Printable View
Well.. ME was my worst Experience........ my PC crached Dayly.........even after I got every patch...... but when I tryed 2000 :D no problems......... then i got XP it was the best...... of the pile............. the cream of the MS crop........ yep I prefer..... my p2 with red hat...........
I think it is more fun to use it ......... even if it is OLd....... it is good
i`ve used every version of windows from win3.1 to win2003. I`m split between NT4 and win2000. Even with the advances win2000 theirs still something that keeps drawing me back to NT4.
I think win 98/me are perfectly good at doing what they were aimed for. I don`t think its fair really to moan about them being insurcure because they were never designed with security in mind.
As for XP i cant stand that new graphical interface, thank god you can change it back to the classic interface. I`m sure its got a lot of improvments over 2000 but i`d rather wait till its been out longer before i trust it with anything.
Dos wasn't a windows OS.. and souleman 3.11 was windows for workgroups not 3.12
my vote would have to be Windows 1.01.. because it NEVER worked.. hehe
you can find that windows version 1.01 here for nostalgic purposes. :D
about 725k rar'd
edit : btw, there was a few others that many weren't aware of.
Windows 1.02
Windows 1.03
Windows 1.04
Windows 2.03
Windows 286
Windows 386
Windows 3a
if you talk about stability I think it would be xp... I ran a server on windows 95 for 3 months though (for fun). Like some people already mentioned and it's even in them hacking exposed books, windows 9x doesn't have any remote exploits out of the box because it just wasn't ment for networking. The only thing wich might be vulnerable is the netbios filesharing thing wich is turned off by default. Everything else that makes it vulnerable are mainly caused by running programms. You can crash windows 9x wich is running an irc client by sending a ctcp /con/con monstly, but that's a local flaw triggered by an "insecure" app. There comes in the admin knowledge and whoopah I just said eveyone else already said.
If you have little knowledge it's better to run windows 95 with a decent software firewall then to run 2k pro with alot of admin stuff and remote thingys. But like linux it's mostly not linux (the kernel), but the apps and deamons that make the system insecure. Besides that stability is very important for a server to... I give half me vote to windows 95 and the other half to xp.
nice a win95 server... :D
I'll go with 2000 for the simple reason MOST(I know ..I know not ALL) of the holes have been discovered.
XP gets my vote for the least secure of all the MS systems using NTFS....my reason? From the opposite view it hasn't been used long enough for all the bugs and holes to be discovered.
I will not comment on the security of 95,98 or Me....except they remind me of swiss cheese.
if u want a secure system....... just take it of the NET....