The simple answer is, you need to look at what you want to do with your system.

9x was good for its time and I liked it. ME, I thought was lousy, I didn't have the time or patience to tweak it into stable working order. NT through XP I think are the most stable yet. Blue screens are now a thing of the past. A lot of my older hardware/software still works. It works even without having to use a nifty function called compatibility mode found in XP.

Someone mentioned that 9x and ME could join a domain and XP Home could not. This is incorrect. 9x and ME like XP Home do not use machine accounts in an NT or 2000/2003 domain. The user accounts are created, but not the machine accounts. 9x, ME and XP Home can still access resources on a domain though.

Regards,
Crash Override


On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 6:39 am, J B wrote:
>Yes, XP is probably a better choice over NT. To elaborate on why...
>
>After Windows3.1 went to market and MS Windows became popular, MS split onto two
>tracks. One they focused on home user and the other was business oriented. Home
>users got a shot in the arm with Win95. It was a significant improvement over 3.1.
> At the same time, the NT kernel was being massaged and was fast becoming an increasingly
>robust and stable business platform. These separate tracks continued until the release
>of XP. XP marks MS decision to move back to a single product track. It makes sense
>- combine the features of both systems that were appealing and ran well and package
>them together. The code is already written. To create a "home" version and "professional"
>version MS need enable and disable certain functions.
>
>It has been long known that the NT kernel is more stable than the 9x/Me architecture.
> Most Win9x/Me users will agree to that. You feel like you have to be very careful
>when you are using your system so as to avoid lockups and the Blue Screen of Death.
> NT platforms on the other hand are much more stable and can theoretically be kicked
>around, thrown in the dirt and it will still run strong.
>
>Me was really just 98SE with an Earl Shieb paint job. "Any operating system, any
>desktop scheme, $99.95!" It seemed like it was just an attempt to make some bucks
>on the Y2K issues of that time. Many were concerned about their operating system
>crashing at 1259, 31 Dec 1999. Bill saw this and used it to market Me. You feel
>safer if you get the new operating system.
>
>I just recently upgraded from 98SE to XP. My significant other runs a cookie cutter
>system with Me installed. My 98SE system ran better than her Me system. I decided
>to upgrade after running into problems getting multiple monitors to work following
>some hardware upgrades. Long story short, XP solved all the issues I was having.
>
>
>Many are hesitating to do the upgrade because of the software/hardware compatibility
>issues. Most of those seem to be resolved. Many companies have updated drivers
>available on the web. If they are not yet ready, they at least have a schedule so
>you can see when they might be ready. I spent time downloading updated XP drivers
>for stuff only to have XP load up fine. The only thing that was problematic was
>my scanner. Apparently a few people have trouble with scanner installation. Dunno
>why.
>
>There is also the issue of file systems. This is a transparent issue to most users
>but as we get more and more computer savvy, things like this surface. XP runs on
>an NTFS file system. Win 9x run on FAT or FAT32. Go to howstuffworks.com for info
>on what these are. Basically these determine how your CPU stores data on the hard
>disk. It boils down to how big the chunks of data (packets) are. The NTFS file
>system also allows you to set permissions for files and volumes (drives ….C:, D:,
>etc) which add to security and functionality. FAT based systems offer no data security.
>
>
>Ok, we fear change. Don't. It’s hard to bring down an NT based computer and seemingly
>just as, if not more so, with XP machines. Driver compatibility is a negligible
>issue. Price is reasonable. How often do you buy a new operating system? On that
>note – if you do upgrade to XP, buy the upgrade versus the full version. Both are
>the same. When you install on a clean drive (strongly recommended to format your
>hard drive and wipe all old versions of Windows off before you begin) XP will ask
>you to prove you qualify for the upgrade version. Putting your old Windows CD in
>the CDROM drive proves that. From there it performs a full install. So get the
>upgrade version and save yourself some money.
>
>Hope this helps.
>

Written in response to: re: XP home edition vs. Millenium? (J B: Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 6:39 am) There are presently no replies to this message.

• Reply or follow-up to this message

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum