Most Stable Windows Os

[qwijibow 0]

But what kind of moron uses DOS at their OS? I don't think anyone does...
OTHER THAN DOS, Windows 2000 is the most stable OS, is it not?

here is how i woulld rate OS stability.

1st place.... OpenBSD
2nd (very very close) FreeBSD
Joint 3rd place MacOSX / GNU/Linux / Solaris
DOS
Windows 2K / NT
Windows XP
Windows 98
Windows 95
Windows 3.x
windows 2.x
windows 1.x

So windows has been getting better.... unless you count Dos... which i dont, MS didnt develop dos, they just sold it.

Some may argue that Linux is more stable than MacOSX, some will argue that MacOSX is more stable.... its way to close to call, and all depends on what Distribution and hardware.. so although i am linux biased.... i have to give them a draw...

however i dont think anyone would argue that BSD doesnt deserve the Stability Crown !

what do you givs think ??

[qwijibow 0]

Errrrr.... I dunno if you can really call Win 98 a full blown REAL Operating System. It was more of a Graphical Shell that still ran on the old MS-DOS in the background.

Just Like X is a shell that runs ontop of Unix / Linux / BSD.
the fact that the graphical components of the OS is modular isnt a bad thing.

[miCRoSCoPiC^eaRthLinG 0]

here is how i woulld rate OS stability.

 

1st place.... OpenBSD

2nd (very very close) FreeBSD

Joint 3rd place MacOSX / GNU/Linux / Solaris

DOS

Windows 2K / NT

Windows XP

Windows 98

Windows 95

Windows 3.x

windows 2.x

windows 1.x

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yaah absolutely.. I wouldn't even think of arguing with that. Hats off to Open & FreeBSD.

[qwijibow 0]

One more funny and often neglected point about the whole NT/Win2k/XP family of products is that they are ALL supposed to be POSIX compliant - which in effect means the should be able to run *NIX bianries conforming to the POSIX standard, straight out of the box.

i think you are wrong here.
Solaris is POSIX compliant, and so it Linux, and also BSD. however the binary's dont run on different OS's (i have access to Linux and Solaris)

i think POSIX compliant software will compile on different POSIX compliant OS's without source code modification.

Windows isnt even compliant with C++ standards..

in a proper compiler, the following code is valid

int main(int argc, char *args[]) {        int A=1024, B=0;    cin >> B;    char *memory = new char[ A+B ];    delete[ ] memory;    return 0;}

in proper c++ compilers this code would grab 1024 add a user entered number bytes of memory, in MS visual C++ comilation failes because A+B is not constant at compile time.

sometimes you dont know how much memory you will need untill runtime, like with artifical intelligence applications.

[miCRoSCoPiC^eaRthLinG 0]

I think I was indeed wrong there - though what I intended to say was somewhat on the lines of what you posted next.Thanks

[jipman 0]

I'd say that Win XP is more stable and runs better, I always thought that 2000 had compatibility and stability problems

[harriko 0]

hm.. i havent had much ecperiance on all the operating systems, but my vote goes to windows xp professional but still not satify with it. there are loads of flaws into the operating system thats why there are patches of it every month or even weeks! if there was a flawless operating system, which i doubt, i be using this right now! or is there something out there? any suggestations?

[Admiral Lyoko Samus 0]

*Chuckles* Like we've said, DOS is pretty much the most stable OS, but if you have to have something graphic , I would suggest a version of Linux. It's one of the hardest OS's to bring down. Or, I could try to ghost you a copy of my HDD. XP Home Edition with all my own tweaks and diagnostics. Haven't had it crash yet, with the exception of when we first got it and my parents decided to screw around with the my delicate settings.

[JimBeam1405241475 0]

I don't really have a lot of experience with OS's.. I'm not really into it that much. The only OS's I have used seriously are Win95, WinME and WinXP. I definately like XP the best in terms of stability... but for me it is hard to compare these. My old system was first running Win95, then WinME. When I upgraded my computer I installed WinXP. It does seem a lot more stable than the previous OS's I used, but it could possibly be that my new PC is just more stable. So from what I've tried, my list of OS's stability from best to worst;WinXPWin95WinME (this one really... REALLY sucked!)

[iGuest 3]

Please don't diss DOS, I still like writing applications for it. Well portable console programs that should be able to run under any emulated terminal. I'm currently writing a large business accounting/retail software that supports over 150 multi-users, that has instant messaging and leaving notes, has a simple interface, mouse, function keys support, the whole works and will be faster than any Windows based similar type programs, well hopefully.DOS is so much faster than GUIs, I still don't know why you would consider frontends other than it'd probably be easier to use but so much slower, once you get comfortable on any program though, you'll be fast at using it and since I'm trying to keep close to how Windows programs operate, all shortcut key commands will be similar on my console programs.I wonder who could create a new folder in a specific location as well as name it, faster than I could in DOS or for my matter MinGW. There's also some specific DOS commands that might not be well documented that can show you the programs running on your computer, the programs that the programs are running as well. e.g. the 16bit Windows emulator shows NTVDM but doesn't show what program it's running, bring up dos, type tasklist /? and you'll have similar but more options over Task Mananger.I find that Windows running in Safe Mode is pretty stable does that count?Remember Bill Gates didn't think GUIs were going to be popular, he thought everyone would just like DOS, although he had no idea about how to go about it until he helped Apple and while there, learnt about their GUI.MC

[qwijibow 0]

to be honnest.. the DOS interface is pretty lame.1) the slashes are the wrong way round, back slahs is an escape sequance.2) space escape sequences dont work, instead you have to use "DOS names" where files like "Hello World" get abreviated to "HELLOWO~1" which is stupid.with an escape sequance it would be as simple at "Hello\ World"nothing wrong with command line, aslong as its well designed, like BASH.

[tattoopunk 0]

Wish I could Afford a Mac

[rockista 0]

Wish I could Afford a Mac

yeah mac, i want one

and about the topic windows 2000 is most stable windows version, but win xp sp2 is also stable, no problems for a months after sp2 patch. i think i vote for xp sp2