Which is the best ever windows?

[M$LOL]

For me it's NT4, the best Windows experience I've ever had. What about you?

[mac.ryan]

Windows 1.0... what the heck! ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lgXRPr1rPpA

[M$LOL]

I lol'd.

[Dr. C]

I voted for Windows 2000. It represents that last version of Windows that is not infected with DRM in the OS (Product Activation, WGA etc. ..). Same is true for the Office 2000. It has been downhill for Microsoft since then. My second choice Windows 98 SE, Third choice Windows for Workgroups 3.11 / MS DOS 6.2x

Windows XP Pro would be my first choice if it were not for WPA and WGA.

By the way almost all the criticisms and failures of Vista can be traced back to one thing DRM.

[Sunflower1970]

I used XP Home the longest out of all those versions. Had the least amount of trouble out of all the MS products.

[Linux_oid]

Windows 3.11 and Windows 3.11 for workgroup (whatever the name was) should be included in a poll.
Windows 98 SE was the one I spent about five years with.
Starting from Win 2000 (especially XP), I've got about the same number of problem I had with Win 95.
I'm typing this message from Compaq Pressario 5314 (AMD-K6, 400M). It was my first box I completely switched to Linux.

Dual boot Ubuntu 6.10 and Puppy 2.14 by the way.

[bigee1212]

vista ultimate, only becuase i have a monster of a system.
otherwise on a normal pc, probably windows 2000 becuase it didnt have that auth. crap.

[atbnet]

I'm very fond of Vista Ultimate. It runs very well on my system and I'm very satisfied with it.

[M$LOL]

Windows 3.11 and Windows 3.11 for workgroup (whatever the name was) should be included in a poll.
Windows 98 SE was the one I spent about five years with.
Starting from Win 2000 (especially XP), I've got about the same number of problem I had with Win 95.
I'm typing this message from Compaq Pressario 5314 (AMD-K6, 400M). It was my first box I completely switched to Linux.

Dual boot Ubuntu 6.10 and Puppy 2.14 by the way.

I was going to include it, but I thought it would be better to have a poll between the recent Windows versions (I know 95 isn't very "recent", but anyway). I never actually used anything before 95 (unless you include DOS), although I have seen them.

[lukew]

I said Media. Because I have never used it and never will.

The best kind of problem is the one that never affects you.

[Rhapsody]

I picked Windows 9x (Windows just didn't feel 'fun' after that), though I actually think Windows 3.1 actually looks pretty good.

What? I like vintage GUIs.

[kevinf311]

Windows 3.1 For the Win.

I chose XP Pro on the poll though as it was my second favorite.

Windows 3.1 however has been the only (microsoft) OS that has not crashed and lost a paper I was working on. This is not to say it didn't crash once in a while, but 3.1 didn't seem to have the malicious tendency to wait until I was typing up a 3 page report that was due the next day like our windows 98 box did.

Windows 3.1 only seemed to bite it when I was about to win a course in MegaRace :)

[karellen]

xp pro, no doubt

[LaRoza]

My favourite version of Windows happens to be MS Windows Vista Home Premium. This may be sound odd for some one who uses Ubuntu. I use both at home, Ubuntu and Vista. I have two computers hooked up to one monitor, keyboard and mouse. Vista is good for entertainment. Ubuntu is good for everything else.

I am not connected to the Internet, so I can not take advantage of all the great programs for Ubuntu. Using my printer and playing movies can only be done with Vista as I can not download the driver from the internet or get the media players for movies.

Vista is the most user friendly version of Windows if you have the hardware.

[FuturePilot]

I'd have to say XP Home. I never really had any huge problems with it, but I hated the way it got so slow over time, but I guess any Windows version does that.

[insane_alien]

XP Pro was okay. although, i'm having a lot of fun with 98 SE in vmware just now. you can almost here it screaming.

[Calash]

XP Pro for me. 2000 was a close second, but XP has just been very stable since I installed.

Not too happy with some of the changes introduced in SP2 though, but they are easy to get around :)

[stokedfish]

XP Pro - it's pretty stable for me. Hardly any crashes. Quite a good OS! :)

[jgrabham]

Windows 1.01
Windows 2.0/286
Windows 3.x
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows Me
Windows XP
Windows Vista

[jgrabham]

Which version of windows do you think is the best?

[nsleiman]

seems im the first one to vote here :) vote: 98, but why didnt you put also a "None" option ? would have voted rather for it :popcorn:

[jgrabham]

1) 98 crashes all the time :D
2)I said the best windows, I didnt specify that windows was good, the least bad one is the best.

