• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Worst ver. or Windoze?

Worst ver. or Windoze?

  • 1.0

    Votes: 7 20.6%

  • 2.0

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • 3.X

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 95

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • 98

    Votes: 4 11.8%

  • 2000

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • XP

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Vista

    Votes: 20 58.8%

  • 7

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Total voters
    34
Oops, guess I should read a tad more carefully before punching the button!! How do you "un-vote"? Snicker.

I would buy 2 or 3 copies of Win 7 Premium right now (in beta form even). Especially if I can get Balmer to give me a significant discount for once again being the M$ test bed. If anyone has mastered the art of getting the general public to test their product for free, it has to be MICROSOFT!!!

The first day of Win 7 Beta, the M$ servers were TOTALLY overloaded. They had to take down the link for I think it was at least 12 hours, likely longer. I had to go to "torrent land" as I couldn't stand reading the same forum posts over and over "I have been waiting for 14 hrs... bla bla bla".
 
I would think anything pre 3.0 is unusable. ME gets a bad rap, if you had hardware that was supported it ran fine.
 
Unknown_K said:
I would think anything pre 3.0 is unusable. ME gets a bad rap, if you had hardware that was supported it ran fine.
Click to expand...

Once I heard that ME crashes if you move the mouse too fast, but I have personally never tried ME so I don't know...
 
Every version of Windows below Service Pack 2 is bad, basically.

Vista is still shaky, but it's at SP1 at the moment, give it another year and it will work :)
XP is pretty stable as of SP3,
2000 wasn't too bad,
NT had a serious lack of drivers,
98 was good after SP2,
ME was never any good, networking with that version was a disaster. Standalone with not too exotic hardware it was ok,
95, don't remember actually,
3.1 was not too good, WfW 3.11 pretty stable.
 
There is one main factor why I don't like certain versions of Windows. This factor is that for some reason, after using any computer with a more or less recent version of Windows for more than a half year, the computer starts to act if sombody poured syrup between the processor and the rest of the system. CPU usage are the usual 02%, and only a fraction of the RAM is used, however, the computer use ages to do about anything explorer-related stuff. There aren't any viruses or spyware, I have checked several times.

Why this happens might problably be because of after time, when you install lots of software, downloading the ~500 security updates from Microsoft, the other ~300 fixes, and the ~200 or so additional plugins you really don't need; the system registry and filecount gets so big that Windows are using years to find a single entry. I hear they've tried to do something with it in Windows 7, but I haven't tried it yet.
 
Defrag?

per said:
There is one main factor why I don't like certain versions of Windows. This factor is that for some reason, after using any computer with a more or less recent version of Windows for more than a half year, the computer starts to act if sombody poured syrup between the processor and the rest of the system. CPU usage are the usual 02%, and only a fraction of the RAM is used, however, the computer use ages to do about anything explorer-related stuff. There aren't any viruses or spyware, I have checked several times.

Why this happens might problably be because of after time, when you install lots of software, downloading the ~500 security updates from Microsoft, the other ~300 fixes, and the ~200 or so additional plugins you really don't need; the system registry and filecount gets so big that Windows are using years to find a single entry. I hear they've tried to do something with it in Windows 7, but I haven't tried it yet.
Click to expand...
 
Yup.. can't vote on the poll. My vote is Windows Millennium. Out of 4 of us techs that installed it once it came out, all 4 of us went back to 98 within a month. Never used it long enough to find out if it was any more stable but we didn't have many problems with 98 unless we were screwing around or loaded 3rd party system level applications. (Crashguard caused a lot of crashes itself, and most of our software debuggers would throw up an increased number of errors).

The reason ME was so slow was it enabled (introduced?) the system backup utility that constantly ran in the background playing with files to give you a restore point. If you disabled that feature ME sped up tremendously but still never offered anything 98 couldn't do a little bit faster.
 
per said:
Where is Windows ME?
Click to expand...

I have to ask this too. There's a reason people nicknamed it "Mistake Edition"....

Barring Windows ME, I'd have to vote for Vista or 98 (Pre SP2). Vista is a decent OS, when it works, but is no good at what it's supposed to do (Replace XP).

The original 98...well, all I have to say about tha-This Program has performed an Illegal Operation and will now Close
 
per said:
There is one main factor why I don't like certain versions of Windows. This factor is that for some reason, after using any computer with a more or less recent version of Windows for more than a half year, the computer starts to act if sombody poured syrup between the processor and the rest of the system. CPU usage are the usual 02%, and only a fraction of the RAM is used, however, the computer use ages to do about anything explorer-related stuff. There aren't any viruses or spyware, I have checked several times.

