Rank the OS's by stability

[Trey]

Please keep this only to Windows (no Unix, Linux, etc.) but include both network and home. Rank them from best to worst.
Thanx

[NDC]

1) NT4
2) WIN2K
3) Win98

[SiteCharts.com]

1. WinXP (Beta 2) (I am really looking forward to the final product)

2. Win2K
3. Win95 (Right the first Version)


not really ranked:
WinME
Win98SE
Win95b
Win98

[giant69]

1. Win2K
2. NT4
3. 98SE
4. 95B
5. ME

[NDD]

A month or so ago I did few tests during couple of days to find out the answer to your question, tested all the OSes I found on my own comp, search for similar topic, couldn't find it myself http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif

Best Regards ...

[CMonster]

As for Base OS stability I have to agree with NDC -certainly putting NT above 9x, but as for general computing environment I think that applications crash at about the same rate, its just that with NT/W2K the application doesn't take the OS down with it.


"Please keep this only to Windows"

May I suggest a more appropriate title for your post: "Which Windows offers the most stability?" -"OS's" suggests Other possibilities.

...*Which automobile is the most reliable?

Please keep this only to Fords and Chevys, no German or Japanese, cars.*...

<IMG SRC="http://www.dslextreme.com/users/cmonster3/squirtguin.gif" border=0>

<IMG SRC="http://www.dslextreme.com/users/cmonster3/globe3.gif" border=0>


[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 05-27-2001).]

[giant69]

If I was going to rank the top M.$. OS, regardless of lineage, Id have to take 6.22, then Win3.1. I know they are archaic, but they never blew up in your face...steve

[Richard_Cranium72]

Rank,, hmmmm, OK;

I'd say that ME is the most RANK o/s ever made by MacroSwamp http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[murray1]

Win 2000 Pro at home
WinNT 4.0 Workstation (at home right now)
Win 98se at home
Win 95b at home
WinMe Not (That is the real millenium bug)


[This message has been edited by murray1 (edited 05-27-2001).]

[wahrez]

0. Really and honestly I'd say DOS, but I guess thats not what you are looking for!

1. Windows 2000
2. Windows NT 4
3. Windows 98
4. Windows 95
5. Windows ME

I'm amazed out how much of an improvment there is in Windows 2000...its by far the most stable environment Microsoft have every produced, some will say NT is better, but WIN2K offers many more features!

[jray]

I'd have to agree with wahrez on that; I like the way they integrated the user friendliness of 98, especially device manager..my .02 worth

[charmler]

Does everybody have a rotten time with ME? I have the upgrade on a K6-3 450 and the full on an OC'd Tbird 900@1050. They run 24/7 for at least 10 days without fail. I restart only for AV updates.

1: Win 2K
2: NT 4
3: ME

[pbharris]

edit: did not see the 'windows only' note. so...

OMG - i can't believe windows9x in the top 10...
anyway:
1. freeBSD
2. Linux kernel 2.2.x, 2.0.x on x86
3. AIX
4. HP-UX
5. Linux kernel 2.4.x on x86
6. Solaris
7. OS2
8. MacOS X
9. Win2K
10. WinNT4
11. MacOS &lt; X
12. Win95 Release 2
13. Win98 (original)
14. Win95
15. Win3.x
16. MS-Dos

yes - i have used all of them.

[This message has been edited by pbharris (edited 05-27-2001).]

[NDC]

pbharris:


Please keep this only to Windows (no Unix, Linux, etc.) http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[vintron]

among the once i have used, the most stable are:

UNIX
MS-DOS
WIN3.11
WIN NT 4
WIN 95OSR2
WIN 98SE
WIN me
WIN 2k


seriously people! think about it from the real life perspective. Think about the past! did u even know about stuff like BSOD when using 3.11?

Advanced doesnt mean stable.

[NDC]

Windows 3.11 for workgroups wasn't bad... But you think it was more stable than Win2k or NT4????

[DemonKnight]

win2k
win95 (It was stable as heck for me I dont know why every one else says it aint)
win98
win98se


NON-windows
Linux Mandrake 7
QNX trial floppy thing

[muno]

Uh oh, what makes win95/98 better than ME? I think the 95 was as buggy as an os can be, 98 was good but ME is the stablest (if you just disable a few annoying things).
But,
1. WinME
2. WinNT4
3. W2k

This is, because, nt doesn't work with quite anything I want to use. (nt==w2k).
-M

[jaida]

1.NT4
2.W2k
3.w98 or 98se
4.w95b
5.winme

[This message has been edited by jaida (edited 05-27-2001).]

[VERT]

people rating XP (i have heard this is buggy and is still only in beta) and ME as stable, lol, heres my list

1. Windows 3.11
2. NT4.0
3. Windows 2000
4. Windows 95
5. Windows 98
6. Windows ME

[BBA]

W2K
XP
98SE
NT4
95 SR2+
95
DOS 6.2+
W3.11
W3.1
Win ME ( sucks )

Other OS's not rated by me because they never will work with my hardware....Redhat, Mandrake, HPUX, BeOS, OS/2

[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 05-28-2001).]

