Power supply failures!!!!!!

Why? I stayed with Windows 2000 until just recently, that was a very stable system I only had to reboot every couple of weeks or so (not as good as *nix but still not bad).

I need to tweak this XP load a bit I think, it's still needing a reboot about once a week.

Just because there's a new OS out doesn't mean we *have* to get it.

Vista's doing a world of good for the Linux world, methinks :)

jmc

miles thought everyone should know:

a stable windows......???????????? shoot i remember 3.11 being buggy too and it ran on top of DOS probably the most stable OS that Microsoft will ever put out.

I don't know a whole lot about 'putors. Sooo I depend on friends and those on here that seem to have a clue about them. I haven't heard any of my friends suggest vista, nor have any here. So to me that say's a bunch.

My last computer ran XP. I would leave it on for weeks, maybe months without a reboot. It was stable as a rock. It died a horrible death a while back and was replaced with a new HP running Vista. I was not impressed at first, but after a few weeks of adjustment, (me, not the computer), it has been as good as Win XP was for me. Like others have said it is just the next version of XP. The only thing that ticked me off is it does not like to accept older hardware. If you go Vista, be prepared to replace you printer, and scanner, and what ever you have plugged in 'cuz it most likely will not run. I had a wireless mouse that Vista would recognize, and load drivers for, but it would not run. Likewise with the cheap printer I had. Strange thing was I dug in the closet and found a couple old printers. One of them I found drivers for and it and it does run fine. Strange thing is, it is about 7 years old, but the manufacturer was supporting Vista, unlike the other printer. Greg

Is some of that from a much faster hard drive?

For most users dual CPU's are useless. Along with an OS that can use both they will also only speed up applications designed to spawn processes off to the 2nd CPU. Otherwise the 2nd CPU sits and does nothing.

Well heck, I still have about 20 PC's at my company running DOS. They run single application product testing applications 24/7 and do a great job of it.

Was saying we had to upgrade to the latest OS. The point was that Unix is a decades old OS thats still under development and continually improved. The latest versions will still run decades old apps without trouble. I feel that stability and compatibility is what many people are after. 2000 and now XP's development is halted. Vista will be around only a few years and then another new OS is made. Stability and compatibility go down the drain.

I still love DOS! Even in XP I open a DOS box for certain tasks. The file manager in windows sucks!! I can do many things unders DOS much faster. My company still has about 20 PC's on our production line running DOS.

Nope. Same drives as before - OS and apps on a WD Raptor (SATA), the rest on a pair of Seagate Barracudas and another WD, all SATA.

jmc

Must have been a lousy SATA interface on the motherboard or slow chipset & drivers. An AMD 64 3000 should easily be able to handle data at the capabilities of SATA and todays hard drives. The seek and latency time of a mechanical hard drive is far slower than the CPU.

miles thought everyone should know:

DOS was great, what they allow you to do under XP though is a restricted version of DOS at best. although i agree that using the gui for some things is cumbersome to say the least.

I think it was more that I didn't have enuf RAM for the large operations I was doing - the images I play with are very large - sometimes over

It's not really any faster for the day-to-day stuff, but then I didn't expect it to be.

Might have been mobo problems. I mentioned before that the old mobo was made during the 'bad caps' era, and may have been affected.

jmc