Which OS is most stable?

[RossDundas Veteran]

  Quote

Originally posted by FatFish  

I upgraded from 98SE to Win2k, so never have a chance to try ME,

so how bad is it?

oh believe me.......imagine the suckiest OS possible........multiply it by twelve, and then imagine the pain of being trapped on an island with barney the dinosaur and your still not even close to the gayness of winme. :D

[freeza]

i'd say windows 2000 because in all the betas of xp i have tried even up to 2600 my desktop frequently freezes whenever i empty the recycle bin and click 'start' really fast...or anything involving emptying the recycle bin and doing another task at the same time. and every once ina while some mysterious folder will maximize its self and take over the screen with no titlebar and i have to alt F4 it.

[Tesseract]

I would agree with you on that one. Although Win XP has the luna interface and all the bells and whistles that make it look so good, Windows 2000 IMO is much more stable than Windows XP. Windows XP is much more stable than Windows 9x (I have not had a BSOD or STOP error that crashed my Win XP RC2 system.).

If you turn off all of the bells and whistles of Windows XP then the system will be faster.

[Norbert]

It all depends on how you look at things... The more features you pack into an operating system, the more sources you'll have for bugs and crashes.

For example take something with very limited functionality, DOS... there you have something very stable, yet doesn't offer nearly as many features as modern operating systems.

I work a lot with digital media, and here's where the exception to rule occurs. Windows 98 / W98 SE / ME are all very stable for me... Only had them crash 3 times since the original 98 came out...

On the other hand, I've been able to crash NT 4 and Win 2k almost daily doing the same things. Hehe - I bet I must be the only one in the world where this has happened.

Windows XP so far seems to be the best of both worlds for me and my digital media tools and applications.

Linux is often touted as being really stable, and in all fairness it is - sometimes... All I say is this, to play Heroes of Might and Magic III in Linux, you had to be root to play full screen. And when my friend did that, it crashed his computer...

Another thing is that a lot of functionality that is available in Windows isn't readily available in Linux yet. But as more and more of these features are brought into Linux, I'm seeing the same thing happen there.

Played around with BeOS. I love the idea, but lack of applications really made it cool for about 3 minutes and then it was old. I actually was able to make one of the OS applications crash the GUI within 5 minutes of installing it.

Mac OSX might be stable with digital media. Apple seems to be touting it as an ideal digital media platform... Problem is that I haven't been able to play around with it very much - unless you count the 15 minutes I played with TiBook at CompUSA.

So with reference to digital media - which means support for all sorts of strange compression cards and decoding card as well as authoring and compression applications - I vote for Windows XP.

[MaddogMDD]

I personally found Windows ME to be more stable than Windows 98. Never got a "This program has caused an illegal operation and will be shut down" in Windows ME, while they happened randomly in 98. Of course ME doesn't even begin to compare with 2000, Linux, etc...

It looked a bit better, too, with the tan interface instead of the cold gray.

[Tesseract]

Windows ME IMO was slightly more stable than Windows 98, but the OS still crashed often. The system restore feature was a nice addition to help recover from things that profoundly change your system.

I think that Windows XP will solve the stability problem once and for all for everyone.