The Best Version Of Windows

[pyost 0]

Let me just say this:

 

 

 

Talking seriously, my vote goes to Windows XP. Obviously, it has the best features/stabilty balance. Vista has loads of things to offer, but it is still not as stable as XP. I was able to use my WinXP installation for over two years without reinstalling it, or even repairing in any way, so this must definitely be a plus. But after the first crash, several months ago, I switched to Linux, so I might not be the most objective person

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

That's just PRICELESS ... omfg ... ROFL!Anyways, Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 coming in March is suppose to make your system go a lot faster than it does right now.xboxrulz

[iGuest 3]

Ubuntu! Well thats not windows of course. I have one pc with xp and it has served me well. Built many pc's using it. My dual boot system is running ubuntu8.04 LTS and vista ultimate. My vote so far goes with xp but vista is on the rise!!-reply by $k!P

[iGuest 3]

"Does anybody else feel like the motive for the vista was mac?"Not just the mac: that's just the way computing is going these days. Microsoft regards Linux as their no.1 threat so I think they would be damned if they're going to let something that is given away for free outshine them in the looks department (but it still does)! I'd have to say 98. I really want to find my CD so I can virtualise it on Linux because it's very nippy, and ~85% compatible with modern programmes. My dad uses XP and I don't like it at all. It takes really long to boot, even straight after it's been installed. It's madness that the most popular OS is the one that needs to be reinstalled so frequently.Yes, +1 for Linux! It's nice to be able to strip the system right down so that you don't have a single automation or wizard you don't want. And compiz. Compiz is very pretty.-reply by Mark

[bookreviews 0]

In my opinion windows XP is fast enough for me and have hardly ever had any problems while using windows XP! I have also heard from a friend that windows vista is not as good as windows xp prefer for microsoft

[skedad 0]

I would have to think that Microsoft thinks that Vista is their best version.I don't think I would say best, but maybe my favorite to use is Windows XP. I have basically used every Windows known to mankind. I would say Vista is my favorite, but I have only started to play with Vista a few months now, as compared to many years installing and reformatting and so forth with XP.Vista is loaded on our Acer laptop. I have an older desktop PC that is still running XP. My brother in law also has Vista, but he has been having license issues formatting and reformatting. So I would love to try to put Vista on my desktop, but I guess I just have not checked into Microsoft's licensing issues with XP and Vista. This is my wife's laptop and so I don't really feel like messing around with formatting and reformatting it... I want her to have a reliable system when she needs it.XP is and has been on a lot of my desktops throughout a few years. It has been very easy to use, to format and reformat, and even personalize as far as hard space usage... I was able to partition anything I liked and loaded other OS with it. It took me a while at the start to get used to XP's look over 95, but afterward I really got into the fact that it was really new compared to 95 and 2000. And that I could go back to classic whenever I felt. I have even had classes on the ins and outs of running and troubleshooting Windows XP.Windows 2000 was another I began to play with. I had my first real PC loaded with 95, and I tired of the blue screen and my PC always freezing up. I had a more professional version of 2000, so I didn't really do a lot of desktop personalizing. I had 95, and had moved it only to 2000 for a few months before reformatting and leaving it with Windows XP. If I were to get a new PC, I would be happy with Vista, but would always keep XP on hand.As for Windows 95 and Windows 3.1, I guess I would say they should be extinct. I know they were important for the evolution of Windows, but the world is getting so into the technology age, that if anyone were to run any kind of computer, it should run at least Windows 2000. The 3.1 was fun for me when I was younger, and played a lot of fun games on it... but I just don't think anything should be run other than Paint and Solitaire.So I am glad I was able to do a little opinion posting, but I am glad I was able to do a nice critique on it in the end. Be good to whichever version you have and it will be good back.XP and Vista... they are the two for me.- skedad -

[skoricd 0]

With all the different flavors of Windows, what in your opinion is the best version? Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinNT, Win2000, WinXP, Vista, and even remember Windows 3.1?
I hear that hardcore Windows users are in love with Win98SE for some reason? Is there any justification behind this? I mean this is a version of Windows that is definitely not supported anymore, but is the security and stability of this version that much better where it doesn't need support?

Personally, I really like Win2000 over any other version. It seems more secure and stable, and I'm pretty sure its still supported.

I really don't like Vista at all. My one friend tried the beta version that is currently available, and he had it on his computer for all of 3 days before going back to WinXP. Vista is such a memory hog and everything seems "too" overdone.

