[narag]

I think Windows 9x was peak Windows.

I'd choose XP instead. People disputing the performance maybe should consider the hardware at that time. Real problem with 9x was low-level stability. Juggling with compatibility was difficult, file access comes to mind, it was a kludge. It was possible but hard to maintain the system in a sensible state.

XP was the first to bring NT architecture to desktop. It was a huge success. Many despised the colorful UI, I actually like it. They started moving things around, but annoyances were fixable. Microsoft has adopted more of a "my way or the highway" attitude since.

[linguae]

XP also introduced activation, which is one of the reasons I prefer Windows 2000 to XP.

[BirAdam]

People also forget… XP had more than the one tonka-toy theme from Frog Design. There were several themes. Some appealed to my visual tastes, some didn’t… but I do think they were well designed, which is more than I can say for most UI design today.

[reddalo]

Yes, maybe XP was the sweet spot between ease of use and ability to revert back to a "classic" Windows interface.

It also had many multimedia features for burning CDs, editing videos, etc..

[afzalive]

Wasn't 2000 the first NT architecture on desktop?

2000 is, by far, my favourite Windows OS.

[Narishma]

What do you mean by 'on desktop'?

NT has always had both server and workstation versions.

[bee_rider]

XP was quite ugly though. 98 or whatever was the best looking, but 7 was probably best overall (because they’d at least somewhat improved the UI and the system was generally more stable and modern).

(FWIW I mostly switched to Linux after XP so this isn’t nostalgia).