Is there a stable version of Windows? 2

[miner00]

At work, I run Windows NT and to this point, I have had no problems. My computer at home though runs Windows ME, I have had nothing but trouble. To this point, it has corrupted several programs that now need to be reinstalled and dies if I try to extrude a solid in Solidworks. Lately it has been freaking out with Word docs.

I am about ready to go out and buy Windows XP, but I thought I would ask around to see if there was a better option. This is a relatively new computer with a P3 933mHz and 128MB Ram. I will probably upgrade RAM as well, but 128 should be more than enough to run Word or extrude a solid without dying.

 

[dsi]

Lose ME!!! I would move to XP or 2000 Pro. Increasing your RAM would be beneficial for SolidWorks. DimensionalSolutions@Core.com
While I welcome e-mail messages, please post all thread activity in these forums for the benefit of all members.

 

[Hush]

I don't know about ME but XP is a memory pig. With 128 MB it would barely run Explorer or Word, constant file corruptions, crashes, and blue screens of death. Once I added more memory, nary a problem. For the price I'd suggest adding at least 500 MB to be good and safe with Solidworks.

 

[Like2Strike]

I have Win/ME on the computer that I am writing this post on. Windows ME is trash. I have asked many computer experts here in Orlando about which operating system that they would recommend (Windows platform). The concensus is Win 98 second edition. The NT platform does not allow for some video conferencing features as the home edition. Win/XP "Pro" is to be much more stable than the home XP version. I was also told that if the world takes a serious look at Linux that their OS has the potential to be the best for engineering work. Unfortunately the developers are not working in our direction for this to happen. Although it could since IBM has started to look at Linux in a serious light.

By the way I do have a copy of Win98SE ready to install on this laptop. I have just been too lazy. My desktop has Win98SE running on it. Have not had any problems with it.

Just my opinion

Live Aloha Frank M.
Tradewind Resources

http://twrusa.tripod.com

 

[svanels]

I prefer Windows Nt, I also work on ME but I had to do some adjustments.

There are some bugs in Windows ME, but the culprit of the problems are these programs that are running in the back-ground.

Run msconfig from the command line and see the trash that is slowing your computer down. Especially when it is a brand computer like compaq. Every time you log on to the internet, you get tips and hints about updates and other weird stuff?

Does your computer runs out of resources with only a few open programs? Then it is time to clean up your start-up options.


The amount of icons on the right side of the taskbar is proportional to amount of problems.

Windows XP, my opinion with every update or bugfix you have to update your hardware (in other words by another computer)

My Pentium II 400 mhz with NT beats the heck out of my Pentium III 1000mHz running ME

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[smokehouse]

Hello, I just bought a new computer just for using solidworks and CADRA. 1.6ghz P4, 512 RAM. (Nexlink)
I got XPpro OS because the salesman told me that XP might not do design work very well.

My old one with 400mhz, 192 RAM freezes with SW every time.

So far this goes like the wind..

 

[svanels]

I did solid modelling with Acad 14 on a Pentium I with 32 MB ram, running NT. And you need 128MB to run word on XP? The problem with XP is that a lot of drivers are not available and when you install some programs it says that it can not run it, (you need to buy an update). Never the less I got Viso 5 running although the computer (xp) said it was impossible. Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[AJUK]

I have Windows ME at home and have absolutely no problems. However, for overall stability Windows 2000 is the only way to go. It is extremely stable and very fast. I have been running all of my business systems on it for over a year now and have never had a crash.

Dont bother with Windows XP, I was running it on a 1.5 P4, 512 RAM and a Geforce 3; it was slower than ME and almost every program I ran crashed. The activation issue really doesnt sit well with me either.

Regards
AJ

 

[Like2Strike]

As an added tidbit about my earlier post!

Keep your eyes open for the release of "Lindows"

The operating system is built on the Linux kernel and is capable of running Windows programs. Reports from beta users is that the OS is not a RAM Hog and system reliability very high. I am looking forward to its release later this year, then maybe I wont have to reboot twice a day.

