Favorite OS?

[Brendon]

I'm hoping that I'm not the only nerd around here n.n;

So what is everyone's preference on Operating Systems?

I love OS X, but I hate Macs for being overpriced, so I run it on my PC :D

[pirateninja]

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6466/macvspc2oc.jpg




PC forever :D I use Vista, which is working well. But XP was good too.

[PatC]

My favorite OS is a form of linux called "Damn Small Linux(DSL)". The bigges reason I like it so much is because its only 50mb, but is amazing to use, not as amazing as Vista, but its still my favorite:).

[Trystan]

definitely linux, i go for the larger distributions, cos they've got way better graphics than vista and mac and it's free :D Just youtube it
converted my whole family and three friends lol they all approve.

[berileos]

Windows XP,definitely

[Paul_UK]

Unfortunately my favourite OS and what I actually use are not the same thing. If I was able I would use one of the major Linux distros but there is the old issue of applications. So I use Windows (Vista on my laptop, XP on my desktop). Serious progress is being made though, and it is ever easier to find good free open source applications for most purposes, many of which run on Linux and Windows. So hopefully the point when I can move to Linus is not too far away.

I voted for Linux.

[Alabastair]

I use 98, which I think was and still is an amazing OS. The amount of compatibility available is astounding. XP was pretty good, and for people that are good at tweaking, XP can be extremely powerful. I use Vista too, but its graphics are a bit cheesy for my taste.
I use OS X for video editing for school and work, but I really don't like them much. I don't need developers holding my hand when I use the computer, so Macs in general irk me.
I like Linux a lot. I am currently using Sabayon, Puppy, and Slackware. I have tried many distros though. DSL was great though. If you use Compiz and Beryl (now Compiz Fusion), the graphics are way better then anything Apple or Microsoft can come up with. Compiz Fusion is constantly evolving. Mmm, if you have the horse power, its stunning. KDE 4 looks promising too. I can't wait to use it.

All distros have their strong points and their week spots, so its really hard to choose. I will always stand by Linux though.

Here is something that pokes fun at all oses (I wrote none of it except for the Vista Air part):

If Operating Systems Ran The Airlines...

UNIX Airways

Everyone brings one piece of the plane along when they come to the airport. They all go out on the runway and put the plane together piece by piece, arguing non-stop about what kind of plane they are supposed to be building.

Air DOS

Everybody pushes the airplane until it glides, then they jump on and let the plane coast until it hits the ground again. Then they push again, jump on again, and so on...

Mac Airlines

All the stewards, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look and act exactly the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are gently but firmly told that you don't need to know, don't want to know, and everything will be done for you without your ever having to know, so just shut up.

Windows Air

The terminal is pretty and colourful, with friendly stewards, easy baggage check and boarding, and a smooth take-off. After about 10 minutes in the air, the plane explodes with no warning whatsoever.

Windows NT Air

Just like Windows Air, but costs more, uses much bigger planes, and takes out all the other aircraft within a 40-mile radius when it explodes.

Windows XP Air

You turn up at the airport,which is under contract to only allow XP Air planes. All the aircraft are identical, brightly coloured and three times as big as they need to be. The signs are huge and all point the same way. Whichever way you go, someone pops up dressed in a cloak and pointed hat insisting you follow him. Your luggage and clothes are taken off you and replaced with an XP Air suit and suitcase identical to everyone around you as this is included in the exorbitant ticket cost. The aircraft will not take off until you have signed a contract. The inflight entertainment promised turns out to be the same Mickey Mouse cartoon repeated over and over again. You have to phone your travel agent before you can have a meal or drink. You are searched regularly throughout the flight. If you go to the toilet twice or more you get charged for a new ticket. No matter what destination you booked you will always end up crash landing at Whistler in Canada.

Linux Air

Disgruntled employees of all the other OS airlines decide to start their own airline. They build the planes, ticket counters, and pave the runways themselves. They charge a small fee to cover the cost of printing the ticket, but you can also download and print the ticket yourself.

When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very comfortable, the plane leaves and arrives on time without a single problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is, "You had to do what with the seat?"


Vista Air:
You board a refurbished XP plane and have to go through eight times as many security checks are anywhere else. You aren't served any food because its 'too dangerous'. The stewardess carry guns and don't hesitate to shoot them at anything that moves. However, in the mean time the plane door behind them is wide open to intruders. The lights are constantly flickering on and off, and halfway over the ocean the plane lands because the control system needed to be rebooted. The plane struggles to get up back in the air before finally taking a nose dive into England.

