[solved] Os

  • Thread starter damgo
  • Start date

What OS do you use the most?

  • Windows 2000/XP

    Votes: 31 43.7%
  • Windows 95/98/ME

    Votes: 19 26.8%
  • Linux

    Votes: 12 16.9%
  • Other UNIX

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • MacOS X

    Votes: 8 11.3%
  • Older MacOS

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    71
  • #1
Which OS do you use the most?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Considering
75
0
I've started using Windows 2003 Enterprise Server on the company workstation since we got it in. I have to say, it seems quite a bit more secure by default than W2K Server did, although on the flip side, it fails to make use of my sound card.

I also have problems installing a few apps that would normally load on W2K/XP.

Anyone else here used 2K3 or seen this issues?
 
  • #3
In order of use;

1) winXP
2) win95
3) win311 (wfw)
 
  • #4
18,823
8,995
I haven't had any problems with 2k3, but I've been only installing utilities so far.
 
  • #5
Viper
54
0
The worst is ME, It broke after 10 hours for god sake
 
  • #6
hhegab
42
0
Linux

Hi all,
Well, if you want security, then it is linux that you should use.
If you want stability, then try linux,
and if you want everything, Again, it is linux.

hhegab
 
  • #7
Pauly Man
129
0
I had Windows Me before upgrading to XP. It was probably the WORST OS I have ever had the misfortune to use. It would crash ATLEAST five times a day, usually once after another.

Windows XP on the other hand is very realiable. I have had almost no problems with it,other than the initial driver conflict here and there.
 
  • #8
Viper
54
0
Likewise Pauly, Ive had XP for over a year and its never crashed.
 
  • #9
J-Man
205
1
I don't like the choices. Not the OSes themselves, but the grouping together. For example I abhore XP, but I think 2000 is very good. I hate ME and 95 is far too limited, but 98(SE) is still a very useful and fairly reliable OS. So you won't see my vote in the totals until I can choose one OS.

The one I use the most at present is win 2000, with 98SE a close second.
 
  • #10
Considering
75
0
Why the opposition to XP? Do you just not like the whole "candy coated" design, or have you noticed other problems with it?

BTW, I installed Red Hat 8 on my Dell at home, and 3 days into running it my browser (Netscape, bundled with OS) would close itself immediately after I opened it. Maybe I don't know what I'm doing, but ever since W2K, Msoft has never given me such issues. ;)
 
  • #11
18,823
8,995
I just started work at a new web design company and I have to work exclusively on OSX
 
  • #12
OSX looks really pretty, but even on my friends' new laptop it still sorta crawls. I hate excess chrome.

J-Man -- I grouped them by kernel category; 95,98,ME are basically the same OS with different user interfaces etc. Same with 2000 and XP, which are built on a different codebase.
 
  • #13
Anyone heard about the newer windows stuff?

I remember hearing some codename/working name, but whats the scoop?

Any sites to check out?

I want something reovlutionary dammitt, all windows look the same!

no bottom bar, no start button no ICONS!!

make something COOL
 
  • #14
Galatea
35
0
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Anyone heard about the newer windows stuff?

I remember hearing some codename/working name, but whats the scoop?

Any sites to check out?

I want something reovlutionary dammitt, all windows look the same!

no bottom bar, no start button no ICONS!!

make something COOL

Oh yeah, and ruin all of the conditioning they've done over the years..

The default Microsoft UI will probably always maintain similarities with previous versions of Windows. I'm sure a fair amount of Windows users would prefer more options for the interface without having to add third-party, RAM intensive software, though. Maybe they'll change that in future versions. I hear they'll be adding tabs to IE in the future also. For those who have not browsed with the assistance of tabs, you are truly missing out.

As for my OS, proud Debian GNU/Linux user here.
 
  • #16
russ_watters
Mentor
21,853
8,816
Originally posted by damgo
J-Man -- I grouped them by kernel category; 95,98,ME are basically the same OS with different user interfaces etc. Same with 2000 and XP, which are built on a different codebase.
Thats worth expanding on - most people don't know it.

There was actually MORE of a difference between Win95 and Win95 OSR2 than between Win98 and WinME. You can even look at the actual version numbers by typing "ver" at a command prompt or looking at "system" in control panel.

A lot of companies do this sort of thing. Its just marketing and not a big deal as long as you know what you are looking at. For example, a Pentium Pro, Pentium 2, and Pentium 3 all use the same core. And it doesn't just apply to computers.
 
