Best Windows OS in your opinion...

I would like to know what you guys think is the best operating system made my microsoft for the above average user. Not the person that doesnt know what the interent is and needs mouse over tool tips every 5 seconds. Im talking abotu the average user here on the boards, that know for the most part what they are talking about, know how to install hardware, config it and getting it up and running without looking at documentation.

Anyways im asking this question because I personally feel that Windows 2000 Pro was the best Microsoft operating system except for one flaw, wireless networking SUCKS in win 2k. I hated 98SE, and 95 was revolutionary for its time, as well as win 3.1, 3.11 etc.

I really dont like XP that much, it feels the same as 2k (for the most part) less stable i think but i really like the integration of wireless networking in SP2....

Anyways what do you guys think?

Windows XP / MCE / x64 / 2k3 Server are the winners because they are still supported. Honestly, you can leave any arguments about 2k being better then XP back in 2001, where they belong.

I voted XP because it has better game compatibility than 2000. I also don't understand the derision of ME compared to 98SE as I have installed it a few times and never had a problem with it. It's just an updated version of 98SE with a few more features. On 98SE you have to install a driver for thumb drive support on ME you don't. ME comes with built in zip support just like XP. ME has the restore feature, just like XP. <shrug>

"Best" is such a subjective term. I tend to think of the OS being what is appropriate to the system and software.

I like the stability and streamlinedness of NT4, but 2K's hardware support is very important. Although only somewhate customizable, it might be argueg that 3.1 had a prettier "Program Manager" than the more flexable and customizable 95 "Start" menu; Both were friendlier than the strangly convoluted standard XP "Start" menu that only offers a few built-in display schemes, but Xp has better hot-swappable PnP support.

Heck, lets all go back to Windows 1 with it's "MS-DOS Executive". Who needs to resize in two whole dimensions anyhow?

win2k was when M$ finally started to get some things right. and whoever voted for ME is a jackass..

I've always prefered MS Bob

win2k... i've use that til last june... nice and stable

spotdog14 said:

I would like to know what you guys think is the best operating system made my microsoft for the above average user. Not the person that doesnt know what the interent is and needs mouse over tool tips every 5 seconds. Im talking abotu the average user here on the boards, that know for the most part what they are talking about, know how to install hardware, config it and getting it up and running without looking at documentation.

Anyways im asking this question because I personally feel that Windows 2000 Pro was the best Microsoft operating system except for one flaw, wireless networking SUCKS in win 2k. I hated 98SE, and 95 was revolutionary for its time, as well as win 3.1, 3.11 etc.

I really dont like XP that much, it feels the same as 2k (for the most part) less stable i think but i really like the integration of wireless networking in SP2....

Anyways what do you guys think?

Click to expand...

It suddenly occurs to me that you asked for the best "OS", but Windows 3.X were not operating systems. Windows 3.X and prior were shells over DOS. Sadly, DOS was ommited from the poll. Poor DOS, it gets no love; I would have voted DOS, yeah, MS-DOS 5.0 was nice.

XP with 2k running a close second.. I currently am running; Ubuntu(1pc), Xp(2pcs) and 98se(1pc).. They all had/have their place depending on what was out at the time and what the box was being used for..

I am very fond of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition specifically, but I still say that Windows XP in all of it's flavors are the best thing Microsoft has ever done.

I am also very fond of Windows Server 2003 and it's variants. Including the very rare Windows 2003 Server Enterprise x64 Edition. Which probably has the longest name for a Microsoft OS ever.

Gatticus said:

I voted XP because it has better game compatibility than 2000. I also don't understand the derision of ME compared to 98SE as I have installed it a few times and never had a problem with it. It's just an updated version of 98SE with a few more features. On 98SE you have to install a driver for thumb drive support on ME you don't. ME comes with built in zip support just like XP. ME has the restore feature, just like XP. <shrug>

Click to expand...

all the computers i have ever used that ran ME had somthing not working right. most of them just BSOD'ed for no reason at all, or refused to do simple normal things. it was a horrible OS that should have never been brought to industry, when win2k was already avalible....

I'm gonna say XP although 2K isn't far behind. ME shouldn't even be listed up there. I can't even begin to describe the aggravation I've had with it...

I say XP, because it provides the stability of the NT/2K with the consumer friendliness of 95/98 (ie...it's compatibility with games).

I voted 98 because it was always stable for me, everything worked fine like it should have. No complaints.

spotdog14 said:

all the computers i have ever used that ran ME had somthing not working right. most of them just BSOD'ed for no reason at all, or refused to do simple normal things. it was a horrible OS that should have never been brought to industry, when win2k was already avalible....

