First post, by KCompRoom2000
Hi, I'm not sure if this has been posted before (if it has and you don't see a point in having this thread open, then I apologize), but here it goes.
I know most of you people have a whole assortment of builds with different hardware configurations (i.e. processor generations and graphics card combinations), there are some people who are fine with OS redundancy and there are some who try to cut back on it, I respect that some of you have thresholds on preferred operating systems for each generation of hardware, which brings me to this discussion: What's your opinion and position on OS redundancy? Do you find yourself using the same OS on a fixed generation of hardware and don't mind it or do you like to go crazy and assign different/specific OS/Windows versions on your spare rigs?
As far as my opinion goes: I'm normally open to using different (and sometimes exotic) Windows versions on hardware that some of you usually pick the bog-standard 98 or XP option for. For example: I'm using Windows 95 OSR2.5 (without Active Desktop) on my Celeron-433/Voodoo 2 machine, a system that most of you would choose Windows 98 for, the reasons are that I already have a much more powerful Pentium III Tualatin system for Windows 98 usage, I find 95 a little more stable than 98 (my personal experience), and I haven't ran into a reason to use 98 on the Celeron rig (when and if I do, I'll consider it).
Some of you have been saying that there's no point in using Windows 95/ME/NT/2000/Vista/8 when you can use Windows 98/XP/7/10 instead, which I understand, but I personally find it a fun and enjoyable experience to be open to using the often overlooked Windows versions on my systems mainly because I grew up with some of them and I like seeing how Windows has changed throughout its lifetime.