  • #17
HBar
67
0
I use linux most of the time and switch over to windows (XP) for gaming. winex is annoying to configure .
-HBar
 
  • #18
The Grimmus
200
0
Are Linux and windows simlar becasue i want to use linux but have been weened at the teet of Windows. Alough ever since i builkd my new comp withe xp prof it seemed to be ok...but still fatel errors ever so often...then agian i am running stuff that falls under the category of old
 
  • #19
bogdan
191
0
winme -> lots of crashes...but the tvtunner works perfectly...:)
not the same for winxp...
 
  • #20
Dave
73
0
I use W95 as my computer is old!
 
  • #21
HBar
67
0
Are Linux and windows similar
Windows and Linux are very different. You can try to make Linux feel like windows by using window managers such as GNOME or KDE, but they are slow and bulky. Linux requires you do memorize a lot of commands because of its lack of pretty GUI stuff. For example, when you want to install a program no longer can you just double click the icon and click the next button, you have to compile then install (it's actually pretty easy, but is a lot harder than the setup wizards when you run into a compile problem... ugh). You do get something good in exchange though. Linux is much more flexible than windows. You can edit out pieces of kernel you don't need (improves performance), use different GUIs, etc.
 
  • #22
Dagenais
283
4
Linux requires you do memorize a lot of commands because of its lack of pretty GUI

Linux has great looking GUI. I have some screen shots of SuSE which looks exactly like what a Windows PC would look like: http://awoot.com/misc/slod1.png

Very pretty.


Mandrake has some nice screen shots too.

I use Mac OS X.2. I believe it is a really nice OS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
HBar
67
0
Linux has great looking GUI.
Whoops! I suppose i didn't phrase my last post very well. What i meant is there are very few configuration tools that have a GUI. You're completely right though, it can have a windows manager. Actually, just for the record, linux doesn't have a gui just by itself. The windows manager is completly separate from the kernel, unlike windows. Linux will function just fine without a windows manager, it will just be a command line.

The KDE windows manager (the one in the screenshot) does look nice but it is very slow and bulky. It's nice if you're a beginner or just want to try out linux, but i would recomend the windows manager fluxbox. It's a light weight windows manager based on blackbox that is much faster. It looks pretty cool too: http://fluxbox.org/zoom.php?shots-dev/aleczapka_fluxbox2.jpg [Broken]
-HBar

EDIT: added the first paragraph
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Sonty
108
0
1.Looking at the votes, I wonder how Apple survives
2. You guys are licenced windows users, aren't you? All my friends use windows, most of them XP, but none has a licence. Do I need to say that they call me to find out how to solve their problems. It's natural to have windows. One lady at my internet provider asked me the other day when I went there to pick up my cable modem what kind of windows I have. When I told her I have no kind of windows she didn't know what to do. She turned around and asked another guy. She didn't know how I could connect to the internet without windows.... I have found the door, honey!!!
3. RedHat 8 and beyond isn't linux, it's windows...
4. I haven't yet seen win2k. My experience with win 9x has been long and painfull (loss of data, loss of partition tables, loss of time) enough. I've only seen XP a couple of times when some of my friends called me over to try to solve strange problems like installed modems that wouldn't work. I didn't know there was such a thing as Win 2k3...
5. I just had to pull the power cable from my cdrom to reset it. It has some problems with the lens and when it can't read the buffer stops to operate and it doesn't answer to system calls
6. HBar, I don't find my KDE 3 to be sensible slower than the win98 interface. If you have a precompiled version (especially a RedHat one) it is most probably compiled for i386 and on your new computer it might seem slower than win interfaces that make use of newer stuff. Try compiling it yourself (I've heared it can be twice as fast).
7. RedHat 7.2 for me (until I'll get a bigger hard drive to try other linux distributions)
 
  • #25
HBar
67
0
Sonty, when i said Gnome and KDE were slow i was refering to Gnome and KDE Vs. Fluxbox (or other lightweight windows managers).
3. RedHat 8 and beyond isn't linux, it's windows...
I've heard things similar to this. People think RedHat is too user-friendly. My opinion is i don't think making things easier for yourself is something to be ashamed of. RedHat is a nice way to transition from windows to linux. Oh well, i use slackware anyhow...
-HBar
 
  • #26
Sourire
57
0
Originally posted by Viper
The worst is ME, It broke after 10 hours for god sake

I have to agree!! I am a Technician and work with 98/ME/XP/2000
and find XP to be the most stable and ME to be the most unstable. 2000 is also pretth good but I have to say that the user interface of XP is the selling point for me!
 
