Discussion Poll: Up/down vote various versions of Windows

[mikeymikec]

I ripped the poll idea off from another thread As for why I didn't include earlier versions (for example, NT4 was the first version of Windows I liked), there's no huge rhyme or reason for it.

If I could stay on Win7 with security updates, I'd seriously consider it. As far as I'm concerned, Windows went downhill after that. Windows 8x's horrible UI changes that 'forgot' its primary audience (non-touchscreen users) mark it down in my book yet given the choice between 8x and 10, I'm drawn towards 8x just getting security updates these days. Win10: It works a lot better with an SSD but it still wants to ramble on in the background with all kinds of rubbish like telemetry, metro app updates, installing apps and updates without consent, peddling stuff I'm just not interested in (MS accounts, OneDrive subs, etc). The only reason I have WIn10 installed as my gaming OS (primary OS for me since migrating from Win7 is Linux) is because I assume DX12 is going to be relevant for my gaming needs some day. For me, if the user doesn't have an SSD, Win10 is another Vista in performance terms.

 

[OlyAR15]

I've used every version of Windows except ME. The only exposure to Vista I had was on my mother's old laptop, and it seemed fine. I really don't get all this grousing about Windows versions. Sure, every version has things I like and things I don't, but overall they've improved. I'm now running W11 and it, too, is fine.

 

[Pohemi]

I basically started with 98SE and stuck with it until XP. Stayed on XP until 7 (SP1). Used 7 until 10 had been out at least a year. Not even looked at 11 yet, don't care.

Never used 2K, ME, Vista, 8/8.1 on any of my own machines, and my only familiarity with any of them was troubleshooting other people's systems with the help of Google.

 

[lxskllr]

Any response is kinda conditional. All windows were fine(ish) in the context of proprietary software, and weighted against the time period they were released. You have spying games, activation games, drm games... The only one that shouldn't have existed was ME, cause it was released when they already had the vastly superior NT tech. I liked 2kpro-vista which is when my hands on experience ended. Later versions seemed ok, but I wasn't using them on a daily basis. Only when I had to look at someone else's machine. Haven't seen 11 yet.

 

[winr]

Have 7 or 8 PCs with XP or 7 and 1 with 10 ..... never a problem with them...... 1 386, not sure whats on it and 1 486 with Pentium overdrive with win 3.1 .... Ahhh , still have a few with 98 Pro and Raspo for internet ...

 

[Insert_Nickname]

To elaborate from the other thread, 2kSP4 is my favourite Windows version. I never once had an issue with it, and gaming performance was even superior to XP as a bonus. It even supported DX9c late in it's life. I was really sad when hardware makers stopped driver support for 2k.

ME. The less said the better. Best to just forget about that one. Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/323/

XP RTM was not good. Mostly due to lack of drivers, and various stability issues due to that. VIA/SiS drivers, anyone? XP became decent with SP2 and very good with SP3. But in my opinion never trumped 2k.

Vista? RTM was a nightmare. Both because again lack of drivers for various consumer hardware, and the whole "Vista capable" debacle. Those Intel GMA using PCs with too little RAM should never have been sold as capable. Then there was diskthrashing all round, because some bright spark at MS thought it was a great idea to preload everything at startup. From a harddrive . It was stable however, and the first x64 capable consumer* OS. Of course using the x64 version back then brought even more lack of drivers. With the x86 version you at least had the option to use an XP driver. They mostly worked.

SP2 mostly alleviated the various Vista issues, except the Desktop Compositor. But the way it was designed it was kind of hard to do anything about. So that was only fixed in 7. With SP2 Vista was mostly indistinguishable from 7. Which is not a bad thing.

7 was more like Vista SP3 then a whole new OS. Baring various update issues it was pretty good all-round. Hardware had mostly caught up by then.

8 was pretty good as a tablet OS. Had a HP Stream7 and actually liked it as such. Was a complete disaster as a desktop OS.

8.1 fixed the worst UI parts of 8. Technically it was very good. Just sucked UI wise. So overall pretty meh.

10 actually made 8(.1) usable, but the earlier versions were somewhat disjointed, various bits and pieces all over the place. It's mostly good as of 18H2. Rest is mostly polish.

11. 10 with dumbed down UI. Some of us do actual work, so we don't need a UI giving less options to hand. I'm looking at the new file explorer in particular. Hey MS if I want to use a mac, I use a mac. You don't have to copy Apple wholesale. Then the whole hardware requirement debacle. We'll see how that one turns out.

