|Nov 05, 2001, 07:38 PM|
Alternative to Windows XP?
After viewing the win xp installation thread thought I would
ask if any of you zoners use, know of, or want to learn about
alternatives to the Microsoft monoploly.
I have used DOS, win 3.1, 95, NT 4.0 and 98. As far as stability
goes I rate 95, NT and 98 all about the same; none were crash
proof and by no means would I say one was better than the other, just different. 3.1 was flaky and DOS was fine until
pushed. (i.e. multitasking).
Any advice? Ideas?
|Nov 06, 2001, 07:49 AM|
Joined Apr 2001
With the KDE or Gnome GUI, Windows users should get up to speed pretty easily. There's lots of software at sourceforge.net, Star office is a pretty good replacement for m$office.
I personally dual-boot NT4.0/RedHat 6.2 at home (tho' I can't remember the last time I actually booted NT...) , use Win2k at work. (network admin who's been doing this since the bad old days of DOS 2.2)
I wouldn't touch XP with someone else's ten-foot pole.
|Nov 06, 2001, 11:23 AM|
I've been running XP Pro for awhile now. Boots much much faster than NT or 2000 or 98. Much more stable as well. However, you need at minimum 128 megs ram. Preferrably 256 megs and higher. And let me add this. I've built my own systems since the
late '80s. And have also built 100's of pc's for others. Lets not
forget the majority of pc users are only semi technically inclined.
You can diss Microsoft all you want, but they do know how to market and they do know how to sell. And, if you use name brand quality components, and know what your doing most of the time, and not buy the $300 system from Wally Mart, and download every stinkin screen saver etc., you won't have a problem. Too many people complain about the OS is slow and reboots all the time and locks up etc. Take a look at what they are doing with the machine. Cross linked files all over, 32 items in the system tray, etc. And they wonder why it don't work or is
slow. Same thing in e-flight. Use a no name cheap motor and esc and other electronic parts, don't expect top notch performance.
|Nov 06, 2001, 11:29 AM|
Considering I have never paid for anything Microsoft...it runs ok...W2KPro at the house is the most stable I have found so far. I am very happy with my copy of OfficeXP, running it very stable at home and work...at the price was right....$0
I never understood why Bill Gates named his OS after something as breakable as a window. Being a guy that has gone from a Commadore64 through the 8086 - P4 range, at first, using my PC as a gaming station on DOS, I could not understand the usefulness of Windows when it first came out. It just meant that I could not play my DOS games... Now, it seems that I was stuck with it....until LINUX came into my life. Yeah baby!
|Nov 06, 2001, 12:30 PM|
Admiral, I have never payed for any Microsoft OS either.
And my opinion on why windows was created. 1st, Microsoft didn't create the GUI. Neither did Apple. It was created by
Xerox PARC many moons ago. And my opinion as to why it was created at all is the fact that at the time, it cost corporations too much money to train their employees on how to use command line interfaces like Unix and DOS. So, the GUI was created.
Easy! Just click on icon and program runs.
|Nov 06, 2001, 06:57 PM|
I have been running XP Home for about a week. All I can say is: exuberance! Windows ME had driven me up the wall with all of its lockups, screen freezes, and lethargic performance. XP boots fast, runs VERY stable (I'm running the most graphics intense games out there, FS 2002, NFS: Porsche). ME would lock during games and crash with more than a couple of windows open. XP has no trouble running many windows or the highest quality graphics. Nice new look as well. Go for XP!
PS - get someone to turn off the report back to Microsoft feature.
|Nov 07, 2001, 03:41 PM|
Andrew, wanna really test your video card? Get Nascar 4.
Turn up all the graphics full blast, run minimum 1024x768 32 bit
graphics, turn on full cars seen ahead and behind and turn on full all audio behind. If you video card is worth its salt, you will get
30 frames a second. They can test Quake III all they want.
When you have this much stuff moving on screen and your system
has to keep track of where all the cars are and what the AI will do next etc etc., and you can play the game smooth, I'd say your
system and video is top notch. This couldn't be done on Win ME.
Machine would choke some. However the same setup running on
XP however, rocks!
|Nov 07, 2001, 06:14 PM|
I had Nascar 4, but returned it. ME couldnt handle the good frame rates. The graphics card is a Nvidia (sp?) GeForce2 64mb, not quite the best out there.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Windows XP interface workaround||DumbThum||Electric Plane Talk||5||Dec 05, 2001 05:33 PM|
|Windows XP flight sims||Der Zip||Electric Plane Talk||5||Nov 20, 2001 09:02 PM|
|Windows XP Drivers for Real Flight Deluxe Sim||LNL||Life, The Universe, and Politics||11||Nov 06, 2001 02:54 PM|
|Windows XP Drivers For Real Flight Deluxe Sim||LNL||Electric Plane Talk||1||Nov 06, 2001 01:16 AM|
|Windows XP installation||DNA||Life, The Universe, and Politics||12||Nov 05, 2001 12:19 AM|