Favorite Windows O/S

OK people whats your favorite Windows O/S??? Dont say Linux or Mac Osx because if u look in the title it states Favorite windows O/S .
Basicaly every windows system has its own problem, for example windows 95/98 had the famous "windows blue screen" and windows XP tends to kill older harddrives leaveing Unmountable_boot_volume messages.

So whats your favorite windows system??

Between Linux or Mac OS X, I can't decide. I'll mark it as a tie.

I am sorry but this is rather pointless. The newest versions are the best and those who can't afford it or pirate it will have to choose their current one because it isn't as if they have been going down hill in quality. Windows Vista Betas aren't even stable for crying out loud so this thread is going to last as long as the recent Vista build running a simple program before doing a core memory dump.

Originally Posted by dmitric300

I am sorry but this is rather pointless. The newest versions are the best and those who can't afford it or pirate it will have to choose their current one because it isn't as if they have been going down hill in quality. Windows Vista Betas aren't even stable for crying out loud so this thread is going to last as long as the recent Vista build running a simple program before doing a core memory dump.

Are you aware that core memory has not been in use since the 1970s, ever since it was replaced by silicon-type memory? In fact, x86-compatable architecture (by compatable, I also mean the systems AMD has going now too) as far as I know, doesn't support core memory. So this brings up the question: Why would Vista need to do a dump of core memory when it doesn't even support it? Sounds to me like somebody's tech kung-fu is weak!

Well yea i cant really say what is the best one but in my experience Windows ME is the worst one. It has alot of bugs. My friends mom has it when it first came out and it froze all the time and still does to this day.

I;ve got 2 PC's in my house, one of them has Windows XP and the other has Windows ME, which is the worst O/S i've used. At the moment, Windows XP is my favourite O/S not because it is the latest Windows O/S, it is because it allows me to link anything to the PC and allow it to work without any problems. Plus, it has great media capabilities and it goes with my current Firefox layout (silver).

Originally Posted by Ted Nugent

Are you aware that core memory has not been in use since the 1970s, ever since it was replaced by silicon-type memory? In fact, x86-compatable architecture (by compatable, I also mean the systems AMD has going now too) as far as I know, doesn't support core memory. So this brings up the question: Why would Vista need to do a dump of core memory when it doesn't even support it? Sounds to me like somebody's tech kung-fu is weak!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_dump

a core dump is when the operating system just dumps all of its ram to a permanent storage location or a location where it could be analyzed and debuged. I do program and I know about debugging (c++ not turring). Vista is currently not very stable. You end up with memory leaks, the resources of the system resources are consumed, it grinds to a halt and then causes a fatal error. Since it is a beta version it then dumps its memory for further analysis. Vista BETA isn't supposed to be used like any other opperating system, it is to be tested.

ever heard of bsod (or rsod) or are you all talk and no source?

http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xht...d=1110083YRM69
for more

I've also had Windows 95, 98, me, xp, 2000 and I've found that xp does perform much better than the others when your computer actually meets the system requirements (at least 512 mb of ram since the OS hogs 256)

Windows ME edition was defiantly THE WORST Windows operating system I've ever used. It made Windows 95 seem superior (even though Windows 95 had some flaws in it as well). I hope to never encounter an operating system like that ever again.

When my dad finally replaced Windows ME with Windows 2000 (Professional Edition), the difference between the two was amazing. I still sometimes use it till this day (it's such a great OS). It's defiantly an OS I can rely on.

I currently use Windows XP Pro; which I'm happy with. Unfortunately, it's pirated (by my dad), and because of a not-so-recent update, I can't update my Windows XP Pro (or any other program that's Microsoft related); which is obviously no good. So, I'm waiting for when I actually have a spare $200 or so to buy a new one (which will probably be never). I'll probably have to go with Linux soon. . .

Originally Posted by dmitric300

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_dump

a core dump is when the operating system just dumps all of its ram to a permanent storage location or a blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

No. You didn't say "core dump." You said "core memory dump." I know damn well what a core dump is, and that isn't what you said. You said "core memory dump."

The fact that you tried to insult my tech prowess by defining something completely different is not only insulting, but degrading to these forums.

I am sorry but it seems that you are make a much bigger deal of it and quite frankly profanity is more degrading to these forums.

Dmitric -- shut up. He is making a much bigger deal of what? He merely pointed out that you tried to explain one thing when you were told you didn't know anything about something else, which you did. Then you try to change the subject and tell him that his profanity is more degrading to the Forums than your misleading remarks. Never mind the fact that there's no profanity in his post. And you're not sorry. Nobody who makes "sorry, but you're an idiot" remarks is ever sorry.