[nsleiman]

see? you dont like the 98 :P but i do. i mean i did once. it was the days i was in germany i still have the german original CD :) memories....

[rufius]

Hands down Windows 2000 was the best. It was the only Windows I've ever used for any length of time because in relation to all the Windows releases, it was actually stable. Wasn't garish with all these silly themes either, it did its job.

[KitChy]

Windows XP pro was the main OS that I used alot before I changed over to Ubuntu

[nudnik]

1) 98 crashes all the time :D
2)I said the best windows, I didnt specify that windows was good, the least bad one is the best.

I loathe 98 with a passion. Its one of the most unstable things I've ever used, so much so that its hard to even get any work done with it.

My vote was for XP, which I actually like. The OS I like, the price and license I could do without. Having said I like it, I do admit, I am afraid to use it for anything when security is a must. Thus, Ubuntu handles all sensitive transactions, whatever they may be.

I am very disappointed with Vista. I expected much more (I was asking for punishment). You would think an OS that costs around 200 dollars US would be relatively bug free and have a working set of drivers like XP. Instead what's delivered is a buggy, slow OS plagued with compatibility issues and security holes.....hey.....98 is back (sort of).

[M$LOL]

Doesn't this thread duplicate two others? Anyway, 2K or NT for me.

[jgrabham]

I was reading something which said 95d (the last version of win 95 which also had USB support) was better than any version of 98 (well either version of 98)

I voted 3.x as I love using it, It is nostalgic (being 14 I learned to use a computer with 3.11 for workgroups, it was a 486, but thats all I can remember)

[cunawarit]

Where the hell is Windows 2003 Server???????

That's what I'm voting for anyway....

Anyway, the best desktop Windows right now is XP. Once Vista matures, it will be Vista.

[loell]

windows 95 and 3.x

those days, when apps were lite and tasks were simple.

[M$LOL]

Where the hell is Windows 2003 Server???????

Server 2003 is the best M$ OS I've ever used, but I think we can assume that in threads like this one "Windows" refers to the desktop versions.

[kelvin spratt]

xp pro is the pinnacle of windows it will do anything that vista can do the same encryption the 3d effects vista uses is 3rd party software that is free for xp the code source is slightly different to xp
and xp uses less resourses:guitar: http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/guitar.gif

[jubjubrsx]

...sadly enough i say vista is the best.....for one reason...its gonna bring the rise of linux...:D /cheers

[Tsen]

I like XP the most. 98 and earlier were too buggy and flawed. XP was a good balance of appearance, usability, stability and whatnot.
Still had lots of problems, but it worked, it had a pretty good UI and gave the user more control than most other versions of Windows.
Vista tries to do too much of the thinking, and assumes the user is an idiot. The UI is cluttered and makes me feel a bit claustrophobic, and it's got a whole load of problems that are popping up.

[LookTJ]

XP Pro

[riven0]

It's got to be 95. That was the only version that didn't crash on me at least once a week... and yes, that includes XP!

[woopud]

LastXP 14 !

[karellen]

xp pro

[RAV TUX]

XP sp2

[Patrick K]

W98 for me. It has been extremely stable for me. I installed it in 1998 and still use it (I've never use XP, and likely never will). I've never reinstalled it, it just keeps chugging along. In fact, this install is on its third MoBo and 4th set of drives. The only thing left of the original machine is the case (and the original W98 install). The ability to change hardware at will without getting MS's approval is a very nice feature.

[K.Mandla]

Win2k. It did everything I wanted Windows to do when I finally left Win98. I wanted to like XP, but for some reason it never seemed to satisfy. Win2k did what I told it to do, and it didn't pretend to be something else. I was happy at Win2k. :| I daresay if I had stayed at 2k, I might not have bothered with Linux. :shock:

[specv]

ok SERIOUSLLYYYY who picked windows ME.


XP is great dont get me wrong, but the good old dos based windows 98 was the ****. Back when spyware was not a problem. Granted spyware didnt exist and if it did 98 would probably be less secure but at the time of 98 it was great

[linux_kid]

Vista is like ME all over again :popcorn:

[Swab]

ok SERIOUSLLYYYY who picked windows ME.


Back when I worked helpdesk...