[CMonster]

Richard_Crainium72 - man I like your method of "RANKING!"

[RobRich]

OS/2 Warp v4

Not a direct MS product, but does run legacy Win apps with superb stability. If I was to choose a MS product, I would drop a vote for WinNT v4.

BTW, my WinMe WinRoute server hasn't crashed a single time in nearly six months, even with it running nearly 24/7. Then again, everything in the system is WHQL or HCL certified by MS. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

Robert Richmond

[AndreRIO]

*/
/*

[This message has been edited by AndreRIO (edited 05-28-2001).]

[AndreRIO]

1st win xp
2nd win 2k
3rd win me
4th win 3.1
...
9th win98se

[samwichse]

Hmmm... mabye now we should rank them in speed, because 98 and 98se compared to 95 are even more of a resource hog.

Stability
Win2k
WinNT
Win95b
Win98SE
Win98 that first buggy one
WinME

I still use 95 because it is the cleanest (relatively) and has always been more stable for me than either 98 (don't have the cash for NT or 2k). Perhaps if I owned a single USB peripheral (other than my intellimouse which is also ps/2 which is where it will stay)

[Ritalin Kid]

I don't get the big deal with Win ME either.. I have used it and gives me no where as many problems as Windows 95 did and 98se well that was an upgrade nightmare I woudl rank 98 First Edition over it.. I installed ME when it first came out and I was amazed at how stable it was.. though I have heard that if you do the upgrade thing over 98se then people have problems but I just did a cleam OEM install and not a problem..

1. Win ME
2. Win 98
3. Win 98se
4. Win 95
5 Win Memphis

[Wilan Wong]

Stability for M$ OSes
1. Windows NT 4/5 (Both have similar stability levels)
2. Windows 98 SE
3. Windows 95 OSR2
4. Windows 98 Original
5. Windows ME

[^hyd^]

not including work os's...

98se
win2000

i'm dual booting, and think maybe somethings wrong with my 2000 install, cause my 98se walks all over it... http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif
(they are also the only os's i've gotten my fingers into...otherwise i'm sure nt would be up there)

[This message has been edited by ^hyd^ (edited 05-29-2001).]

[BBA]

Ummm...Dave....

WFW = W3.11

[LiLRiceBoi]

Pretty much what everyone else said:

Win2k
WinNT
Win98se

[clarkgillet]

I'm a win98 fan. Thought about dual boot but couldn't run a lot of programs on win2k.

[Tuclis]

I see everyone refer to Win2k as not being a NT based system. Isn't Win2k really NT 5.0?

[NDC]

That is correct. Win2k uses NT kernel...

That would be kinda like saying "isn't Win ME really Win9x?" After all, Win ME uses Win9x kernel. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 05-29-2001).]

[daveleau]

Well if you cannot include *nix or Mac, then...

Win2K
WinNT4 Workstation
Win98SE
WinNT4 Server
Win95b/c
WinME
Win 3.11
Win95
WFW

Dave

[Natedogg15]

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in...

Ever since WinMe came out, all I've heard is how incredibly unstable it is. I used to have Win98se on my home PC for a couple years, but I decided to try WinMe back in January (clean install). I've got to set the record straight here: Windows Me is WAY more stable than 98se could have ever dreamed of being. I then put Me on 7 or 8 computers at work and weilded the same results. I think some people need to get over their hatred for Microsoft and actually try the products before they give them such a bad rap.

That being said, here's my list:

1. DOS
2. Windows NT 4/2000 (I've found both to be equally stable)
3. Windows Me
4. Windows 95
5. Windows 98se

That's just my opinion though. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[gfunkmartin]

I had an ME machine with a clean install, all the drivers were loaded fine, etc.
Next day I had 5 BSODs in rapid succession, then cleaned it off and went back to Win98 (not SE), which works great for me. Wish I could afford an NTkernel based OS, and don't have the time to work w/ *nix, getting it up and running.

1. DOS
2. Win NT
3. Win 2k
4. Win 98(SE/no SE)
5. Win 95

btw - the reason there weren't any bsods in 3.11 is probably because MS didn't spend the time to code a bsod for errors, but just let them happen

[rshield]

1. NT 4.0
2. 95A
3. 98SE
4. Me

I haven't had probs with NT at 2 different work places, while 95 didn't do stuff I wanted it to, I only had to re-load the OS once in 5 years, unlike other people who seem to have more problems with it. I did have a problem with it losing the CD driver for no reason about every 9 months.

Me initiates power saving modes even thoguh I have deseleted any of the schemes, and even went into the BIOS and turned it off there. So strange.

I still prefer DOS 3.3 with Q-DOS shell, but no apps run under them anymore because the masses refuse to even learn what directory structure is.

[Dputiger]

Stability:

Win2K
WinNT
Win98SE
WinME
Win95

Win2K is extremely stable, as is NT--I've run 2K for three weeks straight without a single reboot.

