what's the best ms os?

[NTGAMEMAN 0]

what is the best ms os's that microsoft has released ?

 

win95

win98

win98se

winME

win NT4.0

Win2000

WinXP

 

or win 3.1

win 3.11

 

or DOS!!

 

plz post soon

[BladeRunner 0]

Win95, 98, 98SE & ME - All based on the same code which in turn has it's root firmly in DOS.

A hybrid 16/32bit OS that was good for it's day (Win95 & 98, not ME) however cannot vote these.

 

WinNT 4 - Nice new OS, not based on any of the old code, stable, but lacking such features as Plug & Play, also lack of driver support so cannot vote for this.

 

Win 3.1 & Win 3.11 - These are NOT Operating Systems, so obviously these cannot be voted.

 

DOS - Good in it's time, spawned Win9x, but goddamit it's old, so no.

 

Win2k & WinXP - True 32bit OS, based on the same code base and sharing some 95% of the same code.

Offers the stability & security of WinNT, but adds such features as Plug & Play.

Both have good driver support, what works under one works under the other (as a rule).

 

Final Vote - WinXP, it offers everything Win2k gave me, but with a few fixes here and there.

The Luna interface can be switched off, PA is not an issue for me as I do not re-install Windows every 32 days.

Closely followed in 2nd place - Win2k.

[clutch 1]

Ditto.

[MaxQc 0]

I would also give my vote for WinXP as it is the one I use... But my personnal favorite is Win2000 I think

[Nemesis 1]

You forgot NT 3.1, NT 3.5 and NT 3.51 all of which preceeded NT 4.0.

 

NT 3.1 is really worth mentioning, but NT 3.5/3.51 is, Ok it still had the drap Program Manager as its shell, however it was showing signs of maturing. NT 4.0 only added a new shell to 3.51, the big change came with NT 5.0 (aka Windows 2000), as mentioned earlier this added support for PnP which gave Windows 2000 a good boost, but like NT 4.0 and previous versions suffered from driver support.

 

Now comes Windows XP (built on NT Technology), it alrea seems to be a favourite, but Windows 2000 still lurking in the background!

 

My vote is Windows XP.

 

[Dirty Harry 0]

...and all the XP users vote for XP

...nd all the W2K users say W2K

 

What you are really asking is "Which one do you use"

 

H.

[OLEerror 0]

Sorry, Harry, but I use both Win2k and XP. I prefer XP overall. Especially in a home environment. It also beats Win2k on a laptop. If it weren't for things like MovieMaker, which I'd have to uninstall on from all of the workstations, I'd prefer it a work, as well.

[Marktait 0]

I would give my vote to XP, i prefer it over 2000 when i was running them on dual boot.

[JP- 0]

2000, ive tried XP on many occasions and always come back to 2000. More stable, 'feels' faster, and is just all round better.

 

Hard to explain.

[smokinkane 0]

win2k, seems I always end up going back to it, becuase it is more stable when my system is overclocked. Yes it does feel faster too. I guess becuase it doesn't have all the transitions WinXP does, and I realize they can be turned off. Although if I was going to do that I would just rather have Win2k. haha

[whoisurdaddy 0]

I have tried both Win2k and XP. I like XP better overall. The thing I like about XP is the Widows Media player 8 and the icons on the desktop align automatically.

[pr-man 1]

XP Pro all the way no question

[Four and Twenty 0]

Quote:

XP Pro all the way no question

ditto

[Four and Twenty 0]

actually my preference will be .NET Server when it is final

(beta is a pain in the arse with the activation bull crap.)

[pmistry 0]

This is a NT buff forum, everyone here is gonna say either 2000 or XP. I like 2000 but it has some minor compatibility problems with older 9x exclusive games. XP is decent but all that bundled crap and buggy issues that I and some others have experienced drops it. NT4 has no plug and play, usb, fat32, full directx, agp, acpi, and all of those other cool things which make it a no-no. Windows 3.1 and 3.11 are not OSes like someone else said. DOS is dead. Finally that brings us to Windows 9x. 95 was decent, so was 98 and so was ME. Yes ME, I never had a problem with it so don't start jumping on me because of this cuz I know a whole crap load of you guys had problems with it. As a secondary OS 98 or ME is fine, but I like Windows 2000 as my pick. 9x is ok if you're uses are for light computing.

