Rank the mainstream Windows versions from best to worst. 3.1

95 is "dos shell" my friend

>>57308944
why is 10 the worst?

>>57309070
I know it is. Let me rephrase: Only count the mainstream versions (not server) and only the ones with a taskbar.
>>57309075
Because biggest botnet, ugly user interface, and advertising everywhere.

NT kernal:
10
7
2000
XP
vista
8/8.1

dos based:
98 Second edition
95
ME

I would swap XP and 2000 but aside from that I have no problem with the OP's list. In fact, I'd get rid of XP and put XP Pro x64 myself since I used that for years without issues unlike some idiots that had nothing but trouble with it.

XP Pro x64 is the fastest OS version of Windows ever created, even faster than Server 2003 which it was based upon (with the XP GUI on top). Never really cared much for consumer XP and didn't use it all that much either.

If you consider 8/8.1/10 worse than ME, Vista, and 98, you're a deficient

01. 7
02. XP
03. 2000
04. 98
05. 10
06. 8.1
07. Vista
08. 8
09. 95
10. Millennium

>>57309147
>10
>#1

Explain this faggotry.

File: 1471035175943.png (325KB, 650x452px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 650x452px

>>57308944
Windows for Workgroups.... you cunt!

>>57309300
nothing wrong with vista, but there's a lot things wrong with 8 and 10
8 = tablet OS
10 = botnet OS