Which is the lesser evil(OS q)

[lynx_lupo]

Ok, I\'m nearly independant with linux, but I still need win$ for the games. My current are fsked up, so I need to reinstall.

Which one to pick?
- win98: I\'ve been using these most of the time, so I know how they don\'t work..., but they\'re getting obsolete
-win2k, winXP: not much XP here, but they\'re newer, more stable(?)..., but I don\'t know them so good and many times they have compatibility issues

What to choose?

[Xordan]

Get win XP.... Much better than 98 for games, even if there is much less freedom.

[Auran]

I\'ll go with Xord here. Xp ties up programmers as much as other NT class OS\'es. But since you are a linux guy that isn\'t a really big issue. And as for the issue of game playing the thumb rule goes \"the newer the better\".

[Keldorn]

Originally posted by Auran
And as for the issue of game playing the thumb rule goes \"the newer the better\".

Unless ofcourse you want to play old DOS games, Windows XP hates DOS games.

So I just dual-boot W98 and WXP, since I have a lot of old games that won\'t work well on XP.

[lynx_lupo]

hm. That\'s a problem then. I also like playing Golden Axe or Liero(I know it\'s not old) or other prehistorics(not Prehistoric;)).

hmhmhmmm. uf, I\'ll wait for some more replies.

[Axsyrus]

winxp doesn\'t work at all with dos games, i\'ve been trying to get liero working on this new computer, winxp just refuses to run it..

[lynx_lupo]

Well if liero doesn\'t work...then I\'m sticking to win98

Any happy win2000 users?

[Xandria]

lynx_lupo,

Have you heard of \"wine\" and \"winex\"?  They seem to do a good job of running Windows applications (and I think winex is a special flavor that is built specifically for running games) under Linux.  When I tried it out a long time ago, I could play StarCraft, Q3A (which you can actually get native code for Linux ), and D2 all under wine and they worked pretty well.  I think you have to pay something for winex but it actually goes to paying people to work on it (so they can make more things comptible, like DX9, etc.)

[lynx_lupo]

I\'ve heard of it. And dosemu. But emulators are slower and unreliable(at least from my and my friend\'s xp)... I need win$ anyway(for my inflexible family).

[Leander256]

I\'d vote for win2k, with a recent service pack (n? 4 is the latest IIRC). You\'ll have something stable, without all the useless stuff added in XP if you just want to double-click on icons to play games. With all the useless services deactivated, win2k usually uses 60 MB of RAM after booting.

[Larien Carnes]

ive never used anything but windows 98...well ive seen other OS\'s but i havnt really got to mess with em. But I like my win98

[Xalthar]

get 2000... it is by far the most stable, provided you have service packs up to date..

[Ghostslayer]

Yup, Im running Win2k Pro and am happy with it.  From personal experience Ive had better luck with it than Win XP... speed wise and compatability wise.

Win 98 I try not to touch anymore... I had a lot of problems with that getting the BSoD, and I\'m glad you didnt put Win ME on that list... cause that one is even worse

Anyways... so I\'d vote for the newer ones.. either Win2k or Win XP.

[Xelon]

go for win2k cos xp is just the worst, id rather use winME than xp

[Wedge]

XP is \"user-friendly\" to the point of annoyance and uses a lot more system than an OS should be welcome to.  Some of that can be fixed by changing the limited options in gives you.  If your system has specs to spare and you\'re only running modern games, it\'ll do well and has been rock solid stable for me.  I used Win2K for development mostly, but it\'s nice and clean without the annoying frilliness of XP, with even better stability and efficiency.  Being NT based could make it a pain with some games... but I\'m pry just thinking of older versions, and like Xalthar said with all the SP updates I\'ll bet it\'s fine there.