• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows ranking

Recommended Posts

ThaCrip    610

The only ones worth mentioning...

 

1)Windows 10 (mostly because it's the newest standard for Windows OS's)

2)Windows 7 (this is probably a safer bet for most people, but like all previous Windows, it's end of life is very soon (i.e. Jan 2020))

3)Windows XP (the first mainstream Microsoft OS that was stable)

4)Windows 2000 (basically the first stable OS from Microsoft the average person could use even though Windows XP is the first true stable OS from Microsoft targeted towards the average person)

 

that pretty much sums it up over the years as the rest are pretty much crap as Microsoft generally has a good/bad/good/bad OS pattern and that's held true from Windows 98 to date pretty much.

 

NOTE: I have used as old as Windows v3.11 which was in 1995, then in 1996 I got another computer which had Windows 95 etc etc.

 

p.s. but I currently use Linux Mint as of Jan 2019. it's like if this had a bit better software support and gaming support I could see this gaining a lot more users. but at the same time... it's nice that it's not too popular (only about 2% market share where as Windows is about 87% the last I checked on desktop/laptop) as it helps Linux stay off the radar and basically makes it more secure, if for nothing else... security through obscurity. people seem not to bother attacking Linux (on desktop/laptop) like they do with Windows which basically makes it more secure by default for the average person to browse the internet with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,541
1 minute ago, ThaCrip said:

that pretty much sums it up over the years as the rest are pretty much crap

So you write off 3.1, NT4, 95 as "crap"?

2 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

security through obscurity. people seem not to bother attacking Linux

That used to hold true - to a level

 

2 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

basically the first stable OS from Microsoft the average person could use

What utter nonsense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaCrip    610
8 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

So you write off 3.1, NT4, 95 as "crap"?

Well like I was saying... prior to Win2k/WinXP, Microsoft's OS the average person could use were not stable as you typically had to reboot fairly often etc. I am not saying they where total crap or anything but I think looking bad on all of the OS's from Microsoft for the average person, it's just those four (Win2k/XP/7/10) worth mentioning and that's probably close in general because computers never really went mainstream til about 1998-2000 and WinXP was 2001 so you might as well say WinXP was pretty much the first OS many people used from Microsoft (maybe as far back as Windows 98).

 

but come to think of it... I guess one could praise Windows 95 a little since you might as well say that was the first OS from Microsoft that basically gave us the core basic interface we pretty much use today.

 

but like I was saying with Microsoft it's typical good/bad/good/bad pattern has held true from Windows 98 to date...

 

-Win98(good)

-WinME(bad)

-WinXP(good)

-WinVista(bad)

-Win7(good)

-Win8(bad)

-Win10(good)

 

NOTE: I realize after some time had passed... Vista/Win8 improved but by then the damage was done as people pretty much disliked those. whoever made the decision to make Windows 8's interface like it was upon release, which was made for tablets and not real computers, should have been fired immediately as it should have been obvious you just don't screw with the core interface that people are used to for many years too drastically in general.

 

for the record... Windows 8 is the only OS I pretty much never used from Win v3.11 to date from Microsoft as I tried it a little in a virtual machine and immediately hated it as doing basic tasks was a chore due to it's tablet like interface etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,541
1 minute ago, ThaCrip said:

prior to Win2k/WinXP, Microsoft's OS the average person could use were not stable as you typically had to reboot fairly often etc. I am not saying they where total crap or anything but I think looking bad on all of the OS's from Microsoft for the average person, it's just those four (Win2k/XP/7/10) worth mentioning and that's probably close in general because computers never really went mainstream til about 1998-2000 and WinXP was 2001 so you might as well say WinXP was pretty much the first OS many people used from Microsoft (maybe as far back as Windows 98).

I absolutely couldn't disagree more.  But fair play - your opinion and all that, and that's what's obviously shaped it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaCrip    610
4 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

I absolutely couldn't disagree more.  But fair play - your opinion and all that, and that's what's obviously shaped it.

Disagree about what?

 

it's pretty much a fact that Windows XP was the first stable OS (stable as in could leave running for days or weeks etc without needing a reboot) from Microsoft targeted towards the average person.

 

even my 'mainstream computer/internet' dates are pretty close. so if you disagree it can't be by much.

 

p.s. I have been on internet since 1995 which is before computers were mainstream. hell, high speed internet was not available in my area til the year 2000 as I was one of the earlier ones to get it from what the Comcast guy said to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,541
Just now, ThaCrip said:

Disagree about what?

 

it's pretty much a fact that Windows XP was the first stable OS (stable as in could leave running for days or weeks etc) from Microsoft targeted towards the average person.