Longish post. Sorry.

[Bookmarked]

It had to be Windows Vista, for the "Oooh, new wallpaper!" things. Though, to be honest, if my computer can let me access the internet, type things and shoot zombies I'm happy enough to marry it.

[Kenko]

I like all of them and hate all of them.

I picked XP due to the fact that it runs the widest range of software, and runs decently on an absolutely massive range of hardware, and hasn't given me any serious issues.

Vista has some nice features but also has some problems.

OS X is the only truly user friendly *NIX though the cost, limited software / hardware, and snobby user community are downsides.

Linux is good in that it is free (as in speech and beer), does run on a range of hardware, but the software selection isn't there, and it's still not "there" IMHO as far as being truly user friendly.

DSL is an amazing distribution in that it does the vast majority of what people need, but is tiny. When you compare the footprint of DSL against any normal desktop distro, it's obvious that most distros are "as bloated" as windows. Unfortunately not everything runs on DSL.

I've amazed people at my 12 year old laptop running Windows98. Still runs foxit great, it can run IE 5.5 or K-melon OK, runs "off by one" great, and is still useful for word processing.

As far as the airplane one, obviously it was written by a pro-Linux user. IMHO Linux shares a lot of the same traits as the UNIX airline. They also forgot to mention that it only flies into a limited selection of airports.

Ideally I'd like to be able to use Linux fulltime, but it isn't there yet.

[SqueakyBubbles9]

I wouldn't mind either XP or OS X. I just think that OS X is faster, more efficient, and more user friendly. But I guess it's subjective.

[Pyro]

OS X. Why? you ask. Because I had windows before. nuff said lol

[Corny]

BeOS .. in case anybody knows that :) too sad that it didn't get developed further.

[Kenko]

BeOS .. in case anybody knows that :) too sad that it didn't get developed further.

Oh oh, pick me pick me!!

My PII used to dualboot to BeOS many years ago. I think I still have a disk image around. Ran well, unfortunately there wasn't much to run.

Anyone remember PC GEOS / GeoWorks? Our family's first PC (a 386SX) came with this instead of Windows. Like Windows you loaded in from DOS, so it wasn't a full OS. It featured pre-emptive multitasking, long (32 char) file names (for things produced by its own applications), a decent word processor, a nice file manager. Ran quite well but never developed into much.

Windows 3.x ran like crap on the computer. For starters it basically filled the hard drive. The hard drive was 40MB which we used the program "Stacker" to fit 80MB on it.

[beyondken]

Favourite OS? Few years-pre-Windows-cover DOS, clearly. Oh, I'm sorry, I have to pick from those options above?

Um...

Um...

"Some form of Linux" is rather a bit vague. Especially considering two (though only two) Windows versions get their own option. My favourite Windows is 95, (comparatively) small and simple, but able to do quite a lot anyway. Anything after that and it really just goes downhill for the most part, in my opinion.

Why no other Mac option? OS X isn't that old that people don't still use earlier versions. *hides unbearably fiddly Macintosh 512K in a box* *ahem*

So um.. to rate the specific options in the poll:

#1. OS X
#37. XP
#37.5. Vista

My vote, however, goes to some form of Linux. My specific favourites aren't Linux. But several distros I prefer to OS X. Then again, many Linuxes I dislike. rather. a. lot.

[Rette]

Linux here. I'm currently using ubuntu. I keep playing around with Slackware a little bit, but I always get bored before I get a decently working distro and switch back to ubuntu.

[Miaplacidus]

If I had to choose, right now.

1. OS X. Because it's stable and efficient like Linux, but user-friendly and the programs I need run on it.

2. Windows Vista. It's too resource-hungry and still less safe than Unix-like stuff - but it's decent. That's what I'm using now.

3. Linux. It has potential but it isn't quite there yet, and probably never will be. The development model is flawed; the open-source community seriously needs to WORK instead of argue endlessly over if something is as free as it should be. I don't care if I see the code or not, I want it to DO what it's supposed to.

4. Windows XP. Because I've always hated it. It seems designed by Fisher-Price, it's old, outdated, lacks features, unsafe...

