Favorite Operating System

Post Reply New Topic

(no message, just a poll)

My favorite's Windows, but keep in mind that I've never tried Linux!

Macintosh OS X is a Unix variant... Unix (Freebsd, linux, openbsd, darwin, etc) is a superior system. Its pointless to use a crippled proprietery OS such as Windows NT or DOS. If you've ever used one of these operating systems, you realize how bad windows actually is. The linux 2.6.6 kernel is very nice. I've just gotten into using the Darwin kernel on OS X. I don't know much about it, but at least OS X has some gnu utilities. I'm currently working with the Gentoo Linux team to port portage to OS X and hopefully we'll try to get it working with open darwin so we won't need the proprietery Aqua and Quartz layers just to get drivers (not that Aqua and quartz are bad, its just that they suck up CPU like there is no tomorrow).

Most of the time, I use Windows because this is the only one I have at home. I have tried Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows XP, which I am currently using. I like them because they are graphic, so for an everyday use when you do not want to do something specific such as programming, they are easier and nicer to use. Maybe I think so because I use them more than the others.

I have also tried DOS, which I like because this is the system I had when I learned QuickBasic.

But in the survey, I answered Linux/Unix, because I think it is technically the best system. I have tried it because my brother "worked" ("workplace discovery" is a short course in junior high over here.) in a company that used Linux and I got to use it because they gave it to us, but it is on the other computer, which does not work anymore.
If I could, I would have Linux too.

I'm used to, enjoy and don't mind using the Windows OS.

I had Windows 98 on my (well my brother's) first computer... starting on Monday, March 1st, 1999 in Massachusetts. Then, I moved to Florida (was without a computer/offline for a month, which was quite annoying). I got another Gateway and for some reason I got Windows 98, again.

I finally got my new Dell with flat-panel monitor on December 17th, 2003 with Windows XP.

been using microsoft ops sys from dos 2.0 on up to win xp. It's a bad habbit still have not tryed unix/linex mainly because it still a pain to config need a good step by step book on a ver of unix then i may change ops sys

I have four different computers that I use at home for different things
The computer I'm typing this on has Windows XP, another machine also had windows XP, I have 486DX4 that has windows 95 and I also have an ancient IBM PS/2 30 8086 from 1989 with MS-DOS 6 that I use to play Commander Keen and Duke Nukum.

I used Win 95 for years until it just gave up from old age. I learned quickly to keep it clean with a proprietary disc cleaner, I maxed the machine with RAM and a second hardrive for big programs. I learned to navigate the registry and I tweaked out Windows irritating habit of saving everything and hiding a lot of functions. I divorced the OS from the web crawler and I disabled the mail program and used my ISP's. Barebones Win OS are not too bad, they do what they are supposed to and if you don't challenge them with too much too quickly they are fine for most of us. It's the add-on technical programs and the stabililty under pressure that makes me use Linux at work. For medical-legal reasons it is the better system for loss of data avoidance and it goes right on working despite scores of computer terminals and different people on the WAN/LAN all using it at once. For me, WIN OS at home, Linux at work.
Kenorri

id' argue that Macintosh is proprietary and crippled.

Proprietary: all hardware/drivers etc. must be approved by apple.
Crippled: Extream lack of gamming and support. (and because its proprietary, its hard for others to build games on it)

For Pcs on the other hand, openness to third party developers in hardware and software is a double edged sword... It lends itself readily to inovation, but also leaves it open to poorly designed software as there is no one company "checking up" on developers.
Nobody likes a monopoly. (but then again, no one likes to pay an insane amount for a computer)

I like FreeBSD the best.

I've run Windows, Beos, QNX, various versions of Linux, Darwin and FreeBSD as desktop OSes.

Linux seems to have more support from application providers who don't want to release their source than FreeBSD, but it seems slow to me, particularly they still haven't fixed the approach they take to virtual memory after all this time. (If you program have a look at mm.c and swap.c in the kernel sources and you'll see what I mean. But I couldn't write a better virtual memory manager I don't have the skills).

I like mac OS X cos it's pretty but I can't afford a mac, i'm too poor. I get various PC hardware passed off on me for nothing you see so I have to run Oses that run on that hardware.

Cool it down with the mac vs pc and linux vs windows debates please.
I refuse to get involved in flame wars about which OS is better. Or the design strengths and weaknesses of any particular OS. Particularly Windows 2K/XP gets a worse rap than I think it deserves. I disagree with microsoft's bussiness practises but that's an entirely seperate issue.
I think closed source makes this difficult, with an open source OS you can say go have a look at blah.c on line such and such, they should have done it this way, or better still, you can just fix it. But assuming something is bad because it is closed source isn't very scientific.

