| 11:55 am on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When I was on Win98 I had to rebuild about every three months. I'm now using Win2kPro and it is still running after 15 months. Just about time for a rebuild.
| 1:09 pm on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In my experience:
Worst: Windows ME
Best: Windows 2k
That is, if you're judging best and worst by stability. My FAVORITE Windows (and the one I'm using now) is Windows XP. I agree about the default appearance being ugly, but after a little patch and some visual style downloads, mine sure is pretty! And plus I get that nifty little pin menu, grouped like taskbar buttons, built in image viewers, more customization options, and a few other things I adore. But most of all, it's pretty.
| 1:43 pm on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Best: Windows XP - I think it has crashed only once.
Worst: Windows 98 - When the you see the blue screen a couple of times a day it becomes annoying!
| 1:49 pm on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Of course, these aren't versions of anything. They're different products with a single brand name.
| 2:02 pm on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I seem to almost have one of each....
I have a 286 machine happily running dos 3.1 for some specific bar coding software.
I'm still running a win95 machine that I use for browser testing. It never crashes.
Win 98 was ok if you feed it enough memory.
I repair on a weekly basis a Win ME machine the robot team uses.
The robot team also has a NT laptop, that is very stable.
My XP machines communicating with my older Novell servers are giving me heartburn.
I guess win 95 wins and ME loses.
| 2:12 pm on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Best : Windows 2000
| 2:22 pm on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Best: Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. (Runs on a 486 upwards, not-too-bad security, no integrated IE / Media Player / kitchen sink - just a basic OS). Also Win 2000 Pro is good stuff.
Worst: Windows 1.0 ;)
| 3:11 pm on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Win 2000 Pro. I have 4 of them running on a multi-boot system and haven't had a crash for well over a year. But I am very careful about downloads.
Not enough experience of XP or ME to comment. But as for 98 - aargh!
| 3:20 pm on May 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Windows 2000 Professional as the best. I still recommend it to anyone that asks, and no XP. I have XP home on my laptop with the new UI turned off, it is quite stable but the auto-update sucks and destroyed my media player. I'll perhaps delete it and get another 2k license.
| 12:46 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
2.11 ... never found any exploits for it, could configure every thing with a text editor and could see what was in memory easily. :)
Just like linux....
| 1:38 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Win 2000 Pro is the best.
Win 98 is the absolute pits. My wife has it on her school issued (she's a teacher) laptop and it doesn't shut down. Why would a school install 98 on a brand new machine? Boneheads!
|Mr Bo Jangles|
| 2:37 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
another vote for Windows 2000 Professional
and a question,
when should I upgrade? I've heard XP Professional is good?!
| 10:25 pm on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Best: its got to be V3.1, after all, who's busy trying to hack those dino OS's
| 2:33 am on May 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Windows 2000 professional, definitely, less garbage than XP, keep in mind that w2kpro is NT 5.0, XP is 5.1. I have never read a good review of windows me, and probably never will. I have never had to reinstall w2k pro, it's totally stable, you don't have to turn off all the 'features' like you do in xp to make it useable. I have a test partition running xp but the graphics and other garbage are too annoying to look at, even when you switch the display back to 'classic mode'.
This will probably be the last windows os I use before switching to Linux once it gets ready for prime time.
|Of course, these aren't versions of anything. They're different products with a single brand name. |
This isn't correct, 95, 98-1, 98-2, and ME were all built on the same core, as are w2k and xp. In fact, windows me was a lightly reworked 98 se, and was only released once ms realized that they couldn't make the 2000 deadline for winxp, which ran very late, just as longhorn will run even later. That's why ME sucked so much, it wasn't a real release, just a way to have a product out there until xp was ready. XP is a consumer friendly w2k, with a lot more hardware drivers thrown in. Plus the 'pretty' colors, the slide viewer, and a slightly upgraded filesystem.
| 4:31 am on May 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What I found was that quality hardware plays a big role in Windows performance. If you have a good PC, Windows will run great and (almost) never crash. So far I like Win XP Pro more than any other of their OS. And WinME is just below me...
| 5:01 am on May 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"My votes are for ME as the worst"
98 was worse. Even SE. Believe me, I have had them running side by side for the last 3 or 4 months.
| 5:26 am on May 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I got to play with the 2003 6-month trial version last year (on dual boot) and was awesomely pleased with it. 'can't compare it to 2000 though since I never had that version installed.
As for XP (home version) there's a problem that I don't think I've ever seen anyone post about on any NG. It's the fact that when you work on any one folder and alter any file within, the only way you're able to delete such folder afterwards is by rebooting. Something awfully annoying for anyone who's constantly re-organizing large numbers of files.
| 11:57 am on May 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Worst: 98 (first edition)
I work with it constantly networked. Roll out a bit of software and rebuild the network. NT4 is close because of it's constantly need for software updates and it's lack of speed.
Best: The one sitting on my self that isn't installed yet :)
Seriously though. I like XP. It's stable. Any software will work with only minor tweaks. Easy customised. Fast. Automatically updates. Although it has some privacy issues and if it does crash it is usually fatal.
| 12:00 pm on May 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Windows 2K professional - best by a long shot.
Wouldn't dream of using anything other than that for when I have to use a Win platform.
