Favorite Windows OS version

[PGHammer]

Windows 10 in a walk - because of two features - Hyper-V and Windows Subsystem for Linux version 2.  This tag-team obviates the need to run multiple VMs or dual-boot - for either development OR gaming.  The only minus (and it isn't much OF one any more) is that it can seriously eat disk space like Reese's pieces or M&Ms.  (I just upgraded my boot drive from 1 TB to 4 TB - and a problem I didn't realize I even HAD - lack of space for Android development building - has gone COMPLETELY away.  And the very reason I went to 4 TB is that it was a cheap platter drive upgrade - all of $80USD - despite it being so ginormous that it is bigger than the SUM of every platter drive I have ever owned previously - put together - while physically being the size of the boot drive it replaced.  (Apologies to - of all people - Electronic Arts - thank you, science and technology; how else does 4 TB of drive space fit in the exact space that 500 GB used to - and costs LESS besides?)  Not kidding on either physical space OR cost, either - remember what 500 GB of 3.5" form-factor platter drives cost a mere five years ago? (Barack Obama was not quite finished his first term - to put the timing in perspective.)  The point I am making is that drive space is THE thing that Android ROM building eats heaping helpings of - more than even memory.  When I have a better idea how much (or maybe "how little") disk space I actually use out of that cavern I have available I may actually adjust my ccache space UP; my space calculation was based on a 1 TB drive - NOT the 4 TB behemoth I have today.  (In short, I'm in the rather awkward position of President-elect Biden - I'm not thinking in terms of New Castle County Airport in Wilmington, DE, any more - but Joint Forces Base Andrews and the 89th Military Airlift Wing - and that is just the PERSONAL side of the aircraft I have at my immediate beck.)  With that much of a space change, logic starts going out the window.)  That likely explains the LACK of logic that creeps into those new to planning on a national-government scale (any nation - not merely the United States) - how the heck do you PLAN around numbers this big?

[shockz]

From that list I'd have to go with Windows XP... maybe it's the rose tinted glasses when I look back on it, but it was such a breakthrough OS. A consumer version of Windows, finally on an NT kernel, and the increased system requirements compared to Windows ME really shined through on just how radically different the OS behaved on the newest systems at the time. If you had a modern system, the driver compatibility was really revolutionary at the time for such a broad range of systems and the performance really took off, especially for productivity apps. I remember joining this site around the time the final betas before the release candidate came out, and it was just such an exciting time in the Windows community. I remember the simple things, like the Windows Media Player 7 visualizations blowing my mind haha.

 

I remember Microsoft had a count down clock to Oct 25th and it's release date, checked it every day on the webcam lol.

 

Not to mention uxtheme.dll customizations were some of the coolest things you could do on an OS. I remember how crazy cool people could make things. 

 

I think my all time favorite windows though is Windows 98 Second Edition, that thing was rock solid for me. Loved it.

 

My least favorite version is probably Windows 10, not for the whole telemetry drama, but just the constant beta feeling I can't ever shake from it. The UI inconsistencies alone peg my OCD. Ever since Windows 8.x, Windows has felt like a perpetual beta for me, tailored to form factors I don't ever use it for. It's no longer what makes my computer shine, more like a burden to it. Windows 7 was the last great OS from Microsoft, where it felt like it was designed for a PC, and only a PC. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by shockz

[+Raphaël G. MVC]

From that list, Windows XP. But, honestly, I had the most fun with Windows 2000.

[ThaCrip]

I would assume most people will default to either WinXP or Windows 7 since those are clearly the two most popular/used over the last couple of decades or so which basically sums up when computers were mainstream as from what I remember it seems computers in general started to go mainstream about 1998-2000 or so and WinXP was release in 2001 and supported until 2014 and Win7 was released in 2009 and supported til Jan 2020, which basically summed up the last couple of decades and nearly the entire run of mainstream computing.

 

but I would say Win2k was the first stable OS from Microsoft I used(and the average person could use) as prior to Win2k/WinXP(but I don't really count Win2k since it's not targeted towards the average user even though the average user could use it), Windows for home users were not stable. but once WinXP came along things changed and Windows in general was much better than prior to that point.