Why this happens might problably be because of after time, when you install lots of software, downloading the ~500 security updates from Microsoft, the other ~300 fixes, and the ~200 or so additional plugins you really don't need; the system registry and filecount gets so big that Windows are using years to find a single entry. I hear they've tried to do something with it in Windows 7, but I haven't tried it yet.
Click to expand...
That's what happened to themachine that i'm writing this message on. Win XP w/ no SP, no virus, no spyware, no malware, not too many programs installed, more than enough RAM, more than enought disk spa-(bluescreen):twisted::twisted:
 
Hmm..I didn't vote because for me the worst version of Windows tended to be the early release versions, which tended to be buggy until a service pack or update came along. My general thoughts on some of the versions I have used though..

Windows 1.0. No more than a wasteful front-end to MS-DOS
Windows 2.0 Not much better
Windows 3.0 - Buggy!
Windows 3.1 (for Workgroups) - Good. Worked ok with packages designed for Windows. Still a front-end to MS-DOS for a lot of things
Windows 95 - Final version Ok. Front end to DOS for some things
Windows 98 - Final version (second edition) ok, except it didn't like the particular graphic card I had.
Windows NT 4.0 - Stable, ok
Windows 2000 - Loooong boot up wait.
Windows XP - Most stable I've used so far (even before the service packs)
Windows Vista - Have managed to avoid using it so far. No burning desire to do so.
Windows 7 - Might try this when I get a new Machine.

Tez
 
Chuck(G) said:
Tez, you forgot NT 3.1 and 3.51. 3.51 was another "pretty good" version in my experience.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe so. Apart from tweaking someone's NT 3.1 installation (they were having network problems..I found the problem by just examing the configuration) I never had the cause to use it.

Tez
 
To me, Vista is the absolute worst. I hate it and will never use it again. I once had it installed on my PC. It was a P4 2.8GHz with 3GB RAM, a 256MB video card, and a 160GB HDD, which I bought just for Vista. The machine ran XP flawlessly, but Vista was godawful. It took forever to do anything, was really choked up, and couldn't even display the Vista Premium graphics, so I was stuck with the Vista Basic scheme. And why couldn't it? Because the video card that I bought just a few months before(and Vista was out already when I got it) didn't have a good Vista driver, despite the fact that Vista claimed it's support. No Aero, no fancy graphics, and slow as hell.

Now Windows 7, for those of you who havent used it, is amazing. It is a feather compared to the lead brick Vista was, very lightweight. Fast, lots of eye candy, and without much bugs. Some audio driver issues for me and others, but that'll be fixed. Now don't get me wrong, I think less graphics the better, but for those who love an easy-breezy system, Windows 7 will be for them.

I've never used NT(despite having a few versions in box behind me) but I want to. Now for my list:
Windows 1.03. Poorly redesigned DOS-Shell.
Windows 3.1 (for Workgroups) - Pretty good, worked well, good driver base.
Windows 95 - Never had a problem with it. Use hardware that is designed for it and have the driver disk and it'll install it with just a few clicks of mouse.
Windows 98 - Excellent, fairly stable if you keep it well-fed with driver diskettes.
Windows ME- Great, I loved it. Practically 98 all over again, though.
Windows 2000 - Long boot, but still the best version of Windows I've used
Windows XP - Very stable, but to me is just Windows 2K but with more graphics
Windows Vista - Repulsive. It'll make a super computer look slow
Windows 7 - Fantastic, so much better than Vista.

--Ryan
 
Most of the slowing-down issues I encounter with XP are down to the default setup people tend to use. Usually no fixed-size swap file so the drive gets fragmented very fast, made worse by the fact most people store EVERYTHING in C-drive in "My Documents" (also default and I find it very annoying) plus all the temp files, all within C drive. Worse still when stuff is "saved" to the Desktop, it's like wiring your posh in-car entertainment system directly into the ECU. This has the most serious impact on performance.

I set up machines with a primary partition only for the OS and installed programs, another for data storage (including Documents, yes unbeknownst to many people the default location can be changed), plus a 4 gig partition exclusively for the swap file and all temporary files (size dependant on intended usage). On mine I also have a 10 gig partition for the Nero cache. That way it keeps the system in good order for years and it's a hell of a lot easier to reinstall if required.

Windows Me runs well on my P233 system, 98SE was pretty stable but 98 first edition and the earlier 95 releases were hopeless, loads of BSODs.


BG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top