Out of curiosity I was wondering how popular Windows XP has become against other Operating Systems.

I would appreciate your input by firstly stating whether you are happy with the system you're operating, and then what system it is you're operating.

I have Win2k on this PC (not in the list), but XP on my laptop.

XP seems pretty good actually, no real complaints.

Can't answer your question! I'm very happy running Mandrake 9.1 Linux - you need a 'something else' option.

cheers,

David

2000 Pro, as Alan said, not listed.

Some compatability problems with older software/drivers but fairly bullet proof

No offence to anyone if you're Operating System isn't included. However, it meant to be most popular...

I voted "yes"

But I didn't understand the question, and I haven't got a computer anyway.

Cheers

Chris

(by carrier pidgeon, before you ask)

i think you can only vote once. I cant vote a second time anyway.

FreeBSD 5.0

well, not on my desktop, because I'm a lazy arse.

Win 2k Pro.... would of thought that would be a fairly popular choice !!

I would have assumed that most people would be running some version of either 2K or XP and would be surprised if any one is using non SE win 98.

However I would be interested if you had included a other options to see how many people out there are using Apples, Unix, Linux or one of the other options in this comunity.

I'm going to be an awkward sod again!

Although I mostly use Linux, my machine can dual-boot to Win 98 if I wish - there are still a couple of programs that I can't replace (but I'm working on that).

I also have a very small laptop that runs Win98 - it's only got a 75MHz Pentium and 32Mb memory, so it's the only thing that fits!

Apart from that, I can't be arsed to keep updating while what I've got does the job I want it to do.

David

david have you tryed using wine or some other program to alow you to use youer windows programs in youer linux enviroment

I've looked into it - the main program I'm concerned about is Quicken, the accounting package, and the Wine developers are putting a lot of effort into making that work: apparently it's their number one priority!

However, it's not 100% reliable so I've left it alone. The latest Linux distributions have something called GnuCash, which is a Quicken clone. I'll be playing with that over the next few weeks...

David

who managed to post that they dont have an operating system....thats a pretty fantastic feat!

atb

steve

Do I get multiple votes for multiple computers? At the moment I have : Win 2k Server, 2 x Win 2k pro, 2 x Win XP, Suse Mail Server on Pc, Suse PowerPC on a much molested Imac, Mac OS 9.2.2 on the same Imac, 2 x Mac OS 8.6 and finally Mac OS X Jaguar. Beat that for diversity !

Kingr

Stephen,

Maybe chris posted from a bt phonebox internet kiosk thingy.

Me, I'm on Xp on my machine, though the pc's i support range from macs to windows 3.1 shell programs through 95, nt4 and w2k.

My only gripe with xp is that if i ever try and copy/paste into a windows telnet window my machine blue screens and reboots itself. very annoying, i end up ftp'ing text files and copying the data over in a unix shell.

Ned.

I'll tell you what... I didn't realise how many Windows 2K there are out there!

I don't come across it that much...

Seems like most of us are running XP then... interesting!!!

I posted no because I all though one of my work pc is a windows box I do not use it that much and there was no other option for any one of a host of other OS out there.

Also the browser that I occasionally use to post of this sight does not really have an operating system in real terms (product under development by my company).

I'm using XP and think it is a pile of poo!

I've had nothing but trouble with it.
I can't burn CD's as it crashes. Can't reinstall as it crashes. Can't load software a lot of the time as it crashes. Can't uninstall it as it crashes.
Software that is loaded needs reinstalling frequently.
Etc, etc, etc.
I've never had so much trouble with an operating system.

Terry

i use linux/nt4 at home but have to use nt/2k/xp at work, tried xp when it first came out and decided xp stood for eXpect Problems, in that drivers didn't work machine wount reconise my dat backup device etc

Ned - even hand held thingys like pda's and im guessing phone booth internet stuff uses a form of 'windows' such as the embedded 'ce' version.



I tend to run about 3 years behind the times.

I bought 95 the day it came out, once used to it , it was great.

thing is, apart from stuff like USB support, bigger HD's and other 'internal' stuff, nothing much seems to have changed from an everyday user point of view.

Do you really need so much more and 3gigateraflops of cpu power to browse the internet at the average joe's home computer?