I don't feel comfortable posting on a forum where personal attacks are made on people because of their choice of computing platform.

I agree. Macintosh isn't a very good operating system.

Neither are those Dell computers all these schools have. They block almost everything that has nothing to do with school and it takes at least two minutes to load a page. Besides, if you overadvertise a computer company (like they do with those Dells), you know it probably stinks.

I have only one thing to say to the people at school-- you should get a Compaq! I use a Compaq and I recommend it. Of course, I'll save the talking about computer companies for another time. After all, I have no idea if Dells work after you unblock everything, for I don't know anybody who uses one (I mean the black ones that all these schools have these days).

Mcih

I have been always been a user of Windows, but decided to get a Mac for college. I must say that I have been extremely pleased with my Powerbook, as it is extremely stable and almost all software for Windows is available for Mac, except for most games. Games do exist for the Mac and PC, but it usually takes a year or two before they are ported from PC to Mac. However, I have heard of a couple of new games that will be released for Windows and Mac simutaneously. I know that one of them is based on the Halo engine (details about the actually game have yet to be released). Overall, I'd say that there is no reason to keeping using Windows just because of a lack of games, especially when many PC games are also released on Xbox. The higher cost is an issue, but I got an educational discount of about $200 on mine.

I've only ever used one operating system and that is Windows. I play games a lot and compatibility is one of the main reasons I've stuck with it.

I grew up on mac os, then moved to windows since it's just what was available to me as a kid. After having clung to win98 (and later SE) since... uh... 1998, I'm finally moving out into new territory. Since recently uprgrading my main rig with a 200GB seagate, I've been able to start playing around with other OS's on it, and currently have it as a DOS, win 98 SE, mandrake, debian quad boot. I've also returned to mac OS thanks to a couple of ex-service laptops that have come my way, with mac OS 9 and X on them.

Win 98 is hard for me to comment on, since I've used it for so long, but it's definately not an easy system to come to terms with. Stability is a big issue, with my comp crashing 5+ times a day on it despite supposed stability tweaks. It's also very hard to get it to work, and setting up most things feels more like doing a rain dance than any ordered arrangement of cause and effect. The only thing it's got going for it in my book is the vast collection of games and other programs. Now though, I suspect windows games will be requiring XP, so 98 is becoming just a legacy OS for me.

Mac OS 9 and X have a nice usability factor to them. You switch them on and they work. There's minimal fiddling around with things ,the OS's don't seem to throw a fit every time you move something to a new directory and it almost never crashes. They also feel 'closed', like you'll never get to see behind the scenes and figure out how it all works, which I don't like so much. They're also more limited in their sofware offerings than windows, which further limits them.

Linux seems very rough to me, though in a stable, robust way. In a way that's good, since I like the feeling of something that's still a work in progress and has a great expandability to it. Since I'm very new to it though, I find it's also really confusing and hard to get into. In contrast with mac os, where there's very little to get confused about, with linux, it's hard to get behind the scenes simply because there's so much going on back there. What does /bin do? What about /var? What's this initrd.img thingy? I've been wandering around the guts of debian for the last hour and can't make sense of anything. I can't even find how to change my screen resolution to something higher than 800*600, let alone how to configure my comp as some 1337 uber-server of mild doom, and driver support is an issue. The possibilities are there though, so I'd go for linux as my preferred OS for that reason.

Oh, not true at all with OS X. OS X is powered by the OpenDarwin kernel which is open source software. Google opendarwin and you'll fiind a plethora (in the positive sense) of information. The only thing that is closed is the Quartz and Aqua frameworks (and most of the stuff above that). However, even Quartz and Aqua have APIs (well obviously) and lots of documentation on how it all works. The apple developer site has all this information about the underbelly of OS X.

Also, because this is a bsd based system the userland is made of open source software. The terminal gives me the ability to directly access the tools that allow me to interface with the open source frame that holds up quartz.

My workflow includes both Linux and OS X machines. When I control the machines via terminal, I find little difference between the two (well there are obviously some different parts since one is *bsd and one is linux, but overall they're both unix machines), other than the fact that the bsd system doesn't have /proc which I think is pretty cool.

Perhaps it's more psychological than absolute then. The polished interface, specialised harware and the lack of any great need to 'tinker' to make things work as is required in windows and linux give it rather a 'do not touch' feeling.