What Windows is overall the best to you and why?

[hat]

With you on this one. XP was very solid

Yeah, even the notorious XP Pro x64 ran just fine on all my machines. Not sure why it got the hate it did. I think XP was the last OS that worked properly. I recall Vista and even 7 having issues with applying the settings of the currently open folder (icon size, sort by type, etc) across all folders. I'd try that then open up a folder with some TV series saved in it, and then WIndows would just decide to treat it as a media folder with different rules.

Such is the gripe of the latest few editions of Windows... which is, Windows just "deciding to do things" often directly contrary to what the user set up!

 

[Bill_Bright]

Disagreeing with someone over the removal of OS features and the difficulty to add those features back via third party applications doesn't constitute trolling.

All alone, I agree. But this was not a one-off event.

But go back to the beginning of this thread, carefully note the topic as depicted by the title of the thread which asks, "What Windows is overall the best to you and why?" Then note how he argues and refuses to accept the opinion of any one who indicates they like Windows 11.

If one is sincere when asking for another's opinion about something, then they would respect that opinion, even if different from their own. Clearly, the OP does not.

In post #5, he told Onasi how Onasi should think.​

​

In post #12, after Onasi explained his position in #7, the OP said, "No". And then indicated Onasi had the idea wrong.​

​

In post #14, Solaris pointed out the thread was supposed to be about which is our favorites. That fell on deaf ears.​

​

In post #15, the OP accused Onasi of ignoring the success factors of each version. What does that have to do with which version Onasi preferred?​

​

In post #35, he called W11, after others expressed it was their favorite, an "absolute failure...".​

​

In post #44, he questioned FoulOnWhite for paying $5 for something that lacks "Aero" - yet FoulOnWhite never said anything about Aero.​

​

In post #54, after Am* said he liked Windows 2000 Pro, the OP countered by saying BSODs had "very regular appearances"​

​

In post #57, he falsely claimed that W11 was one of the "least secure windows releases ever", "open with back doors" and added more totally incorrect claims after more posters commented they prefer W11. He even went so far as the change the words (and thus meaning) when quoting another - in this case, me.​

​

In post #190, after chrcoluk said he liked the innovations in W11, its security model, and feature set, the OP argued "It is a regression on all levels, missing features (the time seconds in the bottom right corner, many apps, etc.), worsened ergonomics."​

​

Then he went on in several rants about missing seconds and the calendar going away and other gripes - HIS OPINIONS (some based on falsehoods) that had absolutely nothing to do with the opinions of others that he asked for.​

​

Yes, he's entitled to his opinion, as long as they are based on the true facts. That does mean he's entitled to claim others' personal preferences are wrong - and especially not when their opinions are based in fact.​

​

In post #201, he argued with chrcoluk over what constitutes an "innovation".​

​

In post #207, he argued with Lex after Lex pointed out there are a number of alternative solutions to the MS calendar. I note many of which are free, but the OP complained about spending more money.​

Then of course, his signature makes it clear with "slava the trolls" which means "Glory to the trolls".

He doesn't want other's opinions, unless they align with his.

I will say this, "my bad" for falling for the click-bait. So I'm truly outta here.

 

[A Computer Guy]

All alone, I agree. But this was not a one-off event.

But go back to the beginning of this thread, carefully note the topic as depicted by the title of the thread which asks, "What Windows is overall the best to you and why?" Then note how he argues and refuses to accept the opinion of any one who indicates they like Windows 11.

If one is sincere when asking for another's opinion about something, then they would respect that opinion, even if different from their own. Clearly, the OP does not.

In post #5, he told Onasi how Onasi should think.​

​

In post #12, after Onasi explained his position in #7, the OP said, "No". And then indicated Onasi had the idea wrong.​

​

In post #14, Solaris pointed out the thread was supposed to be about which is our favorites. That fell on deaf ears.​

​

In post #15, the OP accused Onasi of ignoring the success factors of each version. What does that have to do with which version Onasi preferred?​

​

In post #35, he called W11, after others expressed it was their favorite, an "absolute failure...".​

​

In post #44, he questioned FoulOnWhite for paying $5 for something that lacks "Aero" - yet FoulOnWhite never said anything about Aero.​

​

In post #54, after Am* said he liked Windows 2000 Pro, the OP countered by saying BSODs had "very regular appearances"​

​

In post #57, he falsely claimed that W11 was one of the "least secure windows releases ever", "open with back doors" and added more totally incorrect claims after more posters commented they prefer W11. He even went so far as the change the words (and thus meaning) when quoting another - in this case, me.​

​

In post #190, after chrcoluk said he liked the innovations in W11, its security model, and feature set, the OP argued "It is a regression on all levels, missing features (the time seconds in the bottom right corner, many apps, etc.), worsened ergonomics."​

​

Then he went on in several rants about missing seconds and the calendar going away and other gripes - HIS OPINIONS (some based on falsehoods) that had absolutely nothing to do with the opinions of others that he asked for.​

​

Yes, he's entitled to his opinion, as long as they are based on the true facts. That does mean he's entitled to claim others' personal preferences are wrong - and especially not when their opinions are based in fact.​

​

In post #201, he argued with chrcoluk over what constitutes an "innovation".​

​

In post #207, he argued with Lex after Lex pointed out there are a number of alternative solutions to the MS calendar. I note many of which are free, but the OP complained about spending more money.​

Then of course, his signature makes it clear with "slava the trolls" which means "Glory to the trolls".

He doesn't want other's opinions, unless they align with his.

I will say this, "my bad" for falling for the click-bait. So I'm truly outta here.

You forgot to hyperlink all the "incidents".

 

[ARF]

I had moved on to another OS after my first experience with windows.
It was Windows XP on a Pentium 4 computer. Anytime I tried to change the look of the system (via 3th party tools) I noticed that every few days I had a complete system crash. I think windows XP just wasn't stable on the hardware because we had a second PC with the same hardware that I hadn't changed anything on and it also crashed very frequently.
Despite having already said goodbye to windows for good after windows XP, I do have an idea of its successors since people around me use it.

Windows Vista: this was far too heavy for the hardware that was popular at the time. Like windows XP, it was also not completely stable on much of the hardware at the time.
Windows 7: I found this to be the only windows that felt professional. It was reasonably light for the hardware at the time. It was also reasonably stable and had few flaws. And I still use it now in VirtualBox, it (fully) boots in 7 seconds (login included) on FreeBSD via VirtualBox. It kind of feels then that Window 7 starts up as fast on FreeBSD as e.g. opening Photoshop on windows, which is impressive.
Windows 8: The worst UI, worse than all the UIs I have used on Linux. Many loyal windows fans dumped it as soon as possible for windows 7 or windows 10.
Windows 10: Feels a bit like they mixed the start menu of Windows 8 with the classic start menu of Windows 7/XP. I personally found this an ugly windows and didn't think it worked very well either. The UI of Windows 7 worked smoother.
Windows 11: A windows that uses a lot of RAM. I find the UI pretty OK for windows but a bit ugly and I also notice that Linux UIs perform many daily operations with fewer intermediate stops. Windows11's UI is less efficient than LXQt, KDE Plasma, Cinnamon, etc.

Thanks for this input.
I agree that windows eleven's UI is ugly, and needs to be fixed. Along everything else in it, honestly.

I used Linux for a very long time. Ubuntu 10.10 I really liked and was one of the first Linux systems I used.
The emerald themes that were available then are still not (visually) matched by other UIs I have used since then.
At one point, I had switched to FreeBSD, which I found to be similar or better than Linux in many areas. Something that bothered me was the default security. Eg Intel microcode from the CPU was not used automatically, I had to install and activate it manually.
Now I use OpenBSD which places more importance on the out-of-the-box security aspect.

What is often said about Zen 5 is that it is more stable than Intel gen 13&14. But it must be said that in experienced hands, FreeBSD and OpenBSD are more stable than Debian stable and 'any' windows. By which I mean that the Intel 12700KF on OpenBSD is more stable and reliable than Zen 5 + windows 10/11.
The ranking on stability of operating systems based on my extensive experiences.
1. FreeBSD (bspwm and Polybar)
2. OpenBSD -current (bspwm and Polybar)
3. Debian stable, GNU Guix
4. Windows and macOS (many open-source apps are very buggy on macOS)

I'm a big fan of bspwm (window manager) which feels a bit like a genius determined what the all-important features are that I will need. I think I only use the default configuration file with a few minor tweaks.
But as I use it, it makes multiple screen setups fairly redundant (or no great value).

The keybinding to switch workspaces works smoothly and very fast. It is a manual tiler so I can easily scale the ratio of windows to the size I want. I can also easily switch to floating or fullscreen modes.

What I also find very useful is that I can determine in advance whether a window will be scaled horizontally or vertically via Ctrl+Mod+h/j/k/l

I also find Ctrl+G incredibly powerful and I don't know if there is an equivalent in Windows and macOS. It swaps your current 'small tiled window' to the largest window that is open in another workspace.

There are also shortcuts to swap tiled windows directly and many other useful keybindings.

