Sijun Forums :: View topic

blackcabbages · junior member Member # Joined: 13 Oct 2002 Posts: 8

hi! I'm buying a wacom tablet (graphire 2) and i'll reinstall the OS, 'cause I intend to use Photoshop more seriously than I have until now. It's currently win98se, which is not good. But I'd like your opinion on what OS should I install - win NT, win2k or winXP.
I read somewhere that winNT didn't support the graphire tablet because it didn't support the BUS something.
Win2k, from what I gather, requires much RAM. I have 192Mb.
winXP will be too 'heavy' on my pc, i think, though it meets the minimum requirements. (pentiumIII 667Mhz, if u need 2 know: Nvidia Riva TNT2 32Mb).
What do u think?

btw- first post here

Giant Hamster · member Member # Joined: 22 Oct 1999 Posts: 1782

Win98se, the only way to go.

(Anyone got any info on if Lindows is any good?)

J Bradford · Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:59 am

I would go with Win2k, it's very bare bones compared to WinXP, and can run a lot of things like video games, where WinNT cannot. It runs fine on my pIII 500, even when I had 128MB or RAM.

Rat · Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 9:11 am

I'd go with 98se, myself..

Coaster · Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 9:30 am

Hamster: Lindows is about as useful as a burnt out light bulb.

I got my tablet to work on Red Hat by just plugging it in, I had so much trouble before because the pen was just broken. (meaning I need to write with the eraser now)

win2k is supposed to be more stable then the others, I don't really trust microsoft's lines of products so stick with win 98, save yourself a few thousand or whatever dollars.

Drunken Monkey · Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 10:07 am

Don't get linux if you wanna get any work done.

If i was you i would spend extra $50 to get a 128mb stick of ram to handle the XP's default 80mb it uses from boot.
(mushkin.com for memory)

And Win2k is not more stable than XP quite the opposite. Go with XP turn off all the skins and you get yourself a system that is just as fast and much more stable. Mine has never ever blue-screened on me.

Fafnir · Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 10:29 am

win2k all the way, i'm running it right now and it's a very good OS.
i've heard lots of people having troubles installing win2k but i had no problem, was easier then debian (potato) and is extremely stable.
i installed with 64 megs of ram and upgraded to 196 and it worked perfectly at 64, and it's great at 196, i can't wait until i can get 256.
it hasn't crashed sinced i installed it (well over 9 months ago) and it's going strong. it's quick and easy to use, and not gawdy like XP or twitchy like 98se.
plus you get the nifty drop shadow on the cursor.
and i forgot which 3d program was that only used 2k. i dunno, i'm probably wrong.
so if you want reliability and a strong OS get 2k.

-fin

[Shizo] · member Member # Joined: 22 Oct 1999 Posts: 3938

No no.. only the NT line, 2000 or XP (but NT itself is a last century OS.. literally hehe).
You do need more RAM, but assuming the ram you already have isn't top quality, $30 for a 128 stick will be sufficient.

But man.. do NOT use anything 9x, it's killer. Multitasking in 2k/xp is whaaaaaaaaaaay better than 9x. The control over hardware and operating system is WHAAAAAAAAAY broader. Memory management is whaaaaaaay nicer. Well it makes sence, 9x is for pussies, NT is for pros and servers

Although you do have to be a pro and not a pussy to use it, if you dont set everything up right, and you dont know how to reap the benefits of NT, no point for you of using it.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: [Shizo] ]

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: [Shizo] ]

Giant Hamster · member Member # Joined: 22 Oct 1999 Posts: 1782

This is what I have to say about this.

Egg Beater · Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 9:08 pm

I'm gonna have to relay my ditest for win9x and my love for XP.

I've used every single OS you can imagine (win2k, NT, XP, 95, 98, 98se, BeOS, Linux, FreeBSD, MacOS, etc) and I pledge my full support for XP. NT/2K "might" give you some problems with drivers, but WinXP is almost a guaranteed win.

Like everyone else (mostly), I would suggest bumping up your hardware if at all possible (RAM first).

Coaster · Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:05 pm

yeah, Fafnir is right. But if you don't mind having to rip out a little more hair you can always stick with 98.

OS's are really only good if you like them yourself, and everyperson has different preferences, so go with what you like.

Ancient Spirit · junior member Member # Joined: 13 Oct 2002 Posts: 3

same here-
I tried win98, Win2k, WinXP.
XP is a big improvement over win9x.. its WAY more stable and comfortable to use. XP never even once crashed on me since I have it. (win9x does it about once every other day).

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ancient Spirit ]

[666]Flat · Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:46 am

XP is for pussies. Win2K all the way.

Frost · Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 9:47 am

I have no problems with XP whatsoever. W2K or XP for me. Anything less is just a BSOD waiting to happen.

Sukhoi · Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 3:05 pm

XP, definately.
2000 runs games like something really slow would run games...erh.

And XP is by far the most stable OS I have ever touched. It's piss-ugly, but there are ways around that....

Sukhoi

edraket · Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 11:13 pm

johan_san · Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2002 6:36 pm

Win2k w/NTFS file system will NEVER Freeze... Ever(or at least in the past 8 months ive used it)... 192mb is plenty to run Photoshop 7 and other graphics programs.

I have an Athelon 800 w/ 256 ram (and yes ok i run TNT2 32MB)

note: NTFS not for gaming but really good for desktop aplications ... can't run UT anymore...

only down side.

glody · Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2002 7:48 pm

im in xp using NTFS...my games run fine....id say xp all the way....

Cleoric · Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2002 1:10 am

Woah. When I first read the people pushing win98se I checked the date in case I had missed something. Ummm, yeah. Win2k or XP. The proffessers at college like Win2k more than XP, as does my brother, but I don't really see why. XP's just as good, if not better. Turn off the crappy options, services you don't need, and it's fine. *shrug* So yeah, 2k or XP

PS: People still run fat32 or 16 or what? Weird. I just figured everyone used NTFS nowadays heh. Ignorant am I!

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Cleoric ]

Angelic Remix · Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2002 1:13 am

I recently upgraded to XP after my webcam installer melted 98.

The stability of this thing is massive, even if the memory requirements match it.

Despite the high memory usage, the way XP handles memory is far more efficient, thus causing fewer crashes and generally speeding up the system. Also, integration of drivers is very impressive in XP. When I did a cold install, I expected to have to load in safe mode so I could install my graphics card drivers. Imagine my surprise when it loaded everything properly and automatically installed the right drivers for my card!

I use Photoshop, 3D Studio MAX, and other memory intensive programs frequently. I play games all the time. I have 192 megs of ram and a 550mhz processor. Everything works just fine.

At work I use Windows 2000. While it works fine and doesn't crash, it simply isn't as fast or as user-friendly as Win XP.

Ultimately I think it's a personal choice, though. More hardcore minimalist types might go for 2k, but for the general artist populace, XP is a good choice.

Gort · Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 5:22 am

Win98 is absolute garbage for production development; it's unstable and prone to memory dumps. Use it at your own risk.

Win2000 Pro and WinXP Pro are without a doubt the best operating systems from Microsoft. ROCK SOLID. I use both at home and at work (since their introduction on the market), and I have never once - EVER - had a system crash using them.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Carter ]