Best Windows Ever?

[FireXtol]

[Blakk_Majik]

I can imagine the puns (images) that will be used in this thread, but I will answer the question seriously.

I'd have to say XP.

I'm starting to warm up to 7 (Vista 2.0) though.

Edit: Ok, somebody voted 2000? Really?

[kfcSmitty]

I still like XP, but I have to say I really like Windows 7. Everything seems to be accessible directly from where I think it should be, whereas in XP I sometimes had to go elsewhere to get something I wanted.

[FireXtol]

I'm starting to warm up to 7 (Vista 2.0) though.
Edit: Ok, somebody voted 2000? Really?

2000 is NT5, while XP is NT 5.1(perhaps, as you might say, 2k's 2.0?).

[NeedSomeAnswers]

The downstairs bay windows in my house are really quite attractive :0)

[Blakk_Majik]

2000 is NT5, while XP is NT 5.1(perhaps, as you might say, 2k's 2.0?).

My mistake.

I think I was mixing up 2000 with ME (which I HATED). I never actually used 2000, but ME's release right after it had me thinking it was a successor to 2000, which it clearly was not (NT vs. 9.x).

[abhijit]

I refuse to vote as there is no option that says 3.1.

[mendhak]

Dude, where's 2008 R2?

[Hack]

I think the best ever windows is Wallside Windows

[FireXtol]

I refuse to vote as there is no option that says 3.1.

Dude, where's 2008 R2?

There's a limit to ten responses.

[kleinma]

As long as the hardware is capable, Windows 7 is by far the easiest OS to work with to date. If the hardware is lacking, then it can feel sluggish compared with XP.

Anything older than XP was maybe ok for the time (except ME) but can't even be considered now.

[pcuser]

Bob.

[kleinma]

bob was an application, not an OS

[Max Peck]

XP was rock-solid - stuck with it for a long time.
Vista was OK ... I didn't have any problems with it.
Seven Rocks - it's the new XP.
I still use XP in virtual machines for any testing I need to do, though - it's still the "gold" standard.

-Max

[mendhak]

I remember when XP came out. It was the next best thing. And I remember loads of people hating the new eye candy and saying they wanted to 'upgrade' to Windows 2000 because it was how an OS should be. Anyone remember that? I was one of them. How embarrassing.

I eventually did move to XP and 2003 but I always keep the eye candy disabled.

Windows 7 is different though, the eye candy is there but not intrusive.

But as kleinma said, it's about the hardware. I'd be raging if the hardware it ran on was bad.

[kleinma]

Yeah, it really is all about the hardware.. that is why I feel so bad for Mac users who are forced to use older hardware that is claimed to be "new and top of the line".

Just to get an i7 iMac with an SSD will run you at least 3000 bucks... my machine would process circles around it and I spent about half that.

[FunkyDexter]

XP for me, though I took at least two years before I stopped setting the theme to windows classic.

I haven't tried Windows 7 yet. It's not due to worries about the stability etc, though. The reviews it's had are massively positive so I'm really not concerned about quality. I just can't justify spending the money when I already have an OS that's doing all I want. I'll probably get round to it soon though.

[kregg]

Man, I still have my Windows ME cd...

[Blakk_Majik]

Man, I still have my Windows ME cd...

Kill it with fire!

[dclamp]

Man, I still have my Windows ME cd...

can i borrow it to upgrade my windows 7 netbook?

[chris128]

I still like XP, but I have to say I really like Windows 7. Everything seems to be accessible directly from where I think it should be, whereas in XP I sometimes had to go elsewhere to get something I wanted.

Are you kidding me? The only real complaint I have about Windows 7 is that it hides things away and takes far too many clicks to get to things that were easily accessible and obvious in XP. I thought maybe it was just because I was used to XP but I've been using either Vista or Windows 7 for nearly 2 years and it still takes me longer than it should to find a specific setting or do something that would have taken a couple of seconds in XP.

Windows 95 all the way.

[FireXtol]

Windows 95 all the way.