[GMSuerte]

Why do I ALWAYS think Linux is something sexual?

Vista!

[Wander]

I run Windows XP right now and I have no plans to change until Vista gets some duct tape and staples to fix it up. Everything works just fine with XP, so I don't see any reason to switch over just yet.

[smilealways]

Im using XP atm but I will be buying a new computer soon with Vista but I will also have xp installed. The first one I used was win98 and I still like the design so I made my own windows98 theme with win98 icons and windows. :grin: (its slightly different from win2000)

Ive tried mac, well I use for my music course and I find it really hard to use. Not having the right click makes me feel like Ive lost me other fingers:rolleyes: Anyway, I dont like it.

[BlueRose]

Linux here. Currently running the latest version of Linux Mint.

[Ty]

Os X:)

[Alabastair]

Macs do have right click. It wasn't built off of it, but if you hold down ctrl whil clicking you get functions normally associated with right clicking. And if you plug in any two+ click mouse, it will work on a Mac.

Windows 98 is an OS that I use quite frequently, and imho, the best version of Windows there ever was.

[panda]

I had Vista on my laptop but I didn't like it. I switched to XP.
I don't do a lot. E-Mail,my pictures.some internet,EC,Solitaire.

I'm so impressed by how much "you guys" know about computers. Most of the time I have no idea what you're talking about .:shrug:

[eclipse]

UGH I feel nuts for having 4 different computers - all of which I use regularly, and abuse the heck out of. I'll just talk about my main three:

I use all four actually. My Macbook Pro has Leopard on it, which is a wonderful interface for me and allows me to use both Final Cut and Avid, plus all of the Adobe suite on one machine. So for usability, Mac wins.

My desktop (which I built) however is triple booted to XP, Vista, and Linux Mint. I'll use this setup for intense graphics work with the Adobe suite, Maya, and crazy HD editing with Avid. This setup definitely wins the "bang for your buck" argument.

Then there's my smaller laptop, which I use as a literal notebook, and that runs Linux Mint. All my music, documents, email - everything that I need at all times is on that, thus winning the ease of use, at your fingertips, and redonculously cheap argument.

My dream is to be able to completely switch over to Linux because of its many different flavors, compatibility, security, and, well, because it's free, thus it gets my vote.

[beyondken]

UGH I feel nuts for having 4 different computers - all of which I use regularly, and abuse the heck out of. I'll just talk about my main three:

I use all four actually. My Macbook Pro has Leopard on it, which is a wonderful interface for me and allows me to use both Final Cut and Avid, plus all of the Adobe suite on one machine. So for usability, Mac wins.

My desktop (which I built) however is triple booted to XP, Vista, and Linux Mint. I'll use this setup for intense graphics work with the Adobe suite, Maya, and crazy HD editing with Avid. This setup definitely wins the "bang for your buck" argument.

Then there's my smaller laptop, which I use as a literal notebook, and that runs Linux Mint. All my music, documents, email - everything that I need at all times is on that, thus winning the ease of use, at your fingertips, and redonculously cheap argument.

My dream is to be able to completely switch over to Linux because of its many different flavors, compatibility, security, and, well, because it's free, thus it gets my vote.

What's the kind of hard-ware you've got for that desktop set-up? I want me some of that computing power.



On subtopic, what do you guys thinks of the different versions of Vista? To me it seems like much of the excitement over Vista's release concerned features not available in every release, for me making a lot of the hype seem redundant. But I'm not so aware of what really apparent differences there are in the use of the OS, especially for doing more specialised things than reading-email typing-letters surfing-net.

I've only used one Vista computer*, and I found it a pain to try to navigate directories, switch windows (Aero, or whatever it's called, seemed to be the only option anywhere near the old alt+tab.. one point where I think I'd prefer a lower-level version of Vista, in the interests of efficiency) and understand why its resources-usage meter consistently hit such a damn high percentage when idling on a pretty souped up machine. On the plus side, it was kind of pretty and didn't seem to crash quite as regularly as a copy of XP that's seen a couple of years' service (but only just)**.


And does anybody remember ME? Or was that just some practical-joke aesthetic mod only my father was sold?

* Unless I have blocked further traumatic Vista-moments out of my memory.

[eclipse]

What's the kind of hard-ware you've got for that desktop set-up? I want me some of that computing power.

