Which OS is best?

by **Damian** on Mon Aug 06, 2001 1:44 am

Windows, MacOS, BeOS, Or Linux?

[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: DamianMoran ]

by **adidas** on Mon Aug 06, 2001 6:40 am

They all have their downfalls. I'd say Windoze is the best because you have so many more options with it that any other OS.

If another OS got support like Windows has... who knows?

by **Megaman X** on Mon Aug 06, 2001 6:55 am

Windows, or more specifically, Windows XP due to the support. If they'd only deep-six that damn WPA shit XP would be great.

by **Silverhaze** on Tue Aug 07, 2001 2:30 am

DOS used to kick ass!! 3.1 was a bit lame. 95 offered stacks more options where games and stuff were concerned and now I use 98 which seems to suit me just fine. MacOS is pretty sweet its just a shame that its such a difficult system to get stuff for. Just look at how much of the net is windows oriented.

by **Silverhaze** on Tue Aug 07, 2001 3:29 pm

Macs are best left to the art and music side of things until they are more supported by developers and such.

by **Pdaimaoh** on Tue Aug 07, 2001 5:31 pm

Windows 98 all the way

everything that matters works on it!

XP sucks balls, get that and recognize you are one more tool for the hackers to use
nothing in XP is good for consumers, it's all good for Microsoft and other businesses, but not consumers....

Mac is fine, but just doesn't have the support of software makers (which is why I have a PC in the first place...)

by **were** on Tue Aug 07, 2001 6:48 pm

i recall seeing many graphic artists using macs too...

by **RabidYak** on Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:57 pm

DOS kick ass, its one of the most stable OSs ever made and it was too much hassle for mainstreamers and fools to use.

Ive got nothing against 3.x, served me well for plenty of years (I was ready to kick Bills ass when I first saw the new-fangled start menu replacing program manager).

95 was reasonable for a first step but it was always a bit wobbley for my liking.

98 is my preffered choice, more stable then both 95 and ME and flexible and functional enough to deliver the goods.

Me is crap, no arguing.

Havent looked at 2000 since its pretty much a network OS.

MS cas kiss my ass if thye think im going to buy an OS that I have to phone them to activate, I dont see many people volentararly upgrading to this turd.

by **adidas** on Wed Aug 08, 2001 1:51 am

Amen brother Yak!

BTW I loved DOS

by **Damian** on Wed Aug 08, 2001 5:49 am

by **TheLastKamikaze** on Mon Aug 13, 2001 10:45 am

Windows 2000 Pro hands down.

Yak: True it is a networking/business OS, BUT it does everything Win98 can do... except crashing (It isn't unusual to go 3 or 4 months without a single crash, let alone a blue screen). I used to always hear about how certain games didn't work in an NT environment, but every EMU I've tried works just fine which is the only real form of PC gaming I care about anyways. Please, give it a try... everyone I know who has tried it has taken it on after as their primary OS. Why do you think M$ has abandoned the 9X kernel in favour of the NT one??? It?s just too bad they?re making Win XP simply a prettier version of NT 5.0 (aka Win2K) and not an all out NT 6.0.

by **Silverhaze** on Mon Aug 13, 2001 1:48 pm

Ok emus work in it but what about other games like Unreal Tournament and things like that?

by **TheLastKamikaze** on Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:08 am

Yep UT works in it, aLL Blizzard games too.

I really don't play to many PC games though, but it's a safe bet that any new or recent game will work under Win2K.