what operating system do you use!! :thumbsup:

[The_Fray]

According to the author of this thread, my computer should be crashing while typing a reply, and I should have a 1000 viruses on my computer yet i have none. I am currently on Windows Xp pro, I have always used Windows all my life and I have never had problems with it.

[Obsessive_Passion]

Without attaching labels to certain OSs in being the best, most of computers I use are pre-installed with Windows XP Professional SP2. I've been using Windows-based computers since the age of 6 (I still remember Windows 3.1), so I've never considered changing...

[ashozzy2]

I use windows XP or linux Ubuntu on my Dell computer and i have Mac OSX on my powerbook and apple desktop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before any so called Linux users begin to rip apart microsoft, they should consider do they actualy contribute to linux? And if they were that of a die hard linux user it would be Mac they were insulting as alot of Macs ideas seem to have come from open source OS's.

[Olgath]

Using Windows is like playing a Linear RPG. Using Unix is like playing a Non-Linear RPG.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me see, starting from the beginning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bootloader -

 

 

 

Windows: Same generic (NTLDR) bootloader.

 

 

 

Linux: Choice between multiple bootloaders, Lilo, Grub, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kernel -

 

 

 

Windows: Kernel is updated every meta release (I.E., Windows XP -> Windows Vista), no modification, no configuration.

 

 

 

Linux: Kernel is updated every few months, with updates that can be acquired from git periodically (Often multiple submits a day). There are an abundance of custom patch-sets for the Linux kernel, as well as large-scale modifications to port it to alternate platforms (I.E., a Dreamcast). You can configure almost every aspect of it, via the .config file.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Userland Tools -

 

 

 

Windows: Comes with nothing useful.

 

 

 

Linux: Often comes with the GNU Userland tools, I'm not aware of any alternative. (Would BSD userland tools work here?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Desktop Environment -

 

 

 

Windows: Forced to use 'explorer.'

 

 

 

Linux: KDE, Gnome, XFCE for desktop environments, as well as countless 'stand-alone' Window Managers (100+).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open Development -

 

 

 

Windows: On the few odd randomly-downloaded software.

 

 

 

Linux: Kernel, Userland tools, and almost all external utilities are open source. Most are under the GPL or BSD/MIT licenses allowing for distribution (GPL: With source code).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Package Management -

 

 

 

Windows: Click and install, click and uninstall - not reliable, not built to support more exotic and desirable options.

 

 

 

Linux: Varies from distribution to distribution. Though, most have a type of database that stores installed packages, upgrading all packages, or a specific package simultaneously, install/remove packages reliably, resolve dependency and automatically install them, resolve reverse dependencies, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hardware Support -

 

 

 

Windows: Often drivers come directly from the manufacturer. Though, it only supports few architectures (x86, x86_64, and ia64, previously alpha), and cannot be ported without Windows doing it, and I seriously doubt Windows will port it to anything other than x86-related.

 

 

 

Linux: Ported to over thirty CPU architectures, if a vendor does not release official drivers it is often reverse engineered. Ported to many exotic systems, and used in many embedded devices that require low-resources and high responsiveness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And honestly, I don't care to go on. I don't want my operating system forcing things on me (like DRM, or a resource-hungry interface), and too much is unknown. In Linux, everything is non-linear, open-source, and if you want to know how something works -- it's openly available for you. The software library, contrary to popular belief, is quite large. And that's only one offset of Unix.. BSD is more impressive in many aspects. Minix is also quite impressive kernel-wise. Oh, and guess what -- most Unix operating systems are under Posix compliance keeping source compatibility (And sometimes binary) between them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are other operating systems other than Windows, and Unix derivatives as well. Some are becoming very impressive and one day may rival Windows and Unix derivatives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that is why Linux isn't ready for the desktop. Don't get me wrong, I love linux, but the average Joe Blow, computer user, doesn't know what he wants or needs. With Windows, this isn't a problem to an extent. You get what Microsoft gives you. Linux, however, offers so much more flexibility, that it often leaves the less computer-savvy confused. Also, you often get everything you need right out of the box on a windows install(drivers, codecs, etc). With most linux distros, you need to download such things separately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example:

 

 

 

Average techno-idiot patron buying a new computer:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clerk: What operating system would you like, linux or Windows?

 

 

 

Patron: How about linux?

 

 

 

Clerk: Which distribution would you like?

 

 

 

Patron: Huh?

 

 

 

Clerk: Well, there Mandriva, Suse, Ubuntu, Gentoo, ad infinum.