At work, I run Me. At home I have two PCs. One with Me and one 98se. I cant see the difference in normal use...they feel the same.

What this poll has shown nicely is if you rehash the same old thing, make it more complicated and say its a must have, then people buy it.


if on the other hand you need whizzy hardware that most people dont need to support, then perhaps XP is an essential. But wouldnt Me have done just as well in most cases?


atb

steve

I would have to say that I disagree with you on the Me point. There is a lot of the bang it in a new box and watch people buy it syndrome in MS products though.

Me has to be one of the worst efforts at an operating system that MS have ever had.

I think that the NT -> 2000 -> XP line up of things is however a relatively good turn out. Unfortunately XP does go a bit to far towards “I have no brain let MS make all my decisions for me”. It also is a **** that the media player upgrade is considered a OS upgrade that cant be uninstalled only rolled back.

In stability alone 2000 shows Me the way home never mind the security advantages (not to sat that 2000 is all that good but better that Me)

running my own computer shop i must agree with ceebmoj, ME is cr*p, XP is great for people who just want to use it (and if your XP is crashing, was it an upgrade or a fresh install, i never liked doing "over-the top" installs) an no i have not done the poll as i have LOADS and LOADS of computers

[Edited on 6/11/03 by Scotty]

quote:

---

Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
Ned - even hand held thingys like pda's and im guessing phone booth internet stuff uses a form of 'windows' such as the embedded 'ce' version.

---

XP for PCs and for my Apple Mac it has to be OSX

Thank god Microsoft stole OSX and gave the PC world a decent Operating System.


P.S. I know OSX is UNIX based b 4 i get any smart comments!

[Edited on 7/11/03 by DrEagle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
Ned - even hand held thingys like pda's and im guessing phone booth internet stuff uses a form of 'windows' such as the embedded 'ce' version.



I tend to run about 3 years behind the times.

I bought 95 the day it came out, once used to it , it was great.

thing is, apart from stuff like USB support, bigger HD's and other 'internal' stuff, nothing much seems to have changed from an everyday user point of view.

Do you really need so much more and 3gigateraflops of cpu power to browse the internet at the average joe's home computer?

At work, I run Me. At home I have two PCs. One with Me and one 98se. I cant see the difference in normal use...they feel the same.

What this poll has shown nicely is if you rehash the same old thing, make it more complicated and say its a must have, then people buy it.


if on the other hand you need whizzy hardware that most people dont need to support, then perhaps XP is an essential. But wouldnt Me have done just as well in most cases?


atb

steve

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
I tend to run about 3 years behind the times.

---

I write software programs for a living.

I have at least 4 of each and every Micro$haft WinBlows OS version. A total of 35 test machines running all different configurations of software/hardware.

Without a doubt Windows ME is the most buggy and crash-prone OS of the lot. You couldn't pay me enough to use it on a daily basis in a production environment. For occasional use it's fine I suppose.

Windows XP and 2000 are almost identical as far as reliability. XP is a lot prettier, but you gotta have a lot of RAM and a good video card to live with it.

I like MAC OSX a lot, but can't get past the single button mouse... The positive of that is you can program with mittens on...

Linux Red Hat 9 running WINE on a small laptop. Just learning how to use it. The newer OS installers have come a loooong way. It's very easy to install and use! I like it a lot. WINE is incredible in that they reverse engineered all the calls to the Microsoft OS without infringing on patent. Wow. Brainiacs.

Graber

Heartening to see there are a fair few other UNIX junkies out there

I reccomend FreeBSD.. like Linux, but grownup.

I shall say no more though, I get accused of rabid FreeBSD advocacy too much

Currently using XP, took half a day to do a clean install & full load of all programs on athon 2.2 / 60gig / 256mb (touch wood) so far has been no problems at all. the only thing that seemed to slow it down at all was when I installed antivirus/internet security suit. Xp is only an upgrade of Win2000. in the past i have used 98, win for workgroups, win, dos 6, drdos, & dos. First programing used was in algol69.

given the option I would use 2k, but as all pc's come with XP and the missus likes it will have to stick with it . And sod to going out to buy it! It's almost £500 for the home addition (or something like that)