: Which Operating System do you prefer...



tru504187211
05-06-04, 05:49 PM
Which operating system to you use and prefer. Are you a Windows fan? If not what is your favorite alternative?

Personally, I prefer Win XP or 2K. I do have a Linux machine running Slackware 8.1, simply to expand what I am used to using for future reference. If you love Windows, read the following article which pretty much sums up my view of Windows and why I use it. BTW, its written by a fellow computer science major buddy.

http://www.spawnofslayer.com/whywindows.html

BeelzeBob
05-06-04, 05:52 PM
I use Windows XP.. It's bloated as heck but it's the only operating system I trust to do all the things I need to do. I use a lot of web tools like Adobe Photoshop and Macromedia Dreamweaver and I just don't know if other operating systems can reliably run that software.. Everything works and I never have to wonder - "Is it compatible with my system?"

Pimpin_Whity
05-06-04, 07:49 PM
i didn't read the article but windows is actually a very flexible and programmable OS, most people just dont know how to use it. there are alot of books about the registry, which allows you to tweak almost every aspect of the system, making it not too different from "programmable" OSes. i use windows XP because it is the easiest to use, unlike other OSes which make you do alot of useless and unecessary stuff to do a simple task (like MSDOS), sure XP might mess it up or do it "slower" then others but i don't care because my computer is fast enough. plus every game, program or user written app is made mostly for windows.

tru504187211
05-06-04, 08:18 PM
Don't forget stability, because that is towards the top of the necessity list for my OS. I have to restart about weekly, but I dont really need to, its just a habit to reboot the system. Here is a little personal story to show Windows stability. No disrespect towards older Emachine PC's, but lets be real about this - they kinda suck. I loaded XP on my Emachine at home on the cable modem while I was living at school with my better machine. The emachine was responsible for constantly sending and receiving files between my school computer and itself. So an emachine on a cable modem constantly taking and giving files for 30 days straight before I was forced to shut it down as I had just moved back home with the better computer.

XP took a crappy computer and made it a stable, versatile server.

gothicaleigh
05-06-04, 09:06 PM
My favorite OS would have to be Palm. I think I actually use my Clie more than any other computer I own.

As for my desktops and laptops? Windows XP is my favorite. I like Apple's OSX better for aesthetic reasons and simplicity, but Windows is a must have as I don't have to worry about my favorite games and applications being compatible.

I have seen a Beta of Windows Longhorn, and it looks to combine what I like best about XP and OSX. I can't wait for that to officially hit.

Awaiting the self-proclaimed 'uber-l33t' kids that plague the internet to show up praising the virtues of Linux...

Smokey
05-06-04, 10:56 PM
I use XP Pro most of the time on my workstations and gaming rig. I use FreeBSD v4.8 or Debian Linux to host websites and game servers. I also use Windows 2003 Server for my mail server which is running Imail v8.11

tru504187211
05-06-04, 11:09 PM
My favorite OS would have to be Palm. I think I actually use my Clie more than any other computer I own.

Never thought of a PDA OS. In that case, I'm not sure if I'd take Windows CE or Palm...simply because both my PDAs run Palm and my only experience with CE was for about an hour on a friend's PDA, but from what I remember - it was smooth.

ShadowLvr400
05-06-04, 11:16 PM
I miss DOS. But using Win XP

Pimpin_Whity
05-06-04, 11:23 PM
Awaiting the self-proclaimed 'uber-l33t' kids that plague the internet to show up praising the virtues of Linux...i just hate those hacker wanabies :banghead:. Windows is created by one of the best programming teams out there, and it evolved since the day of Win95. even Win95 was very flexible and had lots of unused features, it was very unstable though. Linux isn't a perfect OS like some people make it sound, every OS is going to have problems where there is multitasking. actually Linux is alot easier to use in a "pro" way then Windows is. Windows takes care of everything in a big way, unlike other OSes, while Linux does have better networking capabilities, most people wouldn't use it for everyday things like watching a DVD or playing a high-tech video game like FarCry, try viewing a slideshow of your recent trip to europe through you plasma TV on that one.

maydog
05-07-04, 12:52 AM
What no BSDs mentioned yet?

Microsoft still has the best desktop OS for the everyday joe out there (I cannot comment on Macs however), but this is largely due to the volume of hardware support. Everything runs windows, even the cheapest generic hardware. Its still hard to get the other OSs running on a lot of hardware.

That said, systems like Linux and BSD have some really good things going for them and the support is better every day. It wont be too long before every major PC manufacturer offers a choice between the installed OS on a system. Wal Mart already does this.

XP is ok on stability - but to install patches, I still have to reboot. The windows varieties are also a little awkward with security, file permissions and multiple users. I had a piece of junk computer running in the crawl space serving webpages and firewalling my network for 100+ days on redhat. A power outage ended that streak. I could update the server without ever restarting.