 

hell, it seems Microsoft has a general pattern of 'good/bad/good/bad' from Win98 to date in terms of general opinion etc... Win98(good)/WinME(bad)/WinXP(good)/WinVista(bad)/Win7(good)/Win8(bad)/Win10(good). it seems even general OS adoption rates among people will pretty much reflect that, at least in recent memory (lets say at least WinXP to date) off the top of my head as while say WinVista etc might have eventually got decent, they seemed to be largely panned by the masses and never had the huge user base that say WinXP/Win7/Win10 have (or I should say had at some point since once support of WinXP/Win7 dropped their user base will inevitably decline as time passes).

 

but personally as for which I would choose... it sort of depends on how I look at it. like in some ways WinXP would take #1 since it's the first stable OS targeted towards the average user so it stands out in this regard. but at the same time Win7 eventually became the new standard and was popular for quite some time (and 64bit was the typical OS people installed unlike WinXP which the 32bit was the default even though WinXP did have a 64bit but never really seemed to take off) even though I am sure for a while there was a lot of die-hard WinXP fans that rejected any sort of change like how those with Win7 continue to refuse Win10. but besides those types, WinXP to Win7 to Win10 is generally a upgrade after a while, especially once someone has decent hardware to handle it.

 

p.s. I used pretty much all of Windows versions from Win v3.11 to date (on my main PC at some point or another besides Win8) which was basically from 1995 on forward. although Win8 was the only one I briefly tested in a VM and never returned to as it's interface was horrible for proper desktop/laptop use and was made for tablet junk. so it's horrible interface upon release pretty much put the nail-in-it's-coffin as whoever thought of that interface over the proven Win7 and the like type interfaces should have been fired as it's obvious you don't make drastic changes to what people are familiar with. a little change here and there is okay, but nothing major like what happened from Win7 to Win8 as it made doing standard stuff a chore etc. I immediately disliked it after only using it briefly in a VM and at that point Win8 was dead in my mind and I am sure it was many others to where Win7 was the clear #1 until Win10 came along and that eventually started to gain users since it's obvious it's the new standard for likely years to come for the common person.

 

On 22/11/2020 at 08:04, InsaneNutter said:

Windows XP – This is an earlier point in time I think was another major milestone for Windows. From a consumer version point of view this was where Windows finally became stable

 

Exactly. but someone around these forums a while ago was actually disagreeing with me on what you just said which what you said is obviously true as it was obvious that WinXP was the clear shift point from Microsoft making stable OS's for the average person as WinME/Win98 etc was clearly not up to the standards of general system stability that WinXP on forward was for the average user.

 

NOTE: I omitted Win2k as, like I was saying, while it could be used by the average person and was stable, it was not targeted towards the common person like how WinXP is. hence, WinXP was the first stable OS from Microsoft for the common person.

 

On 22/11/2020 at 08:04, InsaneNutter said:

Windows 7 – I think this is where Windows peaked, it felt like this was where everything came together for Windows. 64bit hardware support was great, Windows worked on low end hardware of the time, such as Netbooks. The UI was nice, consistent for the most part and pretty polished.

 

Good point.

 

because as we both know... on WinXP the 32bit one was standard as even though it has a 64bit version it was sort of the odd-ball one since it was not that used unlike Win7 the 64bit was the default/common one.

 

On 22/11/2020 at 08:04, InsaneNutter said:

Windows 10 - I use it every day, however am impartial about, it fixed a lot of what Microsoft messed up with Windows 8 / 8.1 and in general I don’t mind using it (having done so since July 2015) however it doesn’t really jump out at me as something that was great like Windows 7 and XP did back in the day.

 

Yeah, I am not surprised as it does not stand out like WinXP/Win7 since those where more of the earlier days or so of mainstream computing. so it's probably natural there will be more advancements during those days unlike today where things don't seem to change as much.

 

hell, even in terms of general CPU's... in the past CPU's outdated much quicker than they do in semi-recent memory. because say roughly in the late 1990's and a fair portion of the 2000's computers seemed to get outdated much quicker. but, off the top of my head, as of today... any decent CPU over the last 10-ish years or so will likely still be 'fast enough' even today where as that was simply not going to happen back-in-the-day.

