Just like the title says! The wife gave me the ok to get another computer, but i'm still on Win98SE, so I need to know which XP OS to get.

I will be getting an AMD x2 CPU with 2GB of DDR, and twin SLi GeForce 6800 vid cards. This will be for home use, mostly surfin' the web and some moderate gaming, along with some office stuff. I want add a home network later on with an additional desktop and a laptop. I'll be doing some light video editing on my home movies and probably would like to add some digital video recording capability later on to burn tv shows and stuff on to DVD.

I was leaning towards x64 edition, just so that I wouldn't have to upgrade the OS later on when 64bit apps start coming out, but I haven't heard much about it yet, and I know how troublesome brand new windows OS are.

So, those with experience, please steer me in the right direction. And it has to be windows, so no Linux remarks please.

Thanks,
556mm

XP pro

Quoted: XP pro

+

Quoted: XP pro

+eleventybillion

Linux is better though.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!


Windows 2000 Pro  

Extremely stable: tower, desktop or laptop

In fact in the years I've used it I've never had the blue screen of death.


disclaimer:  Never used XP (too many horror stories drowning out the good stories)

just in case of flamers

xp-pro w/sp2

student edition $85 @ newegg.com

95 OSR2

xp pro with sp2 in the box.

WOW, I guess XP Pro is the favorite choice around here. any others?

556mm

p.s. Did some internet comedian forum shut down in 2005lol

Quoted: xp pro with sp2 in the box.

Lindows

-Foxxz

Windows XP Media Center

I’m a computer tech so I have a bit of experience.

And the correct answer (IMO) is XP Pro SP2.

Win 2000 is a great OS, I’m using it at home now. But, I’m using it because I would rather have ammo than XP. That plus 2K works better than XP on old systems. So, since I already have a copy of 2K I just keep using it. But XP is better, and you might as well get Pro.

It’s best to wait for an OS to age a bit before you upgrade, that gives Microsoft time to get the bugs out. So stay with what’s proven.

Quoted: NOOOOOOOOOO!! Windows 2000 Pro   Extremely stable: tower, desktop or laptop In fact in the years I've used it I've never had the blue screen of death. disclaimer:  Never used XP (too many horror stories drowning out the good stories) just in case of flamers i28.photobucket.com/albums/c222/danpass/FireSuit.jpg

W2k pro is probably one of the best, I run it on one of my servers, and it has been extremely stable.
but on a daily/all purpose box, I would have to agree with XP Pro

I just built a system with really similar specs and I am running XP Pro x64.  And its pretty sweet, there are a lot of complaints about driver support.  But its not a big deal in my experience.  I was the support CD for my motherboard was pretty current, and I was able to download a 64bit driver for my printer and wireless keyboard/mouse setup from their respective websites.  But really I've had no problems with this OS at all.

Quoted: I’m a computer tech so I have a bit of experience. And the correct answer (IMO) is XP Pro SP2. Win 2000 is a great OS, I’m using it at home now. But, I’m using it because I would rather have ammo than XP. That plus 2K works better than XP on old systems. So, since I already have a copy of 2K I just keep using it. But XP is better, and you might as well get Pro. It’s best to wait for an OS to age a bit before you upgrade, that gives Microsoft time to get the bugs out. So stay with what’s proven.

Yes at this point Microsoft has dropped support for Windows 2000… XP is built on the same basic core and now is more reliable than 2000 anyway. BTW if you turn off the eye candy and unused services  XP will perform better than 2000 on older hardware,

Quoted: I just built a system with really similar specs and I am running XP Pro x64.  And its pretty sweet, there are a lot of complaints about driver support.  But its not a big deal in my experience.  I was the support CD for my motherboard was pretty current, and I was able to download a 64bit driver for my printer and wireless keyboard/mouse setup from their respective websites.  But really I've had no problems with this OS at all.

If you can get drivers for all your hardware XP x64 is great… rock solid. This is not too much of a problem when buying new hardware because you can pick components that have x64 drivers but driver support is a real problem with older systems. I would not recommend x64 for a normal user for that reason.

Quoted: Quoted: XP pro +eleventybillion Linux is better though.

Have FC4 on my personal box at work,  for the most part I love it..   SOmetimes I find it to be a royal PITA to get some things installed.   But as a pic server and a bit torrent box, it is amazing.

Quoted: www.infosatellite.com/images/articlepics/windows_20_screenshot.gif

I actly have that on floppy's somewere around here.

I would definitely say "some version of WinXP" because that's what all the support is for now--but I doubt you really need Pro, or even 64-bit. You can probably just get XP Home.