Sinister Angel
05-07-04, 01:10 AM
Right, hacker wannabes... :rolleyes:

I use windows2k, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to run apache on it.
As for not being able to run Photoshop or Dreamweaver on an operating system that isn't a bloated pig like XP, I can disprove that one seeing as I run photoshop on 2k - at half the bloat.

Let's not forget how "old" Microsoft operating systems don't bother to have support -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/27/nt4_0_too_flawed/
Instead, you have to upgrade, and to upgrade, you have to pay. I think I'll pass on using Windows for a server OS.

Oh yes, windows also doensn't have a MAKE utility that I know of. Compiling shit on linux is a snap.

But alas, what do I know, after all, I'm just a wannabe hacker with a few years of experience :rolleyes:

RBraczyk
05-07-04, 09:57 AM
XP is my operating system of choice, it self corrects its problems which is nice when you use the internet alot and stuff breaks down. Kind of a pain in the ass though when you want to go in manually and fix it yourself. 98 is better for that.

shaggygrosser
05-07-04, 02:14 PM
At work, I'm forced to use XP. But at home, I use my preference: Win2K. I also have an older pc that I run Win98SE on.

When I have some free time (which is nearly never), I'll give Linux another spin. I had a box running Mandrake Linux while I was in college, but that was 2 years ago and haven't touched the stuff since.

Pimpin_Whity
05-07-04, 03:22 PM
Right, hacker wannabes... :rolleyes:

I use windows2k, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to run apache on it.
As for not being able to run Photoshop or Dreamweaver on an operating system that isn't a bloated pig like XP, I can disprove that one seeing as I run photoshop on 2k - at half the bloat.

Let's not forget how "old" Microsoft operating systems don't bother to have support -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/27/nt4_0_too_flawed/
Instead, you have to upgrade, and to upgrade, you have to pay. I think I'll pass on using Windows for a server OS.

Oh yes, windows also doensn't have a MAKE utility that I know of. Compiling crap on linux is a snap.

But alas, what do I know, after all, I'm just a wannabe hacker with a few years of experience :rolleyes:i didn't mean to diss you. but why would u use Linux for everyday stuff, sure it's better for server applications but that's what Windows Server 2003 is for.

Sinister Angel
05-07-04, 05:10 PM
i didn't mean to diss you. but why would u use Linux for everyday stuff, sure it's better for server applications but that's what Windows Server 2003 is for.


Why would I use Linux for everyday usage? Because it's rock solid and stable.
As for windows 2003 server, you go right ahead and shell out the $1k+ for it. I see no reason why anyone who has a clue, or is at least willing to learn how to do something, would waste their money on a Microsoft Server OS.

gothicaleigh
05-07-04, 07:25 PM
I ran RedHat for about six months on one of my boxes and all I received was frustration for it.

No, I do not like to run Linux. Is it a good server? Yes, I agree it's one of the best(used it for years at my last job). But for my personal computer at home, I prefer Windows. It's simple and I find XP attractive.

Vesicant
05-07-04, 07:37 PM
For the PC: Windows XP Professional - Home can be evil.

For a Server: Win2k Server or Win2k3

I was never very fond of linux, i hear good things and i hear bad... ive tried a few distro's myself and never liked its complexity to do moderatly simple things... such as networking. And for all of you thinking there are no viruses for Linux... there are, now... and these are worse than any Windows virus.

OSX is TOO simple. Doesnt tell you valuable program information data most need to know, and things are hard to find. I bought an iMac once with OSX (bad mistake) and it didnt like my complex windows network. Hmmmm.

Elvis
05-07-04, 07:37 PM
I was hesitant to move to XP, but my fears were soon eased.

I had XP Professional on my laptop that died, and I think that I prefer it to XP Home, which I have on two systems now. It just seemed a little faster to me.

Pimpin_Whity
05-07-04, 08:00 PM
i understand that Linux is rock-solid but there is a reason for that, and it's not because the OS itself is better then Windows :disappoin. it's the multitasking that's getting to Windows and all of those 3rd party apps that aren't developed to run simultaneously with other apps developed by other companies and start using the same resources etc.... you cant do alot of things with Linux, like develop in Flash MX, Photoshop CS and 3ds max 5 while surfing the web and watching a DVD or listening to mp3s on WinAmp all at the same time, i do that on my Windows XP comp quite often. i completely understand that Linux is more stable and has superior networking but that's where it ends, it's not an everyday system, and yes there are better OSes for multimedia like BeOS but again it's only good for that.

BTW, WinXP Pro is better then Home. Home is missing alot of features that i personally use, but if you don't notice the difference you should use it since it is a little faster.

