d3nuo Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 98SE was awesome and rock-stable for me.. but then 2000 came along and i fell in love. then i started beta testing XP and divorced 2000. now, i'm sorry to go against the flow here but vista is *starting* to shape up as my new favorite.. it's not quite there yet, but it's been rock-solid for me and has given me no driver issues or the like.. but as of right now, my all-time fav had to be XP Pro/MCE just because i've used it for so long without any issues.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigCheese Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I'm using XP x64 edition and its so far the best OS I've used. I used Vista for a couple of months, but I decided to switch back to XP x64 because it is faster and doesn't have important things cut out of it like DirectSound. Vista is a pretty pointless OS, I could just install Windows Blinds and get a Vista theme instead if I wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premgenius Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 For me W2K, W2K3 & XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Caro Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I guess the "best" windows OS is still windows vista. But the best windows os when compared to what was previously available, is windows 2000. (or windows 95, if you want to go that far :p) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtho Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Windows 2000 Prof - Stable Xp Home - crap XP MCE - great Vista - not there yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mando Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) Ive supported and used Nt4 Server, NT4 Workstation, 2000pro, 2000 server, 2000SBS, 2003 Server (R1 & R2), W95,98,98SE,Me, XP home/Pro I loved NT4 Server for one reason alone (yes its as stable as a jelly on a plate but hey its quirky!) Adding an external modem would require NT4 server to be rebooted, how cool is that on a mission critical server running a domain....such quality [/sarcasm] In a desktop sense i still rate W2k very highly despite it being produced for a business environment (try running XP on a p1 233-pII400 with 128mb of ram) although my home machines are all running XP pro quite happily (needed pro not so feel superior but because i have a domain server at home hence needing XPP) and have done for years. vista, i havnt touched since beta testing and tbh i have no big desire to yet, ill wait for SP1 (rule of thumb best always to wait for 1st service pack on any MS OS or product before shelling out for it) ;) Of all MS OSes the one i like the most has to be either W2003 R2 Server or W2003 SBS, so many time saving features and it just works, saves a techy like me a lot of domain admin time :) btw Win Me & Win98Se were the same source code, ME only had dx8.1, IE5, new media player and an improved kernel (and a few other minor "improvements", it was the same OS lolol, cracks me up seeing people state W98Se great, WinME complete crap lmfao. its like saying cheese on toast is great but melted cheese on toast sucks....... Its well known that MS released winME to recoup costs and revenue to further develop XP from the 2000 kernel ;) If you were sucked into the hype and bought it, shame on you :p Edited March 22, 2007 by Mando Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budious Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 XP x64 SP2 (NT5.2) is stable and fast, can't complain about it. XP x86 SP2 (NT5.1) has matured and is "de facto" as hardware support goes. Wouldn't hesitate to load Windows 2000 SP4 (NT5.0) on any older systems, stable and effecient, great hardware support. I get the feeling that Vista is too new at the moment to give it both thumbs up. Still got an NT4 SP6a box running as print and file server... though I wouldn't recommend that one, insecure and limited hardware support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
google123 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Windows 3.1>all other MS Operating Systems. boot in less than 15 seconds shuts down even quicker. never a blue screen of death. 'nuff said. :woot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budious Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 But Windows 3.1 is not an operating system. It runs on top of MS-DOS 6.2 which is the operating system. The Windows part was optional :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 But Windows 3.1 is not an operating system. It runs on top of MS-DOS 6.2 which is the operating system. The Windows part was optional :) Just like now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted March 23, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 23, 2007 Just like now? No, Windows does not run on top of DOS anymore. I think they were separated around the time of ME/2000, but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budious Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 The Windows NT product branch has never been dos based. Windows NT 3.1 (not to be confused with Windows 3.1 on DOS), NT 3.51, NT 4.0 are all the predessors of modern Windows 2000/XP/Vista. The original Windows 95 release was the last to launch directly from the DOS system. Later releases of 95b+/98+/ME were integrated with some legacy components of DOS but were stand-alone operating systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCobra Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Later releases of 95b+/98+/ME were integrated with some legacy components