Is Windows XP really that buggy?

[Niffiwan]

Well, I've finally gotten around to replacing my "Pentium1 200Mhz, Windows-95-OS" computer to a 2000Mhz one, so that I can run DOSBox and thus SC2.  I figured as long as I'm upgrading, I should upgrade to something good... besides it was only $535CAD

Anyway, my problem is that I don't know which OS to install on it. The most popular choice right now seems to be WinXP....
However, while I've heard a lot of people on this board say that it runs older programs very buggy.
So, what would you suggest?  I'd like to get a relatively recent Windows, since I'd like to be able to run new games as well as old ones.

Thanks in advance for any replies!  

[Eth]

If I were getting a new computer, I'd put Linux on it.  You could still play your old games on Dosbox, and with the money you saved by getting a free OS, you could buy a Playstation or something, and never deal with installation hassles again.  Plus, Linux is like the LEAST buggy OS out there.  

[Rider]

200 Mhz eh? and WinXP? Don't!! I know a guy who tried to put WinXP on his 200MhZ and he had to reformat because it wouldn't boot anymore.

XP is a bad choise on any machine though. If you're a gamer or anything near that, don't get it. Get Win98 for 200Mhz Win2k for 800+ and wait for Win dotNET with anything beyond 3 GhZ.

Yeah Linux is good... I don't know if SC2 would run it it though. I don't use Linux for 2 reasons: I can't get it, I program in delphi, and that requires a Windows enviorement... so no can do.

For the record, I have a 200MhZ pc, running Win98 and I made a bootdisk, you know. And I use THAT for SC. It works great, Xcept I have to reboot if I want to play a wingame. (glitches glitches) well so far my rant... I hope I helped.

[Tou-Foo-Rol]

(It must be done...)

I think it's all relative.
Is Barney that drunk?
Is Lenny the depressed?
Is Homer that fat, bald and stupid?
(And the requesite brownie points shall be award to he who catches the refrence.)

Seriously though, I don't know whether or not WinXP is 'buggy', though I would be wary of ANY MicroSoft product when it comes to stability.

Speaking of which, Linux is indeed one of the (if not THE most) stable OSes available, although I had EXTREMELY bad luck with it... it actually crashed... frequently... however, this said, it's stability can best be accounted for by the look of absolute shock on the faces of the technogeeks I told this to.
Simply:  Linux doesn't crash, if it does crash, something is VERY wrong with your computer.  'Guess I had the latter.  XD[/i]

[Niffiwan]

Err... I didn't say I was upgrading to a 200Mhz computer, RIGHT?  

Nope... not at all... in fact, as you see in my original message, I REALLY said I was upgrading my 200Mhz to a 2000Mhz...  
(Well, it's really an AMD 1667Mhz, but that's the equivalent to Intel 2000Mhz because AMD motherboards are more efficient)
Yes, it really DID cost only $535CAD ($300USD).


But anyway... I'd like to be able to also run new games like Warcraft III on my computer, and aren't most of those not compatible with Linux?  
Besides, why would I want to buy a playstation when I own a Dreamcast?   (prepares for a long, heated argument)

Right now, I have the option of installing either Win2k Pro or WinXP pro.  I've been told on another message board that the "Pro" versions are a lot more stable than the "home" versions, and I've been told on this board just now that if I should not go anywhere near WinXP for playing games.  
So, I suppose I'll install Win2k Pro...  has anybody used this?  I know it's better for stability than the home version, but is it any less friendly for playing games?

[ErekLich]

I'm running XP on my box here...

it is actually incredibly stable (especially when compared with Microsoft's previous platforms!)  BUT those advising you are correct, any game that uses intensive processing power has... issues... when used on XP.

[Megagun]

hmm win2000, pretty stable, IMHO...
heh, i once was in a store where they sold a pc with XP on it, and there was one as a example on so ppl could try and look at winXP before buying.. and it was freezing..

well.. i find win2000 pretty stable on our network.. unless you run on one comp win98 and on the other 2 win2000...... bad move

[Chad]

I used to run Windows 2000 Professional and now am running XP Professional.

IMHO, 2000 Prof was the first version of Windows that actually "worked" if you know what I mean.  Playing games that came out over the past 2-3 years and current games have been simple and they worked great on 2000 and XP Prof.

