What is the best OS?

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

I use a variety of operating systems, everything from DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.1 to Windows XP and Ubuntu 9.10.  What is your favourite operating system? Mine has to be Windows 2000 and here is why:

1. It can handle 80% of the same things that Windows XP can handle, but it requires a lot less system resources.

2. Better reliability. I never have any major problems with my Windows 2000 computers.  I have to reformat my Windows XP computers twice for every one time I format a Windows 2000 computer.

3. Fast shut down.  Windows 2000 shuts down within a max of 5 seconds after you press the power button.  Windows XP, takes 30+ seconds to shut down properly.

[timw4mail]

OS X

1. No worrying about drivers
2. OS doesn't erode (Registry errors, anyone?)
3. Expose


Now, if we could just bring wobbly windows to OS X...

[Rajagra]

Novell Netware. I used to leave a Netware server constantly running for over a year at a time. Never gave a fault. Never.

[ch_123]

GNU Hurd.

[JBert]

Whatever works. Gentoo linux does the trick right now.

[microsoft windows]

Windows 2000 is the way to go! (Except if your network has a complicated security policy. It it does, expect computers taking 5 minutes to start up).

My computers tend to break less when they have Windows 2000. It's reliable and is much better with networking than XP Home Edition.

[xyzzy]

3. Fast shut down.  Windows 2000 shuts down within a max of 5 seconds after you press the power button.  Windows XP, takes 30+ seconds to shut down properly.

I assume you mean the Professional edition.

I remember my previous company's domain controller, a Windows 2000 server machine, took 5 to 10 minutes to shut down. Plus another 5-10 to start up.

[zwmalone]

Classic Mac OS.

[ch_123]

Windows 2000 is the way to go! (Except if your network has a complicated security policy. It it does, expect computers taking 5 minutes to start up).

My computers tend to break less when they have Windows 2000. It's reliable and is much better with networking than XP Home Edition.

Apples and Oranges... Home doesn't have the same networking tools than 2000 has. Pro probably would.

[AndrewZorn]

OS X

1. No worrying about drivers
2. OS doesn't erode (Registry errors, anyone?)
3. Expose


Now, if we could just bring wobbly windows to OS X...

no worrying about drivers?  i cant install OSX on my laptop because of drivers.

oh wait, so you were talking about a special hardware/software COMBINATION...

linux, if you like features like non-erosion and expose (come on)

[MFGorilla]

As I get deeper into Ubuntu the more I like it.  As far as Microsoft goes, 2000 might have been my favorite with XP being a close second.

[hyperlinked]

Blue Cherries followed by Buckling Springs!!! Sorry, wrong thread...

Anyway, I'm primarily an OS X user and I use CentOS on my servers. I'm an omnivore, but I do like my OS X the most. It does what I need it to do and I've had the least amount of trouble with it. It breaks down too, but I haven't had any spectacular breakdowns with it.

I've got enough to keep in my head so I'm not the eager type to try something else because it's getting a lot of good press, but I keep hearing people say they really like their Ubuntu. I'm curious, what's so great about it over over variants of Linux, especially Red Hat variants? All I know about it is that it's released by some non-profit foundation in South Africa or somewhere around those woods.

As an aside, I was feeling nostalgic about Gopher this week when I saw a series of simple iPhone apps being advertised at restaurants. Gopher was the future... until Mosaic made it obsolete. Haha, I remember using Gopher while I was in college to lookup info on friends at other schools and their local weather conditions.

[AndrewZorn]

people like it because

- it is fairly set up "out of the box"
- it does make some simplifications of linux
- it is hip colorful and popular

its not bad or anything but does have some limitations

also the people behind it are very much about "free as in freedom" and thus video codecs, flash, java, etc are not all installed by default, and some important stuff not even in the repositories.

[didjamatic]

Depends on what you want to do with it.  For most people WinXP but it will be unsupported in 2010 making 7 a likely best option for everyone, even the Betas of 7 are better than Vista in some cases.  Win2k is great but support is lacking - not just from MS, from the rest of the world that writes software and makes hardware.
Mac is good in some circumstances, not all by any means and you're forced into expensive hardware.  Sexy but overpriced.  Linux is good in fewer circumstances, but all shine in areas.

As time goes on, an OS is less critical since we do most things in web browsers.