Me: Thanks for calling some-hardware-company, how may I help?
User: Hi, I just bought your hardware and hooked it up to my Windows ME machine and....
Me: <click>

[insane_alien]

i liked 98. it was my first operating system and when i had it, i had it running quite well. it almost never crashed until my parents went on it. then they messed it all up. i had it more to my liking that i could ever get with XP and it didn't try to say i pirated it.none of it really matters now though does it. Ubuntu is godly.i just need to make a new splash screen when i have time and it will be perfect.

[Raccoonzers]

I voted for XP simply because it was the most stable version of Windows I have ever used. I still get nostalgic for 95 and, to a degree 98, since I really first began using computers with those OSes, but I got tired of the beloved Blue Screen of Death popping up ever other day (thought I seem to recall 98 being the worse offender in that respect.) Seriously, playing around on 98 was like driving in an ice storm: CRASH CRASH CRASH *term paper nuked* :O

But before I discovered Linux, XP did it for me and I had things pretty much to my liking- and to this day I still kind of miss Winamp, though Amarok seems to be a suitable replacement. ^_^

[Quillz]

I'm quite confident that Vista is the best version of Windows, from the kernel to the user interface. (The former is more or less a fact, the latter is somewhat of an opinion.)

[steven8]

ok SERIOUSLLYYYY who picked windows ME.


XP is great dont get me wrong, but the good old dos based windows 98 was the ****. Back when spyware was not a problem. Granted spyware didnt exist and if it did 98 would probably be less secure but at the time of 98 it was great


I didn't pick ME. I picked XP. But I really liked ME.

[the.dark.lord]

98 for me. I liked it. Heck, I think I still do.

[oomingmak]

Server 2003 is the best M$ OS I've ever used, but I think we can assume that in threads like this one "Windows" refers to the desktop versions.
There's no XP64 either (Server 2003 code base, but desktop OS).

[wipeout140]

Windows XP

[Marc_UK]

XP is based on Windows 2000 and besides the faster switching its not much of improvement from XP, I have been told in many ways that it is even more stable.

I am currently using Windows Fundamentals, its XP without the shite, no task manager and other shite but shuts down alot quicker, my PC is a 512mb , 200gb and 3.20Ghz processor, more then capable.

[DrEmpire]

i used all of these Windows 3.x Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows 98 se Windows NT Windows 2000(pro) Windows Me Windows XP(pro,media,ent) be os redhat solaris ubuntu,i usta love 98 se but then my fav has to be windows me tho it could be a pain, i still have windows me on my computer tho cant member last time i used it as almost every program i use now dont like it, i think xp is good but im saying it as a upgrade from windows me all them restars in older windows where xp not as many restarts :)

[DrEmpire]

i used all of these Windows 3.x Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows 98 se Windows NT Windows 2000(pro) Windows Me Windows XP(pro,media,ent) be os redhat solaris ubuntu,i usta love 98 se but then my fav has to be windows me tho it could be a pain, i still have windows me on my computer tho cant member last time i used it as almost every program i use now dont like it, i think xp is good but im saying it as a upgrade from windows me all them restars in older windows where xp not as many restarts

[karellen]

I had the best experience with windows xp pro (I skipped me and 2000, though)

[liquidfunk]

You missed out MSDOS. That was easily the best, because you had to know things to use it. Now any regular Joe can use Windows and screw it up.

[DrEmpire]

i member msdos :O) usta love playing old games on it like cannon fodder played that game for hours and if my memory serves me right wasent the first settlers for dos? i loved dos just cuz it was easy to use after useing commordor and amega computers aaaaaa memorys :O) oh wait dont forget atari 2600 lol

[FoolsGold_MKII]

Probably XP.

I actually don't mind Vista - for a Microsoft OS that's only been on the shelves for 6 months it's surprisingly stable. XP has taken years before gaining the reputation of a solid OS. There are some nice features in Vista too, and if you have the hardware to run it, it's good. But I still think XP is the best.

[starcraft.man]

I've used every one of those versions including MSDOS (starting 4.x). The exceptions there I haven't used at all are 1.01 and 2.0.

I can definitely say that I am pretty sure that Windows 2k would win for being the best version, it was/is stable, no extra frills and very usable. I didn't use as much as I should have mostly because I was waiting for hardware I think to improve a bit more before buying a new PC and XP came out. XP of course would take close second as a nice face lift to 2k with some extra features (and restrictions like WGA). It however brought many ill omens like IE6 and other security vulnerabilities, it really wasn't that useful until SP2.