  • #27
AtomSmasher
2
0
I use Linux almost exclusively. I have a Slackware firewall and a few RedHat boxes which I use GNOME on when I need a GUI. I also have a windows 2000 workstation I use for games.

-Galen
 
  • #28
Galatea
35
0
Originally posted by HBar
For example, when you want to install a program no longer can you just double click the icon and click the next button, you have to compile then install (it's actually pretty easy, but is a lot harder than the setup wizards when you run into a compile problem... ugh).

Wrong.

For RedHat, Mandrake etc. the package management tool (RPM) is actually quite a bit like Window's executables. I won't comment on dependency issues, but just because you're a Slackware user, doesn't mean all distros require you to compile programs in order to use them. A lot don't, although I know of at least one that requires you to compile everything (Gentoo). I've heard nightmare stories about taking 18+ hours to get a functional system with Gentoo, although I do think they have precompiled binaries in some cases.

I use Debian, though. Compiling is basically a forgotten art for me since I only have to remember a few commands to install programs. The downfall, for some people (especially those on faster computers) is that Debian pretty much only uses precompiled binaries based on i386. However, Debian does have support for at least 10 architectures (including, but not limited to: PPC, Alpha, x86.. etc.) There is the rare case that an application you want isn't in the Debian repository and you may have to compile it yourself, but it isn't too common. There are usually sources available for most popular applications. If you do want to compile and optimize for your system, you can always download the source (via apt-get) and build it to your specifications.

For good measure, here are some of my screenshots (using Gnome and Debian unstable):

http://www.double-helix.org/screenshots/peeps.jpg

http://www.double-helix.org/screenshots/helixanime.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
HBar
67
0
Wrong.
When i said that you have to compile the programs i was talking about linux in general. Linux by itself doesn't have any built in package functionality (such as RPM, slackware package managment, etc).
-HBar
 
  • #30
Galatea
35
0
Originally posted by HBar
Linux by itself doesn't have any built in package functionality (such as RPM, slackware package managment, etc).

??

Linux, by itself, doesn't even really exist. It's basically just a kernel. Anything more than that is a distribution. All Linus works on is the kernel. Perhaps I'm not understanding your statement, though, but as far as I know, all distributions have some form of package management, which makes your statement.. not make sense. Even if it's just compiling and using chkinstall to keep track of applications, there is *something* managing it. It was misleading of you to claim that apps need to be compiled. I just wanted to clarify that for people new to linux.
 
  • #31
HBar
67
0
Sorry, what wasn't phrased very well. What i meant was that linux in general doesn't have a package management system. Sure some of the distros do like redhat, slackware, debian, etc but not all of them. For example, i'm pretty sure the floppy version of keeper linux and smoothwall don't have a package managment system. I'm not completely sure, though.
-HBar
 
  • #32
Beren
94
0
floppy version of keeper linux and smoothwall don't have a package managment system.

Keeper doesn't, I've never looked through smoothwall, however.

And Hello, since this is my first post. I mainly use XP at the moment, but I have 4 other computers running various things. 3.1 and RedHat are the main other OSs.
 
  • #33
Sting
157
2
I use XP at school and since I started my job in the physics and mathematics lab, I've used XP ALOT more.

However...

I still have 98 at home and I still find it useful for the tasks I need to perform. So I'll quote the heading of the guitar lessons of Angus of AC/DC in Guitar World magazine: "If it ain't broken, why fix it?"
 
  • #34
Beren
94
0
My 98 machine is so (in your words) broke. XD The thing crashes every day. I've had it for 3 years, and it's been on for *most* of that time, never having been reinstalled.

The poor thing is ready to blow up, I think. ;)
 
  • #35
Slackware linux. And I've got to say, its awesome. Extremely fast, very customizable and has this festive feel to it.

I've had some major headaches trying to compile and install some programs, but its worth it. And in the end I have one of the most powerful systems in the neighborhood.
 

Suggested for: [solved] Os

Replies
6
Views
217
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
757
Replies
92
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
60
Views
8K
MHB OS
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
Top