 

hell, even in terms of system RAM... this reacts similarly in the sense back in the old days RAM seemed to need more and more of it in a much shorter period of time where as it seemed once people reached the 8GB mark or so, it's not nearly as important as it once was back when say 4MB to 8MB to 16MB to 32MB to 64MB to 128MB to 256MB to 512MB to 1GB to 2GB to 4GB type of times where. because for general usage it seems like if someone does not have at least 4GB of RAM it's going to be a issue today outside of very light use. like if someone does not have a bare minimum of 2GB they will likely have issues as even on lighter OS's like Linux seem to need at least 2GB to give one a little room to work with and even then, once use would have to be limited to light use (like say loading up a browser and loading a site or two occasionally) where as with 4GB that gives them room to actually use their computer a bit on say Linux. but in general once people hit 8GB it seemed RAM stopped becoming a problem for quite some time as when I got 8GB of RAM in May 2012, it was well more than enough at that time even though today you can see doing similar usage patterns as I did in May 2012 that one can burn up a large chunk of 8GB of RAM especially if they leave their computer on all of the time with the browser running and quite a few tabs open. still, all-in-all... it seems 8GB of RAM is that point where it's still easily 'good enough' for the common person browsing websites and the like.

 

so I guess once people made the leap from 2GB to 4GB of RAM, I might somewhat say, that was the last of the more obvious bigger boosts in performance, or maybe 4GB to 8GB. but at least at this point in time it seems to be holding mostly true as I don't even see 8GB being a real problem for years to come and a fair amount of people probably had 8GB of RAM for quite a few years now. even 4GB, which I suspect there is many computers out there that have at least this much, is still passable if your not doing anything too taxing and using a Linux OS (I would probably even say Win7 would be okay here to but since it's not supported I sort of exclude it at this point in time). but for those on 2GB of RAM or less types of computers, they can likely upgrade to 4GB of RAM for minimal $, as I figure anyone who has a computer that don't except a maximum of at least 4GB of RAM is probably running on pretty ancient hardware that's either junk yard worthy or not too far from it even for those who like to use a computer til it's at that point is very slow and then they dump it as my backup computer, which is a motherboard I bought in March 2006, is still usable today but the computer that replaced, which had a motherboard in it from 2001 you could really see the age of that thing in the last some odd years to where doing very basic tasks would hammer the CPU to 100% and take a while to process. so to ball park this kind of stuff off the top of my head... I would imagine anyone who has a decent CPU (especially say dual core or higher) over the last 15 years or so probably still have a passable internet machine today (especially if RAM is decent) but if you go much beyond that, your probably getting into ancient territory. but come to think of it... it will be interesting to see how my current backup computers motherboard from 2006 fairs say 5 years or so from now to compare how my ancient computer from 2001 faired when I dumped it which was about 18 years. I suspect the one from March 2006's CPU will hold up longer before it's too slow even for basic internet browsing as I don't think that things CPU will be too taxed doing basic internet browsing in say 5 years or so from now like how that ancient computer from 2001 was in Jan 2019 (hell, even before that point really) before I basically retired it. so it just goes to show as technology advances that it's lasting longer before it's pretty much too slow to use even for basic tasks.

 

ill stop babbling now

[adrynalyne]

24 minutes ago, ThaCrip said:

when computers were mainstream

LOL.

[techbeck]

Windows 3.xx.  Was what got me interested in computers.

[samw61]

Windows 98 SE for sure, what good times we had!!

But more recently, Windows Vista. The development of Longhorn was my first entry into really mucking around with computers, and it was a solid OS on my first ever (and only) PC build in early 2007. I do miss the pre-development reset builds and excitement though, following that it was all a tad bleh.

 

But what's on that list, Windows 7 is the clear modern day winner, early development of that was simple, yet practical and productive little exciting additions that kept building to a really solid OS!

[zikalify Editor]

I really like the task bar in Windows Vista lol

[Audiowerfer]

Not seeing Vista here. It still is very usable.

[freedonX]

Windows 2000 Pro ! 
Had friends who made fun of me because it booted  'slower' than their Win98/Me machines.
Might be a bit slower to boot, but boy was it rock stable!

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

I loved XP (and after around SP2 is was pretty stable) and themes for it.

However - Windows 7 was so good I forgot all about themes.   Windows 7 was my top choice until my new PC came with 10, however I have to use Classic Shell to even tolerate it.

[astropheed Veteran]

On 25/03/2021 at 22:36, zikalify said:

I really like the task bar in Windows Vista lol

I honestly couldn't stand how the bottom of the button was cut off. That single handily, seriously, made me skip that version entirely.

[kelcyra4ever]

Windows XP *love*
Windows 7  *sex*
Windows 10 *married*