Which OS are the worst and the best?

[hagar]

used and liked:
OS/2 v 2.1, 3.0 , 4.0 , 4.5
Ericsson Dos v 3.2
Microsoft Dos v 4.01, 6.22
Windows 2000

used and disliked:
Windows 95
Windows 98 (sucks even more than 95)

uses and likes:
Linux
Solaris

[hagar]

lempkee wrote:
WOrst: WINDOWS 95 / Me /3.11  , ATARI TOS
[...]

Windows 286/386, 3.0, 3.11 and 3.11 is just a graphical shell for Dos and should therefor just be considered as a crappy program for a very old operating system, not as an operating system.

[hagar]

Tomas wrote:
....
What about win95, 98 and me then? Was running ontop of dos too...

I must admit that you got a point there...  :-x

However I think that one should consider Msdos 7.0 (or whatever they called it) as an integrated part of win95/98/me, since you can't (or shouldn't)  replace the dos delivered wtih windows with another version.

If I rembember correctly Caldera (owners of Dr. DOS)  sued microsoft since win95/98 could (with some hard work) run under different version of DOS (including DR. Dos), and microsoft didn't play fair since they bundled  dos 7.0 with win95/98 and said that it was integrated...

However I don't know what happend with that lawsauit and i havn't seen a "beginners guide to use Dr.Dos with windows 95/98" anywhere on the net.

[hagar]

uncharted wrote:
...
I had a Win3.11/OS2Warp dual boot machine shortly before Win95 became available, and to be honest Warp never got much use, as it was slow, clunky and had zero software for it.  It was technically superiour, but lost out to the M$ marketing machine.  Had NT's development gone differently we may all be using Warp now.

One thing I used os/2 for was playing DOS games.
OS/2s dos emulation was (and still is) much better than windows 95/98, NT4.0 or 2000 (can't say anyting about ME or XP but I guess it havn't got better).