This says how I feel...

(Nicked from BN2Beeyatches)

I had my first experience with Vista back in October, when I started back in my part-time tech-support job at the university. The influx of first years had begun, and with them their laptops, needing to be configured to connect to the university network. I just about had the patience to do it on XP (just), but on Vista? Bloody hell. Negotiating the 'innovative' interface gave enough cause to tear my hair out (if I had any), and why, when you try to launch an app or open a file, does it ask you if you are sure that this is what you want to do?

When I worked in software testing, part of the pleasure of my daily grind for the first half of my tenure - about 2 years - was testing various desktop applications on various different versions of Windows. Most of the applications were themselves written by Microsoft, who dictated that they had to be tested on every version of Windows going. As a result, I built up my experience with - and subsequently formed an opinion of - everything ranging from Windows 95 to Windows XP. You want the definitive guide? Of course you do.

Windows 95: Superceding all versions of the Windows GUI before it, it was supposed to feature universal Plug n' Play. It didn't. Although lacking in features compared to what came after it, it was reasonably stable, although I'm sure you'll agree that when it comes to Windows in general, that's not saying a whole lot.

Windows 98: More unstable than a nuclear bomb primed for detonation. Microsoft quickly realised their mistake, and released...

Windows 98SE: A slight improvement on it's predecessor, and as far back as Microsoft were willing to go when testing their applications in 2000. Bought a PC with Windows 95 on it and didn't feel like upgrading a mere 5 years later? Too bad. I have fond memories of frantically trying to locate various device drivers at work because this one came with f**kall as standard.

Windows NT Workstation and Server: A widely distributed (in market terms) business OS, it still wasn't what you'd call the first choice for setting up a stable network. One of guys I worked with who generally tended to work on distributed applications described its day-to-day status as 'up and down like a whoor's knickers'. Other than that, the interface was about the same as Windows 98SE.

Windows Millennium: The follow-up to 98 SE it was universally derided as one of the most bug-ridden unstable version of Windows out there (PC World called it the fourth worst product of all time). I ran this on my own PC for a while, however, and it did generally tend to behave itself, though I never really used it for much, and it wasn't what you'd describe as overflowing with features.

Windows 2000 Professional and Server: In my opinion, the first time Microsoft started to get it right. As a client OS, whether you were a business or home user, Win 2000 did the job adequately, and as far a I can see, is the most stable of all the client operating systems Microsoft have released to date. The Server edition didn't have too bad a track record in most of the places I used to work. Also the last of the operating systems that didn't require online activation, thus making the installation of pirate copies a breeze. Mystifyingly, it holds only something like 2% of the current Microsoft market share.

Windows XP: Never one to operate by the adage 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it', Microsoft ploughed on. This followed shortly after 2000, and has most of its features (with a few extra unnecessary bells and whistles), but not a whole lot of its predecessor's stability. Oh, and it's ugly. It's seemingly shorter boot-up time compared to Win 2000 comes at the inconvenience of waiting around for over a minute while it hourglasses post-login. Sneaky little trick, that one. I tried to get away from XP when I came over here, but a computer I was given for free 2 years ago had XP installed, and most of the computers in the college did too, so I was forced to get used to it. Not the worst, as long as you don't try and work quickly with it: that confuses it, and it promptly hangs.

Windows Vista: As far as I've seen, a complete rip-off of OS X. All major features have been regrouped (like, what's with the bloody Network Connections section? It was fine as it was) and God forbid you try and install any of the leading anti-virus applications, that way lies tears. Prone to spontaneously shutting down on Dell laptops, which is a bit of a bummer when you're working on that essay that is due in the next day and you forgot to save your work as you went along (this happened to my flatmate). The update patches are already out in force. How embarassing...

So there you have it, folks. Burn yourself a copy of Windows 2000 Professional (in the next two years, before they stop supporting it) and off you go.