On a related note, Vista wins for worst one ever. I've used it and its unfortunately on my new PC (Have to leave it there for testing and dx10 gaming). It suffers from: built in DRM, still creates an administrator account by default, needlessly changed where many options and things were named and placed just for the need of change, introduced needless hardware requirements to what is clearly (indisputable in my mind) an inferior Window Manager (Aero) even compared to Beryl when it was beta and crashing lest we mention improved compiz fusion.

Worst of all, it compromised on the fundamental rule of an operating system, it began to tell the end user (me) what he can or can't do (whether by its DRM, or proprietary things like live burning that works only on Windows PCs). That is singularly unforgivable in my mind. The day I stop gaming (or devs code all the games I want on Linux too) is the day I stop booting Windows forever. I won't shed a single tear.

[FoolsGold_MKII]

I'm about to play Devil's advocate, so I'll keep this civil if you agree to do so as well. :)

On a related note, Vista wins for worst one ever..... It suffers from: built in DRM
The DRM issue is (mostly) overblown. Vista will NOT DRM existing media you have, it will not convert your MP3's into WMA or BS like that. You can still play the same content more or less, though there are issues with the audio subsystem that may be a result of the DRM. All the codecs still work, the DRM is there simply to provide the capability to run the newer formats which will NEED the DRM. Put simply - it doesn't affect you if you don't use it. Prove me wrong with evidence and I'll accept it gladly.

still creates an administrator account by default
The account a user makes in a fresh Vista install is a standard user elevated to admin upon request, which is also how Linux does things, no? Also, Linux creates an admin account by default as well - it's called root, and in both Vista and Ubuntu the admin/root accounts are denied a direct login unless you explicitly enable it in Vista, or give root a password in Ubuntu.

needlessly changed where many options and things were named and placed just for the need of change
Absolutely spot on there. Nothing a few weeks messing around with Vista won't fix though, though you could argue since there wasn't a need to move things around, it's redundant learning.

introduced needless hardware requirements to what is clearly (indisputable in my mind) an inferior Window Manager (Aero) even compared to Beryl when it was beta and crashing lest we mention improved compiz fusion.
Hardware requirements are bloated yes, although Aero can and will be disabled if your hardware isn't up to scratch after a benchmark. Aero also has a feature Beryl/Compiz doesn't seem to have - it will disable itself upon running a fullscreen app (i.e. games) which ensures maximum speed, and after you quit, it re-enables itself. I'd like to see that in our composite window managers.

Worst of all, it compromised on the fundamental rule of an operating system, it began to tell the end user (me) what he can or can't do (whether by its DRM, or proprietary things like live burning that works only on Windows PCs). That is singularly unforgivable in my mind. The day I stop gaming (or devs code all the games I want on Linux too) is the day I stop booting Windows forever. I won't shed a single tear.
I never bothered with the built-in burning capabilities of XP or Vista. It's rubbish compared to a dedicated tool like Nero, and even in Linux I'd prefer using a dedicated tool like K3b to a menu option to Burn. For the final point, do what I did, game in Linux. You can ween yourself off the commercial stuff pretty easily I say.

I hope that doesn't make me sound like a shrill, but I have returned from a sole Vista experience so I figure I can contribute some of that experience. :)

[lisati]

I currently have XP (home) on two machines and a dead machine with 98SE which was ok for learning.......

[mr.farenheit]

98 se all the way

[Bartender]

W2k

[smoker]

windows 2000sp4, ms began losing the plot after that with all their 'additions!'

[bikeboy]

Yeah 2k for sure. It was the last Windows I used fulltime, and the last I have used regularly at all, but I've used XP enough on other perople's computers to know I preferred 2k. Wasn't too much to complain about, except for the need for lots of anti-virus/malware software, which wasn't exclusive to 2k obviously.

[juxtaposed]

Windows 2000.

That was actually a pretty good product, besides the fact that it had the possibility of getting viruses. I had the Datacenter Server version on my computer for awhile. It was stable and all...

[dca]

W2kSP4 Pro & Windows 2000 Server...

Now, that's from both a personal and professional (business) standpoint. Once SP4 is installed you have a lot of the usability of XP w/o all the graphic overlays.

Windows 2000 Server is quite easy to administor. Granted the GUI helps out and Sys Admins new at the job can easily make the jump from 2kSP4pro to Server2k because really only one extra menu is added to the start menu. Okay, now I'm getting ahead of myself: it's great until a virus hits and renders everything useless and your only recourse is to call your anti-virus co (we all know who) and say, 'you know, your product is crap!'

[elst]

I would vote for Windows Server 2003. There was a bunch of really important features introduced in Windows 2000, but 2003 added polish. Microsoft's desktop OSes went completely to pot at that time, though.

