Least stable version of Windows

Mike Healan · Post by **Mike Healan** » September 13th, 2003, 3:45 pm

I've used 98se, ME, 2000, and XP pro.

ME for 2 years, and it drove me bloody crazy! I upgraded the same machine to XP Pro, and it was extremely stable afterward. I once ran it for 3 months without rebooting.

I have noticed that the same machine, with far less usage and far less going in the background runs dramatically slower after installing SP1. I gave it to my mother after getting this PC, and it is god awful slow now. I never installed SP1 when I had it.

I like fast user switching. There are three users on the machine and we all log onto it for one reason or another. Very convenient.

This PC came with 2000 server and much better hardware, and it isn't as stable as XP was on the other box. I don't know how much the different hardware alters it. One of these days, I'm going to upgrade it to XP Pro, so we'll see.

Ashitaka · Post by **Ashitaka** » September 13th, 2003, 3:51 pm

Strangely enough, I have had trouble with all the recent versions of Windows I have used.

1) Windows 2000 - The Limited accounts rendered all buttons in all software as 10000x10000px and made text boxes disappear. That was no problem-- just use the Administrator account-- until someone accidentally locked everyone out of the Administrator account. REFORMAT, INSTALL LINUX
2) Windows XP - Steps: 1. Install Sims. 2. Try to install expansion pack. Expected Results: Expansion pack installed. Actual Results: Computer reboots. (And so many problems like it...)
3) Windows 98 - Relatively good compared to those above, but of course it is based on Win32 memory management rather than WinNT so it had to go down for a reboot once a day.
4) Windows ME - The worst of all worlds, obviously.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » September 13th, 2003, 4:06 pm

daihard wrote:
Quark wrote:Working at the Help Desk for my school, I've learned to not listen to anyone about how an OS works 'for them'. 90% of them get it wrong anyway. My school gives laptops for all students to use (2 years per laptop, so each student uses 2 laptops assuming they graduate in 4 years). The first year of the program it was IBMs with Win98 - pure hell. The second (my class) and third was Dells with 2000 - not nearly as many problems. The forth was Dells/WinXP.

Wow, which school do you go to? Do you get to keep those laptops when you graduate?

After each 'lease' is up you can buy the laptop for a severe discount. I bought the first one I had, then sold it to my step-sister. This one will stay mine

Dunderklumpen · Post by **Dunderklumpen** » September 14th, 2003, 12:15 am

Ashitaka wrote:2) Windows XP - Steps: 1. Install Sims. 2. Try to install expansion pack. Expected Results: Expansion pack installed. Actual Results: Computer reboots. (And so many problems like it...)

Are you blaiming the OS for not behaving as expected after installing an expansion pack for a game?

daihard · Post by **daihard** » September 14th, 2003, 1:01 am

Dunderklumpen wrote:Are you blaiming the OS for not behaving as expected after installing an expansion pack for a game?

Whatever problem occurs on the application level should not crash the OS.

Lost User 8002 · September 14th, 2003, 10:19 am

daihard wrote:
Dunderklumpen wrote:Are you blaiming the OS for not behaving as expected after installing an expansion pack for a game?

Whatever problem occurs on the application level should not crash the OS.

Especially with Windows XP...

daihard · Post by **daihard** » September 14th, 2003, 10:27 am

DeltaGuy wrote:
daihard wrote:
Dunderklumpen wrote:Are you blaiming the OS for not behaving as expected after installing an expansion pack for a game?

Whatever problem occurs on the application level should not crash the OS.

Especially with Windows XP...

No, it doesn't matter. A well-designed OS shields its core components from the application layer so a malicious user program will not crash the whole OS. NT-based Windows is designed that way in princple, creating subsystems that sit on top of the kernel. If an application running on the Win32 subsystem crashes, it should only affect the independent memory space it can use. Its adversity will never get through the subsystem. It shouldn't, at least.

Lost User 8002 · September 14th, 2003, 11:02 am

daihard wrote:
DeltaGuy wrote:
daihard wrote:
Dunderklumpen wrote:Are you blaiming the OS for not behaving as expected after installing an expansion pack for a game?

Whatever problem occurs on the application level should not crash the OS.

Especially with Windows XP...

No, it doesn't matter. A well-designed OS shields its core components from the application layer so a malicious user program will not crash the whole OS. NT-based Windows is designed that way in princple, creating subsystems that sit on top of the kernel. If an application running on the Win32 subsystem crashes, it should only affect the independent memory space it can use. Its adversity will never get through the subsystem. It shouldn't, at least.

I said Especially Windows XP because that was one of the big improvements on Windows XP...
I remember the problems I had with Windows 98SE...

daihard · Post by **daihard** » September 14th, 2003, 11:17 am

DeltaGuy wrote:I said Especially Windows XP because that was one of the big improvements on Windows XP...
I remember the problems I had with Windows 98SE...

XP did not really improve over 9x/Me. NT-based Windows and 9x/Me are two different animals. IMO, Microsoft should really have switched to 2000 directly from 98SE instead of coming up with a lame "interim" version such as Me...

Lost User 8002 · September 14th, 2003, 11:32 am

daihard wrote:
DeltaGuy wrote:I said Especially Windows XP because that was one of the big improvements on Windows XP...
I remember the problems I had with Windows 98SE...

XP did not really improve over 9x/Me. NT-based Windows and 9x/Me are two different animals. IMO, Microsoft should really have switched to 2000 directly from 98SE instead of coming up with a lame "interim" version such as Me...

I agree...
ME sucked...
Which brings us back on topic again...

Dunderklumpen · Post by **Dunderklumpen** » September 14th, 2003, 12:56 pm

daihard wrote:
Dunderklumpen wrote:Are you blaiming the OS for not behaving as expected after installing an expansion pack for a game?

Whatever problem occurs on the application level should not crash the OS.

I asked a question and did not make any conclusion out of that - yet :-)

.

During installation - you could either get a warning informing you that switching the files X and Y could cause instability - or Windows XP could ask you to grab the original CD and get the original files back (after installation). If the warning is ignored and the files are replaced - well you could end up with an unreliable system. Or some drivers could have been replaced during installation with ones not written according to guidelines and the user could have ignored that warning also. No OS will protect the user from ... the user :-)

.

Least stable version of Windows

Which is the least stable version of Windows?