 

 

 

Patron: I don't know. What's the difference?

 

 

 

Clerk: [spends an enormous amount of time listing differences between various flavors]

 

 

 

Patron: Uhhh...

 

 

 

Clerk: Remember though, depending on what flavor you pick, you may or may not be able to watch dvd's, play mp3's, watch wmv's, listen to wma's, or use any of the programs you may already be familiar with, at least not right out of the box. Now, do you know what kernel version you want?

 

 

 

Patron: Eep! What about windows?

 

 

 

Clerk: You take it home, turn it on and it generally does what you want it to do. It isn't as secure, but I suggest purchasing a good anti-virus software and follow some safety guidelines while surfing the web.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The sad truth is, Windows is a GOOD operating system. It just lacks flexibility for the end user, and for good reason. The more flexible it is, the easier it is for junior idiot computer user to break it. Just look at their theming engine, which is great, but you can only use digitally signed themes(unlesss you hex edit the dll).

[Diminished2b]

Since when was "easy" equal to "good?" Using an analogy, just like any good game -- you have to take some time to get into alternate operating systems, because they aren't designed 100% for ease-of-use. This design concept fails in that doing this limits flexibility, usability, and pretty much any *bility. I'd rather take the time to get into a nice good game, then instantly be drawn to a mediocre one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth be told, people only find Windows easy because they are introduced to it throughout most of their lives. When people boot up another operating system, Unix-based or not, they expect it to be like Windows in many aspects, and it's not. For one, the UI isn't integrated in the kernel, one of the first things they may notice and complain about. In my eyes this is a huge plus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who wants to read a few pages of documentation for the betterment of their lives, go for it. The population of people ditching Windows is rising every day, and I'm sure we'll have a population boom when Windows Vista comes out. Upon this, I'm not really concerned about the population, it's high enough for several large self-sustaining communities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And furthermore, your argument about it not coming with a bunch of junk is just a plus to me, I like not having my computer pre-bloated with things I'll never use.. Sure, the "Average Blow" will find this "Hard To Use," it's too bad people are so reluctant to RTM for 5 minutes.

[Parabola]

Since when was "easy" equal to "good?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since ease of use for the inexperienced user became an important factor in usability engineering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily equal, but certainly conducive.

[Diminished2b]

 

Since when was "easy" equal to "good?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since ease of use for the inexperienced user became an important factor in usability engineering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily equal, but certainly conducive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, do you still ride your bike with training wheels?.. There is a natural progression to bigger and better things regardless of ease-of-use in the extent that I'm talking about.

[Cruiser]

So, do you still ride your bike with training wheels?.. There is a natural progression to bigger and better things regardless of ease-of-use in the extent that I'm talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Riding a bike doesn't involve relearning everything you've ever known about computers. Once you know how, you're done, period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Switching to Linux for the average user is like expecting a 4 year old to know how to drive a sports car without totaling it. The average user doesn't care about how great Linux can be after hours of configuring and tweaking. They just want it to work with minimal fuss. The 2 hours of searching and troubleshooting it took me to get my wireless card running is a prime example. The same thing windows does on it's on, at boot up, took me 2 hours. If it isn't done when windows loads, it's as simple as inserting a driver cd and clicking a few times. You tell my mom to spend 2 hours trying to install my wireless card and she'd rather get up, drive to the library and use what she already knows and what already works than spend any amount of time trying to get it working. Even if she did want to try, she'd have no clue where to start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The average user doesn't care and wants it to "just work", regardless of the name on the box or cd. Windows comes with their machine, it does what they want, it takes no extra effort to deal with and when it does, they just call Dell to have it fixed. Untill Linux does that, all the arguing, technical knowledge and love for FOSS in the world won't help it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every linux user on the planet spreading the word won't change the minds of the non-technical people (ex: most computer users) that barely understand the "training wheels" that is windows.

[Parabola]

So, do you still ride your bike with training wheels?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since ease of use for the inexperienced user became an important factor in usability engineering.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The vast majority of people will never want to do more than browse the web, type their documents, listen to some music, send some emails and maybe play a couple of games. Therefore moving to linux when Windows is easier to use for a novice would be a waste of effort for them.

[DaN]

Was using Linux but switched to WinXP because of some applications I needed. (games)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contrary to popular belife Windows is VERY stable its just the operators who stuff it up.

[madman6510]

PCLinuxOS all the way.

[Saukko93]

Windows XP, I dont want Linux cos there are no games that work on it, like cs or bf2.