[chimera15]

C.H.O.B.I.T.S  hehe.

[majestouch]

What is your favourite operating system? Mine has to be Windows 2000 and here is why:

For a server, any *nix PLEASE. (Sheer reliability)

For a development desktop, Linux, preferably Slackware. (Sheer configurabilty)

For a business or media desktop, windows XP SP3. (Sheer ****load of really easy to install hardware and userland software)

For embedded, I'd pick linux only because of the glut of OSS which compiles on it.

1. It can handle 80% of the same things that Windows XP can handle, but it requires a lot less system resources.

I assume you're speaking of 2000 professional? Yes, the base system requires less resources, but it is flawed logic to always believe that less base memory usage = better performance on ALL hardware for all tasks. I hate to sound like a MS fanboy, but with capable minimum hardware, XP can be configured to look and feel like 2000, boot faster, shutdown faster, and do just about everything else with less pain in my experience. With a little effort, you can turn off all the new graphical and wizard elements as well as background processes resulting in a Windows OS that can handle modern hardware and software with a much lower incidence of BSODs, and a Windows Explorer which crashes MUCH less frequently than it ever did on any hardware running 2000pro.

2. Better reliability. I never have any major problems with my Windows 2000 computers.  I have to reformat my Windows XP computers twice for every one time I format a Windows 2000 computer.

How are you measuring reliability? Day to day XP has better uptimes, fewer Explorer crashes, and much fewer BSODs than 2000 ever did IMO. Reformatting is unfortunately the lot of pretty much all PC OSes, but it varies from user to user, as operating habits are different. I can't imagine going back to the BSOD days of 2000; even if there is some heavy proof of your reformatting claim being 2:1, I'd take the 2.

3. Fast shut down.  Windows 2000 shuts down within a max of 5 seconds after you press the power button.  Windows XP, takes 30+ seconds to shut down properly.

Configuration, configuration. I run XP pro on a wee-little 1.6Mhz celeron laptop with Speedstep and 768MB of memory and power-button-to-login is 15 seconds (no exaggeration), login-to-desktop is 5-10 seconds, and shutdowns take *about* 5 seconds (I haven't measured), but no more than 10 for sure.

I unfortunately use some proprietary software the requires MSWindows, otherwise I wouldn't use it quite so much. I used to hold on to 2000 pro with a deathgrip, swearing I'd never use XP, but after I saw XP with SP2 and heard from colleagues using SP2 of the increased uptimes and decreased headaches, I took the painful step of change and am very happy I did.

The only good reasons to still use 2000 pro IMNSHO:

1. You're broke. You cannot afford an XP license, or new hardware.

2. You're in love with your Pentium pro 200MHz with 256KB of L2 cache and that 4.5GB SCSIU2W drive which sounds like a 777 at takeoff, and you're going to use it until the day the power company pries it from your cold dead hands for exceeding your allotted carbon footprint.

3. You're too tired or too old to change your habits regardless of any possible benefit to you or others.

[iMav]

All OS's suck.  Just some less than others.

I use both Linux and OS X fairly regularly on the desktop.  I use the nasty for work when required to.  7 has been ok.

[Mnemonix]

Windows 2000 is the way to go!

Oh, you are into retrocomputing, too? :wink:

...but I keep hearing people say they really like their Ubuntu. I'm curious, what's so great about it over over variants of Linux, especially Red Hat variants?

It's Kubuntu for me, which is Ubuntu with KDE instead of Gnome, but totally equivalent otherwise. The hype (meant in a positive way) about Ubuntu is primarily its easy installation and ease of use by default, two topics that Linux distributions had problems with for a long time. It was, and still is with some distributions, text mode and required expert knowledge all way, and this is what is putting off so many people. For this reason, Linux still has a reputation for being difficult, but that's simply not true anymore.

Basically, to get an "expert" distribution (non-Ubuntu/Red Hat/SuSE/Mandriva) installed, you'll have to know what's a harddisk partition, what's a file system, what kind of hardware you have in your PC, etc., lots of technical stuff. I guess most of us here don't have problems with these questions at all, but the standard computer illiterate won't be able to answer them. Just using what has been shipped with their computers is good enough for those people. Hence the popularity of Windows.

