Jump to content

Which windows version you like?


Which Windows you like?  

116 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Windows you like?

    • 95
    • 98
    • 2000
    • Me
    • XP

Recommended Posts

Voted for XP. There's a range of reasons why XP is the best. Also, considering the main focus of this site...

One reason I voted that - being with the latest, lol.


Please have a look at rules-

choose the right topic for you question or answer.

This time, its done for you, but give topic-name more thought, for the next-time!

Edited by prathapml
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to add that XP is today's system, and today we have neat entertainment programs. If you haave XP you propably think that it is cool and stuff, but i run everything on 98 and works fine. (psychological- maybe misspelled) and, no im not nerd.

I just installed 2000 and, boy it sucks so much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

If "better" means playing russian roulette with a system that can be wiped out with the latest zero-day attack [like on 24-Jun-2004] then by all means choose "better".

I'll stick with "not better" which means things like survives still-unfixed security holes because they only apply to NT-family disasters, etc.

Anyone bothered to tally up the big difference between security problems that apply to ALL [meaning 9x and NT] Windows as opposed to just NT-family-only Windows gets killed? [Even better numbers if you don't use IE and OE which is fine by me on 9x since Netscape/Mozilla works fine there!]

I use 98se by choice and support the folly of others who like to play with XP. Eventually, many of them come to me to get their XP systems fixed after it gets broken by the spyware/virus-of-the-week. The repair inevitably involves using 9x to get all of the malware removed because XP has "great" features where malware can more easily hide within. Booting to a 9x system to ferret out the bugs gets rid of problems that the XP system doesn't even realize it still has!

A recent example: Ran Trend Micro Housecall on the XP system itself [after ridding it of Sasser and other problems] and I get a clean bill of health. Problem is that it just ain't so.

Run Trend from a 9x system that views the XP system drive as a non-system data drive. Turns out that SVCHOST.EXE has a trojan in it.

Still want to pretend which is "better" ?

cjl (real world, not fantasy land)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would vote for Windows XP, purely because it's the first NT-based OS that was really aimed at the consumer, i.e. home user, market. However, it is still simply a cosmetic upgrade from NT:

NT 3.51 → NT 4 → Windows 2000 (NT 5) → Windows XP (NT 5.1)

I feel that Microsoft are lazy in this respect. They could have spent the last 3-4 years rebuilding a better, more stable and secure kernel. Or having one team hard at work on the new kernel and another on the future frontend, i.e. GUI.

BTW, what makes it worse is when Microsoft "steals" code/coders. For the first initial OS release they hire David Cutler, an ex-employee of DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) who had worked with his team to design their VMS OS. This same group of people were then hired on by Microsoft to basically code what they had already done but add a few modifications. (During this time, they also magically created the Win32 API :rolleyes:)

And, to begin with, NT was going to be a subset of OS/2—the OS that Microsoft had previously been developing in conjunction with IBM. So, you could say that the NT kernel has a lot of roots in OS/2 and VMS. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Love the site! I saw the unofficial 98 Service Pack on slashdot in the spring of 2004, I can't believe I did not look you up sooner.

My favorite version of Windows is 98. Not *_just_* because that is all I know, but because it works well for me.

I have a dual-boot 98/Linux system. Linux can read the VFAT file system that 98 uses, but cannot read NTFS (most later Windows versions) without add-on utilities. I can work with my resume (VFAT partition) from inside Linux. No file synchronization hassles. If I want to "try something out", I can move critical Windows files to the Linux partition and put them back easily.

Win98 doesn't have a "rollback" feature like later Windows versions, but I have Norton Clean Sweep, which does the same job. A router stops unsolicited bits (Sasser?) from coming in, and Zone Alarm tells me if Windows Media Player tries to "phone home" to Redmond.

Yes, USB support can be disappointing, even with 98SE, and many video cards don't have drivers for 98 anymore. And I couldn't make an AGP card work under 98 if my life depended on it. Don't say I didn't warn you. Also, "security updates" for IE have tried to force Outlook Express on me, but I used Clean Sweep to remove it. (Windows 98 is the last version where you were allowed to "just say no" to Outbreak Express, Uncle Bill G's mail program.)

I have to believe 98 is simpler, more is known about it, and uses fewer "services", (daemons in the Linux/Unix world) which could represent security vulnerabilities.

After raising IE security settings and switching to Mozilla and Eudora Mail, installing anti-virus, HOSTS file, router, battery back-up, tape drive, etc., I've got a good, stable foundation on which to build (Office 97, drawing programs, photo editors, typical home user stuff).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ooo win me s***s.. always blue screen and hangs ... i restarted my pc for 4 times when i plug my handydrive ... dun installed winme move to winxp... its more stable .... :huh:

This is a common reply from people who sadly are unsure of how to properly configure their system's hardware (including drivers) and software.

Windows ME is perfectly stable and can handle much more than 98 ever could. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...