[juxtaposed]

I would vote for Windows Server 2003. There was a bunch of really important features introduced in Windows 2000, but 2003 added polish. Microsoft's desktop OSes went completely to pot at that time, though.

That just reminded me of server 2003. It was pretty good. Much better then XP.

It seems the server OSes are good, while consumer ones arn't. I've been thinking of trying server 2008.

[corney91]

Vista Ultimate's my favourite, without Aero it ran fine - it would be my second choice OS after Ubuntu.

[sandman55]

XP Pro I havent tried Vista and I dont like the Idea of giving Bill Gates the money he is asking for it and WHY so many different versions? I know the answer to that its to make more money :mad:

[foxmulder881]

Windows 2000 for me because it's what I currently run on my gaming system. Because I get higher frame rates on 2000 than XP.

[kamaboko]

XP Pro I havent tried Vista and I dont like the Idea of giving Bill Gates the money he is asking for it and WHY so many different versions? I know the answer to that its to make more money :mad:

You're concerned about too many versions of Vista, when there's something like 300 distros of Linux?? Maybe if you took the time to read about Vista at the MS website you'd begin to understand why they have different versions.

[nelamvr6]

XP Pro, has been for years.

IMHO, actually not a bad OS all things considered.

[DishBreak]

Fan of XP Pro, plan to hold out until the bitter end of its existence.

[FoolsGold_MKII]

You're concerned about too many versions of Vista, when there's something like 300 distros of Linux?? Maybe if you took the time to read about Vista at the MS website you'd begin to understand why they have different versions.
And yet OS X Leopard will only come in one version for the solitary price of $129US. Why can they do this and Microsoft can't?

Besides, why do you keep defending MS so much? It's not like they need defending anyway, they have enough lawyers to do that. :)

[luctor]

I use windows XP for only 1 app
Falcon 4 AF, shame it doesn' t run (at all !) on wine :(

[derjames]

windows 3.11 is the best windows ever...

[cunawarit]

Close call between XP Pro and, Windows 2003 Server.

Some aspects of both are great, some aspects of both drive me nuts. But both are overall very nice indeed.

[Quillz]

I like Windows Vista Ultimate the best.

[bchaffin72]

I would have to say Windows 98 since it did not outrightly destroy itself as often as Windows 95. 98 also marks the last Windows I have bothered to own although I have worked on every Windows but Vista on behalf of others. I do not know anyone who has Vista yet, and I am purely GNU/Linux.

[cobrn1]

I used to use 98 until quite reasonably. THe reason for change was I needed to reinstall and the drivers for my old hardware weren't available anymore. Also, XP had features that I really needed (like newer releases of DivX that 98 were lacking). Infact, XP was a huge leap forward, except it bogged (bogs) my system down terribly... old hardware...

I've only used Pro edition, but I'd say that XP Pro was my favourite (for all it's faults, it's the most advanced version of windows that isn't defective by design, and WGA features can be ignored/not downloaded, so overall it's ok).

ubuntu is far better tho (my only criticisms are the gaming and the fact the MS software always seems very professional and polished, in a way that linux distros seem to lack - that is, of course, until you start using windows and the charm wares off...)

[faraaz]

Hmm...I used Windows XP Pro which came in an OEM edition with my Dell Laptop. I never updated it, I never did anything to it...and I was happiest with it...

The day I saw DRM comin in my way, I shifted to PCLOS!! That sucked (because of RPM mostly) then Sabayon (bloated & slow & unstable) and finally Ubuntu Feisty...which is rocking right now!!

[cprofitt]

Windows Vista Ultimate x64 edition

[bclark]

Vista Ultimate, i love it. I love ubuntu, i love Vista, and I love OSX. Total OS Love from me :)

Except for Window ME, nobody should love that OS.

Oh and I miss BeOS.

[pianomany2k]

95 was the buggiest POS I've ever had. SEVERAL times I had to manually edit the shell in SYSTEM.INI and bring it up with Program Manager just to make it work.

I had one computer than ran 3.11 until 98 SE came out. Then I used that until it died.

ME, bugs all around. 2000 was great :)

I now have both XP Home and Pro.

Dual-boot XP Pro and Ubuntu on my desktop.