Live Aloha Frank M.
Tradewind Resources

http://twrusa.tripod.com

 

[jehar]

I also tried Windows ME when I was tried of 4 to 5 crashes a day in Windows 95. Nothing worked correcly in ME and crashes were worse. I now have XP Home version and it is great, I still occasionally crash a program, but it does not bring down the system as it did in Windows 95. Yes it is a memory hog, but memory is cheap to buy.
Jack Hardie

 

[ADMIRALKEN]

I suggest you get Windows 2000 Pro, it's really NT 5.0, with a different name, I use it at home and have not had any problems. XP is a resource hog!!!!!

I would also go for at least 256 megs of ram.

Win2k, supports plug and play, USB and is very stable.

 

[abhio]

Well Linux rules ;-) Unfortunately, it's being neglecte by all except the BIG ones (like ANSYS). Thanks for the tip about Lindows. Gues it will be great when it comes Abhijeet Oundhakar
Design Engineer
STUP Consultants Ltd.
Bombay, India

 

[bylar]

more garbage for you to digest.

I have Win2k and it runs great!
I won't bother with XP for some time.

 

[karlsch]

I've been running Windows XP since Beta 2 on a 733mhz machine with 128mBytes of memory. I've only had 2 BlueScreens and both were while the system was still in Beta. I used to run Win2k, and find XP more stable, more compatible with devices (finding drivers for Win2k always seemed to be a pain).

As for Linux, I used to think that Unix was "the bee's knees" - but that was 20 years ago. Linux is an OS that
fundamentally is based on 30 year old technology. Unless
you have need to actually look at the source code (which
if I were building a BattleBot I'd need to), I just don't see what the big deal about it is. It seems to keep trying to play catchup with Windows and device compatibility. I've got better things to do with my time.

 

[romke]

i think win2k is the most economic way to go. It can be had much cheaper then XP and is just as stable.

As far as Linux is concerned: it certainly is stable and good - but at this moment still only for those who like a Unix-like environment (and have time to accept a rather steap learning curve).

For those people that actually use a computer to get some work done, Windows is still the best bet - althoug Linux with KDE or Gnome are catching up.

 

[nomad48]

I use both Solidworks 2001 Plus and Autocad 2002. I have one computer running Windows 2000 Pro and one running Windows XP, both run without a hitch. There is a caveat however, Windows 2000 Pro can be picky about older hardware and simply does not support some hardware and software. Windows XP is an excellent OS (probably the best OS current available), but (there is always a but...) you need an up-to-date computer to satisfy the demands of the Windows XP OS espically memory and graphics card. My preference is Windows XP so I built my new computer with this OS in mind.
Finally, Windows ME may be the worst OS Microsoft has offered since Windows 1.0......... Windows 98 SE is far superior in the non-NT Kernal Windows OS's.

 

[enbejay98]

I use windows 2000 at work and XP pro at home and both work well. I use 256mb RAM with my XP at home and have not had a problem yet. ME is a complete waste of time as far as operating systems go though. I would not waste my time even considering it. If you use less than 256 megs of RAM with XP you will encounter problems, and generally 512 megs is recommended to give yourself a bit of a margin of safety.

 

[IRstuff]

XP is worth it for ONE reason...RESTORE

it's a good thing. on all other versions of windoze, if your program munches the os, you can be totally hosed. xp allows you to rollback the os to a previous state.

TTFN

 

[kotasatish]

Hi,

I don't know how XP or the ME works....But general opinion says that it is full nothing but bugs, I believe going for Win2K is much more better, I am a software engineer developing softwares for the Plant designs and we 2 moved from NT to Win2K...and we are on it from past 1.5 to 2 years and no problems with that...

These are my Specifications I hope it helps you.

O.S : Windows 2000 Professional with ServicePack 2
Hardware Configuration : Pentium 3 with 1GHz along with 512 MB RAM and 20GB hard disk.

With Regards

Satish

 

[DanTex]

Note that you can upgrade your RAM memory very cheaply nowadays ( I just bought a 512 MB PC2700 chip for less than $100 US. Of course, be careful... not all op sys can handle too much memory. For Win98SE, 512 is the most you want in your system. I'm not sure about ME. Win2000 & XP can handle more.

On your "specific" question, all reports I've heard point to Win2000 as the most stable and reliable. However... drivers, etc. might be tougher to use than others Windows versions.

Dan

http://www.dtware.com