Which OS are you using?

[onemessiah]

Linux is in no way a threat to Apple. The reason there is no third party software for Linux is because any companies based on profit are destroyed by piracy.

Linux is a hobby, nothing more.

For the forseeable future, I agree, Linux isn't a threat to Apple. May or may not ever be. Just think that if Linux could recruit some of the larger aftermarket software companies, such as Adobe, to produce Linux compatible versions of their products, and if it were a little more user friendly (okay, a lot more user friendly....), while maintaining their current assets, then there would be much less reason to choose a Mac over Linux. A good marketing campaign and a few smart hardware choices later, it wouldn't be out of the question to see Linux rise above Apple; especially considering that Linux already has a stronghold on the low to mid end server market.

 

[onemessiah]

Speaking of Linux...
Have to admit that I'm shocked to see more Linux than Vista users!

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I've tried it. It (At least 10.5) is not a good server OS. It is prone to crashes, for one. The GUI is not as well developed as Microsoft's UI, as far as Open Directory, it lacks a lot of what I really like about Active Directory. As a web-server it is too slow (which is quite surprising, really)...

The OS or the serving applications are prone to crashed?

I think the issue of the GUI is about personal preference and what you are used to- not what is objectively 'better'.

 

[Trakk]

I'm one of the Macoids. And I must say that I like OSX because it's a Unix flavor -- I can often build Unix stuff on it without much trouble. And also because of its very nice GUI.

And Apple has done a good job of maintaining compatibility with previous versions of its OSes, so my software investments won't go to waste.

 

[TheReasoner]

The OS or the serving applications are prone to crashed?

I think the issue of the GUI is about personal preference and what you are used to- not what is objectively 'better'.

The OS. File services crashed the most. But also the Open Directory services. All of a sudden you were unable to authenticate except locally on the server. Keep in mind that the server used was a clean OSX install. No third party software.

This was in the 'old days' though. With version 10.5 - 10.5.1.
Now, due to the instabilities I didn't try too much of it. Maybe I should.

I love mac os, I gotta say. However, as far as servers go, Microsoft has a lot more experience on their hands. And while this may be subjective, and while I have been but a techie with a lot of MS competence and no Mac OS X Server background (which may make me biased), I really think Microsoft actually delivers with their domain solution. More so than Apple does.
As of right now anyway. OS X is a lot cheaper though. Which I suppose is a must for the newcomer.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I use XP and yes, it is buggy. After all, it IS windows. I used Vista at work and parents house but refuse to get it for now. It's just not compatible with my favorite programs.

 

[Colabomb]

Vista and happy with it. I was hesitant to buy this laptop because I had heard the horror stories/propaganda, but I have had no serious problems that I didn't cause myself. (I once screwed up my videocard by playing with a linux live cd. I fixed it via a system restore).

the only problem i have with vista is it could be a bit faster. But frankly I do run aero with all the goodies. When I need more speed (which i do occasionally) I bump it down to windows classic mode in which case its zippy.

 

[Colabomb]

I would definitely move to linux someday if they made themselves a contender. The problem is its geared towards uber-techies (im an amateur) and has no professional support.

The Reasons i use windows.....

1) It is infinitely more customizable than Apple. Apple makes a fine computer, but they don't let you tinker at all. (Windows does prohibit certain types of tinkering but aren't as bad as apple).

2) For now, Windows makes the world go round.

 

[jiminpa]

I would definitely move to linux someday if they made themselves a contender. The problem is its geared towards uber-techies (im an amateur) and has no professional support.

The Reasons i use windows.....

1) It is infinitely more customizable than Apple. Apple makes a fine computer, but they don't let you tinker at all. (Windows does prohibit certain types of tinkering but aren't as bad as apple).

2) For now, Windows makes the world go round.

Ubuntu desktop is actually easier to use than Window$. If you want an App you just go to the programs menu, select the last submenu, it might even be called add/remove programs, and it lists all of the supported apps by category, and there are a lot of them. All you have to do is read the descriptions until you find the ones you want to try, select them and click the button to install. The installer resolves all of the dependencies seamlessly, and then they are just there for you to use. Highspeed internet is a must though, since they are downloaded.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Ubuntu desktop is actually easier to use than Window$. If you want an App you just go to the programs menu, select the last submenu, it might even be called add/remove programs, and it lists all of the supported apps by category, and there are a lot of them. All you have to do is read the descriptions until you find the ones you want to try, select them and click the button to install. The installer resolves all of the dependencies seamlessly, and then they are just there for you to use. Highspeed internet is a must though, since they are downloaded.

Easier than windows? I suppose that depends on what you want to do on your pc. I am pretty sure that 90% of the software I use will not work at all on it.