I've heard that the "Home" version of XP sucked, so I don't know about that, but I'll never use 95 or 98 again.

[ErekLich]

I have the "Home version" of XP; as I said it is very stable and so forth but for processor intensive games it sucks.

[Kumiorava]

Err... I didn't say I was upgrading to a 200Mhz computer, RIGHT?  

...why would I want to buy a playstation when I own a Dreamcast?   (prepares for a long, heated argument)

Dreamcast rules! I have gamecube and dreamcast, and I love both of 'em

But back on the topic, I myself have XP Professional and it has been very stable, and I would NEVER use win98 again! So i'd say, get Windows XP if you want to play games, at least every (well, at least almost every) game works on it, except the old games

[Scott_Irving]

XP is the single most stable version of windows there is. However it is still windows which from it's core has stability problems. Generally it's quite stable besides when I was having hardware problems XP runs great haven't had a problem with it since I removed the bad mem stick. As to dos stuff, as many have mentioned XP is terrible for them, namely because with XP Dos has been removed totally, Windows ME had dos as a base still so it was able to run dos stuff with some playing.

Now if you want stability and "up-to-date" OS (not to mention free) go with Linux, it's not for beginners mind you so be aware. But it is very stable, though I don't know anything about it's DOS support, if it even has any.

You can ignore this really... just jabbering about another OS...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want relative easy of use and stability and total dos support go with OS/2 warp 4 (which is around 10 years old), it's IMHO the best OS ever made. It Supports it's own programs as well as Dos and Win 3.1 (and some win32), there are projects to allow it to support all the newest windows apps and many linux apps.

[Eth]

Now if you want stability and "up-to-date" OS (not to mention free) go with Linux, it's not for beginners mind you so be aware. But it is very stable, though I don't know anything about it's DOS support, if it even has any.

Only with DOSbox, if I have been granted sufficient insight.  

You can ignore this really... just jabbering about another OS...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want relative easy of use and stability and total dos support go with OS/2 warp 4 (which is around 10 years old), it's IMHO the best OS ever made. It Supports it's own programs as well as Dos and Win 3.1 (and some win32), there are projects to allow it to support all the newest windows apps and many linux apps.

Fascinating.  I had no idea.  

[Rider]

OS warz here I come! My dad has XP on HIS computer (prof) and he can't run most games that he could when he had Win2k. I presonally can't run a number of games online because he took XP. (He is the server for my comps. internet... money issue)

I don't recommend anyone XP. Except those who only use their computer for word & excell like stuff (and those people don't post here y'know) but for anything that has anything to do with games... DON'T DO IT! It's WAY to user-friendly and although they say it's stable and all, tell my friends that...

XP is Microsofts miss-birth.

[Scott_Irving]

XP is bad for dos yes but for windows games? um I don't agree. I've had far less problems with windows games in XP then in any of the previous incarnations.
As far as my graphics software and things like that, they run smoother in XP as well.

Just a note w2k is almost the same thing as XP, they added more support for stuff and a fanicier GUI for it but really at it's heart it's almost the same. w2k dosen't have the compatiblity mode either to my knowledge. Also 2000 is NT based and so's XP.

What problems have your friends been having anyway?, It may well not be XP but drivers and the like. My job is to build,sell and service computers if that says anything, before I was doing this kinda stuff un-offically for quite a while to.

[Sedodes]

I'm currently running WinXP home.  I previously ran Win2000, and prior to that ran Linux (prior to that ran win98SE).

I find that for gaming WinXP is far more stable than Win2000.  It won't play as many of your older games, but if it does, they're less likely to crash.  I've had no problem playing oldies like "Master of Magic", but, ironicly, couldn't get the original "Master of Orion" to run.  I don't have problems with processor intensive games like some people here do.  Of course, I'm running a 2.66 P4 with 512 DDRAM so that may come into play.

Linux is top dog of them all.  Period.  I'd switch back, honestly, but am too lazy.

Win98SE... not even worth the keystrokes to describe this monster.  I'll just say that even Win95 was better.

My thoughts on Athlon:  I've used Athlon chips in the past.  I don't like them.  If you're running a dedicated gaming platform they're fine, but anything besides gaming seems to get poor performance.  I run a "jack of all trades" PC so I need something with good performance regardless of the task.  Maybe one day I'll build a gaming machine with an Athlon when I have the $$.