It is not "pretty much fact".  I (and many others) has very stable OSs before XP.  Back from Windows NT, or even 3.1 (which was absolutely usable, as someone who supported it across companies and home users I feel valid in saying this) stability issues were minimal - there was less to go wrong.  Sure it took more setup but that is neither a comment on usability or stability.

Heck, Win95 was a stable OS.  I recall no major stability issues.  98, sure - that suffered as did ME.

 

Stop presenting your opinion and calling it a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaCrip    610
10 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

It is not "pretty much fact".  I (and many others) has very stable OSs before XP.  Back from Windows NT, or even 3.1 (which was absolutely usable, as someone who supported it across companies and home users I feel valid in saying this) stability issues were minimal - there was less to go wrong.  Sure it took more setup but that is neither a comment on usability or stability.

Heck, Win95 was a stable OS.  I recall no major stability issues.  98, sure - that suffered as did ME.

 

Stop presenting your opinion and calling it a fact.

 

But you got to admit it (Win95/Win98 and the like(basically OS's prior to Windows XP targeted towards the average person)) needed rebooting more often than Windows XP on forward. it's not my opinion, I still feel pretty strongly about claiming it's a fact. keep in mind I am talking about OS's targeted towards the average person so WinNT does not count as that's more business related.

 

I said 'stable', not 'usable'. when I said stable I mean leaving your computer running for days or weeks without needing a reboot etc. It's pretty safe to say it's common knowledge that WindowsXP is much more stable than Windows 98 for example as you use random programs etc over a period of time.

 

sure, I would agree that say Windows 95 was stable enough to use for a while, like it's passable to use for hours etc, but not many days or weeks or longer without needing a reboot.

Edited by ThaCrip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,541
1 minute ago, ThaCrip said:

But you got to admit it needed rebooting more often than Windows XP on forward.

That has little to do with stability and more about how services ran.  They required initialisation at startup - hence, reboot.  Even now when an app wants to reboot post install, its usually just because it wants to start a service and this is how it chooses to do that.

2 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

I am talking about OS's targeted towards the average person so WinNT does not count as that's more business related

Average people work in businesses!  My mum is an "average person" - she happily worked away on NT for years without any specialist computer knowledge.  Heck, my dad used the NT server without any specialist computer knowledge. The tasks they were undertaking could have been done on 3.1 or 95 equally, with the exact same level of knowledge or even intimidation from the UI.

 

4 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

I said 'stable', not 'usable'.

You have mentioned usability also.

 

5 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

when I said stable I mean leaving your computer running for days or weeks without needing a reboot etc

Again, many reboots were not due to stability.  I had left 3.1 running for days or weeks without needing a reboot.  Can say the exact same for 3.1

 

5 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

It's pretty safe to say it's common knowledge that WindowsXP is much more stable than Windows 98 for example.

It's pretty safe to say that 98 has stability concerns that were never fully addresses, that were not inherent to 95.  Moreover it's safe to say that XP launched with MASSIVE stability issues due to a wholly new driver model.

 

You are presenting your opinion as "accepted knowledge" or fact, and you're incorrect in doing so.  It's not a poor opinion to have and may be useful, but it's far from entirely true and far from fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick H.    9,913
8 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

I still feel pretty strongly about claiming it's a fact.

But it's not. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaCrip    610
18 minutes ago, Nick H. said:

But it's not. :/

Your honestly going to tell me that Windows XP is not noticeably more stable/reliable then Windows 98 and older OS's from Microsoft targeted towards the average person when left running for several days or weeks?

 

I find that hard to believe. because that's what I still feel pretty strongly about claiming as fact as given my use of those back in the day you had to reboot Windows 98 quite a bit more often than WinXP. but I will say Win2k is the first stable OS I used from Microsoft which was before WinXP but like I say it was never really marketed towards the common person, so I don't count it.

Edited by ThaCrip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,541
4 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

Your honestly going to tell me that Windows XP is not more stable then Windows 98 and older OS's from Microsoft targeted towards the average person?

 

I find that hard to believe.

As explained above - you cannot use 98 to represent all Windows OSs before XP.  By doing so, you're really just saying that your experience of OSs before XP is limited.

 

Also, your definition of "average person" needs definition.  You argue that NT wasn't for this hypothetical "average person".  It could run Office, it allowed web browsing, it ran email clients - what is beyond this "average person" there?  Do you mean that it took greater configuration?  Barely, and that would (at that point in time) rarely be the remit of the user.  If you are suggesting that it's day to day usage required specialist computer knowledge that either someone within the IT industry or a hobbyist may have, then you're absolutely incorrect.

 

What you find hard to believe is basically moot.  You're presenting a false version of history as fact, so what you believe seems to be based upon a limited subset of reality.  That's not a dig, just may be affected by age, IT exposure, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaCrip    610
16 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

As explained above - you cannot use 98 to represent all Windows OSs before XP.  By doing so, you're really just saying that your experience of OSs before XP is limited.

