Ranking of the 4 Modern Windows OSs


Recommended Posts

7 - Best windows so far, only one I had 0 issues with. everything installed automatically, new built system was up and running in about 20 minutes.

XP- just because of how long I had it for, best part of 8 or so years.

Vista- was pretty unstable initially after xp, but once it settled down it was as good as xp or 7.

>

>

>

>Windows 8 (with start8/startisback)

>

>

>

>OSX

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Windows 8 (plain metro)

Windows 8 - speed and feature improvements, less app crashes, faster switching between apps when gaming

Windows 7 - speed and stability over Vista

Windows Vista - far less BSODs, self maintaining, self tuning networking

Windows XP x64 - Patchguard and culling some ancient networking crap

Windows XP - it technically works and works well, for a while. If you don't mind reinstalling it every so often and any app being able to screw up the kernel, awesome.

  • Like 2

Windows XP : An OS that brought NT to the masses. Sure it's old but it still works just fine.

Windows 7 : An OS which brought some much need polish to Vista.

Windows Vista : Without this there would be no 7

Windows 8 (Does this really have to be on the list?) : Meh

Just because you and other so-called "power users" around here whine about it doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the list.

1. Windows 8

2. Windows 7

3. Windows Vista

4. Windows eXPired

  • Like 5

7 - Clean, polished, usable, simple.

8 - Very promising, but it's not there yet - app developers haven't figured out how Metro should work yet, and I'd rather spend all my time in Metro or all my time on the desktop, rather than switching back and forth. Give it a year or two and it'll easily be at the top.

XP - It's old, it's not going to be supported forever, the UI feels slow and boring - but it's a stable OS, which is why it's lasted this long.

Vista - Honestly, a good beta for Windows 7. Not as bad as everyone said, but not good enough to play with the big boys.

(That being said, I spend 75% of my time on Mountain Lion)

I refuse to answer the question.

I will say, though, that:

XP was an evolution of the 9x Windows line, and incorporated the NT code base into consumer systems. It was 'revolutionary', at the time, but is now old.

Vista pushed the envelope a bit more. In my experience, it performed most tasks I required just as quickly as XP, and was more stable. "GASP". My system here, not yours.

7 picked up some speed, but didn't like my Vista laptops much. :(

8 picked up more speed and likes the laptops Windows 7 didn't like.

Flexible minds will adapt, stubborn people won't.

That is all.

  1. 8 - Great OS that builds on 7's brilliant backbone with speed and efficiency getting a shot in the arm.
  2. 7 - Solid architecture, fast, feature rich.
  3. Vista - Gave an old dog new legs
  4. XP - As much as i loved it at the time, it really doesn't belong on a list of 'Modern' OS's and far to many problems when released that it took TWO service packs to fix.

  • Like 1

XP is not modern by any sense of the word (hell it still defaults to a full admin account...)

Anyways..

My choice is:

1. Windows 7 - Stable, Fast and modern.

2. Windows 8 - Stable, Fast, modern and user friendly I don't care what any "power users" say, when a 59 year old man who only uses a computer to do 3 things (eg. work, email and a casual game) can figure out Windows 8 in meer seconds (he actually found some things I didn't at first :s) theres probably an issue in this "power user" elitest group.

3. Windows Vista - Vast improvement over XP (It was actually more stable on a system from 2003 that came with XP.).

4. Windows XP - Really was a step back IMO after toying with Linux for so long. Never made real use of NTFS's ACL properties, always defaulted to a full privileged administrator.

  • Windows XP - Ol' faithful.
  • Windows 7 - I'm still getting to grips with the changes, but overall I think I'm impressed.
  • Windows Vista - I've supported it, but never used it as a main OS.
  • Windows 8 - Nope. Just that. Nope. Not my thing, I don't want a tablet OS on my laptop.

Windows 7 (The best OS Microsoft ever made. Period.)

Windows XP (Used this for years, right up to Windows 7 release)

Windows Vista (Used it for a few months, but ultimately when it was released it didn't work as expected)

Windows 8 (Just a mess of a OS, tried it, hated it, won't go back).

* The opinions arnt trolling, but my personal views.

Windows 8 64 bit - Windows 7 + so much more, it will begin the mobile revolution and be tidied up with Blue (which I'm running right now :D )

Windows 7 64 bit - The best PC OS at the time- rock solid but fundamentally the same as Vista

Windows XP 64 Bit- only because it began the 64 bit revolution and was a trusty OS that got stuff done- terrible driver support though and it was pretty aweful until SP2-3

Windows Vista - No problems with it but the others are just "better"- loved the new DirectX and GPU features

Windows XP 64 Bit- only because it began the 64 bit revolution and was a trusty OS that got stuff done- terrible driver support though and it was pretty aweful until SP2-3

I think I missed that part, how was the driver support terrible? I know the in-house "find a driver automatically" was/is rubbish, but all the companies supported the OS, it just made more sense at the end of the day to go straight to the website.