of DOS but were stand-alone operating systems. Every version of Windows from 1.0 to ME ran on top of DOS. They tried to hide that fact in ME but it was still DOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goatsniffer Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 For me personally Windows XP Pro has been a true champ with my current computers. I use Win2k3 as my Domain server for my network and Win2k as my NAT/Router, every other computer is running XP Pro. I have 9 computers on my network, 7 run XP Pro. In my opinion, you shouldn't be running anything without the NT kernel because you lose out on critical features like Domains. I can set my entire policy on my Win2k3 server, then when I install/connect a new computer it gets auto-configured. I even have my server set up so that I can install XP from it when I integrate new machines or refresh current ones. These are the days of more than one computer per household and so you need more than just workgroups. DOS-backed OSes like 95 98 and ME do not cut it in networked environments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted March 23, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 23, 2007 Thread Cleaned Please keep the thread clean of little insults before warnings begin to be given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak_power Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Windows 2000 and Windows XP X64 SP2 Edition. Two best OSes Microsoft ever released. Windows 95, 98, ME - crap. Vista - crap. Windows XP Pro - solid. Windows 2003 Server - solid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6785077276 Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 DOS is the best OS. Plain, simple and stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Windows 2000 and Windows XP X64 SP2 Edition. Two best OSes Microsoft ever released. Windows 95, 98, ME - crap. Vista - crap. Windows XP Pro - solid. Windows 2003 Server - solid Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2003 are mature Operating Systems while Vista isn't, that is a very unfair comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sghiznaneck Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I think that a lot of people are forgetting that when XP hit the scene, there were problems with it too, and look at it now. It's a very stable OS. It may not be perfect, but the damn thing runs and about 99% of all apps and programs are compatible with it. Vista will be the new operating system of the future (at least for a few years, anyway) and if us gamers want to take advantage of it AND DX10, we're stuck with it. I'm not trying to tell everyone to go out, purchase it and install it. By far, it's way too young for that. But in order to optimize the new graphical advances, we're stuck. I personally won't install it until AT LEAST service pack 1 and NVIDIA has some stable drivers. Heck, most other programs and apps won't even run with it, or run for a few minutes and crash. I upgraded my computer hardware just prior to Christmas for one reason, Crysis, but in order to optimize the game and make it look as pretty as possible, I purchased the XFX 8800 GTX. Sure I jumped quick on a DX10 card, and the prices are dropping now and NVIDIA has announced a beefed up 8800 card that is OC'd BUT, I've OC'd my system and had to add two additional fans because the dual core AMD processor AND the 8800 GTX run so hot, it's the only way I can keep the whole thing stable. As I said, it's a personal taste, but the whole industry is wide open and everyone has the right to purchase what they want, and EVEN feel they are correct in their opinions. That's what makes Freedom of Speech such a righteous thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6785077276 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I agree, everyone felt the same about XP when it first came out when it was still in its infancy. I'm sure more people will prefer Vista once it matures. It's a cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhon Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 After XP came out I ditched it like a bad habit. Then Windows server 2003 came out and that was such a joy. Right now Server 2003,Vista and XP X64 are working 100% for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickice11 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Windows 2000 - everything you need, nothing you don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowRanger13 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Whats wrong with Windows NT? 95 was meh, NT was very very stable I found some parts hard to configure but it was a very good OS IMO the biggest problem is it did not support USB, 98 really worked good for me, ME was the most annoying thing since pop ups..., 2000 was good but never really used it that much was to busy with ME problems..., was Really happy with Windows XP for a long time, now using Windows XP X64 and loving it, Was a Beta tester of Vista and found it decent but waiting for my new computer before installing Vista as main. For now my favorite of the listed OSs is Window XP X64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PL_ Veteran Posted March 28, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 28, 2007 It's a hard one. I'd go for 2000 purely for the kernel, but I have good memories of 95 :) Not 98, ugh, Active Desktop, what a waste! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Windows 2000 - everything you need, nothing you don't Very true. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts