BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Windows 7 to me felt the cleanest and least bloated
I didn't select one yet, but 8.0 gave us free app Fresh Paint which is exceptional in the way Minesweeper and Solitaire were originally back in the day IMO with 3.0/3.1(?), and pretty much every use of touch on the Surface Pro or 3 in 1's range, today has its origins in 8 or 8.1 from what the likes of Sony did with the Vaio Z range with 8.0, so being anti touch Windows OS when the vast majority of sold computers by the day(smart devices) are all touch seems very weird to me.I'm just waiting for the dumb MF'er who votes for Windows 8/8.1. I will do everything in my power to convince the admins to ban anyone who selects that option. And it won't take much, because I'm pretty sure @EviLore doesn't want that kind of riff-raff hanging out at NeoGAF.
We are too classy for that nonsense...
EDIT: I went for Windows 10. Other than the bloat (which, while annoying, can be removed), it improved on Windows 7.
In general I agree although an actively update security suite from Norton/Sophos etc, might be enough for anything from 7 onwards.Windows is just a tool that I use so I don't have a favorite version. They've all worked largely the same way and they do the same thing. Each new version is just Windows evolving with the rest of technology.
Hanging on to old versions as your daily driver is irresponsible because they're not secure. So if you're using a version pre-Windows 10 for anything you should probably be running it as a guest inside of a hypervisor on Windows 10 or 11 and you should not be using it for anything related to your personal information. By all means game away, but don't use it to do your taxes.
I prefer hyper-v to run older versions of Windows on Windows 10 or 11. It takes some work and your hardware must support it, but it's possible to do video card passthrough on hyper-v. In general I prefer VirtualBox if I'm running non-Windows guests because it's so much easier to tweak on the fly.In general I agree although an actively update security suite from Norton/Sophos etc, might be enough for anything from 7 onwards.
I also thought for virtual machine graphics acceleration, users needed to use Virtual Box instead of Windows Hypervisor, no?
Hypothetically in the scenario you wanted to run multiple virtual machine OSes and copies of Dolphin each with say MK Double Dash for LAN play -, so you could manually run the LAN party as a splitscreen collage on one 4K TV, with each screen running the full fat graphics of the game, rather than splitscreen LoD's/resolutions, can hypervisor share the acceleration between more than one virtual machine?I prefer hyper-v to run older versions of Windows on Windows 10 or 11. It takes some work and your hardware must support it, but it's possible to do video card passthrough on hyper-v. In general I prefer VirtualBox if I'm running non-Windows guests because it's so much easier to tweak on the fly.
I remember my mum buying a laptop and it was the first time I'd used XP. It was honestly so damn good going from Windows 98 to XP. Incredible OS and easily my favourite. Win 7 close behind.XP for nostalgia
Sounds like you are maybe a bit too young to fully appreciate the full evolution if you missed all the days of DOS or DRDOS/concurrent DOS as the OS that Windows ran on.Here is a summary of my experience with all the Windows.
Windows 3.1: never used it, so I have no opinion
Windows 95: only used it in PCs at school and a friends house, seemed ok
Windows 98: used it on my first PC, this OS was the absolute OS I have ever used. So many issues and crashes.
Windows 98SE: significantly more stable than 98, but still terrible
Windows ME: the best of the 9x kernel OS. Much more stable than 98
Windows 2000: rock solid, but a bit slower than 98 and ME in games.
Windows XP: started really bad, almost a magnet for virus. With SP2 it became very good, probably the best Windows ever. And with the issues with Longhorn development, XP lasted a long time.
Windows Vista: I had no issues with it. But it was slower than XP, while adding nothing worthwhile. So I went back to XP, until...
Windows 7: The only Windows version that can contend with XP for the best
Windows 8: The worst interface ever in a Windows system. But it had some improvements to performance. At the time, I measured around 5% improvement in CPU bound scenarios, over 7.
Windows 8.1: Several improvements to the UI, but still bad.
Windows 10: Fixed most improvements to the UI. Started as a good OS, but MS added more and more bloatware, spyware and all sort of crap. Around this time, was when MS fired their Q&A team, so now they use normal users as guinea pigs, so every other update breaks something.
Windows 11: Started as having several UI problems. Eventually MS fixed some issues. And with some tweaks, the rest can be fixed. This thing has a ton of spyware, bloatware and so much useless crap. It takes an hour to clean up this OS, but after that, it's good. Windows update still sucks.
Sounds like you are maybe a bit too young to fully appreciate the full evolution if you missed all the days of DOS or DRDOS/concurrent DOS as the OS that Windows ran on.
And I suspect your Windows 2000 Pro PC must have been misconfigured or lacked a proper multicore CPU or adequate RAM if it ran games slower than that ME trash or 98 at the end with newer versions of DirectX and a million service patches. 2000 Pro was almost as lean as NT4 when optimally configured for my use across many home and business machines.
My experience with ME optimised by IBM was still like a snake suffocating responsiveness and performance compared to running 2000 pro on the exact same hardware. I tried everything possible to make it better, given it was a gift PC I'd bought the better half when she was in accommodation without access to a landline and was using a Noki 7110 and modem adapter for internet access at a maximum of 4KB/s Think between the DirectX update and first patch for the 3D Monkey Island game 4-5hrs passed.