If you had to choose a Windows version, what would it be?

[st33med]

I would choose Windows XP.

[drndrw]

I would too. I used that and Windows 98 for most of my life on the computer. I've been using Vista ever since maybe March. That's the reason why I went Linux and why I have a higher blood pressure now :P.

[TBOL3]

Either XP or 2000.

XP is better, but I haven't had good experiences with software you need to activate online.

[DownTown22]

Have used them all, and I'll pick XP.

[Kingsley]

Windows Vista.

[Billy_McBong]

xp because its not as bad as vista and still a "semi-new" OS

[DownTown22]

Windows Vista.

Pardon?

[st33med]

Just noticed nobody chose 95 or ME...

Of course! There were driver problems and 16 bit parts in a 32 bit kernel on 95 and ME was buggy.:)

[LookTJ]

Windows XP because it's the most stability of all of them..98 had leaks.

[Andrewie]

Vista drives me crazy, but the whole user admin system they have going is good.

[Nano Geek]

Windows XP

[ArtF10]

I chose XP but Vista is future proof....it's just..... not....good....right...now!!!

[mangar]

either 2000, for older machines (got one on a p3 1ghz w/ 256mb, using opera, office 2003, pidgin,avast, irfanView, 7zip, skype 1.4, spss, and itunes, my gf got all her computing needs covered).

or Vista, for newer machines.
(Vista is not as terrible as implied, I've been using it for 6 months, and it's yet have any special problems (actually, I had more trouble installing feisty, but that's besides the point)).

[Kingsley]

Pardon?
Pardon what? Whatever problems you've had with Vista doesn't apply to everyone else. Don't get me wrong though, I much prefer Ubuntu.

[HermanAB]

Well, why get a half-assed Windows if you can get the server version with everything? So 2003 Server Corporate comes to mind as a useful version of Windoze.

[RAV TUX]

I would choose the two versions I use:

Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005

Windows XP Tablet Edition 2005

[starcraft.man]

Since I'd never be using it as my main desktop (even if I was forced to pick one). 98 for sentimental reasons.

[nonewmsgs]

Since I'd never be using it as my main desktop (even if I was forced to pick one). 98 for sentimental reasons.

98 wont support a cpu with more than lthan ~700Mhz. it locks up during installation. it was a good one and the most popular windows version, but i do like win2k.

[nowshining]

XP because it is more stable and does away with the cruddy resource problems early versions had, altho windows 3.x was more like linux and didn't have a registry tho i never really used it that much... so XP with stability on programs crashing..

[BarfBag]

Zero votes for ME. Pwned.

[the bioengineer]

I am just more competent on a winXP system. I know how to tweak it, and have played with it so much that I can make it get up and dance if I want to (or at least dance to my tune)

But I want to know and learn, so I'm trying to learn Linux.:)

[Spr0k3t]

If I had to choose... it would be windows 2000. Not for the fact that it's before XP, but for the only MS product not built by in house MS developers. Prior to the final betas, the majority of the work on Win2K was done by DEC (of DEC Alpha). WinME was microsofts attempt to create an upgrade for NT.

[nowshining]

wow didn't know that Spr0k3t (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=223776) . thanks for that info..

[yatt]

Vista. I find XP bluescreens too much, while Vista has been perfectly stable.

[Frak]

Vista, without the annoying security popups.

[lisati]

Since I'd never be using it as my main desktop (even if I was forced to pick one). 98 for sentimental reasons.

I have a machine running 98SE as a spare machine - these days I normally only power it up to keep its anti-virus up-to-date.

[lisati]

I have a machine running 98SE as a spare machine - these days I normally only power it up to keep its anti-virus up-to-date.

p.s. My preference these days is for XP Home when using Windows, which my main desktop and my laptop came with preinstalled, and I normally use Ubuntu for my laptop.

[FyreBrand]

Vista

[glotz]

2000. The NT kernel and no activation ********. But never again will I need to use a M$ product. :D

[Dimitriid]

2000. I don't know the last upgrades lately but its almost the same as XP but able to run on less memory, which is actually good for old machines ( not nearly as good as XFCE based Linux or Puppy however )

[tcpip4lyfe]

Zero votes for ME. Pwned.

Man ME is the worst piece of garbage on the planet. Im not a microsoft basher at all but ME is terrible. 2000 is actually pretty solid. Thats my vote.

[tcpip4lyfe]

If I had to choose... it would be windows 2000. Not for the fact that it's before XP, but for the only MS product not built by in house MS developers. Prior to the final betas, the majority of the work on Win2K was done by DEC (of DEC Alpha). WinME was microsofts attempt to create an upgrade for NT.

Very interesting.

[Dimitriid]

Even 3.11 has 1 vote, I guess people would rather go back to 486 days rather than using Windows ME

[karellen]

Windows Vista

[hessiess]

98:)

[clickit]

I would choose XP

[Lewa Nua]

Xp cause its the only stable version ... period and vista lock s up resources say u have like 4gb and it will only allow 512 to progs which have benn given special setting !!!!! :0 gasp

[mcduck]

None of those. I'd like to get the Microsoft Bob. It's just as useless as the rest are, but it would be so much more fun to have on your machine :D

Of course that would still need either Win3.11 or 95 underneath, so I'd go for 3.11 as it still has a real DOS underneath..

[Spr0k3t]

For skeptics of the Windows2000 not being a Microsoft product, have a look at the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000) and look at the page edits. Also note the lack of development history on the wiki page and the removal of support for DEC Alpha systems in the third (almost final) beta. The reason for the lack of a code name, it was a project in the house of DEC Alpha... Microsoft didn't think they would be able to finish everything as early as they had. The WindowsME was supposed to be a stand in place for a full year prior to the release of Windows2000. The developers over at DEC were given the full source of NT4.5 and Windows98. The request made by Microsoft was to build the next generation of NT merging the characteristics of 98 into it. While the build was in development, many components from DEC were handed back to MS and they tried to horseshoe into ME. Some components were successfully integrated while others caused major memory leaks. I really wish I could offer citations proving this information... but he who wins the wars are able to rewrite history in their own eyes. Anyway, that is the very reason why Windows 2000 and 2000 Advanced Server were so robust and nearly impossible to break; they were written by a group who knows how to write an OS. MS later destroyed 2000 by releasing XP, touting it as a finished product.

I got a chance to sit down with a few of the DEC developers who were offered long term contracts with MS. At the time this was happening, I was working as webmaster at Gateway.com. Those were the good years in IT. Then the bubble popped.

[nowshining]

windows 2000 had a lot of bugs :)

[Overbyte]

Does this poll refer to the operating systems completely patched, with all service packs? ;) Anyway...XP seems stable enough if you tweak it hard, and don't open those My Documents.exe stuff. :lolflag:

[Bungo Pony]

I had a tough time choosing between Win2k and Win3.x. If Win3.x was able to run on newer systems and be (fully) compatible with 32 bit software, I would have chosen that. So Win2k is the winner, plus it's what's on my other partition. I has no WGA crap, and I like it that way. Makes me feel like I actually OWN the software.

[Caffeine_Junky]

I choose XP it has been good to me.

[markp1989]

i chose windows 2000 becasue its the most recent version of windows with out all of the WGA stuff in it

[justin whitaker]

Price no object? Vista Ultimate. Otherwise, stick with XP.

[M$LOL]

How many of these polls do we really need?

[happy-and-lost]

3.11, because it's "old skool"