Penultimate means "Next to last" so I'm confused.

kant explain wrote on 2023-09-19, 01:57:

What's the best OS for lessay 1998 - 2007 machines.

XP SP3 32-bit with a S775 P4 Cedar Mill or some C2D, 4GB (2x2GB) ram.

Everything you throw at it will run butter smooth.

Maybe some 98/99 software could be problematic, but probably most things can be fixed with a patch.

Age of machine matters a lot here - what would be well suited for a 2007 machine would be pointlessly slow on a 1998 machine, and what would run best on a 1998 machine likely couldn't even run on a 2007 machine without a lot of effort.

But if I had to pick one it would be 32bit XP if only because it will be fine on machines from most of that time span. The only real reason to go 64bit on that age of hardware is because Microsoft artificially limited 32bit desktop windows to 4GB of RAM - there really wasn't much software back then that actually needed to be 64bit.

I never said it had to run on anything in that span of years. I was just defining a period. You pick what year/machine you want, and the accompanying OS.

I'm still waiting to see all the raves aboit NT 4.0 and Server 2003 (ironically the oldest and newest in that category). NT is tight and nimble, but lilely gags on a few apps. 2003 likely does also. But perhaps no more then XP.

Vintage: up to 2000 (different architectures supported)
Semi vintage: NT 5.1 (XP) & 5.2 (2003) x32
Too new: NT 5.1 (XP) & 5.2 (2003) x64 (too new, laid the path for current x64 systems)

If you want a fuss free responsive stabile OS, go with XP SP2. Or if you use no networks then even SP1. XP x64 is so niche product. 2k is just XP without fancy skins for those Windows 9x machines, that you maybe try to use NT based os for everyday use. Because NT 3.51/4.0 were more or less niche products.

It's kinda apples to oranges. I'm not sure there is an ultimate vintage OS. It'd be like saying that the SNES is the ultimate retro console so you shouldn't use the NES. It's apples to oranges.

Some people want to use Windows 95. Windows 98 is a clear improvement over 95, but for the people who want to use 95, they want 95, not 98. Likewise, if you want Windows 3.1 or DOS, then that's the one you want.

That's kinda how retro stuff works in general. Even if a better thing came along later, maybe you want to build a 486 DOS machine because that's what you want. I'm sure some people out there want to use Windows NT or Windows 2000, that's just what they want to use. So it just depends on what kind of machine you like and want to build. What someone wants to use as their retro OS is going to vary person to person. Even with XP, just considering compatibility, there were things that were made for 3.1, or that worked better on earlier versions of windows or on dos. But you also have to consider speed, and the hardware of the era, and the possibility that you might want a period correct machine, and the possibility that drivers may only be available for certain versions of windows, and so on. It's really apples to oranges.