If I forgot any other versions please feel free to add them in.

my fave must be xp, it is fast and simple without hogging memory and vista sucks in all ways, alot of people now like win 98 se because it requires so little that on a tanked computer with multiple ghz and a few gigs of ram it runs like super fast and you don't realy have to wate fore anything to load like you do with xp and vista, you also forgot windows me which was right before 2000, it is like the sucky version of 2000, it was on for like all of a year because it must be the worst windows ever, it was so bad that they hurryed up with 2000 because it just had so many issues.

[darasen 0]

you also forgot windows me which was right before 2000, it is like the sucky version of 2000, it was on for like all of a year because it must be the worst windows ever, it was so bad that they hurryed up with 2000 because it just had so many issues.

Correction, Windows 2000 was released before ME was. ME was easily the worst version oif windows, possibly the worst OS of all time. XP was largely regarded as craptastic when it was first released as well. I knew many people in the tech field who stuck with 98 SE or 2000 Pro for years after XP's release.

I do not think ME, with its odd mix of 15 and 32 bit code, was ever intended to be a lasting OS anyway. Micorosft merely wanted to have a "new" OS for the "new" millennium and they made a good deal of money licensing ME on new PC's people thought they had to get to be Y2K compliant. (God, I had hoped to never see that term again and here I typed it in.) It was marketing.

2000 pro remain the best version, in my opinion anyway. Though the sytem I am using this very moment is XP I largely regard XP as a bloated mess supplanted only by the bloated dung pile known as Vista.

[FirefoxRocks 0]

My first Windows computer was in 1999, Windows 98. It came with a CD to optionally upgrade to 98SE. It was good, but the first thing I did was open up a Command Prompt window and try things in there (like fdisk) :)I don't do a whole lot of gaming, but initially I thought that Windows 98 was really slow, especially at startup. That was because Compaq put tons of software on it like Easy Access Keyboard, Compaq Support, McAfee VirusScan (had like 8 different components to load). The programs were good, and things that I got out of cereal boxes (Scrabble, Boggle, Clue) actually worked.In 2003, 4 years later, I got Windows XP. It was fast and easy to learn. I still had Command Prompt, and the wizards and stuff were quite new. That's when I discovered Firefox and found it to be so much better than Internet Explorer. It had a Pentium 3GHz processor and Task Manager kept things to not become memory hogs so everything was good. Only problem was Office 2000 didn't work, didn't know about OpenOffice.org back then.Now I am running Windows Vista and it is working great! The visual effects are good and networking tools have improved a lot. It is much suitable for new computer users with all the tips and stuff though.I am running Ubuntu and I must say that it is better than Windows in a lot of ways. Except for program compatibility (and yes I have WINE installed). I have tried a Mac and found those to be far too easy to use.So as for Windows versions, I would stick with XP as my favourite. After all, I've only seen Windows 3.1 on some videos and screenshots and stuff, loks interesting.

[Arbitrary 0]

Don't we just all love Windows 3.1? Heh, kidding, kidding. My first was a Windows 95. I don't remember much about it though--I was only around five then. I do remember seeing a lot of bloatware (wow, firefox spell check recognizes this as a word!) installed on it, but that isn't really the fault of Windows. Afterwards my dad bought Windows 98, which I ended up using extensively as well. I didn't really notice that much of a difference from 95 back then, but then again, I was only a kid. Later on he bought Windows 2000, which we used for many, many years. I never had many problems with Win 2K and rather liked its minimalist style with graphics. (I'm not a big fan of fancy graphics unless I'm looking at a print ad or unless it serves a major purpose.) I didn't get as many blue screens of death as everyone else seemed to report.I had an extremely short experience with XP and very quickly moved to Vista, which I find fine. I haven't had many problems getting things to work on Vista. The graphics I don't particularly like, but that's fine because I've also managed to disable them, so now the graphics run just like Windows XP and don't take up any extra memory. I've also got Ubuntu installed, but I still haven't been able to get my wireless working (oh, thou art disgusting, Broadcom!). I would go and buy a more Linux-compatible wireless card, but I'd need money for that (which my cash-strapped self does not have...) I've tried installing the drivers and then getting ndiswrapper, but none of the methods I've found have worked. I think I might work on settling Ubuntu on a desktop instead so that I can avoid the hassles with wireless.

[iGuest 3]

Windows 3.11 All The Way!

