Right. 9x is perfect - except for a lack of multiprocessor support (and thus a lack of SMP support), lack of ACL support in the file systems nor the registry, nor any at the process level (thus user-mode applications can crash the whole system), lack of user permission levels, and only 64K of GDI and user-mode (desktop) heap compared to 3MB (default) in an NT-based OS (meaning I can't have as many applications open at once). I won't go into group policy and domain support, as that doesn't affect home users as much, and multi-user support in XP/Vista probably isn't as important to some home users as well.

I dunno, but Windows XP was starting to make me peed off!

Thanks to Windows product activation and Windows Genuine Advantage.

i never said it was perfect i just siad that there wasnt much wrong with it, it depends what you want on a computer anyway


9x supports domains, you can use poledit to write polices, its just xp and vista home that doesnt support it even though wfw 3.11 could connect to a domain

but use what you want not up to me

windows ME. the pain it was...

dos isnt windows, its dos :-P ill go with everyone else and say ME

Windows 95 is rubbish

I chose windows 95 cause it lacks some dll's to run certain software.98 was a little better.98SE was great. ME with a few tweaks ran flawless for me.
The only thing I have against ME was that MS dropped project neptune (windows 2000 home) in favor of ME. A very bad move.


A friend of mine has to have the latest OS is using vista. He claims vista is the worst. I dont to ever use vista so I dont know if its true or not.

XP Home and Vista Home don't support domains because they're sold to customers who don't need domains. Want domain support, get professional. It's not a limitation in the capabilities of the OS, it's a limitation imposed by the company intentionally. Poledit policies are nothing compared to what you get with Windows 2000 and up in the NT line, and the fact still remains that the 9x line was not truly multi-user. The NT line is much more stable and secure, regardless of whatever "features" you don't like.

WHY NO OPTION TO CHOOSE: WIN VISTA ???

JESUS!!! KILLING AND SUCKING HARDWARES LIFE

I would have said Vista but given the options, Ill settle for Windows Me.

May as well vote since it was revived for some reason.

Windows ME was the worst piece of crap for the 9x line that MS ever made. I also place an unofficial vote for Vista.

Since the poll is about Windows, why is DOS 6.22 listed??


My major gripe with Vista was the out of memory error while copying files. A few (harsh) words were exchanged with a MS tech support person last February over it. Everything out of Redmond implies that every problem with Vista is the fault of the user and that what I experienced was not a bug but my own fault. It's funny how they release a patch for a major bug that didn't exist.

everyone's voted ME and i have to agree, it was so buggy. i simply moved back to 98 SE after that. (This was ages ago)

Its ME Yuck!!!

and Vista Sucks too.

Xp is a necessity Vista is unnecessary Luxury...

Well I liked ME, got so much work fixing it or uninstalling it and replacing with 98SE. Made a fortune because of its failings so how could I hate it?

Um you guys know that this thread was started in 2003 right?

and for the record

DOS 6.22 = not a version of windows so therefore shouldn't be in a list of windows OSes
Longhorn = Vistas codename
Blackcomb = AKA Windows 7

[conspiracy mode on]

but voting Longhorn up in this poll is rather pointless as everyone knows Windows ME was painstakingly designed to suck by master coders that wanted to make everyone to hate the 9x kernel.

don't believe me? just think about it. 95, 98, NT, 2000, 2003, XP, Vista all got at least 1 service pack. Windows ME got none. this leads me to 2 possible conclusions:
1. Windows ME was so perfect it didn't require a service pack.
or
2. Windows ME was exactly what MS wanted it to be. a miserable failure.

[/conspiracy mode off]

voted for ME cause everybody does it..

wow, revival of such an old thread.


I actually don't like 3.x believe it or not. (which isn't even an option)
I made the jump from MS-DOS directly to 95, so having to run 3.1 felt so clunky, and still does to this day.
After 95, I jumped to XP, then back to 98 and now back on XP/Ubuntu dual boot. Missed out on ME, 2000 and don't know about Vista yet (planning on building a vista machine pretty soon, have the CDs required).


...and hey, didn't MS-DOS 6.22 have a useless shell available? Not that it was considered windows, but still.....

Man it's a toss up between ME and Vista. I'm so confused I don't know which one to choose.

How come Windows 2000 isn't included in this list?

why is vista not on the list? i think it sucks the most. in school, i was helping a teacher install a digital microscope in Vista, and no matter what i did, it WOULD NOT install, even with the correct WinVista Drivers...it sucks

Probably because the poll was first started in 2003???

