> > I would recommend getting Windows XP - thus far, it's been solid and
> > installed perfectly (apart from the standard "13 minutes" actually means
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Calvin.
As a die-hard NT4 fan (it's been running on my main PC for many years now!),
I would disagree. You _do_ need lots of memory for WinXP, but this is
pretty cheap these days, and I'm sure its bigger but where WinNT won't
install readily, I've found WinXP a very good alternative.
You can speed up WinXP quite a lot be removing the "useful" features such as
"fade-in" menus and the like. I find there is little difference between
tweaked WinXP and WinNT, and WinXP installs remarkably easily and seems to
support more hardware.
Paul DS.
Calvin - 05 Apr 2005 22:47 GMT
Hi Paul,
I'm glad you still are a supporter of NT4 - there are so few of us left it seems :-(
What you didn't address in my list of complaints about XP (and Win2k to a lesser
extent) is it's HDD footprint - it is MASSIVE, courtesy of all the bloatware
that Microsoft insist on installing along with the base OS, and of course don't
give you an option to NOT install :-(
NT4 Workstation can be made fully operation (though not particularly pretty) in
an 85MB footprint. (My Syquest recovery boot removable media hard drive copy is
this size). From what I've seen you'd be hard pressed to get XP down below 1000MB !
Calvin.
Paul D.Smith - 06 Apr 2005 08:48 GMT
> Hi Paul,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Calvin.
Fair cop. I do suspect that few people actually install a "minimal" NT4
system but I take your point that for those "in the know", NT4 can be much
smaller.
Personally, I have so much bloatware software in addition to the O/S that I
don't notice the jump that much.
Paul DS.
Helmut P. Einfalt - 06 Apr 2005 05:29 GMT
>> If small footprint and rock-solid stability are your top priorities,
>> persevere with installing NT4, it's worth it in the end :-)
>
> As a die-hard NT4 fan [...] I've found WinXP a very good
alternative.
Both of you seem to have forgotten the alternative:
NT5 aka Win2k...
It has fewer snags than NT4 and a smaller footprint than XP and --
like NT4 -- it has been around long enough to be a really stable
product.
But to be honest -- I have it because I needed it for exactly one
program that would not run under NT4. For the rest, I fire up the
trusted NT4...
Helmut

Signature
All typos © My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept.