I'd choose Windows 7 in a heartbeat since I grew up with it. It's design is something that definitely was the best back then.

It's just windows's bad luck that it came during window 8 era. If it has more time to mature, it would be the one the best system today. And we all will happy with that.

The Windows logo changes with each version; for instance, there are designs that look like a waving flag, others that truly resemble a window, and so on, Which Windows logo do you personally prefer?

just a fun little question :P

as a bonus : You are allowed to choose Windows Mobile/Phone or Server

It was in this system that I learned 90% of what made me grow

Drove through the Napa Valley today (18th Feb 2026) with my friend and decided to quickly stop and view the “Bliss” hill.

Took this image looking incredibly similar to how it did back then! Apparently it’s super rare to see this hill without the vineyards and without dead grass.

Very fortunate!

The first one I used was Windows XP, I used it for a long time.

There are a shit loads of Icons dating back to DOS and old programs that (while they still work) have very clearly been replaced with newer programs present on the same system. I started to think about this after finding Write.exe while looking thru the files and was enamered with how old it looked despite being a preinstalled program.

Sometimes you still see the glassy windows vista windows when fullscreening a window for a brief moment, sometimes you find xp icons when going deep into the settings.. Why is that?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to remove all the unused and outtated assets? How come windows are always flip-flopping the style they use depending on the program? Is there a technical reason they still have DOS icons built in?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's really cool to find 20+ year old assets surviving in my modern operating system, I just find it very eluding.

using 11 daily but every time i open an old win7 screenshot it feels like looking at a completely different (and better) product. the transparency and depth actually made the ui feel alive. current design is just sterile rectangles. i don’t get why they refuse to give people a real choice.

(PS: not my screenshot)

30 years later... I’ve got Windows 95 running natively on a Ryzen 9 9900X with 64GB of RAM (1.73GB usable), booting from a 2TB Gen 5 NVMe SSD. The GPU is a PCI-E Nvidia 7900 GS. The drivers require IE6 for the control panel (expect some errors), but the core driver works, and Direct3D seems to run fine. Not saying you should build a high-end AM5 rig just for Win95—but it’s fascinating that you can. With dual boot, you can even jump straight from Windows 11 to 95. Win98 is usually the better choice, since it’s far more compatible with modern-ish hardware.

I didn't use this version much, but the times I did, it was only good experiences. I don't understand all the hate about it.

This is in contrast with the full screen message on Win9x and later NT versions such as Windows XP.

The icon on the left side of the dialog is the "winlogon" executable icon.

I took the screenshot from Windows NT 4.0

I dont want to move to Windows 11 cuz of obvious reasons of it being shitty, Latest Windows 10 runs fine on my system and i use Microsoft Edge as my browser. Is it still safe to use this?

People hate Windows Vista as if it was meticulously crafted by devils and released by psychopaths. But i believe that Vista may be the best OS of all time, and I CAN prove it to you:

1. Vista made the modern PC

Because of Vista's "Ridiculous" system requirements at the time, people who installed it on their ThinkPad from 2002 or their Sony Vaio Desktop from '03 absolutely thought it ran like an Obese man on a toy bicycle. So when they upgraded to machines that came with Windows 7, they believed that Windows 7 ran better than Vista, even though their machines exceeded Vista's recommended requirements, and even though they didn't try Vista on a PC with the optimal specifications to run Vista. (Note: I absolutely know that some people can't afford an adequate Vista PC or Laptop, and i can't blame you, but couldn't they have saved up to buy a good Vista Laptop and for the time being, stayed on XP, and saved their opinions on Vista before they tried it at its best?)

Vista also brought many features that people take for granted today: Windows Aero, actual 64-bit support, Gadgets, Windows Defender, Windows UAC, Improved Search, BitLocker, TPM Support, UEFI Support, Parental Controls, Touchscreen Support instead of an entire edition, i can go on!

2. If people tried actually making good drivers back then, it would have been stable

Vista had a huge bluescreen problem, but not that many people know it isn't Windows' Problem, the drivers were the big culprit.

Case in point: Nvidia.

According to internal Microsoft data released during the 2007 "Vista Capable" lawsuit, NVIDIA drivers were responsible for 28.8% of all logged Windows Vista crashes. Literally every PC Company had 1.5 years to start developing on WDDM (Basing on the release of the 1st Windows Vista Beta to support WDDM, Build 5111)! If it's anyone to blame the slow PC at the time, It's not Vista, literally everyone else was at fault here.

3. Windows 7 overshadowed it

Believe it or not, 7 Removed some useful features from Windows Vista, had bigger system requirements, and yet people consider THAT to be the lighter release!?

Proof: Microsoft's System requirements for both

According to Microsoft, the system requirements for both Windows Vista And 7 (Both Ultimate and x64):

BOTH Needed 1Ghz Processors

BOTH Needed DirectX 9 GPUs

Windows 7 Needed 5GB MORE Than Vista (If you tell me that Vista needed a 40GB HDD while 7 Neede 20GB, i need to clarify that With Windows 7, Microsoft stoped posting required total HDD space requirements. Windows Vista needed a 40GB HDD as a whole, even though Vista only needed 15GB of space to Install, while 7 needed 20GB to install)

Windows 7 Needed 1GB more than Vista

The Takeaway

While yes, Windows 7 was better optimized for PCs, Windows Vista did 80% of the work that Windows 7 gets the credit for. If you really love Windows 7, at least for the love of God, give Vista some love, I am SO OVER with trusted tech reviewers getting their infor regarding Windows Vista from people who haven't even tried it once.

Have I tried Windows Vista? Yes.

Was it faster than XP? No.

Did i try it on the best Hardware? No. (MSI U135DX)

Did i like it? Absolutely.

So just try it. Please.

So about a month ago I decided to switch to Linux, I did it mainly because I was told by various youtubers that swtiching to Linux will give me a better perfomance in many games and oh boy I was wrong...

Let's start with audio, on Windows audio just works. On Linux every time I plugged in my headphones I rolled the dice because audio would stop playing or would play only on one channel or sound would start crackling.

Another thing installing programs. On Windows when I want to install a program I open Powershell type in winget install + name of a program I'm looking for and Windows does everything for me automatically. On Linux I do the same thing however I have to also check allignement of the planets and the Sun otherwise dependencies might break on their own sometimes breaking the whole system.

When Windows breaks it breaks predictably I can fix it mostly on my own and when I have to look for the fix online the solution always works because there is only one version of Windows. When Linux breaks you must find the right distrubtion then you must hope that someone have the same programs as you do because dependencies.

Finally gaming on Windows when I want to play a game I launch the exe file of the game ( or click the icon if I play a game from Microsoft Store) and it launches without surprises. On Linux when I launch a game first I have to launch Lutris then I must find the right configuration for that game and when the game launches I have to wonder what will not work.

Conclusion to anyone else beliving in gaming on Linux if someone tells you that Linux is good for gaming they are simply lying because it's not. Gaming on Linux is exhausting, unstable and unfun.

Here's the list of what I got so far:

• Windows NT Server 4.0 (Sealed)
• Windows 95
• Windows 98 (Sealed)
• Windows 2000 Server
• Windows XP Home Edition SP2
• Windows XP Professional SP2 OEM License Kit
• Windows Small Business Server Edition 2003 (only CD case)
• Windows Vista Home Premium
• Windows Vista Home Premium OEM
• Windows Vista Business Genuine Kit SP1
• Windows 7 Professional
• Windows 7 Home Premium
• Microsoft Office 2000 Standard
• Microsoft Office XP Standard
• Microsoft Office 2003 Teachers and Student Edition
• Microsoft Office 2007 Home and Student Edition
• Microsoft Office 2010 Professional
• Microsoft Office 2010 Home and Student Edition