The Best Version Of Windows

 

For those of you who have never messed with a Win3.X series machine before, let me tell you its a heck of alot different than its replacements. For one, the way the entire system was built was different. This was a true DOS machine, meaning you could actually close Windows and go back to a DOS prompt for all of those low level file system tasks. Also, Windows at the time was more of a friendly user interface for DOS. I still miss the days of writing assembly code using the DOS "debug" feature. I still have a Compaq Prolinea 4/50 under my bed with a 500 MB hard drive and 18 MB of RAM running Windows 3.11 For Workgroups. Still, after 15 years, it still works fine. It was an office computer before I got it, so its cool to look at all of the spreadsheets and documents and the like and get a feel for what office life must have been like in 1993 when the PC was just picking up good steam.

 

But I do have to say that I'm partial to 98SE. I like it because its simple, and it works (most of the time). Also, its somewhat nostalgic to use it, it was one of the last operating systems Windows made before they decided that the operating system was more intelligent than the user and they started with the whole "Here, let me, the operating system, screw this up for you and not tell you anything about what I did wrong." type attitude.

 

-reply by Rale

[zizo105 0]

undefinedthanks alot

[iGuest 3]

Well for me. I love win 98.. But compatibility sucks as the new years roll on by. As for vista this is the worst thing ever. It eats up too much PC processing power poorly managed rescources and a totally new gui to learn. Which makes it alittle fustrating to learn as compared to all past windows version after 3.11.HONESTLY EVEN WITH MY LOVE FOR WIN 98 AND BEING A WIN XP pro USER. I WILL STILL HAVE TO SAY THE BEST IS THE LATEST. EVEN WITH CRASHES AND WHAT NOT, IF WE GET A GOOD PC WHICH ALLOWS THE OS TO RUN WELL WE WILL HAVE NO Are E G are E T SA new OS will not be invented to be worse off then the previous version. Hardcore programmers and PC users love win 98 because of the "don't want to learn new code" syndrome. Compatibility is hell being either a problem of the software or the OS in itself.Old java programmers don't wanna move on to higher gen languages because of new codes and what ever, and later OS don't support the old programming languages due to security reasons. I really like this thread btw :DDarkScorpion/// Hard Core Gamer of Trinidad & TobagoSpend your money on a good PC and upgrade hardware and software every day... Best way to stay up to date "which is friggin impossible"Go for a 900GHz processor quad core of course PeNtIuM 20900THz or ram "lol" 4DDDRAM Multi liked AGP 99999999 series-reply by Marcus

[iGuest 3]

+1 for Windows 98The Best Version Of Windows

I've been using XP Pro for quite a number of years but the best version of Windows was 98. The reason had alot to do with the kind of control the user had with the system. With each new Windows release, alot of that control is handed over to the Operating System or to Microsoft itself.

I routinely booted into the command-line with Win98 and ran scripts that cleaned the system, backed up the registry, removed files that the OS itself wouldn't touch in GUI mode, etc (alot of this was automated for those familiar with autoexec, config system and config system boot options). I even ran a fantastic app from litepc.Com which enabled me to truly optimize the system - including the removal of Internet Explorer and flaky services.

In the end, I was left with a rock-solid OS, speed-demon capable of booting into the command-line running almost entirely on 3rd party applications as replacements for the standard MS apps (mostly freeware and open source).

It is possible to do something similar with XP in terms of optimizations but the work required is enormous. I know only of one user that has accomplished this and the results are astounding. XP running on 128mbs fully stripped to the bone and faster than any GUI-based Linux system (except for DSL, SliTaz and a few other incomplete, non-modern distros). While XP is capable of being this impressive, MS instead decides to take a very capable system core and add as much bloat as possible with WGA, the continued use of a registry, redundant and dangerous services, etc. If it wasn't for the competition - we may today have an ad-laden system running on our machines with absolutely no privacy while everyone is treated like a thief.

As Microsoft seeks to appease a growing disenchantment with its' products, later OSes (particularly those in the server) level were to have been built with a more modular architecture including a boot to command line option. It may never happen compared to systems like *BSD or Linux but if it does, Microsoft may once again enjoy some level of Operating System respect.

Afterall, an Operating System exist for only one reason... To run our applications as quickly and safely as possible.

 

[general1405241571 0]

i think vista is better than XP, but no one likes it.so i hope that when windows 7 will come out the users will like it, because windows 7 is vista with fixed bugs and changer interface...for now my best operating system is vista.