98SE is likewise extremely stable--I recently left the system running Prime95 and Folding@Home--didn't crash for four days of intensive CPU testing, which I was rather happy about.

Win95 gets very unstable very quickly--and has an inherent dislike, it seems, of Novell and other networking software.

For ANYONE interested in getting increased performance out of a Windows machine I recommend the optimisation guides at:
www.tweak3d.net (http://www.tweak3d.net)

[Savant]

this is like asking which is the best o/s, excluding ones that work.

I'd have to say nt4 out of the ms list though

[JL_in_Vail]

Win XP
Win 2K
Win 98SE
Win 3.1
Win NT SP4
Win 98
Win ME
Win 95

[Dputiger]

Oh please, Savant,

If you don't like MS, fine.

Don't want to run their products, fine.

But don't pull out the 'excluding ones that work' ****. That's not true and its reckless overexaggeration.

I am not an MS fan by any stretch of the imagination but its ridiculous to post that Windows 'just doesn't work.'

[shadow]

From the ones I have used gotta go in this order (I wont include 3.1-DOS). This order represents stability and ability to take abuse and regain consciousness.

NT4.0
Win2k
Win95b
Win98SE
Win98

I currently use all the above except Win95b, I've finally moved on http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[the jester]

ranking stable OS's...?

Well much as I'd like to pitch straight into the M$ fray, having played with a few others over the years and systems that did not even use an OS per se, I'd have to say that anyone sat in front of a PC for the first time is probably going to get their best experience with

1. 2000 (solid as the proverbial... but potentially confusing for the average user)
2. 98/98se (haven't tried Me)
3. 95 (good then, but today think about compatability and support)
4. 3.1 (see w.95)

Admittedly I haven't tried all the flavors - waiting for service pack 3 on w2k http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif, but considering that it's a question of expanding the market rather than just placating an existing and saturated market, M$ is successfully going for the lowest common denominator. How many of us drive a quality European sports car stick shift (cf *nix os - not price-wise but in terms of accessibility), how many more have the renovated sports classic of yesteryear (cf Mac - "I'm a cool individual cache") and how many of us are in mass-produced automatics that get us from A to B with average "on-the-road-maintenance"?

My point is not to condone any one operating system, but purely to look at the fledgling (yes relative to other technologies) status of the industry and say that the producers are all getting it closer to right gradually. Stability; ask NASA, they put people into space with less power than the average user has today.

All said and done (w2k - 3 weeks? mine's been up for 9 months 24/7 - more than stability, we need software that remedies dyxlesia)

[Froflant]

So far the best M$ OS that I have used is Win2K. I still have application issues, but who doesn't. Only have to reboot when the tray icons go crazy, about every three months.
As far as ME goes, I have it at home, and it is 24/7 for over 4 months now, only reboots to add games and such. Clean install, and grab the latest drivers for your hardware.
Win98se would be third, but I think the original 98 was about the same.
Win 95 was by far teh most stable at the time (like noted above, DOS didnt have a BSOD file)
Dos 6.22 is very stable, but what can you do with it today?
Havent tried XP yet, and will wait for XP SP1 before I do anyway (maybe a month after release???)

[england001]

Not really tried W2k, but having installed Windows ME upgrade as a clean install, I run SETI 24hours a day for weeks on end using a K6-2 500 - it has not fallen over on me yet - by far and away the most stable Windows I have ever used.

[Lusifer69]

1) XP(rel 1)
2) 2k (Datacenter/Advanced Server)
3) NT4
4) NT3.51
5) 98/95b
6) 3.11 for Workgroups
7) LanMan
8) ME

[Underclocked]

CeMeNt

4Me 2K http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[crunchyriff]

I have the full 'retail version' of ME, and it smokes both 95 and 98. The key is NOT doing the upgrade to ME, but going with the full version.
It loads faster, is much more stable, and shuts down faster than either 95 or 98. This is just my experience- if it sucked, I'd be bashing it, too.

[RuCKuS1]

After working with NT4 and having to find numerous drivers to upgrade a gazillion computers at work, I have to say that it is the most stable. I ONLY get BSOD when installing flakey drivers. No crashes that take down everything. In the workplace NT4sp6+all additional patches account for 99% operational status. The 1% is for **** boxes that can't take the upgrade.
#2 Win 2000 (still young)
#3 Win98se (the com+ stuff is smart)
#4 WinME (too much fluff)
#5 Win 98 (newer than 95)
#6 Win 95 osr 2.5(win98 before win98)

[jadison]

Well, I've only used just a handful of WINDOWS OS'es, but here's the rank...

--1st--WIN2K
--2nd--WIN NT
--3rd--WIN 3.11 for Workgroups
--4th--WIN 98SE

But for Non-Windows OS'es I prefer Linux 2.2+, as far as servers, or internet gateways go.

I used WIN2K and NT4 both @ work and found 2K to be more stable, it also has a lot of added features that I like.

-=jd=-