Least stable version of Windows

hartlandcat · Post by **hartlandcat** » September 7th, 2003, 7:46 am

I haven't included pre-95 versions of Windows because they're too old to be a fair-ish comparison, nor have I bothered with NT4/2000 as they're generally accepted to be the most stable.

When I used Windows 98, so often one program would crash, the whole system would crash, the mouse would get stuck, then I'd get the blue screen of death and I'd have to reboot. This happened most often when I was trying to run large complex Java applets (normally the Homestead drag-and-drop WYSIWYG editor) in Internet Explorer 4.0. Individual programs still crash loads in Windows XP, although they mouse rarely gets "stuck".

old momokatte · Post by **old momokatte** » September 7th, 2003, 8:03 am

I don't know which to vote, so I won't. Win98 SE has served me well over the years, despite its tendency to be brought down by individual apps (usually multimedia players or plugins). Choosing not to install Active Desktop probably went a long way towards improving the stability of my system -- that and my "Explorer and Systray and Nothing Else" mentality.

Post by **amr** » September 7th, 2003, 8:51 am

I've never heard anyone say anything GOOD about WinME.

hartlandcat · Post by **hartlandcat** » September 7th, 2003, 8:53 am

Lol, my Grandfather's cousin said he thought it seemed quite good.

Post by **shadytrees** » September 7th, 2003, 8:55 am

Using Windows 98 SE for 4 years now going on 5. Hasn't shown the BSOD in three weeks.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » September 7th, 2003, 9:09 am

As someone who owns the full version of every Windows version ever made from 3.1 onwards, except for NT 4 and XP, I can safely say that Windows ME was the most abyssmal OS ever created by man. That piece of bleep wouldn't even get through an install without BSODing.

Now the best by far is Windows 2000... that has been Microsoft's pinnacle so far. I've been using it for over a year now and it's only ever BSODed on me once.

Jack

chrisgeleven · Post by **chrisgeleven** » September 7th, 2003, 9:28 am

Back in the day, Windows 95 and Windows 98 SE were actually very good OS's. Sure they had BSOD problems and weren't the best OS's for managing resources, but they let you get the job done very well at the time. Considering the alternatives, nothing could really compete with them.

Windows ME was horrible though, I don't think I have ever seen an OS with so many problems right out of the box. ME took the old 95-based OS design past the limits it had and we all saw what happened

By far the best Microsoft OS's have been 2000 and XP. To me, both have their positives and negatives, but they are so even that I would be happy using either of them.

Lost User 8002 · Post by **Lost User 8002** » September 7th, 2003, 11:08 am

ME...
One of my aunts has it and she likes it though...
Of course, she's always having problems with her computer...

GNU/Ben · Post by **GNU/Ben** » September 7th, 2003, 11:41 am

ME. By far. I would rather use 3.1 than ME any day.

Of course, Linux is better than any of em. So I would want to use it.

September 7th, 2003, 2:45 pm

Windows 95 is probably the least stable and Windows 2003 is the best so far.

Windows ME would have been good if it were kept mostly in the W/98 framework. The introduction of too many advanced things (e.g., System Restore) in a DOS/Windows shell made ME more problematic.

Micha the not so Old · September 7th, 2003, 6:31 pm

Using WinME I would reformat my HDD once every three months. Then I discovered 98Lite, and I only needed to refomat every four months.

Now I have XP, and it actually works, And while I hate to say it, it seems to work better than the Linux machine I use to do my studies on.

Hendikins · Post by **Hendikins** » September 7th, 2003, 7:47 pm

Whip Me, Beat Me, just don't Windows Me

daihard · Post by **daihard** » September 7th, 2003, 9:29 pm

For me, Windows 95 OSR-1 has been the least stable among the choices. I realize Win Me seems to be notorious for its instability, too, but I haven't used it at all and therefore can't comment on it.

Hooded One · Post by **Hooded One** » September 7th, 2003, 11:33 pm

I was working on my friend's WinME computer once, and it crashed at least five times in one night. It's really a horrible OS. I had a good laugh when he remarked recently that maybe the real reason the Blaster worm only affected NT-based Windows was that ME users suffered enough.

98 first edition was pretty crappy as well, which is exactly why 98SE even existed. If I had to go with one of the 4.x Windows, it'd be 98SE.

Post by **Nitin** » September 8th, 2003, 1:01 am

daihard wrote:For me, Windows 95 OSR-1 has been the least stable among the choices. I realize Win Me seems to be notorious for its instability, too, but I haven't used it at all and therefore can't comment on it.

I think it is just fashionable to whip windows me. Personally, win95 crashed on me 10x times than winme did. (didnt use it on my primary pc though)

Least stable version of Windows

Which is the least stable version of Windows?

Least stable version of Windows