That said if there really is a huge list under programs of everythign that is available then that could be very cumbersome to wade through and find what you actually want.

The bottom line for me, is one I am a developer and all my customers use windows and 2 I like games and most are not compatible with other OSs. Maybe someday we will see one of these open source or free OSs that can actually do the things windows does but that day is not here yet.

 

[onemessiah]

Easier than windows? I suppose that depends on what you want to do on your pc. I am pretty sure that 90% of the software I use will not work at all on it.

That said if there really is a huge list under programs of everythign that is available then that could be very cumbersome to wade through and find what you actually want.

The bottom line for me, is one I am a developer and all my customers use windows and 2 I like games and most are not compatible with other OSs. Maybe someday we will see one of these open source or free OSs that can actually do the things windows does but that day is not here yet.

Actually,that was the very first thing i noticed about the Linux distros...they are much better organized than Windows. Not nearly as cumbersome as it sounds; actually I prefered it after my first time booting linux up.
Other than that though, I have to disagree with the person who says linux is easier to use....linux can be a complete PITA when you want to get stuff done, which is one of the reasons I said earlier that it's user-friendliness is lacking...

 

[jiminpa]

Maybe I'm far more advanced than I think, but once I learned the layout differences Ubuntu seemed really easy to use in the GUI, and command line is still available too. I'm pretty graphics oriented, so I like the GUI accessibility.

Now if you need to use the bigger $ apps, Linux just won't do it, and doesn't have equivalents.

 

[spoingy]

Your list is too generalized. Linux is a kernel and not a complete OS. It should be GNU/Linux.
Other? Are you aware of how many "other" systems there are?
Why did you not put things in categories such as:
Embedded
Unix
Windows based
RISC
Research
Microkernel.

I use FreeBSD, NetBSD, debian, and slackware currently.
I have used minix, haiku, windows 95 to xp, plan9, mit exokernel.

 

[StromRider]

multiboot with the following:

current default os - arch linux (kdemod)
pclinuxos
mandriva 2009 alpha 2
pardus
sidux
ubuntu se
arch kde basic
arch kde 4.1 (testing)

windows xp (for gaming)

 

[onemessiah]

Your list is too generalized. Linux is a kernel and not a complete OS. It should be GNU/Linux.
Other? Are you aware of how many "other" systems there are?
Why did you not put things in categories such as:
Embedded
Unix
Windows based
RISC
Research
Microkernel.

I use FreeBSD, NetBSD, debian, and slackware currently.
I have used minix, haiku, windows 95 to xp, plan9, mit exokernel.

Stand corrected, should be GNU/Linux...

But I figured if I didn't make it so generalized, there'd be 101 different poll options and no one would respond. I just wanted to get an idea of which systems are most popular among the tech savvy crowd (of course that is under the assumption that anyone who even views this forum has an interest in and some type of computer skills).

 

[pgp_protector]

Stand corrected, should be GNU/Linux...

But I figured if I didn't make it so generalized, there'd be 101 different poll options and no one would respond. I just wanted to get an idea of which systems are most popular among the tech savvy crowd (of course that is under the assumption that anyone who even views this forum has an interest in and some type of computer skills).

What you didn't want to list all the ones on the WiKi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems

(And I'd bet there's even a few missing on that list )

 

[onemessiah]

Well, another update to my current configuration...

Due to, ah, technical difficulties...I haven't been able to reinstall Fedora on my new hardware. And I also upgraded from Vista Home Premium to Ultimate 64. So now, my current configuration is-

1) Ultimate 64 w/ SP1
2) XP 64 w/ SP2

Just installed Ultimate last night....still trying to work out all the kinks, so I haven't really seen any performance gains yet (although it is nice to actually see all 4 GB of memory for once in resource management).

XP 64 is stripped down to barebones....only things installed on that system are my Adobe CS3 programs, few other web development apps, a couple browsers and an antivirus; this is because I want to use it as my workstation for my website. I have to say, I am blown away by the performance I've seen in XP 64 so far. I have a solid setup (Q6600 Quad Core clocked at 3.2GHz, 4GB PC2-8000 memory, Nvidia GeForce 8500GT) that is powering both systems, and XP 64 just crushes Ultimate 64 or any other OS I have ever used.

I'm curious, is it just me since I stripped XP down to the bare essentials, or is XP really this good?

 

[onemessiah]

What you didn't want to list all the ones on the WiKi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems

(And I'd bet there's even a few missing on that list )

Wow! I forgot that Atari made an OS!!

But, yeah, lol, sorry if I was being a bit lazy and threw them all into the "others" category...

 

[A Taffer]

XP 64 owns performance wise. Vista Ultimate 64 simply can't touch it.

 

[cheese007]

Windows Xp Pro and Vista Premium.