What Windows is overall the best to you and why?

[ARF]

I think the best Windows versions overall are XP (despite that I have never really liked it), 7 and 10.
Probably Windows 7 is the best Windows in history.

 

[Onasi]

Feature and core-wise - 11. It’s by default, the latest OS core will always be the best. When people say “I want 7/XP back” what they mean is 7 with all the internal improvements that Windows had since.

Usability though? Probably 7, or even let’s go further back and say 2000. MS more or less perfected the desktop GUI a long time ago and everything since has been sidegrade at best and an incomprehensible experimental nonsense at worst.

 

[64K]

Windows 7 was best for me with XP being a close runner up. It was a great improvement going to Win 3.11 from DOS though.

If someone votes for Windows ME and on a tech enthusiast site no less then I will be amused.

 

[Macro Device]

2000 because I never had to use this software.

On a more serious note, Win 10. XP was very vulnerable, unstable, and required a full reinstall after swapping out the mobo. Win 7 was and still is simply the most overrated piece of ware. It was disturbingly slow on XP-ready machines and was slower than 10 on 10-ready machines. 7-ready machines... not a very long story to say the least. 8 underdelivered but not because it was bad per se but because it didn't predict where the IT industry will go. Win 11... let's just say it's the darkest joke I've seen in a long while. NOTHING fixed, only new problems to be introduced.

 

[ARF]

2000 because I never had to use this software.

I remember that 2000 and Me were "to avoid" versions, very problematic and unstable.

Feature and core-wise - 11. It’s by default, the latest OS core will always be the best.

You should consider the best one for the time. Of course, that the latest is the most advanced, it's like comparing the latest TSMC 2nm process and 180nm from 25 years ago. lol

 

[P4-630]

If I could play all my Steam games on Chrome OS , I´d ditch Windows....

 

[Onasi]

You should consider the best one for the time. Of course, that the latest is the most advanced, it's like comparing the latest TSMC 2nm process and 180nm from 25 years ago. lol

That’s virtually impossible since there would be no point of comparison. Whatever the latest Windows was at the time WAS the best for that time, with the arguable weird short period of ME and 2000 existing side by side (and that would be won by 2000, no contest). Yes, even Vista, core-wise was objectively superior to XP, surprise-surprise. Windows is, by quite a large margin, the dominant desktop OS. So dominant, in fact, so as to be nearly alternative-less. Unless, I suppose, we try and chart a timeline for every Windows version and every Mac OS/OS X version, find roughly analogous releases for the time period and compare them. But I am hardly a Mac guy, so I cannot reasonably comment on that.

 

[Macro Device]

I remember that 2000 and Me were "to avoid" versions, very problematic and unstable.

I just never had a luxury to reasonably use it. Now, I don't even have hardware that can run this retro stuff.

As of today, I'm adamant you can't punish m$ for W11 enough. This insult to software is beyond any countermeasure. Even Vista was a far better and more reasonable release.

Whatever the latest Windows was at the time WAS the best for that time

Vista, 8, 8.1, and 11 strongly disagree with that.

 

[Onasi]

I remember that 2000 and Me were "to avoid" versions, very problematic and unstable.

Wait, wat? 2000 was legitimately in many ways just a less shiny version of XP and absolutely was the go-to OS for the time for enthusiasts, regardless of some procurement issues (it wasn’t technically a “consumer” OS, that was ME at the time).

Vista, 8, 8.1, and 11 strongly disagree with that.

We are talking core here, not usability. I explained my reasoning in the first post.

 

[Princess Garnet]

That depends on how you're asking this question.

Anything older than Windows 10 today is no longer officially supported in the consumer landscape, and third party lack of support has left the software ecosystem for those operating systems with some hurdles. Therefore, anything older than those versions wouldn't be good picks today, and the clock is running out on Windows 10 as well.

But I presume you're asking with strictly today's usability taken out of consideration by the use of the word "overall"? If so, I'd say Windows XP or Windows 7 are my two favorites, and it isn't even close. I'd probably have a tough time choosing between them.

I will admit, however, that I'd be looking not just at the operating systems themselves, but also the broader software ecosystem/internet that would have existed at the times of these operating systems. I think Windows plays a big role in these trends, however, as a lot of software will design itself to fit in with everything around it. Namely, I think the internet itself and the UI of software may have peaked in the 2000s/early 2010s and started going downhill around the times of Windows 8 and especially with Windows 10. The internet having to accommodate phones was a big part of this, and Windows and the web started looking more bland (a sea of White or Black space, depending on light mode or dark mode), colorless, with a lack of design, even to the point of icons and brand logos being infamously downgraded over time, and often with odd spacing and inconsistent organization. Add in the loss of control/hiding of what used to be common features that both Windows and more and more software has been moving towards, I'd say starting predominantly around the time of Windows 10.

Here's my unpopular (?) opinions with Windows, so if you disagree with them, fine. I'm aware these are probably unpopular opinions.