Furthermore, I have tweaked Polybar so that I can close/minimize/maximize any window with one mouse click. I have a configuration that I can no longer improve in terms of productivity and that I could reuse forever on any Unix-like system that supports bspwm. (=almost all Unix-like systems)

 

[ShiBDiB]

Might be rose tinted glasses, but XP was the last windows for me that didn't feel bloated.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Might be rose tinted glasses, but XP was the last windows for me that didn't feel bloated.

It was also the last OS for me that didn't require any additional drivers for a vanilla Tyan Dual Coppermine III 1.0GHz workstation motherboard. Amazing times before dual/multi core CPU's became common.

 

[R-T-B]

I fixed it there for you. Windows 11 is one of the least secure windows releases ever, because it is open with back doors and can be a flood gate for all types of security issues - spying, collecting illegally user information, using the user camera in real time to watch (for example, women), etc, etc nasty things / remote control by the black agents.
That's why people started to put black papers on the camera sensors, because they know they are being watched and spied..

Man if only you could cite a single thing there, that'd be incredible.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Not sure why it got the hate it did.

There were some compatibility issues with some programs and games on XP 64bit. It was a deal-breaker for some people, including me. For example, at the time, there were many retro console emulators that just wouldn't run.

I fixed it there for you.

You fixed nothing because you missed the context of the discussion AND the point Bill was trying to make.

I agree that windows eleven's UI is ugly, and needs to be fixed. Along everything else in it, honestly.

And what, you liked Windows 8/8.1 and 10? That would make sense. It would also explain a few things.

 

[funtaril]

Strange question - every WIndows is a product of its time, even if I preferred some old version, I won't go back to it today.
XP was great for me, 7 too, as was the 10. Win11 has terrible task panel and start menu so I'm not planning to use it.
Since good and bad Windows versions seem to take turns, I'll wait for 12.

 

[Bill_Bright]

There were some compatibility issues with some programs and games on XP 64bit. It was a deal-breaker for some people, including me.

I agree.

However, as I saw it, the bigger problem with 64-bit XP, a problem that lasted well into W7's term as the predominant version of Windows, was developers had little incentive to develop both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of their software. This is because (1) the 64-bit versions typically offered marginal, if any, performance gains and more significantly (2) the 32-bit applications ran just fine, if not great on 64-bit platforms (64-bit HW and OSes). Developers saw no profit in developing and maintaining 2 versions of the same program - even though 64-bit capable hardware had already been around for years.

It was not until 64-bit Windows 7 took market share from 32-bit W7 (and older versions of Windows) did more and more developers start developing, in earnest, 64-bit versions of their software. And yet, still to this day, many programs only come in 32-bit versions. And that makes sense if there is no performance advantage to a 64-bit version.

You fixed nothing because you missed the context of the discussion AND the point Bill was trying to make.

Not to mention, altering another person's comment into something they did NOT say, using BBCode to put that altered comment into a quote format to make it appear to be from that other person, all because the original comment expresses an opinion or fact he doesn't agree with or like, is puerile, dishonest and a trollish act of deceit.

 

[Jarmer]

For me the last actually usable Windows OS was 7 simply because it was the last one that didn't force updates. That's an absolute 100% deal breaker for me so that's what finally drove me to linux full time. Probably the best thing that ever happened!

 

[A Computer Guy]

It was not until 64-bit Windows 7 took market share from 32-bit W7 (and older versions of Windows) did more and more developers start developing, in earnest, 64-bit versions of their software. And yet, still to this day, many programs only come in 32-bit versions. And that makes sense if there is no performance advantage to a 64-bit version.

Sometimes (maintained) programs continue to remain in the 32-bit space not because of performance reasons just because of the expense of the conversion. Someone has to do the work and testing and if that labor expense can't get offset by some benefit (real or imaginary) the change can't be justified so the project to make the change dies.

If your lucky sales might come back to management and push the issue because the competition uses the 32bit vs. 64bit argument to competitively to take away sales...even if it has no real impact to the end-user.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Sometimes (maintained) programs continue to remain in the 32-bit space not because of performance reasons just because of the expense of the conversion.

Umm as noted above when I said there is "no incentive" - "no profit in developing and maintaining 2 versions of the same program."

Since there are still millions of 32-bit Windows systems out there, and again, because many programs run just fine as 32-bit applications on both 32-bit and 64-bit platforms, there will continue to be lots of 32-bit only applications.

That will likely change over time as those 32-bit HW platforms age and get retired, then replaced with 64-bit platforms - especially now that Windows 11 is 64-bit only (though still supports 32-bit - for now).