Most mainstream distributions have live CDs and graphical installers today, making it much easier to install a system that is usable out of the box. If you can install Windows from scratch, then I doubt you will have any problems installing Ubuntu or Red Hat. At least with Ubuntu, setting up a dual-boot system side-by-side with Windows (=game loader) is also a no-brainer.
Oh, and if you own a 64 bit system, don't hesitate installing the 64 bit version unless you are into retrocomputing. There is no such thing as missing drivers in the 64 bit version that would have been available in the 32 bit edition...

Concerning Red Hat, I never liked their package management and the way they managed to f*ck up standard software (anyone remembering the gcc 2.96 disaster?). I guess the same can be said for SuSE (except the gcc bit). When I checked Fedora (=noncommercial Red Hat, basically beta test for the commercial variant :wink:) the last time, it tried to install a TON of software that I was sure would never use. Ubuntu is alike, but it won't install several gigabytes "just to be sure" (only one or two, maybe :wink:).

All I know about it is that it's released by some non-profit foundation in South Africa or somewhere around those woods.

Well, sort of.  Ubuntu is maintained by Canonical Ltd., a company founded by Mark Shuttleworth. He's worth several $100 million, by the way, so there's quite some amount of pennies behind Ubuntu. You can also look him up on Wikipedia. And yes, he and his company are based in South Africa.

So, what is the "best" OS? For me: any Linux! Next would be FreeBSD, I think. Then OS X for its nice ideas and being a BSD variant.

[ironcoder]

The best OS is OS/390. Way down the list are Slackware (what I use mostly) and the *BSD family.

[Arc'xer]

Sounds like older hardware to me, coupled with degraded performance.

As for what majestouch said, he pretty much deduced it to hardware. And I agree, I understand that your not gaming or anything requiring massive power like @Folding or Autocad or whatever. But don't you think it's about time for a new rig.

If you are retrocomputing I can understand but from the way you worded your post. Sounds to me like your not retrocomputing and it's your daily driver.

1. It can handle 80% of the same things that Windows XP can handle, but it requires a lot less system resources.

That to me sounds like a bad sign. Like I said you can build some mean PCs for pretty cheap now a days *insert obligatory "Can it run crysis?" joke*, yeah your not gaming or anything like that you don't need top of the line but for what you do certainly able to handle the job much more efficiently and faster is better right?. Isn't that the purpose of a computer to operate problems in a faster and more efficient way. Just recently AMD released a $100 quad-core, it's not a monster like an Core i7 or Phenom 2 but for what you seem to do it'll hold you over for a good few years.

Also, are your machines running on the same hard drives you bought them with? Remember with mechanical HDD they degrade in performance, it writes over the disk and as time passes it takes longer to do things and guess where your OS is in the HDD, defragmenting helps but even that has it's limits after a period of time. HDD are pretty cheap now a days I see 750GB HDDs selling for 50 bucks and 1TB for 90, although not sure if it would be compatible with your machine. RAM as well is your data being swapped with the HDD for lack of RAM, that's another thing it has it's limits of course depending on the programs capability to utilize but all that helps.

Depends on what you want to do with it.  For most people WinXP but it will be unsupported in 2010 making 7 a likely best option for everyone, even the Betas of 7 are better than Vista in some cases.

As for me as much as I can see the benefits and I have read extensively around on open source operating systems. I'm aware their impact has benefited computers and the internet as well as many business across the world but it's not in my thing plus I will have issues with incompatibility to programs I run. Even though I did give Ubuntu a whirl a few months back quite nice, pretty snappy but like I said for what I do it's unnecessary.

Currently using Vista 64, forgo the vista is bad and this that. Most of those issues pertained to the 32-bit version and along with most people who are ignorant about computers thinking their XP machine can run Vista just fine when the hardware is woefully outdated.

Yeah, Windows 7 is quite nice from many of the reviews I read. Been meaning to switch over to it but it's price tag is less than amusing. Although I like vista I have no problems staying it for the time being.

I honestly think there is no best or ultimate operating system. Maybe in the future but humans are not perfect but I'm not sure if that's correct to say that. We can perfect an operating system but it might not be perfect for all applications.

[lmnop]

Windows 2000 was my favorite and still has it's uses. when I was at UOFT we had to do a project in assembly so I decided to write my own low level operating system. I called it CTree (Christine Tree) based off XTree. took a month. my professor found it nostalgic. assembly is a very difficult language to learn and time consuming it takes literally pages of code to move a cursor. I will never use assembly ever again.