Windows ME, of course

This will be controversial but i used Windows ME and found it was great, i had 95 and 98 before and they were rubbish.

Went from ME to a brief encounter with 2000 before settling on XP Pro, which is where I'm staying until I'm dragged kicking and screaming into the cruddy "Vista Experience".

Vista needs to be laid to rest right now!

Pedro

Yeah you say controversial, I say crazy ME was beyond horrible. but to each his own. etc etc

Oh and for the record, AFAIK Vista has never been officially marketed as the 'Vista Experience' but the XP marketing campaign was 'eXPerience' which was mocked relentlessly by the same people that are currently clinging to its dying corpse.

This gave me an idea for a photoshop:

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!

yeah quick and dirty. i got my clone brush license from a crackerjack box

Greetings,
I thought I would put my 2 cents worth on this and while I have only had Windows XP both versions and Windows 98se I would have to say for the learnability aspect I would go with 98se it doesnt have the quick fixes and available updates from Microsoft, they are easy enough to find elsewhere , if your not careful though it will let you delete things that are imparative to your system unlike XP that will block you from making HUGE deletes...learned that the hard way...this is a brilliant site and I have learned things in just the few hours from many different postings...you people are wicked smart...

so thank you..

Windows ME sucks no doubt about it.

I voted ME purely because DOS was taken away from the user. My personal favourite is 98SE and contrary to what has been said about startup files, I found that if you get the DOS right 98SE was VERY reliable. My wife has had XP Pro almost from when it was released and it has crashed spectacually several times. I very nearly scrubbed it off several times off my machine (Only Lucy stopped me). My machine went down and I had a fresh MoBo fitted so now I have to use that piece of crap (98SE in 16 colours @ 640*480 is just too painful) The new MoBo is a Biostar P4M900 which doesnt come with vid drivers for 98

I posted on this topic and as I reread it its written wrong, Its written like 98se sucks, what I meant it to say was I would have to go with 98se as the easiest and most user friendly I have never has ME but I have had XP both versions and I went back to my 98se beings I had screwed it up so many times I know it inside out and its very easy to navigate...

Actually, the same can be said for XP. Windows 2000 is my backup OS.

You don't have to worry about Windows Product Activation and Windows Genuine Advantage with Windows 2000.

I vote for ME in the absence of Vista (aka ME 2.0 )
Only Win2008 is slowly starting to become usable (still with some issues though).

I voted ME 2, but ME can be very very fast if u treat it right. I believe it was the fastest booting system at one point.

People that didn't vote for Windows 95 obviously have no clue or are two new to the Windows scene to have remembered. Also, adding code named OSs shouldn't really apply.

100 percent Windows ME with a little hint of Vista in it!

Where's Vista? the only nice introduction in ME was system restore ...

Definitely Windows ME (Mistake Edition)

and vista (to sme extend) feels like ME 2 (Mistake Edition The 2nd)

I think Windows ME stayed on my computer approx. 10 minutes before I got bored and removed it.

voted ME it was really pain in the a**

The fact is, if one knows how to set up ME properly, it is the BEST Win9x OS. The crashes were caused by IE 5.5. Upgrading to IE6 fixes that. All Win9x OSes have the memory leak, so singling ME out for that reason is just plain stupid. If configured properly, ME can run rings around 98 and stay up for weeks without rebooting. I ran it for 5 years with absolutely no problems.

ME was the product of trying to rush out an update to Win9x, while the development team was concentrating on Win 2000.

Windows ME by far the worst, and then comes vista

Windows ME was a disaster. If anyone remember the headache's when you tried to get it working in a workgroup with other machines... !

In all fairness, would someone please add Vista to that poll?

It's not fair, that Windows ME gets all the bad press. Spread it around a little.

I built a PC in 2000 for a customer of mine and since ME was the latest and greatest OS at the time, that's what went on that PC.

Just a few months ago, 8 years later, I got that PC back, in payment for installing a whole new system for my customer.
It was still running just fine on Windows ME. Over the 8 years that PC has been running, I've kept it going with a new CD drive here and a floppy drive there, etc. Nothing serious.

Well, after all that time, Windows ME is still running like a champ! My customer never had any problems with it and I haven't either. I've since added some more ram and a much larger wattage PSU and it's a little Screaming Demon!
I cleaned and oiled the Thermaltake CPU cooler that was howling and it now runs as good as it did 8 years ago.

So I'd like to change my vote, from ME to Vista. Now there's a real hog!

Cheers Mates!
Andromeda

im not adding anything to a 5 year old thread about OSes. it hardly relevant anymore.

Thread Closed.