Windows 10 isn't great. It became tolerable at best, and I think people have Stockholm syndrome towards it because every modern version of Windows is getting worse and worse in more important ways, and eventually there was no choice but to accept it if you wanted to stay in the Windows ecosystem. Much of the same things being criticized about Windows 11 (loss of user control, ads, data harvesting, UI issues, etc.) started with Windows 10 itself (and some with Windows 8, even, of which Windows 10 is just Windows 8.2 in my mind), but people seem to have a short memory for some reason. Windows 11 does have its own criticism points for sure, but I don't know where this "Windows 10 is a great version" narrative came from. I'm partially convinced it's a self fulfilling prophecy because people want the "every other version is good/bad" narrative to be true, even though that doesn't even match up because that often tends to conveniently revise things, or even skip versions to make it true.

Going the other way, I don't think Windows Vista deserves to be included with the likes of Windows ME or Windows 8. Windows Vista was circumstantially bad as opposed to innately bad (whereas Windows ME was bad in stability and Windows 8 was bad in what it was trying to become). Innately, Windows Vista was mostly fine... but it faced some circumstantial hurdles and it became doomed to a bad reputation. The big hurdles it faced were that it was another new version of Windows asking for more hardware (which... every Windows before Windows Vista also did anyway, so I don't know why it in particular gets criticized for it?), and had poor support from drivers and software. Hey, that sounded like Windows XP early on. There were definitely some growing pains with it (UAC, etc.), but I think how bad it was is greatly overstated because it was more circumstantial rather than innate. The fact that Windows 7 was pretty close to what Windows Vista with service packs was at the time, and was loved, or the fact that people actually liked Windows Vista before knowing it was Windows Vista (Mojave experiment), pretty much reaffirm this belief of mine.

I think modern Windows certainly has the potential to be innately great, and even the best, but Microsoft is being modern Microsoft and doesn't seem to be in the business solely to make a great Windows version anymore. Their priorities have shifted.

 

[kilo]

I chose w7 since it had enough generic drivers to load ethernet on first boot. Everything since then has been meh. In terms of UI (including office 2013 and up) has been pretty awful. Nothing out of the box comes close to 7's success: start menu was expanded on, everything was within 2-5 clicks away, and most importantly MS didn't have competing settings UI's that changed every couple years, always making you search for the change you wanted to make. 7 also had powershell, albeit early and not as great by today's standards. Unlike 8 and later, explorer never bugged out on me all the time. Between multiple computers, years, versions of windows past 7, random inconveniences like waking the screen or clicking on the desktop would completely bug out the wallpaper or worse, crash explorer (during a file transfer!).

A previous poster hit the nail on the head about Stockholm syndrome. We (techies) keep trying to work around modern windows' bugs, all the time missing that, maybe windows just isn't worth the "convenience" anymore.

Also a question to anyone who chose w11: are you seriously ok with cospylot+ recall?

Spoiler: rant

We (techies) used to try to OC a few mhz, or turn off bloatware services, or run machines at bleeding edge of stability. There will be performance impact from screenshotting every click.

It seems like these days, people just gave up. "So what if my OS records my passwords" and "so what if every click is recorded on a website or desktop, I'm not doing anything illegal," and yet totally miss that's its not about illegal vs legal.

 

[ARF]

That’s virtually impossible since there would be no point of comparison. Whatever the latest Windows was at the time WAS the best for that time, with the arguable weird short period of ME and 2000 existing side by side (and that would be won by 2000, no contest). Yes, even Vista, core-wise was objectively superior to XP, surprise-surprise. Windows is, by quite a large margin, the dominant desktop OS. So dominant, in fact, so as to be nearly alternative-less. Unless, I suppose, we try and chart a timeline for every Windows version and every Mac OS/OS X version, find roughly analogous releases for the time period and compare them. But I am hardly a Mac guy, so I cannot reasonably comment on that.

No. The idea is that you can make a better Windows than 11 today, if you had the power to.

Windows Vista was ahead of its time, because it required massive hardware upgrades, and even then, it felt relatively slow.

 

[Onasi]

No. The idea is that you can make a better Windows than 11 today, if you had the power to.

I don’t deal in hypothetical fantasies. The question of your thread is quite clear and presents a choice from what versions of OS exist or existed. Nowhere did you indicate that we should theorycraft some “perfect” version of Windows and judge against it.

How are you so bad at this to the point of misunderstanding your own thread?

 

[Solaris17]

11. It’s the latest. It has the best hardware support. I don’t understand this thread. If it was supposed to be a “which one is your fav” we have had a thousand of those over the years. I still think one is open.

 

[ARF]

I don’t deal in hypothetical fantasies. The question of your thread is quite clear and presents a choice from what versions of OS exist or existed. Nowhere did you indicate that we should theorycraft some “perfect” version of Windows and judge against it.

How are you so bad at this to the point of misunderstanding your own thread?

How are you ignoring that different Windows versions had different levels of success, and their performance and execution was different.
From 1 and meh for Windows 8 to 8 or 9 and great for Windows 7?