Anyway. Of the Win OSs that I've tried, XP Professional SP2 has been best to me; I vote it as my favourite.

Im running vista RC1 its a stable release and it RULES in fact im writing this post on vista

Originally Posted by dmitric300

I am sorry but this is rather pointless. The newest versions are the best and those who can't afford it or pirate it will have to choose their current one because it isn't as if they have been going down hill in quality.

What are you talking about? Newer versions are not always the best. In fact, so far, older versions have proven that they could be just as stable as the new versions and possibly with less viruses too. Didn't you know that hackers and virus programmers always want to tackle the newest and hardest to break version of OS? I'd bet right now, Windows 98 or 2000 would have less attackers on the 'net than XP or Vista beta. Not to mention that newer OS requires even more system resources than before. More complicated coding = more problems. Besides, I don't recall having to download tons of patches for security breaches of OS in the past, but I sure have done so many times for XP.

It all depends on how the users use their computers. A "new version that is the best" can become the worst for someone that's a total computer n00b and download everything that he or she sees on the internet without doing basic scanning and logic reasoning first.

After downloading tons of patches and stuff like that, XP gets my vote, although I would have stuck with Windows ME.

You must also remember that people are downloading things like crazy now in comparison to 10 years ago and people's internet connections which would take forever to download a simple picture way back when could now download large videos and software applications in record time. With all of this internet traffic it becomes much easier to accidently get a virus or something of that nature. I agree that hackers are always targeting the newest version of the OS because that is the version that most people are using, that is mainly why macs don't have many virus issues, not many people bother creating viruses for them but if the paradigm shifted and everyone was running mac osx then i bet that it would have just as many viruses if not more (because they probably aren't putting in as much time into security as microsoft) than windows. If someone is constantly using the internet and going to many different sites and downloading many different things then they should at least have antivirus like symantic, a software firewall like zone alarm and a firewall router, that should filter out 99% of the viruses that would normally get onto the system. And even if your antivirus doesn't report anything, it is always a good idea to do a full scan (preferably in safe mode) periodically to make sure that there isn't something that the antivirus overlooked. Windows rarely ever crashes, I do have software crashes which are a pain to get rid of because crashed software really don't care about WM_DESTROY and I usually have to resort to end process but this is much better than windows 95 where a program crash would take down the operating system with it and there was no other solution then unplugging the computer. I agree that windows xp comes with a lot of useless software and features that gobble resources but if you are so technically inclined then you can look up a windows xp tweaking guide and adjust the registry so that everything runs smoother. Besides, all the other operating systems had security breaches too, it was just that microsoft never bothered releasing patches for them. If you have the newest version of an operating system then you need the software to protect your investment, otherwise you can get an older operating system and work with the bugs.

for more information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327194
2000 service pack 4? which service pack is xp on again... oh right! 2

NT also had 5 service packs and so on and so forth

maybe it was that people didn't download these service packs then while windows xp does it all for you.

if you must know I download quite a bit of stuff and my computer has been running for one year without getting any viruses or that the antivirus, and firewalls didn't catch.

I have, by far, had fewer problems with XP than 95 or 98, and I've used it twice as long. I don't do a whole lot of downloads -- mostly legal games and stuff. I don't usually get the chance to expose myself to a bunch of crap, so maybe I'm not in a good place to say, but WinXP, for me, has been overall pretty stable.

Originally Posted by dmitric300

Besides, all the other operating systems had security breaches too, it was just that microsoft never bothered releasing patches for them.

Of course they have security breaches, but how would you know they would have the same amount of breaches that XP or Vista have? Unless you are working for Microsoft, how would you know that other OS had this many security problems that XP has, to a point where XP actually has to release one of the most advanced and tightly secured SP2 that has generated quite a few problems from some people?

2000 service pack 4? which service pack is xp on again... oh right! 2

Quite right. But two service packs for XP with SP2 killing off some of my friends' computers the moment that they installed it? Not to mention my other online friends have told me the network connection problems with some of their programs, which, only appeared after SP2 installation. Nice.

And before you start saying about how they suck with computers and stuff, a few of those friends are in fourth year of computer science. They know more than enough on how to use their computers effeciently and safely.

The problem is not with how many service packs you must download, but how many patches, which, XP has way more than previous OS.