[Sceptical]

My experiences are:

Least trouble: 3.11/Dos6

Longest-used: 98SE

Best experience overall: W2K (SP4)

Worst - and, boy, do I mean 'worst' - by a long way: WinME

Biggest let-down: XP Pro (SP2)

[ericzb]

Well, for me, its 2003. "the server version of xp"

off e topic though, whats e deep down difference bw home and pro anyway, i know i cannot connect to the univ domain through my home edtion, but is there anything really matters?

[darksong]

Vista Home premium, very happy with the finished products. Was scared to use it as the linux community give it bad rep. 9/10 of the rumours about vista spread on this forum and others are untrue.

[darksong]

Also used ME for a long time - that was quick.

[izanbardprince]

I voted Windows 95, because it was the only consumer version of Windows that actually came close to working as advertised, and didn't concentrate as much on tacking on bells and whistles as just doing what an operating system should do.

[izanbardprince]

Windows 2000 for me because it's what I currently run on my gaming system. Because I get higher frame rates on 2000 than XP.

Yeah, but if you used 64-bit Windows XP/Vista, it would probably negate the performance difference.

[goumples]

Win95 was always my favorite.. my very first computer came with it.. I was thrilled... Sadly, it also appears to be one of the best things MS has ever made.. even 12 years later.

[Kingsley]

I don't use Windows much but Vista Ultimate is my favorite version.

[arsenic23]

Here comes another vote for 3.11 !

It should have been on the pole.

3.11 > NT4 > 2000 = XP > all other M$ releases > Vista > ME

[cmat]

Win95 was always my favorite.. my very first computer came with it.. I was thrilled... Sadly, it also appears to be one of the best things MS has ever made.. even 12 years later.

I remember when I switched to Windows 95 from 3.11. It was profoundly different and decent to use. However it crashed like it had a mind of it's own. Windows 98 was windows 95 that actually worked. My favorite OS would be Windows 98, it was really fast and had a really long run for me (1997 - 2003). No DRM, no WGA, affordable at the time, DOS was still a chunk of the OS. Networking was a nightmare though.

[init1]

For me it's NT4, the best Windows experience I've ever had. What about you?
What about win3.1?

[M$LOL]

I never used it, although I always wanted to try it to see what it was like.

[devin0]

i would have to say media center edition. i have been running media center 2005 for about a yearand a half now and it has never given me any problems.

[Malh]

I used XP Pro for several years and had many problems with it, but not nearly as many problems as with ME. ](*,)

[skwishybug]

I would have voted for Windows for Workgroups 3.11 if it were there. That was when Windows peaked:lolflag:

[donkyhotay]

For me it would have been windows 3.1 since DOS was the last OS (before switching to linux) that I was able to completely configure the way I wanted it.

[exoren22]

Ok... I am ready to take the crap for this one... buut! You missed the only operating system ever to be secure to the point that it got a perfect security recommendation from the US government: WindowsNT/3! (You have to differentiate it from windows nt/4 because they tried to make it "useable" and added holes) We all know that the NTFS really is the most secure filesystem of all time, and if it's used correctly a virus can't do crap to the files.
My favorite windows to actually USE (damn drivers and games not written for NT until WinXP!) was Win98SE, because it really didn't crash when you had experience (had one running from sep2006-jun2007 with only 4 shutdowns - software/driver updates) WHILE connected to the internet, and it had the ability to use many softwares from the NT era.
If you guys even try to come up in here and talk about ME, that was Windows' buggiest and least maintained distro, by their own admission, because it tried to include nt features and only opened up the (virus) floodgates.

One day in the near future openSUSE will have total install support for the NTFS and I will be moving to that. Total security, it fits linux much better than ANY winndows release.

[goumples]

Windows 95. Maybe I'm biased because my very first computer had Win95 on it. One day I'm try to track down a copy of win95 and install it just to see what kind of difference 12 years makes.

[awong]

i like win98 a lot, I think for playing older games from dos and windows and going online was fairly stable for me

[DarkN00b]

WinME is the only Windows version I have used (at home) since W95 that I never got a virus/worm/trojan on. After applying all the patches, it was extremely stable. I have never used Vista and never will.

My choice of favorite MS-OS would be Win2K. I use it at work even now and it is rock solid.

[sneax]

I think the most innovative OS (the one which made most progress from its predeceder) is Windows 2000.

Currently, for day to day use I think WIndows Vista is the best operating system. Maybe it didn't improve much, and for some it's not worth the money, but besides that it's still the best, even if it's just a little better, better is still better.

[stinger30au]

Windows Vista is the greatest product ever released.

Its making people wake up to M/S and look for alternatives as it is such a jiant step backwards from XP.