 

[A Computer Guy]

Umm as noted above when I said there is "no incentive" - "no profit in developing and maintaining 2 versions of the same program."

Sorry, I may have been splitting hairs on conversion vs. dual maintenance. It's a slow afternoon where I am at the moment.

 

[Totally]

Windows 10, first version I've upgraded from and and felt as if the newer version was a significant step backwards.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Sorry, I may have been splitting hairs on conversion vs. dual maintenance. It's a slow afternoon where I am at the moment.

We're good! I think the hair splitting is between development and conversion, and not so much maintenance.

I used to be 1 of 10 hardware techs supporting 400 developers in a large software development company. One of my many "other hats" was as an alpha and beta tester.

For sure, when developing a new piece of software, the development would NOT be one path for both versions, nor would it be two separate "simultaneous" paths, one for 32-bit, the other 64-bit. Instead, depending on the program, the main concentration would be one or the other, then conversion. For example, they would fully develop, test, develop some more, test again the 32-bit version until it was ready for release to the client. Then the 32-bit version would be converted (migrated) into a 64-bit version and that would go through a similar test and develop process until ready for release.

But after conversion/migration was complete, maintenance was a dual maintenance process - not totally separate, but definitely had separate parts.

My point is, it was not a "1-click and done" process to migrate a 32-bit program into a 64-bit version. We had 2 development teams, working more or less in parallel most the development (and maintenance) paths. And when alpha and beta testing, that was done separately too. Yes, there was a lot of overlap of the same people working both sides, but this still meant a lot of time and manpower resources were expended for each version - even though each version did exactly the same thing.

I am sure the process is much more automated today than it was back then. But I am also sure the conversion still is not a "1-click and done" process - at least not for the testing stages.

 

[Rakhmaninov3]

Windows 7 ftw!!!

I just bought a Samsung Galaxy book4 with Windows 11.

It made me miss the days where setting up a new computer was fun. In those days you’d have to uninstall a few pieces of bloatware, but Win11 has gone pro with it.

Until I thankfully found a good guide with how to turn off most of the ads (on Windows Central), using it reminded me of an ad-laden website that I’d never revisit.

I kept getting intrusive popups and stops, and even File Explorer constantly asked me to increase my OneDrive space subscription. It kept trying to get me to subscribe to Office 365. The taskbar and start menu were filled with apps I didn’t want. Worst of all, it kept harassing me to “personalize” my “experience” by letting it log what apps I opened and what websites I visited.

I felt constantly pummeled by Windows trying to get me to buy other things.

Without getting into any security discussion (it may indeed fully protect my real identity, I don’t know), being barraged with all this stuff, constantly, no matter what part of the computer I was using, was really intrusive. It was not pleasant to use.

If I hadn’t been able to turn it off with a long list of toggle switches spread in various places around the OS, I would have actually returned the computer.

Now that it’s all off, Windows 11 is pretty solid, and the book4 is very nice. The computer really is very fast and the screen is beautiful and the touchscreen works well. The other physical aspects are a couple of notches below my Macbook Pro 14”; you have to apply substantially more pressure to mechanically actuate the loud touchpad, the keyboard is comparatively mushy, it’s made of scratchy plastic instead of metal, and the sound really sucks, but it’s great for my work purposes (why I bought it. I could have used my Macbook but IT doesn’t support it if anything goes wrong). That being said, the above things are actually a lot better than most PC laptops I played around with at MicroCenter, and easily good enough to use regularly. The price has recently been reduced from $1749 to $1399 (US) so I feel it was a great deal. I bought this 2022 Macbook Pro right before the M2s came out so I got it for $1599 instead of the $1999 it cost when it was the latest thing, so the prices at either point in the life cycle were about $250 apart.

I would have gladly paid $250 more to have opened up a clean Windows install without all the promotional garbage in the way; that’s one of the things I love about the Apple products I’ve purchased. That being said, from what I’ve noticed around the forums, seems Win11 is by default full of ad material regardless of the machine on which it arrives, so who knows how much all that bunk actually reduces the final cost of the machine.

Happy to answer any further questions about the book4 if anyone has them!

EDIT: Apparently the book4 is made of metal, but it does feel somewhat scratchy compared to the Mac. No flex and doesn’t feel cheap at all but I do like the smoother texture of the mac.

 

[hat]

There were some compatibility issues with some programs and games on XP 64bit. It was a deal-breaker for some people, including me. For example, at the time, there were many retro console emulators that just wouldn't run.

