I loved 2000 for the gigantic leap forward it made over NT 4.0 (and 98). It is my favorite edition just because it made the most beneficial changes over the previous versions and it was the beginning of the convergence of editions. When XP was released a year later, it just was the polish of the diamond which was 2000, adding in the necessary components to make it consumer-friendly.
Currently 7 is my fave as it has been the most trouble-free version that I have used. It uses resources more efficiently and effectively than ether XP or Vista, boots quickly, and gives me quick access to thing like Resource Monitor or Event Viewer, instead of trying to hide them away.
XP was the best for its time, but I’d still prefer 7 just because of a few little improvements. I can’t really tell how it runs because I bought it when I did a massive desktop upgrade. Being able to move items in the tray, pin things, type and search in the start menu, that sort of thing. Even numbered windows, as well all know, completely blow. I’m starting to think they’re doing that on purpose. I’ve not had any issues with 7, really. It’s suspicious. It’s almost too stable.
I loyally stuck to XP at home but we went 7 at work so, when my motherboard (gee I unaccountably love that word) died, I went 7 at home and I like it very much.
7 seems decent; before that, XP was the workhorse. I don’t know how common 8.x is in the workplace these days, given that a) I’m at school, and b) I still use a Mac.
XP by far. If I could only get an XP. Now I have Win 7 and have painfully learned its quirks. My wife refuses to allow me to replace her old computer (now in its 15th year) unless I can find one with XP (or, at least, Win 7). What is it about MS? Do they simply hate us old farts? My wife and I simply cannot start over with a new system.
Win 2000 was a very solid and dependable update of NT 4. For a Server workstation setup in a office Win 2000 is the best I ever used. We kept those pc’s running 24/7 for months without a reboot.
Win 7 is very good for home use. It took awhile but I like it better than XP.
My favourite-ever OS tends to be whichever one I’m most acclimatised to at the time. I liked DOS, but liked Windows 3.1 better when it came along. Then I liked Windows 98 (not 95 so much), then I liked Windows XP, then 7, and now 8. I’d say I like Windows 7 and 8 both on about an equal footing at the moment (and probably because I use 7 at work, 8 at home).
Slightly off-topic: When I was dual-booting Windows XP and Ubuntu, I probably liked them about equally.
I guess I can’t choose an all-time favourite because, although older versions are beloved and familiar, newer ones tend to add new and useful features.
Windows ME was that, but Windows 98 (in my experience) was like a properly-made version of what Windows 95 was trying to deliver.
For example, copying files in Windows 95 - you select a block of files/folders and drag them to where you want them and the flying-document progress dialog appears.
While that’s happening, if you try to move/copy another chunk of files, you just can’t. Neither can you close the Explorer window that spawned the copy dialog.
I have three main computers I use at home (not counting laptops). One runs XP and was intended mostly for games. Another runs Windows 7. The XP and Windows 7 computers are almost identical in capacity and performance. I set up the Windows 7 computer just to get more familiar with Windows 7, with the expectation that I might switch all of my applications to it at some point. The third computer runs linux.
Overall I like the appearance of the Windows 7 box the best. I have copies of all of my games on it, and they mostly work ok (a couple of minor issues). But I hate the overall nagginess of it. When I want to move files around and copy folders and do stuff like that, I can do it faster and more easily on XP. I don’t have to answer 20 questions on do I want to replace the file or keep both copies or all of this nonsense that Windows 7 likes to throw at you. I don’t want to go clickety clickety click click click. I just want to go click click done. XP is much better for that.
I also very much prefer the design layout of Word 2000 compared to Word 2010. It is much simpler and only has what I need in front of me. Later versions of Office seem to have the idea of “oh, you’ve got a wide screen monitor, LET’S COMPLETELY FILL IT UP WITH USELESS CRAP FOR YOU.” On my XP machine, I can open up several things at once and have them all over the screen, which is much more productive. On the Windows 7 machine the programs don’t work so well if I try to crunch the windows down to a size where I can do that. They just assume that you want 40 bizillion buttons staring you in the face all the time. At work I used to keep my e-mail open up in one corner of the screen. If a message came in I could just glance over and see what it said. Now that’s no longer practical. Our “new and improved” e-mail just takes up too much real estate on the screen. So I keep it minimized so that it’s not in my way all the time, and when an e-mail comes in, I have to maximize it, glance at it, and then minimize it again, which is much more of an interruption to my productivity since it changes my focus for much longer.
So while I think Windows 7 is much more appealing to the eye, I prefer the way XP works better. My Windows 7 box, which was intended to probably replace the XP box at some point, doesn’t get much use.
I do almost all of my internet stuff on the linux box. Asking me which Microsoft OS I prefer for the internet just makes me cringe. It’s kinda like asking which strain of influenza do you prefer to catch. Um, I’d prefer none of the above, thanks.