Its also great as its making manufacturers increse the specs of the pc's to run Vista with more RAM and bigger hdd. this is great news. cos now you can buy one of these new modern pc's and shove linux on it and let it fly

[zach12]

hmm well that would be 98
it was so fast but ubuntu is 10times faster and xp pro was ok
:lolflag:

[SunnyRabbiera]

for work and servers windows 2000
for home users windows XP

2000 was wonderful for workstations, servers, and general professional use.
XP was great for home use, despite its flaws I would take XP anyday over ME, Vista or anything else MS made.

[Midwest-Linux]

Best ever Windows

1.Windows XP Home (no issues..not one!)
2.Windows XP Pro
3.Windows 2000
4.Windows 98SE
5.Windows 3.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I heard that the earlier NT series were pretty good, but I never had a chance to use them. Windows 3.1 was very stable, rarely if ever crashed...good for its day and its very limited functions.

I recall Windows 98 SE as being very stable, and Windows 2000 is very stable too. I had some issues with Windows 98, Win ME the worst, and Windows 95 with its infamous BSOD.

Windows XP Media Center Edition did not make the best list as it is buggy and programs often freeze...even when not using the media center portion. In fact Wiindows XP Media Center in functionality I rate it fair...and it is on a high end machine.

I have three computers with Windows XP Home and never had issues with them, and I belive it was Microsoft's best product. Unfortunately I think it is all downhill now for Microsoft, but on the positive side its all uphill for Linux and its many variants.

[saxuntu]

In terms of best WINDOWS experience XP however MSDOS had all my favorite games. Hey wait a minute....XP didn't let me play my DOS games....i hate XP and Windows...Wolfenstein for ever!!! Anyone know where i can get a copy of MSDOS and how to do a dual boot?

[aysiu]

Here's the poll that got lost in the merger: Your favourite version of Windows
95/98/Me 15 11.72%
NT 4.0 2 1.56%
2000 Professional 25 19.53%
XP Pro 52 40.63%
XP Home 14 10.94%
XP Media Center 2005 4 3.13%
Vista (say which edition) 16 12.50%

[BoyOfDestiny]

In terms of best WINDOWS experience XP however MSDOS had all my favorite games. Hey wait a minute....XP didn't let me play my DOS games....i hate XP and Windows...Wolfenstein for ever!!! Anyone know where i can get a copy of MSDOS and how to do a dual boot?

Don't bother. There is a better way.
DOSBox, based on FreeDOS (so need for MS-DOS)
Runs many DOS games awesomely, with adlib sound and even pc speaker emulation.

So far every DOS game I have works under it (ranging from like 1981 to 1997)

It's in the Ubuntu repos, although the latest version isn't...

http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1

Anyway, to keep it on topic windows 3.1 except for the instability. 98SE, except for the instability and poor memory management... XP if not for it's activation (I ditched it before the WGA "feature")

[Ptero-4]

I'm quite confident that Vista is the best version of Windows, from the kernel to the user interface. (The former is more or less a fact, the latter is somewhat of an opinion.)

Quillz. The Vista kernel is the same old VMS one they used in NT3 and reused in NT4, 2k, XP and server 2k3.

I'm about to play Devil's advocate, so I'll keep this civil if you agree to do so as well. :)


The DRM issue is (mostly) overblown. Vista will NOT DRM existing media you have, it will not convert your MP3's into WMA or BS like that. You can still play the same content more or less, though there are issues with the audio subsystem that may be a result of the DRM. All the codecs still work, the DRM is there simply to provide the capability to run the newer formats which will NEED the DRM. Put simply - it doesn't affect you if you don't use it. Prove me wrong with evidence and I'll accept it gladly.


The account a user makes in a fresh Vista install is a standard user elevated to admin upon request, which is also how Linux does things, no? Also, Linux creates an admin account by default as well - it's called root, and in both Vista and Ubuntu the admin/root accounts are denied a direct login unless you explicitly enable it in Vista, or give root a password in Ubuntu.


Absolutely spot on there. Nothing a few weeks messing around with Vista won't fix though, though you could argue since there wasn't a need to move things around, it's redundant learning.


Hardware requirements are bloated yes, although Aero can and will be disabled if your hardware isn't up to scratch after a benchmark. Aero also has a feature Beryl/Compiz doesn't seem to have - it will disable itself upon running a fullscreen app (i.e. games) which ensures maximum speed, and after you quit, it re-enables itself. I'd like to see that in our composite window managers.


