will start to leave windows in droves. Don't get me wrong, until then I will have to dual boot with windows, but Linux being a lost cause...I think not.

Win2k is still the best desktop OS by quite a bit. You talk about stability and dual booting at the same time. My apps and OS don't crash, and I almost never reboot (once every few weeks). I imagine my system has a lot less down time than yours as a result of you rebooting your box to switch OSes. Rebooting simply to play a game is an enormous hassle.

Linux really isn't as great as you make it out to be. Saying "Linux" is the fastest and most reliable operating system is simply the asinine talk of an uniformed newbie. For one thing Linux is only a kernel, and a kernel a lone does not an operating system make. Linux is nowhere near being ready for anything resembling mainstream use, and I'm not all that sure it will ever get there. Mainstream use necessitates a consistent, easily learnable, and usable GUI. Windows GUIs have destroyed any *nix GUI I have had the opportunity to use thusfar in simple usability. I can work much faster in the windows GUI than in any *nix GUI. While the *nix command prompt may be nicer, that's not really relevant in a general desktop setting. Most people either don't care to use the command line, don't know how, or are satisifed with what they can do in windows. Linux can't provide the level of standardization present in the windows interface. Until there's a big enough user base to make it worthwhile, most game companies won't develop for Linux since it simply won't pay for them to develop for a platform until it becomes common. Without games and other apps, switching won't happen very fast. People in general are too committed to windows.

Also saying one OS is the "fastest and most stable" is really the most obvious statement of zealotry you can think of. Do you truly think that there are *no* operating systemsout there that are faster and/or more stable than your beloved Linux? Open your eyes and broaden your horizons. Is linux used on giant 32 processor servers? No, because in that environment it is neither fast enough nor stable enough to compete. Blanket statements like you make leave you pretty open to being proven false.

One final note: have you ever heard of FreeBSD? In my experience it's a bit more stable than most Linux distros (although stability with a decent OS generally comes down to the hardware and administrator of a system) and also significantly faster. It's also a whole lot easier to set up how *I* want it rather than how some anonymous distro person wants it. The unified development of the OS is nice too; it's not just a kernel and inconsistent userland patched together. If you have truly researched just about every viable or semi-viable desktop OS out there, fine. Otherwise please keep your semi-informed zealotry to a minimum.

Well I formatted my boot partition and put 2000 back on. If my problems are hardware I should see them again soon, I honestly don't think it's a hardware problem. We will see.


Linux Mandrk. 9 was on the Thinkpad for a while then I had to take a business trip, it will be back on it soon. Right now linux is a toy or game to me and not for everyday use.

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone in my talkings about Linux...it was not my goal to create a flame war. I realize perfectly that Linux is definately not for everyone (I'd hate to see an AOLer trying to figure out how to use it ) and will probably never replace windows. However, on the other side of the coin, if a game was given equal developement time on for both Windows and Linux, I bet that the verson for Linux would run faster. I have personally played UT (the first one) for both Windows and Linux and can say that the Linux version netted me faster frame rates at the same settings. Some developers have seen some potential in Linux for gaming (John Carmack isn't developing a version of DOOM 3 for Linux just for the heck of it) and I applaud that effort. I don't care what version of windows you use...bottom line it is a PIG when it comes to the use of resources. Bottom line is that every OS has its place, the job it does is up to the person who uses it.

I may just take a page out of your book and try FreeBSD. I have heard great things about it and would like to tinker with it. Oh and another thing, I'm into computers for the fun of it, not to fight about it (I'll save that for political debates ).