What operating system to install? What to back-up?

nava

Hi all

I have to update the operating system on my PC, I will format the HD and install a new OS, what operating sysem would you recommend 2000 or XP?#

Any info about 2003 (Server)?

It will be use for browsing the web, downloading files, and also some stuff for work on WORD, EXCELL, etc


Also what should I back-up other than "My Documents", Bookmarks and some of the downloaded files.

Any other ideas.

Regards
Nava

Pantera

2003 Server?

I would say win xp if you are running a modern system, if not then win 2000 uses less system resources and is the better option. It really does all depend on your system. I would perhaps hold off installing service pack 2 for xp if you decide to go down that route however as it appears to have some stability issues, but i am sure these will be ironed out in time. You might want to back up any emails that you have saved if you use outlook or a similar program

Zonko

XP

XP kinda sucks, you won't need a server OS, and 2K is the best of all the windows so far, but.... Install Linux, then just Keep 2K for games

deckie27

If you have a sys thats as a good P3 plus with at least 256mb ram go for XP any less go for win2k and buy some ram


Dec

Zonko

XP

Nah, Pentiums suck, I assume you already have a built computer, but if not, go with AMD, cheaper, faster and all round better.

Syth

If you are going to be doing simple stuff like web browsing or office stuff, then Linux would do. It's free! And you don't have to worry about spyware/adware/viruses.

OfflerCrocGod

XP

2k `nuff said.

Redrocket

XP

deckie27 wrote:

If you have a sys thats as a good P3 plus with at least 256mb ram go for XP any less go for win2k and buy some ram


Dec

you make it sound like 2k is the memory hog when its XP that steals memory for no reason
who are all these people that voted for XP? XP is windows 2000 with a lick of paint and some memory grabbing problems




install 2k, leave XP in the box

astrofool

2003 Server?

install XP if your machine is in anyway decent.

people still pushing 2k now are idiots.

Inspector Gadget

That's a little harsh, isn't it astrofool? Win2K has its place on older systems, and for those of us that wouldn't necessarily look out of place wearing tin-foil hats

As these OSes go, you don't seem to be doing anything that would really need a "server" OS, so either Win2K or XP should do. If you really only want to do a bit of Office work, and a bit of web browsing, then maybe XP Home is the most economical option (it's cheaper than the "professional" flavours, namely Win2k and XP Pro). Remember though that XP Home is hobbled somewhat - there's too much to describe here, but a quick google should clarify what you need to know - which accounts for its reduced price compared to the other two.

You should really price these operating systems for yourself - it'll probably help make your mind up somewhat. Finally, if you do choose XP, follow Pantera's suggestion and stay away from installing Service Pack 2 for now, until the path of destruction it leaves in its wake is better known

Hope this helps,
Gadget

Zonko

XP

astrofool wrote:

install XP if your machine is in anyway decent.

people still pushing 2k now are idiots.

Ok, thats a load of crap, XP is 2k, but takes up more memory, in my experiece, has more problems, is worse for games, looks crappier and takes up HDD space with useless crap you never need.

GarGuile

Linux is free (More or less) and it can definitely do what you need!

Inspector Gadget

Yes, Linux is "free" (in so far as it can be freely downloaded). However, even for broadband users, it can put a serious dent in your monthly BB cap, considering that practically every feature-rich distro - for example, one that might include OpenOffice (which I'm sure you are/will be hinting at) is over a gigabyte in size - OpenOffice 1.1.2 on it's own is a 76MB download! (in the Linux flavour)

Also, it has a relatively steep learning curve for the uninitiated, and does tend to tie you down with respect to gaming (should the urge take you, unless you're a hardcore Tux Racer nut or something).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not anti-Linux or anything like that; but unless nava has some experience with Unix-type operating systems, this might be case of throwing someone in at the deep end...

Just my 2c...
Gadget

Fenster

2003 Server?

XP Pro on one HD and Redhat Fedora on the other for myself.

