Originally posted by Bobboau
well is XP better than the win9X line?
It is faaar more stable (which actually isn't saying much...). However, it's a humongous piece of bloatware crap that doesn't run decently on a Celeron 500MHz w/ 1228Mb and a Riva TNT2 Ultra. And by not runing decently, I mean that a completely clean, fresh install of XP ran jerkily - dragging a window would result in that window appearing to jump from one location one the screen to another with some mini-hops in between.
By contrast, 95/98 run decently on a high-end 486. Go figure.
Personally, my sweet spot with MS OSes is definitley Windows 2000. It runs smoothly on an old Pentium II 200Mhz with 96Mb - and a laptop, at that!
It's a powerful OS that came out before MS's whole activation shpiel. It's stable. The only downside is that it's not the best gaming platform, which is why I still dual-boot 98 and 2K.