 

Also, your definition of "average person" needs definition.  You argue that NT wasn't for this hypothetical "average person".  It could run Office, it allowed web browsing, it ran email clients - what is beyond this "average person" there?  Do you mean that it took greater configuration?  Barely, and that would (at that point in time) rarely be the remit of the user.  If you are suggesting that it's day to day usage required specialist computer knowledge that either someone within the IT industry or a hobbyist may have, then you're absolutely incorrect.

 

Well I did use Win v3.11 on my first computer in 1995 and 2nd computer in 1996 was Windows 95 etc.

 

just given my personal use... it's pretty clear once XP came along things became a lot more reliable overall.

 

my definition of 'average person' means the typical person who buys a computer from the store and does some browsing and some others tasks etc. they won't be using WinNT. so in this regard it's pretty much Windows 95/Windows98/Windows ME/Windows XP and so on (assuming we stick to around Windows 95 to date).

 

or put it this way... once Windows XP came along (short of maybe some hickups early on(?)) we no longer had to worry about lack of stability from Microsoft OS's. can we agree on that much?

Edited by ThaCrip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,541
17 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

it's pretty clear once XP came along things became a lot more reliable overall.

THIS IS NOT A FULLY CORRECT STATEMENT.  When XP was launched it was an absolute mess - a new driver model predominantly caused this and vendors not being up to speed - eg: Soundblaster/CreativeLabs.

 

"Just given my personal use" does not solidify a fact - and you've presented it as one.

 

17 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

my definition of 'average person' means the typical person who buys a computer from the store and does some browsing and some others tasks etc.

OK, that represents a lot of people who ALSO use a computer in the workplace.  There's a MASSIVE (almost 100%) overlap at the point in time you suggest.  And in the workplace, NT allowed exactly the same tasks using the same tools and same knowledge.  Your argument seems to be "They bought off-the-shelf computers that shipped with the 9x series OS" not that NT was any way less usable?

 

17 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

or put it this way... once Windows XP came along (short of maybe some hickups early on(?)) we no longer had to worry about lack of stability from Microsoft OS's. can we agree on that much?

Absolutely not.  It's just not true, and you're presenting a history that did not exist.

17 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

my first computer in 1995

That explains why your history of computing has gaps.  Don't get me wrong, this isn't your FAULT, it's just that there's a lot you were never exposed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaCrip    610
16 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

Your argument seems to be "They bought off-the-shelf computers that shipped with the 9x series OS" not that NT was any way less usable?

Yeah, exactly. when I say average person I just mean people who buy computers from the local computer store for home/personal use. in this regard WinNT is not going to be used.

 

I am not saying WinNT was bad or anything as I heard it was stable, but I never used it personally though and I was not counting it in my general argument since I was only looking at OS's the average person was going to be using at home that came with their computers.

 

16 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

Absolutely not.  It's just not true, and you're presenting a history that did not exist.

If that's the case... are you pretty much saying that something like Windows 95 is as stable as Windows XP?

 

if so, given my personal use of the two at home... I seem to remember having to reboot OS's prior to WinXP noticeably more often because things tended to act up after a while which I did not have this issue on Windows XP etc. that's why I tend to claim what I claim.

 

p.s. I realize I am only one person and all but there seems like there has to be some sort of pattern here with a wider range of people with say Win95/Win98 vs WinXP etc in all around OS reliability.

 

16 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

When XP was launched it was an absolute mess - a new driver model predominantly caused this and vendors not being up to speed - eg: Soundblaster/CreativeLabs.

But ain't that more of a little issue early on that once the early issues were fixed, it was quite stable?

 

because once it became stable... it seems like a safe bet it's ahead of the previous OS's like Win95/Win98 etc in all around reliability.

Edited by ThaCrip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coater4    1
1 hour ago, Human.Online said:

Why?  My inner windows?  I have a mezzanine level that has a glass pane looking down upon my hallway - does that count?

No, inner windows!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick H.    9,913
1 minute ago, Coater4 said:

No, inner windows!

Well that clarifies the question...what are inner windows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coater4    1
Just now, Nick H. said:

Well that clarifies the question...what are inner windows?

What do you like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick H.    9,913
1 minute ago, Coater4 said:

What do you like?

You need to provide some context and explanations! I could answer that I like cheesecake, pasta, films, video games...I'm pretty sure that isn't what you're asking though. And what are "inner windows"? It doesn't make any sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,541
3 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

Yeah, exactly. when I say average person I just mean people who buy computers from the local computer store for home/personal use. in this regard WinNT is not going to be used.

I understand what you are saying.  It's just half a story.  THESE PEOPLE ALSO USE COMPUTERS IN THE WORKPLACE!!!!!  The idea of an "average person" ALSO includes those who use NT - and they probably don't even know it.