Syth

Inspector Gadget wrote:

Yes, Linux is "free" (in so far as it can be freely downloaded). However, even for broadband users, it can put a serious dent in your monthly BB cap, considering that practically every feature-rich distro - for example, one that might include OpenOffice (which I'm sure you are/will be hinting at) is over a gigabyte in size - OpenOffice 1.1.2 on it's own is a 76MB download! (in the Linux flavour)

Also, it has a relatively steep learning curve for the uninitiated, and does tend to tie you down with respect to gaming (should the urge take you, unless you're a hardcore Tux Racer nut or something).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not anti-Linux or anything like that; but unless nava has some experience with Unix-type operating systems, this might be case of throwing someone in at the deep end...

Just my 2c...
Gadget

Well yes, games suck on Linux. For now. That's why I have a GameCube.

However you don't have to download the CDs, some Linux Mags have them. And people will burn them for you. Like Me. If anyone's interested I have the following distributions and can burn them for the price of a blank and postage: Fedora Core 2 (DVD), Red Hat 9, Slackware 10, SuSE 9.1 Personal, Gentoo 2004.1 and Knoppix 3.3. PM me if your interested.

As for the learing curve, yes there is one, but it's not steep. Joe Q Public would be able to be up and doing the basics in no time. Most people were $hit at windows the first time they used it. Most of the recent desktop environments are quite simple to use., so it probably wouldn't be the deep end.

Fenster

2003 Server?

Syth wrote:

Well yes, games suck on Linux. For now. That's why I have a GameCube.

However you don't have to download the CDs, some Linux Mags have them. And people will burn them for you. Like Me. If anyone's interested I have the following distributions and can burn them for the price of a blank and postage: Fedora Core 2 (DVD), Red Hat 9, Slackware 10, SuSE 9.1 Personal, Gentoo 2004.1 and Knoppix 3.3. PM me if your interested.

As for the learing curve, yes there is one, but it's not steep. Joe Q Public would be able to be up and doing the basics in no time. Most people were $hit at windows the first time they used it. Most of the recent desktop environments are quite simple to use., so it probably wouldn't be the deep end.

PC Format have a distro or two on their magazines each month. So far I have Mandrake, Fedora, Suse and Gentoo. More "hardcore" Linux magazines carry more esoteric and obscure distros.

Syth

Fenster wrote:

PC Format have a distro or two on their magazines each month. So far I have Mandrake, Fedora, Suse and Gentoo. More "hardcore" Linux magazines carry more esoteric and obscure distros.

Yup. Linux Format is the source of my distros. Damn good magazine BTW.

sceptre

XP

nava wrote:

Any info about 2003 (Server)?

Sure. It's total overkill for what you're planning on using the machine for based on the list you gave. Unless you want to appear cool in front of your clueless mates because your clued mates will realise that it's total overkill for what you're planning on using the machine for (and they may tell the clueless ones whose opinion of you as cool will diminish rapidly). And there are little disadvantages as well but the reason I just gave should be enough.

2000 or XP. 2000 will do fine. You didn't say what the actual spec of your machine is so I'm going to vote for 2000.

RicardoSmith

2003 Server?

XP is faster than W2K for gaming. I've seen benchmarks proving it. If you have a low spec machine you can tune XP by turning off all the fancy stuff, so it looks exactly like W2k and is as quick and quicker most cases. You can run it on a PII400 with 192mb no nproblem. Both XP and w2k need a minium of 192 though. Any less and either will crawl. XP home is also a lot cheaper than w2k. XP has more support for hardware and software than w2k. The life span for support will be longer for XP than W2K you can be sure of that.

To me theres no decision. XP home or pro every time.

RicardoSmith

2003 Server?

nava wrote:

Hi all
Any info about 2003 (Server)?

It will be use for browsing the web, downloading files, and also some stuff for work on WORD, EXCELL, etc

You don't need Server 2003.

Back up, documents, email folders, address books, links and any other folders you saved stuff too. Also dialup settings, passwords etc.

Spacedog

XP

XP seems more vulnerable to attacks and instabilities than win 2k, either way be sure to patch them both to the teeth before going online.

RicardoSmith

2003 Server?

..and a good firewall and av app.

nava

Hi All

Thanks very much for the info, I think I will go for XP as it looks like the most popular.

Thanks

Zonko

XP

nava wrote:

Hi All

Thanks very much for the info, I think I will go for XP as it looks like the most popular.

Thanks

NOES!!!!!! GOE WITH 2K!
Seriously, ask someone that you know that knows an awful lot about windows, and all the different versions, and how windows works, DON'T go with XP!