My desktop is actually on it's 3rd year of existence (with minor upgrades every so often), but still beats the pants off of most consumer-grade models. It's got an AMD 2800+ dual core processor (love and will always use AMD as opposed to Intel - best bang for your buck), QuadroFX 570 (required to use Avid) and Radeon x1800gt (games!), 4 gigs of RAM (nuff said), and oh, about a terabyte of hard drive space. A wonderful multi-platform system, with an Asus board at its core.

On subtopic, what do you guys thinks of the different versions of Vista?

You're gonna die when you hear this. Every single copy of Vista is exactly the same. The only difference is the license key which you enter when installing it. So, you could potentially enter a Home Basic license when installing from an "Ultimate" disc, or vice versa, and still have the same exact operating system at its core. The only difference is the extra bonus features, such as media center, aero, or other stupid enhancements. Is ultimate worth it? Absolutely not. Just a waste of hard drive space and a jacked up price.

Other than that, I actually really enjoy using Vista. I think it is a big improvement and has come a long way, other than the ridiculous amount of space-hogging. Having an OS that is visually pleasing and neatly organized (all your documents are located in a "home" directory, much like any *nix system, that includes Mac as well) makes life easier on you and, well, it's all about productivity, so I think it works. Do I use it much? Not really. I'm more of a Linux/Mac fan and love stability, but It's nice to know that Microsoft is really making efforts to create a more stable OS.

[beyondken]

What's the kind of hard-ware you've got for that desktop set-up? I want me some of that computing power.

My desktop is actually on it's 3rd year of existence (with minor upgrades every so often), but still beats the pants off of most consumer-grade models. It's got an AMD 2800+ dual core processor (love and will always use AMD as opposed to Intel - best bang for your buck), QuadroFX 570 (required to use Avid) and Radeon x1800gt (games!), 4 gigs of RAM (nuff said), and oh, about a terabyte of hard drive space. A wonderful multi-platform system, with an Asus board at its core.

Niiiiiiiiiiice. :)

You're gonna die when you hear this. Every single copy of Vista is exactly the same. The only difference is the license key which you enter when installing it. So, you could potentially enter a Home Basic license when installing from an "Ultimate" disc, or vice versa, and still have the same exact operating system at its core. The only difference is the extra bonus features, such as media center, aero, or other stupid enhancements. Is ultimate worth it? Absolutely not. Just a waste of hard drive space and a jacked up price.
So it is just basically pricy visual things that constitute the differences? Oh no, just as I suspected.

Other than that, I actually really enjoy using Vista. I think it is a big improvement and has come a long way, other than the ridiculous amount of space-hogging. Having an OS that is visually pleasing and neatly organized (all your documents are located in a "home" directory, much like any *nix system, that includes Mac as well) makes life easier on you and, well, it's all about productivity, so I think it works. Do I use it much? Not really. I'm more of a Linux/Mac fan and love stability, but It's nice to know that Microsoft is really making efforts to create a more stable OS.
Well that *is*.. sort of.. good to hear.

[firecausesburns]

I use XP, and I've had fewer problems with that than with any other OS. Everyone goes on about how I should use a Mac with OS X, but every time I even touch a Mac, it crashes.

[Brendon]

I use XP, and I've had fewer problems with that than with any other OS. Everyone goes on about how I should use a Mac with OS X, but every time I even touch a Mac, it crashes.


I actually despise Macs, the hardware is very overpriced, but OS X is great. (you can install it on a PC, but it's against Apple's terms when you purchase OS X)
Apple makes all of their money from hardware, so they make it so you can only get OS X on Macs normally so you will have to buy their hardware.

My second favorite OS is actually windows Vista, if you have the power to run it you will have no problems. I have yet to encounter a problem, and I'm running Vista x64 which has less compatibility.

[Paul_UK]

I have just edited three posts to remove references to unlicensed and pirated software. If there are any more we will just close this thread.

Please check the Code of Conduct.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[Paul_UK]

I run Windows XP right now and I have no plans to change until Vista gets some duct tape and staples to fix it up. Everything works just fine with XP, so I don't see any reason to switch over just yet.

Agreed. The purpose of an operating system is to run your programs. So if all your programs run fine on XP there is no reason at all to move to Vista. You would be spending money on Vista (and probably more RAM and a better graphics card) to do exactly what you are already doing now.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! :thumbsup:

[Pinstripe]

I use Mac OS X, XP and Ubuntu.

