andreizabest wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:40 pm Windows 95 and 98 generally feel like a mess overall. The stability issues made the OS;s feel like a mess in comparison to modern systems who can mostly handle most types of hardware and hardware changes seamlessly.

Comparing to its main competitor Mac OS, Windows 95 is way more stable with its preemtive multitasking while able to handle years of MS-DOS and Win16 legacy almost seamlessly which is ridiculous from programming standpoint. Its (iconic) interface is also easier to navigate than 3.x for many users. I think most of its stability issues just boils down to those legacy hurdles which ME tried to sweep out radically. Windows 98 do deserve more of its bad reputations it should have had due to its embedded Internet Explorer into the entire OS though.

andreizabest wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:40 pm Windows 2000 probably shouldn't be included since that OS wasn't really dedicated to consumers, or if it's included then other NT versions of windows up to that should also be considered.

Except its Professional edition was already adopted by many normal consumers. It is simply rock stable and has features that are considered "consumery" such as Plug And Play and DirectX 7 (upgradable up to 9). Unless you have to deal with MS-DOS drivers and/or softwares that NTVDM cannot handle it is a no brainer to spend more for less BSODs.

andreizabest wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 1:40 pm I seriously do like Windows XP and it's overall look. Significantly more stable than previous 9x based versions of Windows. It was perfect for it's time.

I recommend you watching this video and then reevaluating your opinion.

No comments on the rest.

Edit: Missing words added.
Edit #2: I forgot not everyone are into light mode