I never ran into that issue... and I did plenty of ps1, snes, even 3DO emulation at the time. /shrug

 

[lexluthermiester]

This is because (1) the 64-bit versions typically offered marginal, if any, performance gains and more significantly (2) the 32-bit applications ran just fine

The main benefit was addressing above 4GB. If a program needed it, the solution was 64bit. Most don't so adoption was slow. XP64bit hit way before it was needed in the consumer space.

I never ran into that issue... and I did plenty of ps1, snes, even 3DO emulation at the time. /shrug

Fair enough. I guess it likely depended in which emu's you were using. But there were also some programs and PC games that either wouldn't run or where less than stable. At the time, XP 32bit was everything that I needed. 64bit just wasn't worth the hassle and effort needed to adopt it.

 

[Bill_Bright]

The main benefit was addressing above 4GB.

I agree - absolutely that benefit was the main reason the world eventually and finally migrated to 64-bit.

But please note I was talking about "XP" 64-bit - which still ran fine in 4GB, along with our programs. Plus, back then, even budget graphics cards were a step up from integrated graphics at the time, and of course, came with dedicated, on-card VRAM which freed up any stolen system RAM giving 32-bit users their full 4GB back.

IIRC, only "XP Professional" came in a 64-bit version which came with a price premium, limiting that user base to the more... erm ...advanced? Enthusiastic? Not sure the most applicable word, but my point is, they were not the mainstream (Read: loudest, most demanding) market - yet.

I also note DDR2 didn't even come out until 2003 (XP was released in 2001). 1GB DDR sticks were not cheap and most motherboards only had 4 slots, if that.

And while CPUs were 64-bit capable, chipset support for 64-bit and bigger RAM sticks still lagged behind.

It really was not until 64-bit Windows 7 came about, outselling the 32-bit version by a wide margin, when users started demanding a whopping ("More than you will ever need!!" ) 8GB of RAM in our systems. And of course, Crucial, Kingston, Micron, Samsung, Corsair, etc. were more than happy to sell us more and bigger sticks too.

 

[R-T-B]

I also note DDR2 didn't even come out until 2003 (XP was released in 2001). 1GB DDR sticks were not cheap and most motherboards only had 4 slots, if that.

Yes, but Windows XP Professional x64 Edition came out in 2005 Bill.

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Bill_Bright]

Yes, but Windows XP Professional x64 Edition came out in 2005 Bill.

I failed to heed my own advice and verify my facts first. Sorry. I assumed it came out the same time as 32-bit XP.

I need to assume assuming will always get me into trouble.

That said, it does not really change the facts about the lack of widespread 64-bit software support until W7 came out, nor computers coming with more than 4GB of RAM.

And to add more confusion to the mix, in just checking now to avoid further embarrassment, I had forgotten about Window XP 64-Bit Edition, not to be confused with Windows XP Professional x64. Windows XP 64-Bit Edition was released in March of 2003.

 

[freeagent]

I found XP-64 didnt crash as much

I like it.. but I also liked Vista so.. there is that.

I am back to 11, 24H2 this time..

 

[Wirko]

I agree.

However, as I saw it, the bigger problem with 64-bit XP, a problem that lasted well into W7's term as the predominant version of Windows, was developers had little incentive to develop both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of their software. This is because (1) the 64-bit versions typically offered marginal, if any, performance gains and more significantly (2) the 32-bit applications ran just fine, if not great on 64-bit platforms (64-bit HW and OSes). Developers saw no profit in developing and maintaining 2 versions of the same program - even though 64-bit capable hardware had already been around for years.

It was not until 64-bit Windows 7 took market share from 32-bit W7 (and older versions of Windows) did more and more developers start developing, in earnest, 64-bit versions of their software. And yet, still to this day, many programs only come in 32-bit versions. And that makes sense if there is no performance advantage to a 64-bit version.

Here's another point of reference, easiest to check because it's TPU: the first processor review that used 64-bit Windows (7) was published in January 2010. The benchmark suite consisted mostly of 32-bit applications and games and was accompanied by nothing more than a simple remark: "Since we will be using Windows 7 64-bit from now on as base for processor benchmarks, some of them are used in 64-bit versions as well." I was actually hoping to see some comparisons between 32-bit and 64-bit versions of same software.

Intel Core i5 661 3.33 GHz Review

Intel's new Core i5 661 processor combines graphics controller, memory controller, PCI-Express interface and a Dual Core all inside one compact processor package. Utilizing Intel's latest 32 nm process there is quite some added potential for power saving and overclocking, but is the integrated...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[jarablue]

I am on Win11 Pro w/ the latest windows update. Everything works totally fine. 0 issues and gaming is a treat!