Click to expand...

Well, your experience with it doesn't mirror mine so it must be something to do with specific hardware and drivers or something like that. But I don't really like any of the Microsoft OS's prior to Win2K. I only used them because if you are a gamer you had no real alternative.
My first experience with computers was studying desktop publishing on Mac's and that is what I was going to buy for myself too until I found out that the computer gaming scene was mostly for PC's using Dos. A Mac back then was way ahead of PC's.

Jason711 said:

win2k was when M$ finally started to get some things right. and whoever voted for ME is a jackass..

Click to expand...

Hmmm, it was an options.

What about XPMCE

Gatticus said:

Well, your experience with it doesn't mirror mine so it must be something to do with specific hardware and drivers or something like that.

Click to expand...

Same here. Only Me problems I ever encountered related to running on hardware for which suitable device drivers weren't made available, or to people trying to run incompatible software. Me itself was fine for what it was, although the system rollback feature was pathetic. (I don't bother with the one in XP either, by the way.)


'Best' is subjective, as stated above, but regardless of what way you interpret it you'd find it hard to choose anything but XP at present. It'll run fine on just about all systems still in use (albeit with the addition of some more RAM by some stubborn souls) and it's more stable and compatible than all other versions (albeit with some necessary 'tweaking' for some older software).

A HOWEVER! is needed, though. I'm talking about XP SP2 here!

The Service Packs should be though of as an OS upgrade, not as a 'patch'. XP needs to be SP2, 2000 needs to be SP4, 98 needs to be SE etc, etc. If you aren't comparing those 'versions' then you're really talking about something other than what that particular OSiteraction currently IS.

XP for sure!
I have used it Devil's Own was around

NT4 was a welcome relief after using 95/98 for a while. Very much more stable and powerful. 2k was a very nice change and I loved it for hte year I was on it. XP just has more to offer and it is equally, if not more stable, than 2k.

anytime I hear someone say they don't like XP cause it's not stable, or not as stable as 2k... they automatically loose credibility as a computer technician...

I think it's subjective based on whether you are talking about absolute best OR best for it's time. Clearly, XP/2K3 are the most stable, usuable, and feature packed releases (though I'm sure someone will try to argue ). However I think it was so great to get to the NT kernel and away from 9X. 2000 brought Active Directory, which I guess you can debate what actually "revolutionized" user management, but without doubt it is the standard. Still, I like absolutes and voted for XP.

Win2k was the sweet spot. It was a major milestone in stability, and it was before MS did their normal thing of adding on a bunch of stupid bloaty features.

Has anyone heard the "Moore's Law" that says that every other version of windows is good/bad.

Win 3.11 good
Win95 bad
win98SE good
win ME bad
Win2k Good
WinXP bad
Vista (Hopefully good )

-PHiZ

I chose XP for vast compatibility and stability [for me]. Win98 was such a bitch about PnP from what I remember. I still throw Win2k on older systems that XP isn't so friendly with and WinNT on the dinosaurs.

pixelbaker said:

I chose XP for vast compatibility and stability [for me]. Win98 was such a bitch about PnP from what I remember. I still throw Win2k on older systems that XP isn't so friendly with and WinNT on the dinosaurs.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the video where Bill Gates was showing off the PnP in Windows 98

XP no doubt....

Dos 6.2
and NO I'm not kidding!

Stable, and we still use commands from it today.

Long live the command prompt!

moetop said:

Dos 6.2
and NO I'm not kidding!

Stable, and we still use commands from it today.

Long live the command prompt!

Click to expand...

Are you sure? You have to admit, 5.0 was pretty nice.

No 2003? With 2003, I feel MS hit the nail on the head. With no 16bit subsystem, it is noticably more stable and much faster than 2000 or XP.

You forgot Xenix.

ameoba said:

You forgot Xenix.

Click to expand...

Xenix is not Windows. I still have a set of Xenix 5.25" diskettes somewhere.

I wanted to vote for Server 2003 / XP x64. Since the XP x64 uses the Same kernel as 2003 (According to the AMD Tech Tour last year).

As an OS they're great. The only issues with x64 aren't with the OS itself, but other companies not putting out applications for it (limited AV software, it took almost 9 months for Daemon Tools and Alcohol to come out).

I voted for windows 3.1, it was a rock. You could do anything to that system and have it stay stable. I wish that was the case today.

I voted for XP. It is the most up to date desktop version of a MS OS and it uses the NT kernel. Any MS OS not based on the NT kernel was a piece of junk when it comes to multi tasking and semi-resource intensive or greater 32-bit computing.

