me vs xp

[Howard & Jean]

I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more experience
with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to which system is
better and more stabile.

I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system with XP.

Is this advisable ?

Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch completely to
XP?

Would I lose anything if I ran a dual boot although just about
everything I run will also run on XP.

Thanksi

[Jim Macklin]

If you want to play games or run some "old" stuff, you might
benefit from keeping ME. But ME is a buggy and unstable OS.
XP will run most games and software, it is stable, fast and
reliable, particularly when used with NTFS files system.

If you need to ask the question, you might find the dual
boot option more trouble than it is worth.

I like XP OS, it runs without serious problems and in 9
months I haven't had one BSOD. I have had some application
crashes, but the computer worked through them, without data
loss. Repair of the application was not difficult. The
computer hardware was selected from all XP compliant
components. If you upgrade be sure all your hardware is XP
compatible.


"Howard & Jean" > wrote in message
...
| I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more
experience
| with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to
which system is
| better and more stabile.
|
| I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system
with XP.
|
| Is this advisable ?
|
| Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch
completely to
| XP?
|
| Would I lose anything if I ran a dual boot although just
about
| everything I run will also run on XP.
|
| Thanksi
|

[Jim Macklin]

If you want to play games or run some "old" stuff, you might
benefit from keeping ME. But ME is a buggy and unstable OS.
XP will run most games and software, it is stable, fast and
reliable, particularly when used with NTFS files system.

If you need to ask the question, you might find the dual
boot option more trouble than it is worth.

I like XP OS, it runs without serious problems and in 9
months I haven't had one BSOD. I have had some application
crashes, but the computer worked through them, without data
loss. Repair of the application was not difficult. The
computer hardware was selected from all XP compliant
components. If you upgrade be sure all your hardware is XP
compatible.


"Howard & Jean" > wrote in message
...
| I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more
experience
| with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to
which system is
| better and more stabile.
|
| I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system
with XP.
|
| Is this advisable ?
|
| Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch
completely to
| XP?
|
| Would I lose anything if I ran a dual boot although just
about
| everything I run will also run on XP.
|
| Thanksi
|

[Walter Clayton]

Inline....

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp


"Howard & Jean" > wrote in message
...
> I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more experience
> with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to which system is
> better and more stabile.
>
> I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system with XP.
>
> Is this advisable ?

Depends. Only you can really answer that question. Generally the only people
that benefit from mult-booting are those that test operating systems, test
applications or have compatability issues with core business functions and
are willing to go through the hassle.

>
> Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch completely to
> XP?

Again it depends. That's something that only you can answer. However that
will also depend on the software and hardware you currently have installed.
There is the possibility that you may to have buy new versions of different
things, which simply drives up the initial cost. Whether or not the cost is
worth it is entirely up to you.

>
> Would I lose anything if I ran a dual boot although just about
> everything I run will also run on XP.

Generally not. However odds are you'll have to install some applications
seperatly in order to minimize conflict issues. Case in point is there is no
way I'd share firewall or anti-virus applications between the OS images.

Although you haven't raised the issue, the biggest issue people have with
multi-booting using the supplied MS tools is the difficulty with reverting
back to a single OS image if that happens to be XP. In and of itself, that
should give people pause. However doing the install has it's merits. In the
end, the decision is up to you.

[Walter Clayton]

Inline....

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp


"Howard & Jean" > wrote in message
...
> I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more experience
> with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to which system is
> better and more stabile.
>
> I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system with XP.
>
> Is this advisable ?

Depends. Only you can really answer that question. Generally the only people
that benefit from mult-booting are those that test operating systems, test
applications or have compatability issues with core business functions and
are willing to go through the hassle.

>
> Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch completely to
> XP?

Again it depends. That's something that only you can answer. However that
will also depend on the software and hardware you currently have installed.
There is the possibility that you may to have buy new versions of different
things, which simply drives up the initial cost. Whether or not the cost is
worth it is entirely up to you.

>
> Would I lose anything if I ran a dual boot although just about
> everything I run will also run on XP.

Generally not. However odds are you'll have to install some applications
seperatly in order to minimize conflict issues. Case in point is there is no
way I'd share firewall or anti-virus applications between the OS images.

Although you haven't raised the issue, the biggest issue people have with
multi-booting using the supplied MS tools is the difficulty with reverting
back to a single OS image if that happens to be XP. In and of itself, that
should give people pause. However doing the install has it's merits. In the
end, the decision is up to you.

[Nuo Yan[MS MVP]]

Everything is OK, you can make a dual boot.

--
Nuo Yan [Microsoft MVP]
http://www.diyinside.com/nuoyan.asp
-----------------------------------------
°ïÖú±ðÈË£¬ Ìá¸ß×Ô¼º£¬ »¶Ó*²ÎÓë΢ÈíÐÂÎÅ×é¡£


"Howard & Jean" > wrote in message
...
> I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more experience
> with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to which system is
> better and more stabile.
>
> I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system with XP.
>
> Is this advisable ?
>
> Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch completely to
> XP?
>
> Would I lose anything if I ran a dual boot although just about
> everything I run will also run on XP.
>
> Thanksi
>

[Nuo Yan[MS MVP]]

Everything is OK, you can make a dual boot.