-----People commonly assume there's some huge advantage to Pro but honestly, if you don't know what the differences are already, it's pretty unlikely you'll ever need to use the extra features of XP Pro, and ....XP Home costs less. Online, legit OEM copies of Home are around $82 and Pro or x64 cost around $130, so it's not a lot of money, but it's very-probably $50 that you don't need to spend here.

-----WinXP-64 isn't going to be "necessary" for a long long time either, and the first programs that can really take advantage of it are going to be games, and that won't matter unless your hardware is also updated to cutting-edge (at that future time) as well. So in other words, 64-bit doesn't really matter either. It is true that most CPU's are 64-bit capable, but the main advantage of 64-bits isn't necessary now for other reasons anyway. At this point, "64-bit" is simply a salesmanship feature, if you buy a PC and run Windows or Linux (or Mac! tee hee), or if you buy a 64-bit Mac. ....The processor manufacturers ran a race to produce 64-bit CPU chips, but it's going to be a LONG time before you find a commercial program that you can't run because it only works on a 64-bit CPU.
~

XP Home should be OK, but if you want to upgrade to Pro later, it's about $200, or at least it was where I saw it. My wife runs XP Home version and wanted to upgrade, but we agreed that it wasn't worth the cost to do so.

I'm still running 98SE and it has been trouble-free for me. It is a bit outdated for some of the software that has been coming out. I still have to use older versions.

MS is coming out with a new system... I don't know how 'great' it'll be, though.

www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.aspx

Quoted: I would definitely say "some version of WinXP" because that's what all the support is for now--but I doubt you really need Pro, or even 64-bit. You can probably just get XP Home. -----People commonly assume there's some huge advantage to Pro but honestly, if you don't know what the differences are already, it's pretty unlikely you'll ever need to use the extra features of XP Pro, and ....XP Home costs less. Online, legit OEM copies of Home are around $82 and Pro or x64 cost around $130, so it's not a lot of money, but it's very-probably $50 that you don't need to spend here. ~

You can get 'legit' copies of XP pro online for about $80. You just need to know where to look - places like mwave.com

Quoted: I would definitely say "some version of WinXP" because that's what all the support is for now--but I doubt you really need Pro, or even 64-bit. You can probably just get XP Home. -----People commonly assume there's some huge advantage to Pro but honestly, if you don't know what the differences are already, it's pretty unlikely you'll ever need to use the extra features of XP Pro, and ....XP Home costs less. Online, legit OEM copies of Home are around $82 and Pro or x64 cost around $130, so it's not a lot of money, but it's very-probably $50 that you don't need to spend here. -----WinXP-64 isn't going to be "necessary" for a long long time either, and the first programs that can really take advantage of it are going to be games, and that won't matter unless your hardware is also updated to cutting-edge (at that future time) as well. So in other words, 64-bit doesn't really matter either. It is true that most CPU's are 64-bit capable, but the main advantage of 64-bits isn't necessary now for other reasons anyway. At this point, "64-bit" is simply a salesmanship feature, if you buy a PC and run Windows or Linux (or Mac! tee hee), or if you buy a 64-bit Mac. ....The processor manufacturers ran a race to produce 64-bit CPU chips, but it's going to be a LONG time before you find a commercial program that you can't run because it only works on a 64-bit CPU. ~

DO NOT GET XP HOME.

I don't think it supports both cores of dual core processor... You must have Pro, Media Center or x64 to get multi core support.

Somebody correct me if this is not correct.

DO NOT GET XP HOME.

I don't think it supports both cores of dual core processor... You must have Pro, Media Center or x64 to get multi core support.

Somebody correct me if this is not correct.

Can somebody confirm this please I really want to know before I spend alot of money on a system and not be able to use the dual core feature of my cpu!

556mm

Quoted: DO NOT GET XP HOME. I don't think it supports both cores of dual core processor... You must have Pro, Media Center or x64 to get multi core support. Somebody correct me if this is not correct. Can somebody confirm this please I really want to know before I spend alot of money on a system and not be able to use the dual core feature of my cpu! 556mm

link


Q. How does this licensing policy affect products such as Microsoft Windows XP Professional?
A. Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor.

XP Pro. Next?

XP Pro

Ummm, not quite.
There is a difference--as you see there--between "multi-processor" and "multi-core", and that page is concerned with licensing, not support.
The XP Home license only supports one processor, but it will support dual-cores on one processor:
(AMD's own press release) www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7595~95364,00.html
(scroll down to the table)
however,
in the XP-Home Device Manager, it will only ever show one processor with one core--not two cores.
XP Pro will show that two cores are available.
www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=63251
~