I never bothered with the built-in burning capabilities of XP or Vista. It's rubbish compared to a dedicated tool like Nero, and even in Linux I'd prefer using a dedicated tool like K3b to a menu option to Burn. For the final point, do what I did, game in Linux. You can ween yourself off the commercial stuff pretty easily I say.

I hope that doesn't make me sound like a shrill, but I have returned from a sole Vista experience so I figure I can contribute some of that experience. :)

FoolsGold_MKII;2932594. A few clarifications.
1. Although Vista can't DRM or block stuff by itself it does DRM music and video using the "treacherous computing" hardware most modern "windows-based" computers have (Macs, Ubuntu-based Dells and System76 computers use "trusted computing" hardware so they're safe from this stuff) which Vista requires and won't install if the computer doesn't have, using the same system Vista is also capable of adding, modifying and deleting documents and programs that are deemed "unapproved" by M$.

2. You're partially right in this one. But Vista's UAC doesn't function as well as sudo does in Ubuntu and also unlike sudo, UAC pops out at random, even when it's obviously not needed a privilege elevation.

3. The reason they moved everything around is to make users and developer's lives hard and get money from their "learning resources".

4. The hardware requirements are excesive and the reason is to make you get a new computer (more profit for computer, hardware and software makers and M$ ofcourse. And Aero only disables itself if the fullscreen app is M$ approved and if M$ wants it, otherwise it won't disable itself and unlike Beryl, you can't manually shutdown Aero, because it doesn't obey the user.

5. And finally. The CD burning in nautilus is quite decent for what it's meant. The burn normal, Data CD's.

[Sisophon2001]

I voted for XP because over its five year run as the dominant Windows OS they just about got most of the bugs out of it, making it a pretty stable system. I learned to tame and avoid the parts of it I did not like.

Garvan

[ShadowVlican]

I voted for XP because over its five year run as the dominant Windows OS they just about got most of the bugs out of it, making it a pretty stable system. I learned to tame and avoid the parts of it I did not like.

Garvan
+1

[Frak]

2000, it was the best, most stable to me

Also, I would have voted 2003 if it was an option :(

[Mr_JMM]

I have to say Vista (Ultimate) without a doubt.

2nd is XP (any).

I have been running XP for 5 or so years on my trusty 5 year old Tosh. LT and my PC without fault. Never had a problem with freezing etc., had a few minor spyware issues but no virus'. I don't use cracked copies of software because that's asking for trouble. I don't look at dodgy obvioulsy virus infested websites because those that do deserve everything they get. I don't open suspicious looking e-mails for same reasons. I build my sytems and upgrade the hardware as and when.

Now I also have Vista and it blows XP away. I didn't go "wow" but I was impressed. People are bitching about the UAC and yes, it is a bit annoying but it's there becasue there are too many dumb-**** twa*s that keep f'ing up their systems and then complaining that it must be the sh*t OS.

As for complaining about Vista being designed to force people to upgrade their systems: 1. Shut the f**k up. 2. Yeah? 3. And? 4. So? 5. What? (Bill Hicks). No one is forcing Vista on anybody. If you are running an old OS because budget restraints don't allow for a hardware upgrade then Vista isn't going to be an issue. Sure, try and run Vista on your 400MHz AMD PC but don't bitch when it doesn't work. Another thing; Since when was it bad for a manufacturer to design something for today's technology? Would you rather OS's didn't advance? We (some of us at least) have ABit motherboards that can support 32Gig of Ram (currently running with 8 ), 3.6G quad core chips, 1TB hard drives. Why shouldn't M$ design an OS for that? Just to really take the pi*s, the same lot of you bitching about being "forced" to upgrade your PC's to run Vista are bitching that MS are going to continue to sell XP for longer? What the fu*k? You don't want a new OS "forced" on you but you don't want an older OS to continue. Oh! I see! You just want MS OS's to stop. Riiiiiiight. I see where you're coming from... idiots.

I will add though that I don't use IE (except to test my websites). FF every time. The only exception is those poor bast**ds that installed A*L. Even I'd rather run IE than an AOL browser. Netscape itself is really nice (and good for concerned parents) but A*L? Ooooh no.

Haven't been using a Linux 'Distro' long enough to really give an opinion. Tried Ubuntu and got bored trying to get it to work so switched to Zen Walk.

That's today's rant over. I'm off to play asteroids....

[maybeway36]

XP and 2000 are the best, thanks to their stability. vista is too much of a resource hog and the others are sorta old. 98SE was pretty darn good for its DOS compatibility, though.