XP would be about 92/100
2k would be about 93/100
ME wuould be around 68/100
98 would be around 72/100
95 would be around 71/100
NT4 wouildbee like 86/100
NT3 same as NT4
Hey T4? WHat did you call perfectly stable???
Longhorn Alpha???
I wanna say even Linux isn't perfectly stable. It's about 8/10. 2K is 6/10. XP is 5/10.
NT4 is 4/10. same for NT3.5x
95 is 3/10. 98 is 2/10...
There is no perfect OS!
I said the Transformation pack was stable. I wasn't calling Longhorn stable.
Hey T4? WHat did you call perfectly stable???
Longhorn Alpha???
I wanna say even Linux isn't perfectly stable. It's about 8/10. 2K is 6/10. XP is 5/10.
NT4 is 4/10. same for NT3.5x
95 is 3/10. 98 is 2/10...
There is no perfect OS!
Hey now... NT is far more stable then those ratings. I'd give 2000 and XP a 9.5/10, if they run for a month+ straight without problems, they are pretty stable in my opinion. NT 4 may be a little less stable, but from my experiences, the NT line doesn't loose stability unless humans cause it to.
NT BSODs are so much cooler...you get a memory dump AND you can debug the kernel...looks much more tech-like, much better than "Error in module VFAT.VXD at 0xa8402".
Comments
2k would be about 93/100
ME wuould be around 68/100
98 would be around 72/100
95 would be around 71/100
NT4 wouildbee like 86/100
NT3 same as NT4
I said the Transformation pack was stable. I wasn't calling Longhorn stable.
-Q
I know I'm completely missing your point here, but under certain conditions it will appear purple...
-Q
Yeah! If it installs without a hitch... it would seem fast and stable, then you install 50+ windows updates.. suddenly not so fast and stable.
NT4 and 2k are very stable OSes, they can literally run for months without problems.
Unfortunately, when 2k went through an upgrade into XP it lost a lot of its stability, XP often crashes for me.
9x has no stability whatsoever, after all it is DOS with a multi-tasking GUI still, it never really changed from Win 3.1
-Q
-Q
-Q