What is the Most Unstable Operating System have you used So far?

D

delusion_2005

Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
805
Hey guys i was wondering what OS do you think is the most unstable to use?
For me its Window ME how abt you guys?
 
I dunno if all instability problems i had were caused by WinME or because a pos VIA based mainboard i used to have, right after that i migrated to Win2000 and problems went away.

0ldmX
 
Windows Millenium Edition, hands down the most unstable OS I have ever used. I couldn't hardly blink without getting a blue screen.
 
lolz so far its all window ME, all my problem with window ME was solve by a fresh install of window 2000pro :p
 
Windows ME - for the inability to reinstall it from DOS when it did spontaneously fail, which it often did. :(
 
My buddy had nothing but problems with Win98, constant crashing all the time. I never had problems with 98SE, but he went from 95B to 98 and the computer became completely useless. I have never used WinME, but I have seen one computer on it and it ran great. It's amazing how much more stable 2000/XP are compared to anything else.
 
Windows ME by many lightyears. I can't believe how they made an OS based on the Win9x-codebase run worse on a 450 MHz Celeron than Windows 2k.
 
winME

There can be no doubt, I was forced to support it for a few months. The only time in my life where I risked my job for software: I quietly upgraded every ME system to win2k against the rules.

Then the day came when they told me to start upgrading, and how long it would take to complete. I just smiled and said "Oh, maybe a week". Everyone was very impressed I could upgrade that many systems in that amount of time.
 
I've used everything from Win95 and up, and I'd have to say Windows ME was the one that froze and BCOD'd the most.
 
phobic said:
Windows Millenium Edition, hands down the most unstable OS I have ever used. I couldn't hardly blink without getting a blue screen.
Click to expand...
:p

My first system was a Vaio with ME installed<<<I thought blue screens were normal.....doh!! What a nightmare...I laugh now, but I almost smashed my computer to fuckin' pieces more times than I care to remember
 
I'm going to make mine a dual vote. Overall, it's definitely WinME. But, I'm going to add a tiny vote for Win NT 4.0, in the event you loaded the wrong driver for something such as a NIC or a video card. Those were the days before plug and play and driver verification. Once you had it right, NT 4.0 would run forever.
 
Mac OS 8 and under, with extra love for 6 (heh..).

One app crashes, the entire system crashes or becomes unstable enough that a reboot is necessary. Netscape was good for this several times a day.

IMO nothing in the Windows world can compete unless you added some of the extra crappy 4in1 drivers from Via.
 
eggrock said:
Mac OS 8 and under, with extra love for 6 (heh..).

One app crashes, the entire system crashes or becomes unstable enough that a reboot is necessary. Netscape was good for this several times a day.

IMO nothing in the Windows world can compete unless you added some of the extra crappy 4in1 drivers from Via.
Click to expand...

heh 6.1.4 will own your littel mac.. no really.. it takes it, and you cant have it back.. :D

as for the windows side.. i never had any real probles with any one windows os... win ME ran fine as did 98 and 95... but... any time i had ever tryed to "upgrade" this shit would hit the fan... went from 95a to 95b upgrade.. ended up buying 95b and fresh installing after 6 failed upgrade attempts.. 95b to 98(alright.. this will fix it... wrong...) 4 attempts later, ended up buying 98, 98 to 98se.. you think i'de learn... 5 attempts later bought 98se.... learned my lesson bought me out right... it worked great (for a non nt based os... it still crased , but only about as often as any of the previous os's) played with w2k wasnt to fond of it... (i had a slow machine at it only made it slower.. ) waited for xp and never looked back... only had to reinstall once sence xp's release and thats only cause i changed mobo's..

thore
 
eggrock said:
One app crashes, the entire system crashes or becomes unstable enough that a reboot is necessary. Netscape was good for this several times a day.
Click to expand...
I am envious. You see, ME didn't need a reason to crash. Or randomly forget your printers. Or to chew it's system directory to hell when defragging. Or to start the nic chattering endlessly on the network. Or to get your username/password switched in the login box. Or the various other things it would do to make my life interesting.

Oh, and GOD FORBID someone get a virus. The only real way to fix it after this was to kill the switch while you clean each box. Then when you plugged in the switch, after you had triple checked for the virus, you find one still managed to slip past you and BAM!, all the ME boxes were infected again ( they had AV installed, btw ).
IMO nothing in the Windows world can compete unless you added some of the extra crappy 4in1 drivers from Via.
Click to expand...
ME wins by far. I used OS8 ( not OS6 ), and I can tell you I would have preferred to have that instead of ME.
 
I must say Windows 95....well...I now realize that it wasn't an unstable OS, it's just that when I wasn't into hardware/software, and I didn't know what the hell I was doing, I would delete random things to free up disk space....I was always wondering why the hell it always said things like "*****.dll is missing or corrupted" and then it would do very wierd things....after that....but without the problem being the end user, I have to say windows 98. I don't know what version or service pack, but it was the one used when I was in high school in about 10th grade...it always effed up......come to think of it, I beleiev a large problem was the shitty networking.
 
