> No

hmm..

> > why ?
> Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Later software = less tested. Upgrading just
> to increase a version number because you're itchy to do something with your PC
> since you're tired of a bland (read: not problematic, you don't have to
> constantly tweak shit) experience, that's not a good enough excuse. A better
> question is why upgrade?

i only would upgrade if i would get a better performance, since my hardware is finally showing its age for what i do.

> Windows 2000 is already well into SP4, and I'd say the majority of f-ups on that
> OS have been fixed, if you set yourself up with a hardware firewall, don't run
> as admin, turn off useless things such as file sharing and network browsing if
> you're not using it, stick to Firefox then you'll be OK.

that my friend, is my basic behavior, i'm been faith to firefox since it was called phoenix. hehe.

> XP is faster to boot, like Terry says (since Windows XP loads drivers and
> software as you need it, not everything at the start), but I don't find it
> faster to use or anything. It might be worse depending on if the increased RAM
> requirements tax your system. I run Windows 2000 on a 233MHz Pentium MMX and
> it's still usable. Windows XP does not bring any added stability, or speed
> (unless you're constantly rebooting for some reason).

i need it to be stable (without crashings for no reason) and fast in performance, booting time is NOT a problem, since i only boot once per day.

> > and oh yes..
> > WHY ?
>
> Why Windows?
Right now ? because i want to play games (GTA3, GP4, NFS3 (yes bitch, i play nfs3 almost daily! hehe) NFSU2). and because its a shared computer with not so computer litterate people.
I have my other computer (a k6-2) and its running redhat for ages, great os.





---------------------