If Windows 2000 didn't exist then I could only see myself voting 95. Even though, as I recall, it seemed to need a format/reinstall at least once a year to stay responsive. I can't even clearly remember the last time I installed 2000. It was nearly a decade ago.

Not even a single Vista vote so far? That's interesting. It's also surprising Microsoft's youngest OS is currently receiving the most votes.

VB devs like uhm young.

[kleinma]

Are you kidding me? The only real complaint I have about Windows 7 is that it hides things away and takes far too many clicks to get to things that were easily accessible and obvious in XP. I thought maybe it was just because I was used to XP but I've been using either Vista or Windows 7 for nearly 2 years and it still takes me longer than it should to find a specific setting or do something that would have taken a couple of seconds in XP.

Windows 95 all the way.

out of curiosity, what exactly takes you longer to get to? Perhaps you are just not using the fastest method to get to it.

If I wanted to get to the event viewer in XP, I had to go to start -> control panel -> administrative tools -> event viewer

Or yes I could go start -> run -> eventvwr.msc

In Vista/Win7, with the indexed start menu, I can hit the start button on the keyboard, start typing "event" and bam.. there it is.


I hate using an XP machine these days because I find it harder to get to things, especially when you can't remember the exact name of the file you need to execute. The indexed start menu is one of the best features post XP.

[chris128]

out of curiosity, what exactly takes you longer to get to?

Networking stuff - if I want to check the properties of one of my network cards on XP I could just click the network icon in the system tray and it brings up the properties for that network card. In 7 if I click on the network icon in the system tray the only option I have is to go to the crappy Network and Sharing Centre thing (which serves no purpose if you ask me) and then from there I have to click Manage Network Adapters (something like that) and then right click the network card from that window and go to the properties of it.
In XP if I right click on My Computer and go to Properties then it brings up the system properties and I have several tabs to choose from where I can check/change system settings. In 7 if I right click on My Computer and go to properties I get a screen that gives me some very basic information about the computer and I have to click the Advanced Settings button to get to those same tabs that I would have seen straight away in XP.
There are loads more examples like that where it just takes a few extra clicks (plus figuring out where the option is in the first place) compared to XP.

Now I appreciate that most of these things are for accessing 'advanced' settings that the average user would not care about but as I work in IT I often need to go to these settings. I'm not saying I think it makes it a bad OS for other people, I'm just saying that for me it is annoying.

The indexed start menu is one of the best features post XP.

I agree, I do really like the new start menu - its not perfect though. I click the start button and type "Reflector" and press enter and it brings up a search window saying it cant find reflector... but if I dont press enter and just look at the list the only item in there is Reflector, so I have to click it instead of just pressing enter. A minor annoyance I know but it just means that I cant rely on it 100% to just work by me typing the name of a program and hitting enter.

[kleinma]

I guess like you said you just need to know where things are.

For most users the features are tucked away in a nice place where they are out of the way because lets face it how often SHOULD you need to go into your network adapter properties to modify something?

However I do agree that there are times where it is needed to get into these places quickly

for network connections in Win7, I hit start -> type 'ncpa.cpl' and hit enter. I can do that faster than I can right click That might seem overly adminy to be launching a cpl from the start menu, but it accomplishes the same thing as the hoops you are jumping through, and like you said, often times you only need to go in there because of an admin type thing that needs to be done.

Same for the advanced computer properties. Start -> type 'sysdm.cpl' and hit enter.

Lets face it though, often times if you are doing any sort of admin type task, you might need to get into more than 1 of these applets to get your job done. So for the control panel as a whole, you can just hit start -> type 'control', hit enter, and the control panel comes up, with the cursor already in the search box, so from there you could type 'network' and get all the options for network stuff, including things like 'view network connections'

Call me crazy, but I just find that easier


As for the reflector issue, if you type it, and it is the only thing that shows up, if you hit up arrow once and enter, does that work??? I agree that could be a bug.. if there is only 1 solid result, it should highlight that.

[mendhak]

Windows + R
control
{enter}

Use the search box, top right, to find the various control panel applets.