I haven't really had a truly unstable system, but WinME did BSOD more often than any other OS I've used. The difference between it and WinXP is amazing. I've been using XP since Whistler Beta 1, and I've had 1 BSOD, which was caused by bad memory.

My machine at work was running Redhat9 up until a month ago, and it had it's fair share of lockups and crashes. Samba liked to cause kernel panics weekly, always when I was in the middle of copying some important file to another machine. RHEL3.3 is much better than RH9.
 
WinMe

however, I didnot include the dozens of linux installs that I simply could not get to install because of unsupported hardware. So technically, they were not "unstable" they just didnot work at all.
 
Windows ME - the virus in the guise of an operating system.

BSODs, horrible memory management, random lockups and freezes - I accepted them as part of my daily routine. I probably had to reboot 10 times in a 24-hour time frame.

But thankfully, Windows XP and Linux have made the world a brighter place again.
 
thore said:
heh 6.1.4 will own your littel mac.. no really.. it takes it, and you cant have it back.. :D

as for the windows side.. i never had any real probles with any one windows os... win ME ran fine as did 98 and 95... but... any time i had ever tryed to "upgrade" this shit would hit the fan... went from 95a to 95b upgrade.. ended up buying 95b and fresh installing after 6 failed upgrade attempts.. 95b to 98(alright.. this will fix it... wrong...) 4 attempts later, ended up buying 98, 98 to 98se.. you think i'de learn... 5 attempts later bought 98se.... learned my lesson bought me out right... it worked great (for a non nt based os... it still crased , but only about as often as any of the previous os's) played with w2k wasnt to fond of it... (i had a slow machine at it only made it slower.. ) waited for xp and never looked back... only had to reinstall once sence xp's release and thats only cause i changed mobo's..

thore
Click to expand...

LOL, how long did it take you to figure out that you could do a full install from the "upgrade" disks?

I had the same problem as you going from 95a to 95b, but started doing the full installs from the upgrades after that.
 
I'll cast a dual vote for Win 3.1 and a few of the very early Win95 betas(16 color mode only in these releases).

The funny thing was the early betas were still better than 3.1. I never used ME so I can't comment on it, I went from 98 to 2K. :D
 
Win 3.1 is not an OS. ;)

Since ME has been beaten to death, I'll throw a vote towards early OS/2 versions.
 
Phoenix86 said:
Win 3.1 is not an OS. ;)

Since ME has been beaten to death, I'll throw a vote towards early OS/2 versions.
Click to expand...

That's true, it was an unstable GUI sitting on top of DOS.

I never had problems with OS/2, but all I ever tried was 2.1 and warp 3. There was never enough useful software to boot it that often though.
 
Since ME is the main target around here...(I never had problems with it....95b sucked though :p )

How about GEOS on the Comodore 64?

It REALLY Sucked.

 
Windows ME by far. Next up is Solaris version 7, never could get it stable on my SS20. 6 & 8 run flawless. :confused:

 
I remember getting Amiga Dos 1.3 to guru a lot.


(better than just repeating the WinMe answer)
 
Well I don't know what to say after reading all of these responses haha.

Personally I found Windows ME to be the most unstable piece of junk I have ever used on my systems (or had to support on other peoples' machines).

It caused driver incompatibility on occasion, some software didn't work right and of course there was the random freezing. Oh yea and there was this bug where my mouse would wig out and fly accross the screen if I moved it too fast after I installed the Logitech mouseware software, that was pretty handy too. (this wasn't even an optical mouse LOL! no excuses).

I did have a few problems with Windows 98 but no where near as bad as windows ME. When I went to Windows 2000 I was much happier. Some games weren't compatible but it was so much better, even on a K6-2 300mhz machine with 128mb of memory. It ran 100% better.

Heck I have run Dos 6.2, Win 3.11 (on top of DOS of course), Windows 95, 98, ME, 2k, XP on my machines through the years but ME caused the most grief for me.
 
In my experience it was MS Windows 95, it would run poorly and crash for no apperant reason. This was on a machine also running OS/2 without a hitch...

Windows 98 SE was a big step forward, and Windows ME (Windows 98 TE) was not unstable for me, never had more BSODs than with the older versions. All you have to do is to remember to restart at least once a day :)

With Windows XP I've yet to see a BSOD :O on my own system, I have seen it on others and that's usually caused by bad RAM or a faulty driver.

-E

 
XOR != OR said:
I am envious. You see, ME didn't need a reason to crash. Or randomly forget your printers. Or to chew it's system directory to hell when defragging. Or to start the nic chattering endlessly on the network. Or to get your username/password switched in the login box. Or the various other things it would do to make my life interesting.

Oh, and GOD FORBID someone get a virus. The only real way to fix it after this was to kill the switch while you clean each box. Then when you plugged in the switch, after you had triple checked for the virus, you find one still managed to slip past you and BAM!, all the ME boxes were infected again ( they had AV installed, btw ).ME wins by far. I used OS8 ( not OS6 ), and I can tell you I would have preferred to have that instead of ME.
Click to expand...

Damn... Glad I never used it.

I love XP by the way, just love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top