 

My only question is why didn't you opt to post a poll?

[ofelas 0]

As all I use are notebooks, I'd have to say XP Pro all the way...

[akiss 0]

only win xp pro

[BladeRunner 0]

Quote:

...and all the XP users vote for XP
...nd all the W2K users say W2K

What you are really asking is "Which one do you use"

H.

Well yes, obviously, in 99% of the cases people will post what OS they are using.
But if somebody has decided that a particular OS is "The Best" in their opinion then they tend to use it.
I'm not going to say "In my opinion WinXP is the best OS" and then follow it up with "But I'm using Win2k at home" - I will obviosuly use the OS I feel is best.

[Four and Twenty 0]

Well I like .NET better than XP

but I run XP cause it is final and .NET is beta

[Raa 0]

As a computer consultant and network administrator for a number of sites, I'm required to investigate new technologies as they come out.

 

I'll come straight to the point. Windows 2000 Professional is my choice. There's no second doubting it's stability, SECURITY (which, strangely enough, nobody actually mentioned yet?), and speed.

 

I've used most MS operating systems, and have gone through equal pains having to do something in them.

 

Win2k has given me the least problems, and I fully recommend it for any use. (Laptops may have a SLIGHT advantage with XP Pro).

 

Until Microsoft gets its act together and learns that PRETTY graphics that HIDE PRIVACY INVASIONS are NOT cool, I won't be touching XP with a 20ft barge pole.

 

Anyone can say "Just go and download XPAntiSpy". Thanks, but no thanks. Why should I rely on a 3rd party program (that may not even fully patch the holes), for something I shouldn't have to use or worry about?

 

I give Microsoft its credit, XP is more advanced than 2k. But not by much.

 

All XP is, is win2k + pretty graphics + minor speed optimisations + bugs + security flaws.

 

I can't see that Winxp is going to offer me (or any of my clients) any sort of advantage.

 

 

Sorry, It's Win2k all the way.

 

 

P.S. I know that WinXP "SE" (yes, that's Second Edition), is on it's way. And I'm fully open to debate on whether Microsoft has bucked its ideas up with it or not. But until it's out and decomplied by everone, I'll stick with my Win2k, happy in the knowledge that I won't be as easily hacked or monitored by anyone than XP users.

 

 

Cheers, Raa.

 

 

If I've offended anyone (xp users?) with this post, then I apologise in advance, i'm entitled to my opinion, and i'm just stating the facts. (even if they aren't well known in the business-world )

[BladeRunner 0]

Don't let the name WinXP SE fool you.

It's nothing more than WinXP, with integrated SP1 and all the other patches & fixes available from Windows Update - nothing spectacularly new about it.

[EddiE314 0]

xp

[MaxQc 0]

Quote:

Well I like .NET better than XP
but I run XP cause it is final and .NET is beta

Is there a big difference between 2000SVR and .NET ? Interface ?
Needs big hardware ?

[clutch 1]

.NET Server is actually snappier and allows for better remote management. I have been a really big fan of Win2K server and how they can be managed remotely with built-in tools, and .NET extends that even further. I had it running quite nicely on a Celeron 300a@450 with 512MB RAM, so I don't thing hardware should be much of an issue if you can currently run Win2K server on the same system.

[Catdog02 0]

I won't quote Raa here, so as not to fill up the board, but I agree entirely. XP is mearly Win2k with "family" options. Completely unreliable in an office environment, due to its resource abusing structure and hopeless security 'upgrades' (even with the AD tools and patches). Why would users need administration rights to use Microsoft Photo editor? and not to ad extra hardware? My 2000 machines can run on minimum spec boxes and laptops, be secure and still play games, make movies and I don't need to spend half an hour removing NPNP applications like MSN messenger. And in my opinion the only reason it runs an NT platform is because of the disgusting travisty that ME was, proving that the old 9x infrastructure was finally dead.