I find myself using OS X more because it has the largest partition and all my music.

At school they use Windows XP and I use Ubuntu so I'm not biased.

[Alex]

Got XP on my desktop and vista on my laptop and honestly the only difference between the 2 is really the user friendly-ness and the GUI.
Never had any problems with any of them, though vista was SP1 from the beginning. If i was going to buy a new desktop i would defo get Home premium for it simply because its the future and it works great with new hardware and enough ram. (got 4 gigs of it)

[Kenko]

I run Windows XP right now and I have no plans to change until Vista gets some duct tape and staples to fix it up. Everything works just fine with XP, so I don't see any reason to switch over just yet.

If you have a functioning OS that doesn't cause any problems, and you don't gain anything by upgrading, there's no reason to upgrade. As it is now the only real programs taht run on Vista but not XP are some DX10 games.

Macs do have right click. It wasn't built off of it, but if you hold down ctrl whil clicking you get functions normally associated with right clicking. And if you plug in any two+ click mouse, it will work on a Mac.

Windows 98 is an OS that I use quite frequently, and imho, the best version of Windows there ever was.

Some of the Mac track pad you can do the two finger click thing to right click. As well some of the mighty mice have a hidden right mouse button, though I absolutly hate the scroll ball on those mice. In addition to ctrl or option click, the classic Mac work around to right clicking is the lollygag click. You hold down the mouse button, and wait, and wait, and wait and then your context menu comes up. Talk about intuitive! And efficient!

No idea if the mighty mouse actually has a middle mouse button.

Also I think Windows 95 was a MAJOR step forward from 3.x, and Win98 was the best of 9x. Stability wise 9x can't touch the NT line. My XP machine, with heavy usage, currently has a 26 day uptime. You'd be lucky to get a week out of 9x. You'd be lucky to get 2 days.


On subtopic, what do you guys thinks of the different versions of Vista? To me it seems like much of the excitement over Vista's release concerned features not available in every release, for me making a lot of the hype seem redundant. But I'm not so aware of what really apparent differences there are in the use of the OS, especially for doing more specialised things than reading-email typing-letters surfing-net.

I've only used one Vista computer*, and I found it a pain to try to navigate directories, switch windows (Aero, or whatever it's called, seemed to be the only option anywhere near the old alt+tab.. one point where I think I'd prefer a lower-level version of Vista, in the interests of efficiency) and understand why its resources-usage meter consistently hit such a damn high percentage when idling on a pretty souped up machine. On the plus side, it was kind of pretty and didn't seem to crash quite as regularly as a copy of XP that's seen a couple of years' service (but only just)**.


And does anybody remember ME? Or was that just some practical-joke aesthetic mod only my father was sold?

I think there's too many versions. For my uses Home basic would satisfy me, except I would want remote desktop which is only in the very expensive Business or Ultimate. My laptop shipped with Home Premium which has a bunch of features I don't care about, but still no remote desktop. As mentioned the disc has all versions, it's the CD key that unlocks them. I know for instance with minor mods you can get home basic to have Aero.

Win+tab does the fancy 3D flip, but Alt+tab still works... Also you can disable Aero, sidebar, and other resource hogging features if you wish, no need to downgrade.

I also found directory navigation better in Vista with the breadcrumb navigation and whatnot.

With regards to ME read this Microsoft page WindowsXP the future (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-xp/future.aspx)
I nearly died when I read this:
We understand that not everyone may agree with our decision—just as not everyone was happy to see Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows ME retire (OK, perhaps not ME). ME had problems, it was just the wrong product at the wrong time. 9x was already obsolete (home and business lines were merging with NT based XP a year later), and they dragged it out with ME, instead of just putting home users over to 2k, but they also disabled some of the DOS features of ME, even though it was DOS based, and then the whole thing became obsolete at the same time as 98 anyways.

I use XP, and I've had fewer problems with that than with any other OS. Everyone goes on about how I should use a Mac with OS X, but every time I even touch a Mac, it crashes.

I was at a mac store playing on a Macbook when the pretentious sales lady was telling the people next to me "Macs are so much more... ROBUST... and securuty and blah blah blah other stupid marketing fluff" and just at that moment the Macbook I was using crashed. I had nothing but Safari open.