Operating system?

I was just wondering what the usage of the forum was. Personally, I dual-boot and I'm sure others do too, but I'd like to know which OS you use most.

I use BSD its safer but fedora linux is the main other.

I have vista. On all my computers except the really old one... It's like a curse.

I really wish i could get 7, but problem is, i love old games, and i'm afraid upgrading it again would make the few games that have survived the move to vista impossible to play. At least without looking through half the internet looking for some kind of program...

Virtual box to emulate vista or 2000 or xp then get the .dll file required.

I don't think he means games that old, rrps.

I don't think there is any large structural difference between Vista and 7 that would restrict the move of games. But whether it's worth buying 7 is another thing.

Windows 7 is basically XP except shinier. Except it's really resource-heavy.

Oh i do. Hell, some of these games are supposed to be played on a DOS. I love games from the early 00's and late 90's. I think collecting old games is starting to become a sub hobby of gaming...

But if it's a repackaged XP that takes more resources, i might just as well stay on vista... Will save me a thousand crowns plus too..

I dunno, Vista is an inferior system to XP and it's even more resource-heavy than Windows 7.

Stop adding crap to the DOS kernel Microsoft.

Philly Homer wrote:I dunno, Vista is an inferior system to XP and it's even more resource-heavy than Windows 7.

Well that's pretty shitty... Guess i'll dual boot with XP and 7 when i get the cash to buy both.

Just get free DOS and LXDE source. And compile them together.

I have 2 XP's, 1 Vista, (those are my families) mine is a 2000, so i put down pre XP

Windows 2K is pretty bad. I was a kid when I used it and I remember how buggy it was.

In all honesty, 98 was the last good Windows OS.

Nah, I'd say Vista is better than XP. Just I found I had to turn of millions of unwanted windows services before it became responsive.

And then you got a better looking XP! tadaa!

That's true I guess. It's kinda a hassle to remove all the junk they put on there though (UAC, McAfee, etc.)

Actually my 2000 isent that bad, its just slow, for some reason, it actually works better than my moms XP, though her XP is filled with junk, its like compleatly filled its hard drive....mine has though to...............Anyway my Windows 2000 started with 38 Gig on it......and its been updated with newer stuff.....so its still a pirtty good computer, its better than my moms XP, and my aunts XP thats for shure.

And that has nothing to do with your OS. Good hardware can make a crap OS be not crap.

Actually... A crappy OS will always be a crappy OS, even with the best of the hardware in existence... Look at Vista! You can have a 2.3 Ghz Dual-Core processor, 4 Gigabytes of RAM and a HDD with 7200 rpm's and it will still lag at you for anything small...

Look at XP! You can have a 1 Ghz P4, 512 mb's of RAM, a normal HDD of 5400 rpm's and it will behave good at you...

Or better yet! You can buy a netbook with Windows 7, with an Intel Atom 1.66 Ghz, 1 gb of RAM and the same HDD and it behaves as well as XP with older hardware...

Joao, that is a bit unfair. Vista has had a bashing from the journalists, but its failings have been over-exaggerated.

JPB wrote:You can have a 2.3 Ghz Dual-Core processor, 4 Gigabytes of RAM and a HDD with 7200 rpm's and it will still lag at you for anything small...

That is a bit unfair.

Ok... I have been overreacting... It was a laptop, so... we know how laptops work out...

EDIT: Also the HDD had only 5400 rpms

i am using a mac with OSx snow leopard 10 at the moment ps am at my grans

lets see, on one computer i have red hat, another is dual boot win xp and kubuntu and a laptop with vista

Both my desktops have Windows 7, which is better then Vista becuase it works, and both my laptops have XP which is more stable then both my desktops.