I think I missed that part, how was the driver support terrible? I know the in-house "find a driver automatically" was/is rubbish, but all the companies supported the OS, it just made more sense at the end of the day to go straight to the website.

Yeah I was referring more or less to 64 Bit driver support but even so, 32 bit support was pretty horrendous at launch, it took a good 2 years for OEMs to get on board and with SP3 it was pretty rock solid. Still, we often forget that XP had an awful launch and poor reception and it wasn't till it became widely adopted with the service packs that it took off!

Yeah I was referring more or less to 64 Bit driver support but even so, 32 bit support was pretty horrendous at launch, it took a good 2 years for OEMs to get on board and with SP3 it was pretty rock solid. Still, we often forget that XP had an awful launch and poor reception and it wasn't till it became widely adopted with the service packs that it took off!

Oh right! I've generally supported and used 32-bit, so my knowledge of 64-bit support is...lacking. On top of which, I was a home user when XP first came out, so I got on with it. It was still miles better than Windows 98, so I probably forgave its misgivings at the time...

Oh right! I've generally supported and used 32-bit, so my knowledge of 64-bit support is...lacking. On top of which, I was a home user when XP first came out, so I got on with it. It was still miles better than Windows 98, so I probably forgave its misgivings at the time...

Yup 64 bit driver support was horrendous!

1) Win 7 / 8. They're tied because if you don't throw a hissy fit over the metro UI it's a more efficient OS in terms of hardware utilisation.

2) XP. Bad memory management, horrible x64 support, although it was a revolution when it was released.

3) Vista. It was a massive upgrade from XP in terms of memory management and performance. Sadly, MS allowed manufacturers to produce Vista ready machines with horrendous specs, which lead to the vast majority of complaints and crippled the OS. There was also the issue with hardware manufacturers being painfully slow in releasing suitable drivers.

Windows 7 - everything just came together and worked, i remember reading someone say it was the best OS in the world and i agreed.

Windows Vista - it had to break things for change to happen, Vista gave us a good modern os with 64bit hardware support as standard. I also loved the vastly improved Windows Media Center. Vista was a vast improvement over Windows XP.

Windows XP - back in the day it was amazing, so many new features and it didn't crash every 5 mins! A rock solid OS which has stood the test of time.

I use Windows 8 as my main OS, however I'm reluctant to rank it anywhere at this moment in time. The only changes i really enjoy are the ribbon interface on explorer and the new task manager. I'm aware it boots up significantly faster, however as i have an SSD Windows 7 only took a few seconds anyway so i've noticed little difference.

Other than that i cant help feel Windows 8 was rushed just so Microsoft could have a tablet out to try and compete with the Ipad and Android tablets. I've personally never been a fan of the square tiles used right the way back to Windows Phone 7. Were stuck with it anyway, however as i do everything in the desktop anyway i guess its not too much of a concern at this moment in time... the hot corners and chimes bar on the desktop are very annoying however.

I guess if i had to say i would put Windows 8 between 7 and Vista, its better than Vista, however for what i use a PC for it doesn't really offer me anything over Windows 7.

1. XP just for durability, longevity, and dependability.

2. Windows 7 for the same reasons a #1 except for the longevity, which is obviously only a matter of time. :)

3. Windows 8 just because it ISN'T Vista, but otherwise another POS because of the design/layout

4. Vista biggest POS since Windows Me!!

I'll assume "modern" means how I'd rate them by today's standards. So that's exactly what I'll do.

  1. Win7 & Win8. I agree with Wakers. They're about tied right now. 7 is a very solid OS and easily Microsoft's best so far, but 8 is pretty much a direct upgrade in almost every aspect. If they had just done a better job of splitting the tablet and desktop experiences, it would be my #1 by a longshot. But for now, the benefits are offset by the oversimplified tablet UI that I just can't adjust how I want to.
  2. Vista. I don't really hate it, but if it's on a computer I can control at all, I'll do my best to upgrade to 7 or 8 ASAP. It's littered with too many little things that just kill the desktop experience I want, and there's really no easy way to fix that.
  3. XP. This OS honestly has no place on a "modern" OS list. I die a little on the inside every time I'm forced to use this fossil of an operating system, which is just about every day at work. It worked very well for its time, but that time has long passed. The torch has been passed, and it's time to move on.

At over a decade old, XP can hardly be considered "modern"... SPs or not.

Technology moves fast... 3 years is old. Vista is getting long in the tooth.

XP was an evolution of the 9x Windows line, and incorporated the NT code base into consumer systems. It was 'revolutionary', at the time, but is now old.

That was Windows 2000. XP is it's bloated and "consumerized" cousin. Windows 2000 integrated 9x and NT, and was a revolutionary and an amazing OS for it's time.

Windows 8 - Takes some getting used to, is not really finished/polished, but the general direction is good: I rarely see the start screen, only to launch some apps which I do sometimes

Windows 7 - Just nice, works great

Windows XP - Not really modern anymore though... it doesn't even install on my PC because there's no drivers

Windows Vista - Started being good after SP2, but completely overshadowed by Windows 7. Also, themes were ugly

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!