I suppose you could argue that any MS OS prior to Windows 2K was crap. But Windows NT 3.X and 4 were definitely more respectable than any POS 16-bit DOS based version of Windows.

Langford said:

Are you sure? You have to admit, 5.0 was pretty nice.

Click to expand...

While 5 was one of the biggest leaps for it's era, 6.2 only refined it. 5.0 does deserve recoginition though.

serbiaNem said:

I voted for windows 3.1, it was a rock. You could do anything to that system and have it stay stable. I wish that was the case today.

Click to expand...

Cooperative multitasking and unprotected memory are generally not what I think of as features of a "rock" solid system.

Ezekial said:

XP for sure!
I have used it Devil's Own was around

NT4 was a welcome relief after using 95/98 for a while. Very much more stable and powerful. 2k was a very nice change and I loved it for hte year I was on it. XP just has more to offer and it is equally, if not more stable, than 2k.

anytime I hear someone say they don't like XP cause it's not stable, or not as stable as 2k... they automatically loose credibility as a computer technician...

Click to expand...

Agreed. Though XP did have a rocky start with a few system configurations and by SP1 XP was very solid.

PHiZ said:

Win2k was the sweet spot. It was a major milestone in stability, and it was before MS did their normal thing of adding on a bunch of stupid bloaty features.

Has anyone heard the "Moore's Law" that says that every other version of windows is good/bad.

Win 3.11 good
Win95 bad
win98SE good
win ME bad
Win2k Good
WinXP bad
Vista (Hopefully good )

-PHiZ

Click to expand...

This is exactly what Ezekial was talking about.

Windows 3.11 wasn't an OS.
Windows 95 was fine and certainly was an improvment over Windows 3.11 and still wasn't technically an OS as it was still nothing more than a shell. The argument stands true to all Windows 9x's.

Windows 98 was fine. SE was better, though there were many people that went back to the first edition because of SE's initial drivers weren't that hot.

People who say ME was bad had hardware without good driver support. If you had higher end and more mainstream hardware, ME would have worked out at least as well as 98SE. It worked perfectly for me and wasn't any worse for stability than Windows 98SE.

Windows 2000, the so called holy grail of OS's, of which I was aquainted with back before it was called Windows 2000. It was first known to me, and anyone else with an MSDN subscription as Windows NT 5.0.

Windows NT 5.0 was supposed to be all that and a bag of chips. Guess what it wasn't. It had a rockier start than Windows XP did. Many programs wouldn't work for it that worked with NT, and Windows 9x applications didn't like it either. Lets not forget the pitiful video card drivers of the day which had a serious reduction in performance in games and video apps compared to Windows 98 and ME, numerous SB card bugs, and no support for ATA-66 drives either.

Holy grail my ass.

After time, it was worked out and Windows 2000 was a good OS. By no means is it better than XP. For some reason it has this cult following and I've never understood that.

Windows XP was like any other MS OS. It had a rocky beginning, but nothing like 2K's. I had fewer stability issues out of Windows XP than I ever did with Windows 2000. After a while though, XP got to be really damned good. SP1 and SP2 were both great.

Windows XP x64 Edition kicks ass too. I've had no problems with it either. It gets a bum wrap from people who have crappy hardware, from vendors who don't support it, but that's not Microsoft's fault.

Vista and a lot of things about Vista sound retarded. They make grand promises with it, and maybe they'll deliver. Who knows? Many people speculated about XP sucking, the same as Vista. I'll reserve judgement until I've used it myself. Of course even If I tested a beta of it today, there is no telling how close to the final product it will be at this point.

My $.02.

Just a note to add, all Microsoft OS's have turbulent beginings. By the end of the OS's run or damned near it, they are all almost bullet proof and work very well.

Xp Pro

Win 2k Pro was perfect for me. Then MS stopped updating it and it started getting vulnerable.
I see absolutely no point in Vista other than it being a sort of pathetic desperate attempt to get the aesthetics-based morons from Apple to switch over and to introduce DX10 in daily life.

I'm still running Win2K Pro. I got hooked up with a copy of XP Pro in box and everything by a friend who works at MS. I feel no need to use it as 2K has never once given me any issues.

Must I say more?

This is not virtual pc.
Specs
P1 133MHz.
128Mb Pc-133
32x CD-ROM
10T-base ISA Nic 3-Com
PnP SB
2mb compaq video card

RocketFast321 said:

Must I say more?
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2866/3115zv.jpg
This is not virtual pc.
Specs
P1 133MHz.
128Mb Pc-133
32x CD-ROM
10T-base ISA Nic 3-Com
PnP SB
2mb compaq video card

Click to expand...

You are the man.