Sinister Angel
05-07-04, 10:07 PM
I got a laptop for my birthday and it came with windows xp home on it
I'm proceeding to dump it for win2k

Yes, I agree, you can't run 3DS max or photoshop (What's so special about CS over 7?) and flash, but It'll eventually come. Actually Maya, which bitchslaps 3DS Max in my opinion, although it has a bit of a learning curve, is native to Irix systems, which probably isn't as nice as some of the linux distros out there. It will come - trust me. That being said, the WINE project is making headway, and XMMS works liek a champ for playing music, although I will admit that there aren't as many nice plugins as winamp.

As for networking in linux, i learned that in about 5 minutes.

c5 rv
05-07-04, 10:55 PM
1st: RSX-11M for the DEC PDP-11 minicomputers. I used to work for DEC and consult on real-time process control systems. Tons of fun. 11M was written by Dave Cutler over a weekend as a high-performace alternative to the bloated RSX-11D. Before PCs, I think 11M ran on more computers than any other operating system. The Soviet block had lots of PDP-11 knock-offs and ran pirated copies of RSX.

2nd: VMS. When minicomputers went from 16 to 64 bit, Dave Cutler was tapped to lead the VMS development team and created what I think was the best all-around business operating system for servers. Dave went on to lead DEC-West engineering in Washington and moved to Microsoft to lead the NT team.

3rd: Sun Solaris. I have a server at work running Solaris and it's bullet-proof. In 4 years working with this server, I've never had an OS problem. I reboot every 6 months just to make sure all the system tables are cleaned up and for practice.

The Microsoft operating systems are OK for desktop use. I don't prefer them for server use.

Pimpin_Whity
05-07-04, 11:02 PM
photoshop 7 over CS? it's like comparing a ferrari to a honda. it'll take a good book to go over all the new features it has.

i dont think that Maya "bitchslaps" 3Ds max. here are a couple of my favorite CG pics made completely in 3Ds max.

maydog
05-07-04, 11:19 PM
It is kind of funny that anyone would blame an OSs instability on the applications that run on top of it. It is the responsibility of the OS to provide the application with resources and to ensure that the system integrity is maintained. This does get harder to manage when apps want alot of hardware access, probably why linux and other unixes support less hardware.

Win 95 allowed apps direct control of a lot of physical hardware with no layers of virtuialization in between. This led to a lot of lock ups, at least for me. NT, XP have more OS control of the hardware and are more stable because of it. In other OSs hardware is treated like a filesystem and therefore under the jurisdiction of the OS.

gothicaleigh
05-08-04, 01:10 PM
Yes, I agree, you can't run 3DS max or photoshop (What's so special about CS over 7?) and flash, but It'll eventually come. Actually Maya, which bitchslaps 3DS Max in my opinion, although it has a bit of a learning curve, is native to Irix systems, which probably isn't as nice as some of the linux distros out there.

Not to derail this thread, but:

If you like to work with 3D, look at Maxon's Cinema 4D. IMO it is the best program available at the moment. Very user friendly and it's built-in renderer puts the others to shame. Perfect renders every time. Used by the movie studios to create most of the CG you now see on film...
It's a bit pricy, but well worth it.

Sinister Angel
05-08-04, 01:16 PM
Is softimage still a player in the industry at all?

Playdrv4me
05-08-04, 06:58 PM
Lindows... ha

No really... Windows 2000 Professional.

Chuck C
05-08-04, 07:41 PM
How could anyone ever go back to 16-bit after using Window XP (32-bit)?

History ( a little fuzzy so correct me if I am wrong): Computers have supported 32-bit since the 1980s with Intel's 8086, 8088, and 286 microchips. It wasn't until 2002 when the first mainstream, consumer operating system, windows XP, actually utilized the 32-bittechnology. That means Windows 3.0, 3.11, 985, 98, Me, and 2K are all 16-bit. I believe a 32-bit Win2k was offered.

16-bit vs. 32-bit: 16-bit operating systems do not require nearly as much RAM as 32-bit. However, the 16-bit Microsoft operating systems were (and still are) inefficient meaning they often crash and have long boot up times. The 32-bit environment is 10 times more stable. Plus, XP has many built in fail-safe procedures such as 'system restore' which enables the user to rollback to a particular date in the event that a crash or mistake occured. After over a year with XP, it only crashed once or twice, and that's because I tested the limits by opening several programs...and I also ONLY had 128MB of RAM at the time.

For anyone running XP, 256MB of RAM is the bare minimum for successful operation. Also, run spyware sniffing and anti-virus programs on a regular basis to keep your computer running smoothly.

Sinister Angel
05-09-04, 02:41 AM
System restore is a double edged blade. I disabled it on a clients machine as it provides a nice safe haven to keep viruses.

Win2k is 32 bit - it's just in how a program is coded.

Pimpin_Whity
05-09-04, 08:06 PM
System restore is a double edged blade. I disabled it on a clients machine as it provides a nice safe haven to keep viruses.

Win2k is 32 bit - it's just in how a program is coded.
actually compiled :rolleyes:

they didn't have a 16bit OS since the first Win95