Dyre Straits

Well, I had some experience with Pre-Windows GEOS. Anyone remember that one?

So, when I got my very first PC, it came with Windows 3.1. When Windows 95 came out, I was in line at midnight to get one of the first copies and also bought the first official 'made for Windows 95' game: Sierra's "Outpost".

I did the same when Windows 98 was released as far as getting in line to get a copy at midnight.

But, I let XP slide for quite sometime due to the activation scheme.

However, after getting SP2, XP seems to be the best experience with Windows so far.

So, XP gets my vote.

__________________

morbo

windows 2000

a few registry tweaks

i can have it setup as good as xp running 200 gig hdd`s

less of a ram hog

perfect for lesser machines

xp and vista are just tweaked w2k

__________________

IModAmd

Well i voted Xp ... my decision was between XP and 3.11 for workgroups... because something piss me off of an o/s is the bsods(or what you want to call them) ... i took xp because is more recent and support much things but for the stability 3.11 and XP kick ass... well for 95(WOW USB SUPORT) omg...... was really slower on my first machine ... after 98... i never seen in my life that much of BSODS AND BUGS:O.... it's calmed down with the SE... ohhhhh after Millenium Edition.... A GREAT FLOP! .... no comments.... next 2000 .... was quite stable ... but i dont used it too much it's was the between of 98 and XP ...XP (ROCKS) and vista...(quite bad.... for what they said what it's will be able to accomplish) and TAKE TOO MUCH resources(an little msg for microsoft for their next O/S:CONSIDER WE IS NOT EVERYBODY HAVE AN POWERFULL COMPUTER)

__________________
www.technewshw.com

Unixlord

to which micro$oft will reply with:

ALL YOUR RESOURCE ARE BELONG TO US, NOOB!

__________________
IQ, when aggregated, follows Ohm's law.

IModIntel

Vista sucks thats for sure. XP is good. Hope the first service pzck 4 Vista will help.

__________________

SpectatorX

I'm testin vista from beta 1 & i can say surely that beta 1 was best made edition of vista. In times when i was testin i had same hardware, but with little difference:
asus radeon x300se ;-) and kingston 512MB ddr1.

Vista Beta 1 was really much faster then xp:
system performance was perfect, speed of file copying just was wonderin me all time which i had this system, and games: if game was workin so it was workin damn fast & look really good :-) The only negative thing in vista beta 1 was long installation time, but it wasn't the worriest. :-)

I don't know and i'm really wonderin why ms made beta 2 & final edition so bad & slow workin....

But... Vista Beta 1 is dead now & xp still rulles.
:-)

__________________
Take your own future in your own hands!

lumo

i would vote for windows 3.11 golden eddition with was declared bugfree in 1995 (correct me if i remember this one wrong)

DeadSpace

Voted NT 4.0, possibly just for nostalgia...

NT 4.0 back when for work, very stable. XP for gaming, right now one not on the list is my current favorite Server 2008 x64. Stable, runs nearly everything, easily configurable. And outperforms XP pro (dual boot testing) for gaming and overall performance by a large margin.

One petty annoyance, new installs of games/apps set to read only, app itself not allowed to modify it's own files...nor I O.o (disabling UAC fixed that)

Superfetch active, Vista Aero enabled, server 2008 workstation setup, single client. Runs like lightning.

xman01

Windows 2000

__________________
boo ya

lyla

bingo,

solid, crash free, fast.


3.11 for workgroups was good too,

and Vista atm is excellent combined with enough ram to take advantage of its caching