Quote Originally Posted by W3WN View Post
Which NT? 3.51 or 4?

Don’t forget NT’s original name, either... Micro$oft OS/2.

Vista gets a bad rap, but it was really a good OS... if you ran it on the proper hardware platform. Too many Vista machines were underpowered out of the box, and some of the bloat that M$ built or left in didn’t help one bit. A few inevitable bug fixes, some bloat removal, and Vista 2.0 turned into a good, stable OS.

Don’t remember Vista 2? Sure you do. It also got a name change for marketing reasons... to Windows 7.
I do remember NT 3.51 and NT 4, both can be a real PITA to install, frequent BSOD during install. Before Windows 3, I had Windows 2.11. A saw Vista once, and performance was a dog - did not last long.

Before Win98SE, there was Win95 (I skipped this one, and OSR2 as well, and Win98. It was Win98 SE that really took off. I have two low importance programs that would not work after Win98 SE, so it lives on VMware.

I had chronic problems with Windows 7 early on, so I stayed with Win XP (from SP2), util the Windows 7 multicore code was fixed. Some of my engineering programs was fine when running 1 or two cores, more than 2, some programs became sluggish to the point of crashing. At some point, this was fixed, and when this happened, I left XP.