 

4 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

I heard it was stable, but I never used it personally

Stop talking about what you don't know then?  You're working on assumptions and presenting them as fact.

 

5 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

I was only looking at OS's the average person was going to be using at home that came with their computers

You never once stated "at home" or "came with their computers"

 

5 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

are you pretty much saying that something like Windows 95 is as stable as Windows XP?

I'm not saying anything of the sort.  For me, sure it was.  For others... Can't really say - there are a lot of arguments towards it having fewer reported issues and a lot of arguments towards more reported issues.

 

6 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

if so, given my personal use of the two at home... I seem to remember having to reboot OS's prior to WinXP noticeably more often because things tended to act up after a while which I did not have this issue on Windows XP etc.

I literally don't care! You're one off usage means nothing other than affecting your personal opinion.  I have explained the reboot situation, also power management was very different then leading to more desired reboots and shutdowns.  And I have no idea what hardware or drivers you were using!  Either way, you've based your presentation of fact on your own anecdotal usage as a youngster in your own home environment.

 

I'm done pointing this out to you.  I think you're missing a massive part of the picture.

9 minutes ago, Coater4 said:

No, inner windows!

A pane of glass within my home that I can see through yet acts as a barrier.  Is this not an inner window?

6 minutes ago, Coater4 said:

What do you like?

I'm a big fan of photography, travel and soft cheeses. You?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaCrip    610
9 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

Stop talking about what you don't know then?  You're working on assumptions and presenting them as fact.

I never claimed anything against WinNT. but I just never counted that in my argument since I was ONLY counting OS's that one is typically going to buy on a computer from the store which will be Win95/Win98/WinME etc.

 

9 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

You never once stated "at home" or "came with their computers"

Yeah, but that's what I meant is a typical computer a typical person is going to buy at the store for home/personal use. I just assumed you knew I meant this is all.

 

9 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

I'm not saying anything of the sort.  For me, sure it was.  For others... Can't really say - there are a lot of arguments towards it having fewer reported issues and a lot of arguments towards more reported issues.

 

But it seems more likely Windows XP is more all around stable then say Win95/Win98. hence, my general claim.

 

9 minutes ago, Human.Online said:

I literally don't care! You're one off usage means nothing other than affecting your personal opinion.  I have explained the reboot situation, also power management was very different then leading to more desired reboots and shutdowns.  And I have no idea what hardware or drivers you were using!  Either way, you've based your presentation of fact on your own anecdotal usage as a youngster in your own home environment.

 

Look at this way... take a random average computer bought from the store back in those days with Win95 or Win98 pre-loaded and start using it vs a computer bought from the store pre-loaded with WinXP... I would bet on the WinXP one being noticeably more stable ;)

 

in the end... I still feel confident claiming Windows XP is noticeably more stable than OS's prior to Windows XP (excluding WinNT/Win2k) when is all said and done ;)

 

thanks for your time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,541
1 minute ago, ThaCrip said:

in the end... I still feel confident claiming Windows XP is noticeably more stable than OS's prior to Windows XP (excluding WinNT/Win2k) when is all said and done

LOL, so you basically refuse to learn anything from anyone who has greater experience or can reference an OS that you're unfamiliar with and based upon a hypothetical user that you've invented.

 

Gotcha :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThaCrip    610
Just now, Human.Online said:

LOL, so you basically refuse to learn anything from anyone who has greater experience or can reference an OS that you're unfamiliar with and based upon a hypothetical user that you've invented.

 

Gotcha :)

But you even basically agreed with me on your "For me, sure it was." comment.

 

surely, you had to see less complaints about general system stability with XP than say Win95/Win98? ; or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,541
10 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

But you even basically agreed with me on your "For me, sure it was." comment.

 

surely, you had to see less complaints about general system stability with XP than say Win95/Win98? ; or not?

I've not agreed with anything.  Fiend, look, your arguments don't work, they are logically flawed and trying to corner with a "So you've agreed that" won't work here.

 

Did I see fewer complaints about XP stability?  Absolutely, 100% accurately, without any doubt: NO! I saw MASSIVELY more complaints about XP stability than Win95/98.

 

Let me type that again so I cannot be misinterpreted: I SAW FEWER COMPLAINTS ABOUT WINDOWS 95/98 STABILITY THAN I DID ABOUT WINDOWS XP STABILITY. 

 

You will now disregard the above because while it could fill a hole in your story, that's not what you want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne    12,316
4 hours ago, Coater4 said:

What is wrong with you! 1-4

You are so right. I forgot KDE neon. 
 

Thanks man!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne    12,316
4 hours ago, Coater4 said:

I hat linux! but i have android becuase why not.

Well there is your problem! You are supposed to use it, not wear it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.