Windows ME - Ugh, what were they thinking of? They didn't exactly need the money.
| 12:25 pm on May 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well this is gonna throw the cat in with the pigeons ...
Worst ...its a tie between ME ( for general junkiness ) and XP ( I want a system that knows that I am the boss and not Redmond )....
Best ....2K and 98se...2k has the edge but 98se works fine if ..you give it enough ram and if you dont leave all sorts of "conflicts" permanantly on your machine ....
I've been running 98se now for 5 yrs on one machine ...celeron 400 ...168mb ram ...4.3 gig hd ( only 100 megs freespace left ) heavy resource intensive grphics progs in place ..photoshop , bryce , flash etc etc ...I get one deathscreen every 6 months or so and unlike XP I can get it to do what I want easy ...
As I said in another thread ..XP in all its flavours is like knowing how to strip your car right down to every last nut and bolt and oilseal and sensor ....and then you get this new car ...the hood is welded shut so you can't even see whats there ( well OK you can but it gets damned antsy when you do and some badly pathwayed "drivers" just dont go away whatever you do ) ...the changes you can make are sometimes gone at the next reboot ...and every so often it phones home ..dumps you a whole new pile o' crap in the hive ...and BTW won't play with any software it doesn't personally rub noses with ....
And we won't even mention its vulnerabilities ( how do you rate your connection speed today? )...
Corse the ultimate worst has to be longhorn running on palladiums ....
When they've got that locked down and in the shops ...anyone who ever said anything about M$ that wasn't complementary will not be allowed to log into their own machine ....unless they have apologised in writing....not to mention the "I won't play with software who's Dad isn't a friend of my Dad" "improvement" .....what you gonna do if longhorn/palladium doen't like your new haircut ....
Off topic ...( as if the above wasn't : ) ) ...
just wish I had the time to learn to speak penguin ...
| 12:27 pm on May 4, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|just wish I had the time to learn to speak penguin |
Glad that I finally realised I didn't have the time to not learn penguin.
| 3:04 am on May 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Worst Version of Windows: Easy, 98 (pre-SE). Unstable, blue screen of doom, cranky grr... Bad memories. Though I only ever had it on a laptop that I'd overclocked the processor, so it had some serious heating issues. So maybe that's a little unfair.
98SE is a different story. Much more stable. But still not the best.
For its time, Windows 3.1 was a pretty fair OS, once broken in, it rarely crashed unless I pushed it too far, and then it was more operator error than OS flaw.
XP: Wins, but not by much. It gives me grief on certain levels, but has the distinct advantage of rare blue-screening. Usually, it just "soft" crashes an individual app if something goes wrong, and I can live with that.
Favorite MS-OS: DOS 3.2 Ok, so we're heading back to the mid-80s (stone-age), but I ran a dial-up BBS on that, fully stable, without re-booting once for 6 months. And that's considering I had a tacked on grey-market OS hack that actually let it multi task, so I could run a word processor without shutting down the BBS (yes, this was possible, even back then. Can't for the life of me remember the name of that multi-tasking package, (there were a couple floating around the BBS communities at the time.) That was a hot machine for its day, a 10Mhz AT with 1.2meg of RAM, and a 40Meg hard drive. (circa '88). That box finally went to the recyclers in '99, it took me forever to get around to getting all the text files out of it and onto another machine (which is now in storage, with a pile of files I'll eventually move up to this machine, though lord knows why, its not like I need any of them).
| 3:28 am on May 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I bought a no-name box with XP Pro on it in January and so far have been very happy with it.
98 was better than 95. Me was a pain.
| 3:48 am on May 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I find ME to be an improvement of 98, actually.
Haven't really used much after 2,000. I don't see much difference between ME and 2,000 either.
| 3:20 pm on May 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|"My votes are for ME as the worst" |
98 was worse
I believe you, but I had more problems in three weeks using ME than in three years using 98 :P
But I've to admit that with 98 I used Norton CrashGuard ;)
| 3:55 pm on May 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Windows Xp Proffessional is the best, most stable and most configurable windows os I have used, havent had any problems with it untill yesterday when the sasser virus hit me.
Windows 3.1 is the worst I have used because its the First windows os I have used.
| 4:04 pm on May 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
best: win 3.11 for workgroups on a rock solid DOS box. That was a stress free year.
worst: Never seen an ME box run without major problems, but I've never run it myself. Have seen many a 98 box run smoothly for a long time.
| 4:25 pm on May 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hard for me to stay on topic here... :)
Of all Windows OS I tried, 98 is still my favorite. I think it's the best compromise between user friendlyness and speed. Especially for routine work when users are not constantly trying new software. If you avoid using IE, Outlook Express and have a decent firewall, you should be able to run a relatively stable system for 6 months or so without having to rebuilt it.
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 9:13 pm on May 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I only really know 95 and 2k. I have no idea how often 95 crashed. The only thing I really have missed after the upgrade is Hearts! (But then of course I get a bit more work done.)
2k will NOT be upgraded. I understand Microsoft's concern with pirates, but I'm with Leosghost: Redmond's not gonna rule on my computer.
| This 47 message thread spans 2 pages: 47 (  2 ) > > |