Poll: Which MS OS was supreme for its time?

[UnixFreak]

Ok, I gotta be fair to the win-nuts, I vote for DOS 6.22

 

[frostgiant]

No, it was DOS 5. Everything that ran in DOS 6 would run in DOS 5. I still prefer 5 to 6. Maybe the golden time was when MS Windows 3.1 came out. It wasn't a true OS yet, just basically a super-application on top of DOS...

 

[owensdj]

I say that Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0 in 1996 was the supreme workstation OS at the time. It had better stability & multitasking than OS/2 Warp and better multithreading & multiprocessor support than Linux. NT 4.0 was also easier to install and maintain than either of these other OSs. I ran NT 4.0 for almost 4 years until I changed to Windows 2000 in December.

 

[smp]

so you're saying that Win 2000 is better than NT..??? I heard the opposite.. (I read that in Cadalyst magazine) (yes I do graphic stuff... and 3Dstuff.. and NT is good for that stuff..)

 

[UnixFreak]

<--- Dope
I didnt Include NT, I completely forgot. I guess Its not really a
desktop common user type OS, but I should have included it, btw owen, I agree with you, at that time that was the case as I saw it. I still have respect for NT.

 

[themadmonk]

Windows 2000 should not be included because its time has not passed, but for its time, definately MS-DOS 6.22.

 

[UnixFreak]

technically time doesnt exist in the present, so it doesnt really matter, does it?

 

[UnixFreak]

technically time doesnt exist in the present, so it doesnt really matter, does it?

 

[owensdj]

smp, yes, Windows 2000 is better than NT 4.0, assuming you have the additional hardware(mostly more memory) needed to run it. Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0 with a marketing-influenced name change. Windows 2000 is NOT the next OS in the Windows 95, 98, ME software line.

 

[smp]

Okay.. now I want Win2K.. I got 256 megs of ram.. I think I'm set.. .. how much $'s?? can I upgrade nt4 to it??? If I have a licended copy?? is that cheaper..
sorry to be off topic..
As far as my experience renders.. it's NT. I like it.. as for makin a web server out of a p75, it's linux.. ..

 

[jsm]

I really like Windows NT 3.51 when it came out. It had a crappy Windows 3.x interface, but it was solid and worked pretty damn good. And it was much better than using Windows 3.1 .. oh, the pain.

I just wish I had a copy of Microsoft Bob.

 

[jimmt]

OS/2 ver 2

 

[Sunner]

OS/2 isnt an MS OS, it was made by IBM.
Anyway, my vote's for DOS 6.2x
If games would run under DOS these days I'd be using it all the time no doubt, it was incredibly friggin' fast, decently stable, very easy, and yet you had pretty decent control over what the system was doing.

Very nice gaming OS.

A dual boot between DOS and Linux would be pretty nice, Linux for work and DOS for games.

 

[tbumpus]

smp -

Yes, you can upgrade NT4 to Win2k Prof. for $120±.

 

[TonyRic]

Sunner, Just to set the record straight. OS/2 was a joint effort by Microsoft and IBM in the mid 80's. Versions 2.0, 2.1, 2.11, Warp 3 and Warp 4 carry alot of Microsoft code, so while you may be partially correct, you are mostly mistaken. Microsoft originally coded ALL of OS/2.

 

[UnixFreak]

Cant let this poll die... ^Bump^

 

[jtshaw]

I would say WinNT3.51 or 4.0, DOS came out well after UNIX was created and had half the features (actually even less then half the features). Windows 3.1 was a sad attempt to catch up to the already created X-Windows (the first ever graphical user interface, deveoped by Xerox, hence the &quot;X&quot and Mac user interfaces (though I am not a Mac fan). Windows 95/98/ME are far too unstable. Win2000 is not very evolutionary compared to NT4.0.

 

[themadmonk]

UnixFreak where did you come up with such a concept such as &quot;technically time does not exist in the present&quot;? I would not even begin to think of ways you could convince me of such seeing that you first and foremost totally misunderstood my post. The main idea is OS in it's time? Has Windows 2000's time passed? No. Windows 98, 2000 and soon to be Whistler will all be sharing the same time in the spotlight. When the time comes when Windows 2000 is retired then you can say it's time has passed and it was the best in its time. MS-DOS on the other hand has seen its time and for its time, that is the time of TEXT Based consoles, not GUI such as now, can be argued as the best in its time.

 

[shiner]

Tonyric...

OS/2 was not mostly written by MS. If the truth were to be told it was about 50% written by IBM, 40 written by Digital, and 10 by MS. In fact all versions of WinNT still carried about 60% of the original OS/2 code but were primarily written by Digital. It wasn't until Nt 4.0 that MS could claim it had written a signgnificant portion of WinNT. I knew someone that was a programmer for MS back in the early to mid 90's and he was always cracking up about that fact.

 

[Bluga]

Linux rocks. It so stable.

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

dos 3.3

dos 5

win nt4

 

[Damaged]

No offense, but nothing from the MAC side?

 

[Cknyc]

I agree it was Dos 3.3

 

[Sunner]

<< 40 written by Digital >>


Thats new to me.

Guess this is one of those things that there are lots of different explainations for depending on who you ask.

 

[Elledan]

DOS 5.0

I run it on a 286, 386 and 486 PC and it never crashed.