*There was XPx64 of course, but it wasn't widely available.

 

[mikeymikec]

XP RTM was not good. Mostly due to lack of drivers, and various stability issues due to that. VIA/SiS drivers, anyone? XP became decent with SP2 and very good with SP3. But in my opinion never trumped 2k.

Vista? RTM was a nightmare. Both because again lack of drivers for various consumer hardware, and the whole "Vista capable" debacle. Those Intel GMA using PCs with too little RAM should never have been sold as capable. Then there was diskthrashing all round, because some bright spark at MS thought it was a great idea to preload everything at startup. From a harddrive . It was stable however, and the first x64 capable consumer* OS. Of course using the x64 version back then brought even more lack of drivers. With the x86 version you at least had the option to use an XP driver. They mostly worked.

I started my computer fixing business in 2003 so I didn't really get to see much of XP RTM (except in a "that needs updating" sense). In my experience VIA/SiS drivers have always been rubbish Is what you're saying though just a case of unfortunate timing (re third parties) and not so much about XP though?

I think Vista's failure was much like Windows 8's, being MS's failure to read the market. Vista runs well with (relative to its era) high-end hardware and provided that one uses sleep mode almost exclusively. It had the most driver problems IIRC by a country mile and I don't remember how that was bungled so badly (I remember nvidia driver resets being an ordinary occurrence for a time). My wife liked Vista (with ideal hardware of course), I had a spare licence for it too and she ended up using it on her Sandy Bridge desktop until EOS in 2017.

IMO Windows 2000's advantage was much like Win7's, it was the 'fixed' version with a few extras, and NT4 had a lonnnng evolution with 6 service packs

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I started my computer fixing business in 2003 so I didn't really get to see much of XP RTM (except in a "that needs updating" sense). In my experience VIA/SiS drivers have always been rubbish Is what you're saying though just a case of unfortunate timing (re third parties) and not so much about XP though?

Yes, that about sums it up.

XP also introduced a new driver model which meant many consumer devices had to have new drivers written since you can't use Win9x VxD drivers under NT. A lot were barely tested minimum time rush jobs, with predictable results. At least they didn't take the whole machine down with them when crashing. Most of the time anyway. So there was improvement there. With 9x, one teeny tiny badly behaving driver and the whole system goes down. Somewhat similar to BSD where a single buggy driver can crash the system. So no Amish allowed near.

I think Vista's failure was much like Windows 8's, being MS's failure to read the market. Vista runs well with (relative to its era) high-end hardware and provided that one uses sleep mode almost exclusively. It had the most driver problems IIRC by a country mile and I don't remember how that was bungled so badly (I remember nvidia driver resets being an ordinary occurrence for a time). My wife liked Vista (with ideal hardware of course), I had a spare licence for it too and she ended up using it on her Sandy Bridge desktop until EOS in 2017.

I do have a soft spot for Vistas UI. With a bit of tweaking, it's the best MS has ever put out in my opinion.

NV platform drivers were horrible. Early WDDM drivers likewise. Both ATi, NV and Intel*. But that's hardly Vistas fault. Apart from introducing WDDM/DWM in the first place.

*Intel should have stuck with old fashion GDI+ rendering for the Gen3 GMA IGPs. They were not well suited for WDM at all.

IMO Windows 2000's advantage was much like Win7's, it was the 'fixed' version with a few extras, and NT4 had a lonnnng evolution with 6 service packs

2000 had its fair share of issues pre-SP4. But with that became rock solid. Never had a single issue with it, and that's saying something.

 

[|JosephB17331|]

8 should really be separate from 8.1

 

[balloonshark]

I've only owned 98SE, XP, 8 and 10. XP is my favorite because it was easy to tweak and make leaner. It also stayed out of the way of my security programs.

I didn't have a problem with 8 after I installed Classic Shell. You could also avoid the spying if you avoided certain updates.

Had I owned 7 I'm sure it would have been a favorite.

 

[Muse]

Wow, my votes perfectly coincide with the poll. In fact the ones I picked are precisely the ones I ran. I never even installed the unpopular ones, did install and run all the popular ones. Am running W10 right now, 64 bit on two machines, 32 bit on one because I need its legacy support for a couple apps I use from time to time. I'm still running XP on a couple machines.

Had I owned 7 I'm sure it would have been a favorite.

I did the free W10 upgrade on one of my W7 machines because it fixed a horrible issue, got the tip from a guy who had the same machine and issue. I don't run 7 anymore.

 

[Oyeve]

Windows for workgroups 3.1