--
Nuo Yan [Microsoft MVP]
http://www.diyinside.com/nuoyan.asp
-----------------------------------------
°ïÖú±ðÈË£¬ Ìá¸ß×Ô¼º£¬ »¶Ó*²ÎÓë΢ÈíÐÂÎÅ×é¡£


"Howard & Jean" > wrote in message
...
> I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more experience
> with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to which system is
> better and more stabile.
>
> I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system with XP.
>
> Is this advisable ?
>
> Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch completely to
> XP?
>
> Would I lose anything if I ran a dual boot although just about
> everything I run will also run on XP.
>
> Thanksi
>

[Ken Blake]

"Howard & Jean" > wrote in message
...

> I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more
experience
> with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to which
system is
> better and more stabile.
>
> I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system with
XP.
>
> Is this advisable ?
>
> Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch
completely to
> XP?
>
> Would I lose anything if I ran a dual boot although just about
> everything I run will also run on XP.


I think that first of all, you need to ask yourself why are you
considering doing anything different from what you're doing now.
You're running Me--are you unhappy with it? Are you having
problems with it? Does it not do something that you know XP does,
or does better?

In my mind, the first question shouldn't be whether to dual-boot,
but rather whether to stick with the old operating system or go
to a new one. And the answer to that question should be driven by
your needs--the answers to the questions I asked above.

My personal opinion is that XP is far and away the best and most
stable version of Windows ever. But that doesn't mean I think
everyone should rush out to convert to it. No matter how good the
new operating system is, there is always risk of problems when
you go to something new, and there is always a learning curve
associated with the changeover. There is also a cost of the new
product, not to mention possible costs in upgrading other
software. You should undertake that risk, learning curve, and
cost only if you've clearly identified a value in doing so.

If you were buying a new computer and asking what operating
system to put on it, I would unhesitatingly recommend XP. But I
think most people running older operating systems and not having
trouble with them should stick with what they have.

Finally, for those who do convert to XP, most people don't need
to dual-boot it with their older operating system, and will see
little or no value in doing so.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

[Ken Blake]

"Howard & Jean" > wrote in message
...

> I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more
experience
> with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to which
system is
> better and more stabile.
>
> I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system with
XP.
>
> Is this advisable ?
>
> Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch
completely to
> XP?
>
> Would I lose anything if I ran a dual boot although just about
> everything I run will also run on XP.


I think that first of all, you need to ask yourself why are you
considering doing anything different from what you're doing now.
You're running Me--are you unhappy with it? Are you having
problems with it? Does it not do something that you know XP does,
or does better?

In my mind, the first question shouldn't be whether to dual-boot,
but rather whether to stick with the old operating system or go
to a new one. And the answer to that question should be driven by
your needs--the answers to the questions I asked above.

My personal opinion is that XP is far and away the best and most
stable version of Windows ever. But that doesn't mean I think
everyone should rush out to convert to it. No matter how good the
new operating system is, there is always risk of problems when
you go to something new, and there is always a learning curve
associated with the changeover. There is also a cost of the new
product, not to mention possible costs in upgrading other
software. You should undertake that risk, learning curve, and
cost only if you've clearly identified a value in doing so.

If you were buying a new computer and asking what operating
system to put on it, I would unhesitatingly recommend XP. But I
think most people running older operating systems and not having
trouble with them should stick with what they have.

Finally, for those who do convert to XP, most people don't need
to dual-boot it with their older operating system, and will see
little or no value in doing so.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

[Fred]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:12:37 GMT, Howard & Jean
> wrote:

>I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more experience
>with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to which system is
>better and more stabile.

This is like asking which tastes better, **** or candy.

>I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system with XP.
>
>Is this advisable ?
>
>Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch completely to
>XP?

If your system can run XP, and your programs work on XP, then the only
question should be if you can afford it, and if you can accomplish the
upgrade. 95, 98 and me were very poor OS's as far as stability and
security goes. XP is built on NT, and is thus stable, secure and
downright fun to use.

[Fred]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:12:37 GMT, Howard & Jean
> wrote:

>I assume that you guys and gals have a heck of a lot more experience
>with xp than I so I am asking for your opinions as to which system is
>better and more stabile.

This is like asking which tastes better, **** or candy.

>I am running ME and considering running a dual boot system with XP.
>
>Is this advisable ?
>
>Is XP so much better than ME that i should simply switch completely to
>XP?

If your system can run XP, and your programs work on XP, then the only
question should be if you can afford it, and if you can accomplish the
upgrade. 95, 98 and me were very poor OS's as far as stability and
security goes. XP is built on NT, and is thus stable, secure and
downright fun to use.