Traj, I just finished loading the "XP Home Upgrade" on my computer a few minutes ago, so I don't have any real idea how it's going to work out. One thing that I've noticed right away though, is that it's a lot faster. I've got an HP with a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 processor, with Windows ME (or, I had Windows ME. ) . To answer your question, the upgrade version gives you the option & instructions on how to do both the upgrade or new installation. It took me a little over an hour to do the upgrade. It tells you which components need to have the updated version installed & if you're online, will automatically go to the update page for the download after the installation is complete. It did come back during the installation & tell me that my scanner wasn't compatible with XP. It's less than a year old . I was so tired & frustrated with ME crashing everytime I turned around, that I went ahead & got XP now, instead of waiting the 6 months that has been suggested by the other posters. My computer also had the same problem with shutting down that you mentioned & it got to the point that it would do that about 9 out of 10 times when I shut the system down. Hope this answers your question & I'll let you know if I run into any problems with it.
TraJ, All flavors of Linux use the same kernel. Which package you download depends on the add-ons it has. By far, the most user friendly is RedHat. It has the most utilities and packages out there. But all flavors of Linux is easy to install. As for dual-booting, as long as you don't use NTFS and have a partition available, you should be able to use LILO to dual boot. As for NTFS, you can dual boot with Linux, but you just need to install NT first. Linux cannot read NTFS, however, you can download an alpha driver for it. Anyway, you get the picture.
If the question is regarding *home use*, I would go with either 2000 or XP. I've had no trouble with either for home use, and like a couple of people have mentioned earlier, they share the same kernel basically. XP gets the edge if I were forced to pick one over the other. Besides some really good functionality and ease of use, it looks great too. Say what you want about the boys in Redmond, but they rule. Until someone creates an OS that can match Windows pound-for-pound, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Let me clarify, XP is fine for most people, however, if you are a gamer, or someone who pushes the limitations of your PC. The guy who always gets the latest hardware, or beta drivers for your computer. If you are that guy....stay FAR...FAR away from XP. And yes, I am that guy. DaDakota PS. A robot? That explains all these loose wires in my head.
Even if someone does match it pound for pound, they aren't going anywhere. Thanks to the stranglehold they have on the planet. BTW, OS X in my opinion is a nicer interface and easier to navigate for me than XP (at least the RC2 beta I had), but it won't take down XP.
DoD -- LOL! You're right about the stranglehold. But hey, at one time the WordPerfect Corporation ruled....enter Microsoft.
Gnome, KDE, or WindowManager for Linux is way better than Windows. That's workstation OS. As far as Network OS. NT/W2K sucks. Netware/*nix are much better. Anyone who knows anything knows this. The "MS only" fools out there, and yes, they are everywhere, who are TOO DAMN BLIND AND STUPID AND SCARED to look to anything else and refuse to expand their pea-sized brains, will tell you the MS NOS is the best. Anyone who knows *nix or NetWare and says MS NOS is better is a f'idiot. That said, it doesn't matter. CEO's read the GREAT marketing hoopla that MS puts out. That's why they are so damned popular and successful. Bill Gates and his marketing team are brilliant.
One of my best friends works as a Microserf at Microsoft marketing SQL Server. He knows jack about computers. I always found that funny, somehow...
Traj, At this point, unless you want to jack around with all the fancy little digital media thingys that XP comes with, I would waste money on W2K rather than an OS that has just now come out.(you know how M$ is about putting out OS before they are ready) Hell, W2K is just now getting reliable enough for me to recommend it. As was mentioned before, Red Hat is an outstanding *nix version to use for a newbie. Another one to consider would be Drake(Mandrake) it is based on RH's version but I like it better than RH.(Just a personal preference) Give it a shot, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from the experience. Just partition ur drive and install Win2K first and then install Linux and use the Lilo bootloader to choose which system to boot to. There are tons of places online to get help from and Mandrake/Redhat comes with good documentation to get you started. Dont be afraid to mess around with its innards, thats how you learn. Mess with it, break it, fix it, repeat..You will be addicted in no time if you like having total control over how your OS and computer works. Coma nailed it on the head, M$ stole ADS from Novell's NDS adn they dont even do it right. Hell, they stole the original idea for DOS from someone inthe 70's and they stole(copied) the idea for the GUI from Apple... Im still waiting for MS to come up with a good idea on their own, I can think of one really great idea (see MS Bob)...