 

[Onasi]

@ARF
By actually understanding the topic and having hands-on experience with every version in the poll. I have already stated my reasoning in the FIRST post. I couldn’t care less what the “perception” or “performance” was. If you fail to understand that there is a difference between the OS core (kernel, APIs, driver layer, hardware support, etc) and its usability aspects like GUI and tacked on bullshit - I cannot help you. This doesn’t mean that 11 ISN’T the best Windows version on the core level. It’s issues stem from other things, as I acknowledged by saying that usability-wise Windows has been stagnating or degrading for many versions. But here is the kicker - a power user can fix or circumvent usability issues. They can be fixed, tweaked and customized to ones liking. You can’t “fix” an outdated OS core without moving to a newer version though.

In short, just as @Solaris17, I am baffled by the fact that you don’t seem to understand what the question even is.

 

[Capitan Harlock]

I voted Windows 7 because was the closest and the only Window os i jumped on when Xp wasn't supported anymore. What made me go to W7 was games that supported direct x 11 . I jumped on W10 since last November just because Nvidia dropped drivers support for W7 and some games for some reason decided to not have dx 11 and be Dx12 only and not use Vulkan api. I got used now to W10 and i will keep using it until it will become unusable like i did with W7.
Stability while I never got that many issues with Xp and neither with W7. I think i got more issue and BSOD in the last year on W10 than all the years i used Xp and W7 combined.

 

[authorized]

I remember that 2000 and Me were "to avoid" versions, very problematic and unstable.

You got something confused here, 2000 and ME were completely different.
2000 was amazing at its time, first one bringing NT kernel with all its advantages to regular home consumers, like NTFS, no stupid "random" bluescreens, etc.

 

[Frick]

11. It’s the latest. It has the best hardware support. I don’t understand this thread. If it was supposed to be a “which one is your fav” we have had a thousand of those over the years. I still think one is open.

This.

Had you used "was" instead of "is" there would have been things to discuss, but as it is we live in a reality in which software updates are necessary. I do prefer Windows 10 over 11 but what am I supposed to do, not update Windows and stay active in the modern world? Unthinkable.

I remember that 2000 and Me were "to avoid" versions, very problematic and unstable.

This is wrong on such a fundemental level it's hard to describe.

 

[kilo]

Had you used "was" instead of "is" there would have been things to discuss, but as it is we live in a reality in which software updates are necessary.

OP included 95 through w11. There is enough context to overlook the tense error.

 

[AUTOEXEC.BAT]

Me,2000 and 7 for me

 

[eidairaman1]

You got something confused here, 2000 and ME were completely different.
2000 was amazing at its time, first one bringing NT kernel with all its advantages to regular home consumers, like NTFS, no stupid "random" bluescreens, etc.

Without ME, System Restore would have never Existed

 

[Apocalypsee]

I started using Windows 98 I believe. Can't remember if I actually use 95 or did I ever install it during my experimental era. I haven't used 11 yet. ME was the worst for me I need to reformat every week. System restore not working to revert back to original state, haven't got any internet to patch things up back then. Currently I'm using XP in old machines and 10 in my laptop and main PC. I need to build Windows 7 machines kinda miss it, also windows 9x or 2000. I need to re-evaluate those OS how does it held up.

I usually take 2-3 years before I migrate to newer OS unless I been 'forced' to like new DirectX that comes with it. Even so, like from XP to 7 I take 4 years to migrate, waiting for it to become stable, and most importantly hardware upgrade to catch up. I haven't use Vista in the meantime (what's the point of running Crysis in DirectX 10 when your GPU barely runs at playable framerate in DirectX 9 lol). So does when I moved to 7, I haven't use Windows 8/8.1. Best Windows? I don't know what to say, I usually make the newer Windows as close as to the older Windows as possible, like changing the start menu and explorer, something I familiar with.

 

[eidairaman1]

I started using Windows 98 I believe. Can't remember if I actually use 95 or did I ever install it during my experimental era. I haven't used 11 yet. ME was the worst for me I need to reformat every week. System restore not working to revert back to original state, haven't got any internet to patch things up back then. Currently I'm using XP in old machines and 10 in my laptop and main PC. I need to build Windows 7 machines kinda miss it, also windows 9x or 2000. I need to re-evaluate those OS how does it held up.

I usually take 2-3 years before I migrate to newer OS unless I been 'forced' to like new DirectX that comes with it. Even so, like from XP to 7 I take 4 years to migrate, waiting for it to become stable, and most importantly hardware upgrade to catch up. I haven't use Vista in the meantime (what's the point of running Crysis in DirectX 10 when your GPU barely runs at playable framerate in DirectX 9 lol). So does when I moved to 7, I haven't use Windows 8/8.1. Best Windows? I don't know what to say, I usually make the newer Windows as close as to the older Windows as possible, like changing the start menu and explorer, something I familiar with.

I used 95, 3.1, NT3.5, NT 4.0, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8/.1 10, 11.

Worst for me from an annoyance standpoint, Vista, 8/.1, 10, 11.

Best for me 98SE, XP, 7

Just ok 3.1, 95, ME, 2000, NT 3.5, NT 4.0

 

[Ruru]

I remember that 2000 and Me were "to avoid" versions, very problematic and unstable.

2K was actually far more stable than XP. I would've used it until Vista/7 but software developers concentrated more into XP so it wasn't that much supported during its later years.


Voted for 11 though as I use it these days. Should revisit 2K on a retro build though.