[dsavi]

I'm posting on a smartphone so Symbian series 60 version 3. otherwise it's windows 2000 on the worst comp ever... 900 mhz prosessor, can't even run Roller coaster tycoon 3.

[Kinslayer777]

Alas ds, no drowning mascots for you! :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm running Windows XP Proffesional, I'm going to try ubuntu later. At least windows only costs 95 dollars OEM :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yay for Oem :), one more reason to build your own computer.

[Bmms]

i used to use fedora core 3-6, then windows xp

[spacheco]

I'm posting on a smartphone so Symbian series 60 version 3. otherwise it's windows 2000 on the worst comp ever... 900 mhz prosessor, can't even run Roller coaster tycoon 3.

lol when i try to runn rct3 it says abnormal program termination blah blah blah...

[CRAIGMEANIE]

Not sure how good it is but Windows xp media center adition

[Dazzuh]

Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition SP2. Never had a problem with it.

[heart_of_ink]

Windows XP. I don't use a Mac because they have almost no computer games made for them, and they're made for idiots who can't handle computers.

[Mercifull]

Windows XP. I don't use a Mac because they have almost no computer games made for them, and they're made for idiots who can't handle computers.

The bit in italics makes sense, the bold bit just makes you look like an idiot.

[JoeDaStudd]

As stated before I'm using XP Pro and Ubuntu on dual boot.

 

 

 

Personally I prefer XP mainly down to the fact I game.

 

 

 

Ok, there are lots of virus that you could get on XP, but as long as you have a Anti Virus, Firewall and use them, then the chances if you get one is 1/100,000. But if you like putting your hand in fires and dont have a AV or Firewall then you deserve what you get.

[Ember]

.

[thebobcow]

Mac 10.3

[Celt23]

Windows XP Home Addition with SP2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wish I had Ubuntu Linux though, but this computer just doesn't have enough space for two operating systems.

[Olgath]

Over the years, I have run a few different operating systems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MS-DOS (various versions, I can't recall offhand)

 

 

 

Windows 3.1 (not actually an OS, just a graphical shell for DOS)

 

 

 

Windows 3.11 (ditto)

 

 

 

Windows 95 (Yep, DOS is still running under there)

 

 

 

Windows 98 (the last stable Windows based system I had, I hacked it to pieces)

 

 

 

Windows ME (I see why the Win9x line was discontinued)

 

 

 

Windows NT

 

 

 

Windows 2000 (the requirements are lighter than for XP, decent on slower machines)

 

 

 

Windows XP (This seems to be a graphical patch to Win2k, the system requirements are steeper.)

 

 

 

Windows XP, 64-bit (This one was just horrible, none of the drivers for my hardware worked properly. I kept getting blue screens hourly)

 

 

 

DOS (Whatever it is that the Atari 800 ran)

 

 

 

BeOS 5 Personal Edition (This one was cool, but it didn't play nicely with my big rig)

 

 

 

OpenSUSE 10.1

 

 

 

Ubuntu 5.10-6.06

 

 

 

Debian Sarge (This one is awesome, with huge software repositories)

 

 

 

Xubuntu 6.06(Ubuntu, but with XFCE instead of GNOME)

 

 

 

Kubuntu 6.06(Ubuntu, with KDE instead of GNOME)

 

 

 

Redhat 8.0 (my first Linux distro, it has a place in my heart)

 

 

 

Gentoo (very fast, but downloading packages can take ages on dial-up)

 

 

 

Mandriva 2005-2006

 

 

 

Mandrake 10.0

 

 

 

Haiku (I didn't have this one for long, my hard drive was already on the way out)

 

 

 

Open BSD

 

 

 

HP-UX (Not on my system, but oh well)

 

 

 

Fedora Core 4 (I was unimpressed, but this is a testing distro)

 

 

 

FreeDOS

 

 

 

ReactOS (Alpha stages, last I knew)

 

 

 

Helix

 

 

 

Mepis

 

 

 

Puppy Linux

 

 

 

Slax Frodo

 

 

 

Slax Popcorn

 

 

 

Slax Killbill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am sure there are more, but I am tired at the moment. 8-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In case you can't tell, I am a fan of Linux, Debian in particular.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like to set up XFCE, with a custom theme, transparent panels, XGL, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No OS2Warp?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XFCE blows. I disabled it in my Xubuntu VMware partition. I installed IceWM instead. Now my VMWare partition runs faster than my actual operating system. :shock: It's just a shame it isn't more user friendly.