Which are the worst and the best versions of Windows?

If the term "best" can be applicable ;)

[Herenvardo]

Recently in [webmasterworld.com...] a debate about Win98 bugs made me raise this questions:
- Which version of Windows can be considered the worst?
I was convinced that there where nothing worse than ME, but it seems that 98 SE has the known bugs record ;)

- Going to the oposite: which version is the best (or the "least bad")?

My votes are for ME as the worst and some NT (probably 2k) as the best.
ME has beaten all stability records: you only need to open Access, Media Player and Winamp at the same time to get a blue screen ;)
I've never get the blue with neither 2k nor XP; but XP seems to freeze more often, takes more resources and, for my taste, is very ugly ;P
Also, 95 + all patches and xtras does an acceptable job...

So, what do webmasters think? It's more curiosity than anything.

Herenvardö

PS: Please, give at least a brief argumentation when you suggest a version as the worst or the best. Thx

[crashomon]

<begin rant> Well, I got a nice Dell that, for some reason, came with ME. After three weeks of reboots, BS, and config nightmares, I went out and got Win2K Pro and just 'started from scratch' and despite ruining the 3 year warranty from Dell for doing so, this thing runs fine EXCEPT for some idiosyncrosies with media files (doesn't even blue screen, just flat-out locks up). Probably a bad conflict with one of the many media tools I have.

On my other machine, Win2k was an upgrade from Win98 and its been rock solid, super stable, and only occasionally locks up an App (never the system).

I'm now on the cusp of getting a new laptop and for a minute (*brief, mind you*) I thought about doing the XP dance, but then, as much as I know about Win2K, thats going to be the route for me. I don't have time to learn XP tricks, and I certainly don't have time to learn penguin either.

So long story short: Winner: Windows 2000 Professional
Loser: windows ME

</end rant>

[HarryM]

One thing no one has mentioned is speed. Win98 and ME have an OS cycle time of about 45 mSecs, whereas 2000 is about 10 mSecs. Win98 and ME just can't handle the same workload as 2000. The only thing I use 98 for is testing with IE4 and NS4 browsers.

[Herenvardo]

It's stable

I do not believe that. In my dictionary, the words Windows and stable appear as antonyms :P
A stable system should only crash when the hardware fataly crashes. There is a list of win versions that I've seen crashing at minor problems (or even when there were'nt problems at all):
-95
-98 (original, haven't work on SE. I used Norton CrashGuard with it and it became almost stable)
-ME (As I've said, this one beats all others. Even with CrashGuard)
-2k (few times, but it happens)
-XP (both Home and Pro)
-3.1 (even in such a medieval time, win was able to crash)

I also have worked on LiNUX. Never crashed, not even intentionally ;)

So please, use expressions like seems stable,doesn't use to crash or it's relatively stable. But do not say that a windows is stable because it isn't. Thx ;)

Greetings,
Herenvardö

[richlowe]

Best server: Windows 2003 server
Best workstation: Windows XP Professional
Worst: Windows ME

But do not say that a windows is stable because it isn't

Actually, we have over 500 Windows 2000 server systems, 500 Windows XP systems, and several hundred professional 2000 systems. They are extremely stable and reliable.

[sullen]

Windows 2003 - hasn't crashed on me yet. And it doesn't have to be updated as often as previous versions either.

Win98 was the worst, but I haven't used ME.

[ogletree]

For desktops I think XP is the best Windows ME the worst.

It goes:
1. XP
2. Win 2000
3. Win 98
4. Win 3.1
5. Win 95
6. Windows ME

Servers pretty much go in the order they came out. They got better each time.

[Jon_King]

XP Pro

[The_Warden]

I would go in this order.... Windows ME is the worst hands down. Even Windows 3.1 is better.

1. XP Pro
2. XP
3. Win 2000 Pro
4. Win 2000
5. Win 98 SE
6. Win 98
7. Win 3.1
8. Win 95
9. Windows ME

There definately getting better in each version in some regards, overall for sure. I still don't get a lot of the issues they have, they should have been gone ages ago. MS always seems to focus on the visual look. I would sooner them spend money on things that matter, memory handling, drive letter limitation, actually making PNP work (it's better now), etc.

[ThomasB]

XP Pro works perfect if you throw in a lot of ram. Though I find it annoying that I have to reboot every 7-10 days because it's slowing down. But other than that no complains.

Windows 9x + ME were terrible and 2k would be my second if I couldn't have XP Pro.

[Warren]

I have been using Windows XP Since Beta 2600 odd. It has always been extremely stable on a variety of different hardware.

As I am mostly a laptop user now, XP is th best for laptop with the way it supports modible devices and power management.

Worst would have to be Windows ME or, as it was joking referred to when I was working at MS, Windows 95 service pack 6.

[JordanAutomations]

I'll say that Windows 2003 server is the best for me, that's what I run on my laptop. It really simplifies things to have the same technology on ones dev box as on his production server.

A factory install Windows ME has been the most trouble of all the comps we have. Not sure if it was just bad compatibility with the hardware, but when that machine was upgraded to w2k and later to xp there were no problems.

[otech]

hehe, i always thought that was the purpose of ME;so bad as to get you to upgrade to 2000 hehe..

[edward301]

Ive had some good experiences with win98SE and 2000

win Me was just a waste of time it had no features just looked abit better than 98

NT4 does its job but is easly out done by linux/unix

XP Home - very unstable perfect for the Home user :p

XP Pro - Its Ok doesnt crash quite as much as the home edition and has the power to run all the cpu intensive webmaster programs i have to use.

Longhorn (nxt windows version) looks great i am very optimistic about it a complete redesign of thw windows fs(file system) and there is no longer a registry editor :o
ms have spent the most time ever on developing the operating system so im hoping that they are trying to clean up there bad image of insecurties.

[Macro]

I don't why this is being debated at all.

There isn't a best or worst unless you qualify the question. Best in what? Stability? Speed? Security? Something else?

Once you define the question a bit more there's the matter of the "when". 98 was the least "secure" (assuming users don't keep up to date with patches etc) in its time. Now, the least secure is XP because that's what virus writers are targeting.

When it comes to features - it could be argued that XP has the highest number of "features". But if you deduct one point for every rubbish "feature" that gets in the way, then XP is the worst!

When it comes to simplicity - 3.1 (and 3.11 - Win 4 workgroups) were simply the best. No high integration of programs with the registry, easy adding and removing of programs (heck, you didn't even "uninstall" you just deleted the directory if you didn't need the program anymore). Or was that DOS? Wow, no question about it - that was even better. You had to learn some DOS commands but you had so much more control over your PC in old 5.1 (never did like 6.0)...

[atadams]

ME was the absolute worst. Horrid.

I've found XP Pro to be the best (only slightly better than 2k Pro)

[j4mes]

WinLinux?

[wavebird23]

Windows ME is no doubt the worst.