When I use windows to maintain them and make sure there secure,otherwise I no longer use windows. 2 Laptops with windows 8. 2 Laptops with windows 7.
i cried tears of joy when Microsoft buried those BSOD factories (Windows 95/98/ME) and we started to get into the real good stuff with XP.
After I learned DOS per job requirement I purchased my first computer a desktop with ME and it was the worst money I ever spent until XP came along but I had to upgrade my ram and then upgraded to XP then the joy begin. Thank you NTSF
When I used Win95 "First OS on the first PC" and then later Win98. I never had a BSOD with either of them ever, do you say that's just luck or what?
Windows 7 but i'm getting interested in W8 . . . Who knows. I said that i would wait W9 but damn this is tough.
I am using Win7 - best OS for me of all time! - and won't "upgrade" it (for sure not down to Win8 disaster) if hardware is not failing anytime soon and not before Win7 is EOL. And if I should need a replacement I will try to get hardware with Win7 support. Take that, Redmond.
Actually we have two laptops that by no choice of our's came with windows 8 SONY VAIO.Its actually not all the bad but good luck getting into safe mode if needed,what a pita.However I have to agree windows 7 is the best to date and Even folks I know that are linux or OS X fans say windows 7 is a excellent OS.
I've had plenty of BSODs in Vista and Windows 7. In Vista I got a serious BSOD which I was unable to find the cause of, so I had to do a clean install - something I'd rather never do.
It runs most of the apps I use. The one I wish did is an online game I enjoy. The game runs but I can't get the graphics right. The most current browsers aren't working on it so I stay with the versions that do. They render most of the sites I visit correctly. If I really need to see a site that doesn't work while on 98, I use VPC and an XP or 2K guest system. Regarding 98 and BSODs, out of the box 98 was unstable. Part of it was the weak hardware it had to work with. Give XP or Win 7 64MB of RAM and a 366mhz processor and lets see how well it runs. Part of it was the OS itself. 98 handled memory and resources poorly. It was very vulnerable to apps with memory leaks. Unfortunately for 98, the worst offender was bundled with it, Internet Explorer. Microsoft could have fixed this and many other problems but chose not to, not because it was difficult, but because it would hurt sales on the NT systems. Fortunately, someone else did, the same guy that released StartIsBack for Win 8 actually. Once in a while I'll see a BSOD, usually when I'm doing something different on VPC. Under more normal usage, they don't happen.
Thanks for the info! I remember installing the old Netscape browser on Windows 95, it ran somewhat better. Ah, the good old days.
Windows 8 64 bit on new Dell XPS 8500. Windows 7 HP 64 bit on Dell XPS 410. Windows 7 HP (32 bit) on Dell Inspiron 6000.
There was a program many years ago called RamGate for Windows 9x systems, which took over the management of system resources, so that Windows would not become unstable when system resources became low. If there were not enough system resources to do something, you would get an out of memory error and not a crash. The limited amount of system resources (which remianed the same no matter how much RAM you had installed) and bad handling of them was a huge problem (unless you were using something like RamGate). If system resources dropped below about 30% then Windows becmae highly likely to crash, and even if you closed some programs and the amount of free system resources increased Windows still was likely to crash. However originally the amount of system resources available was orignally even less before Windows 95 was released. Some guys from the now defunct Windows magazine, took a look at an early version of Win 95 and suggested that MS increased the amount of system resources.