[kleinma]

why bother with windows + r -> control -> enter when you can just do windows -> control -> enter

[mendhak]

Old habits. They die hard with a vengeance.

[chris128]

for network connections in Win7, I hit start -> type 'ncpa.cpl' and hit enter. I can do that faster than I can right click That might seem overly adminy to be launching a cpl from the start menu, but it accomplishes the same thing as the hoops you are jumping through, and like you said, often times you only need to go in there because of an admin type thing that needs to be done.

Same for the advanced computer properties. Start -> type 'sysdm.cpl' and hit enter.

Lets face it though, often times if you are doing any sort of admin type task, you might need to get into more than 1 of these applets to get your job done. So for the control panel as a whole, you can just hit start -> type 'control', hit enter, and the control panel comes up, with the cursor already in the search box, so from there you could type 'network' and get all the options for network stuff, including things like 'view network connections'

Call me crazy, but I just find that easier

Yeah I often run the cpl apps from the start menu (or the Run box on XP) I just dont know them all off by heart and the networking one is one I just have never remembered for some reason. I use appwiz.cpl (Add/Remove Programs) and Firewall.cpl (Windows Firewall) often at work, along with a lot of the built in MMC snap-in presets like compmgmt.msc (Computer Management) or Services.msc etc.
The thing with that approach though is that it is not really any better in Windows 7 - the only difference is that you can just press the Windows key rather than Windows Key + R but really it makes no difference to me having to press R.

As for the reflector issue, if you type it, and it is the only thing that shows up, if you hit up arrow once and enter, does that work??? I agree that could be a bug.. if there is only 1 solid result, it should highlight that.

Yeah if I press the up arrow once then it does highlight it and I can press enter to launch it but when you get into the habit of just typing the program name and hitting enter it is a bit annoying Even if I type the full name (Reflector.exe) and use same case as the item shown in the start menu list it still refuses to highlight it when it shows it in the list.

[kleinma]

my guess is that since reflector gets unzipped and not actually installed, that is why it gives you a different experience. Windows doesn't know its an "installed program" (because technically it is not), so it shows up under the files grouping, not the program grouping.

[chris128]

thats what I was thinking but I'm sure I have some other utilities that are just stand-alone executables that it works properly with. If I get bored some time tonight I'll test that theory out..

[demotivater]

I'm digging 7. I didn't expect to as I had XP mastered and running perfectly. I had 7 for quite a while, but was hesitant to upgrade any of my machines. I got a new machine with 7 preinstalled and loved it. Everything in the house (that's capable) is running 7 now. Networking seems so much easier as well. It's not my area of expertise, but I had loads of problems with the home network in XP, not a single one with 7.

[minitech]

I was about to switch to Windows 7 when I cleaned out my computer and it stopped crashing. So I'm sticking with XP because I don't want to buy something that's similar in functionality, but with an awful default taskbar (yes, I know you can change it back but nobody ever bought a Mac because you can make it look like Windows [which you can't]).

[chris128]

lol the taskbar is actually one of the good features I didnt like it at first but it really did not take long to get used to

[Shaggy Hiker]

Bob was an application? I never actually used it, but I always thought it was an OS.

[chris128]

I can imagine the puns (images) that will be used in this thread, but I will answer the question seriously.

[kleinma]

Bob was an application? I never actually used it, but I always thought it was an OS.

Supposedly MS tried to get their hands on every copy and destroy it as to remove the memory from the world of what is considered the worst thing MS ever produced (although IE6 and Windows ME hold a strong case against it).

I mean, would you like it if your windows desktop looked like this?


However, yes it was just an application to bring a new UI to windows. It ran on Win 3.11 and 95 before it was erradicated.

BOB does have a star (well maybe just a square) on the Microsoft "shipped products walk of fame" at the campus though...

[Siddharth Rout]

What a coincidence!

I got this in my email today

[JuggaloBrotha]

I would open that sid, if it were an rtf file

[Siddharth Rout]

@JuggaloBrotha: It doesn't allow rtf. Would .rar(.rtf) do?