[ironcoder]

It depends on which assembler, which processor, and which OS.

I write assembler for a living, and we can do stuff you can't do in any other language. Agreed it's probably not the best choice for graphics or general programming but it is the best tool for certain jobs.

[didjamatic]

For Desktops/Laptops in a business or very large environment, Windows will win every time.  Any other OS is unmanageable but I can modify every Windows workstation in a corporation in a few clicks with Group  Policies and Active Directory.  Novell is hoping to change that with their purchase of SuSe and other technologies, but they've basically screwed their customers repeatedly, abandoning them so it will take some time for people with memories to even consider Novell again.

For servers, it depends on what kind of server.  Web server?  Sure, run Apache on RedHat Enterprise or any supported flavor you like.  Print/File/Security/Etc.... now you've got problems if your environment is very large, back to Windows winning again in most cases.  Even mail servers are not a clear cut choice to go with a Linux based solution like Qmail.  (Though people love to mention that Hotmail runs on Linux systems running Qmail) For specialized needs, *ix is very valuable and it is reliable BUT ONLY in some circumstances.  We are an Oracle shop where I work and must have Unix to support Oracle.  It's fast and rock solid, but we ask very little of it.  Try plugging your grandma's USB multifunction printer into a Unix system and get it to meet her needs, not going to happen.  We're getting closer but we're not there yet.

Mac is awesome, but very overpriced and yes you can get a virus on a mac, yes you can have problems on a mac... and they are increasing as Macs have become more popular.  Now virus and malware devs are writing code for Mac.  It used to be such a small percentage of the PC population that they didn't bother, but no longer.

Windows XP is the most used, yet the most underappreciated pieces of software out there.  When you consider the number of situations it is expected to work in, the number of devices, etc. and the fact that most issues have nothing to do with the OS, but with subpar drivers and software that people install on it, but MS releases patches to fix it... I think Microsoft has done a great job.  Your $100 or so dollars for Windows XP that you have been able to use every day for years with free updates is definitely getting your money's worth.

Vista was a disaster.  They screwed up by jumping the gun and rushing the OS.  It's a lemon like Windows ME was.  And definitely not suitable for network environments.

Windows 7 looks like it's going to be a rockstar and just in the nick of time with XP in extended support already and Vista causing problems for so many people.

But for a home user or geek who wants to play around?  Use a Windows or Mac for your main workhorse and have a spare PC that you can routinely blow away and reinstall Linux on it so you can say how stable it is.  Of course you can download a Live version of Ubuntu or some other flavor and boot your pc to it, running it in Memory.

But like I said before.  ALL of this is changing with cloud computing allowing us to do so much through a browser.  You don't even need an office suite installed anymore if you don't want it.  So as long as your PC will boot, print, save data and launch a web browser, it will do it for you.

And add in virtualization and things are changing even more.  That is one area that Unix is extremely valuable.  VMWare, Xenserver, HyperV and all virtualization technologies are a new breed of OS based in linux because it's so lightweight and can use such few resources.  Then  you run your real servers on top of it.

For a Desktop/Laptop with all things considered including value, Windows 7.
For a Desktop/Laptop if you like overpaying for pretty things, Mac does have some value.  I like Macs, but they are 2-4x the cost of a PC so it's hard to justify for me personally.
For a server, it depends on what you're doing with it and how many servers you have to manage.

Operating Systems are like religion to many people and arguing a point, no matter how logical or right you may feel you are, they feel equally justified in their preference.

[patrickgeekhack]

I think best in this case is very subjective. Personally, at home I work on OS X. This is because I like how it handles multiple open windows and Exposé. This may change however in the future when I need to replace my current computer. Windows 7 looks very promising.

[timw4mail]

For Desktops/Laptops in a business or very large environment, Windows will win every time.  Any other OS is unmanageable but I can modify every Windows workstation in a corporation in a few clicks with Group  Policies and Active Directory.  Novell is hoping to change that with their purchase of SuSe and other technologies, but they've basically screwed their customers repeatedly, abandoning them so it will take some time for people with memories to even consider Novell again.

For servers, it depends on what kind of server.  Web server?  Sure, run Apache on RedHat Enterprise or any supported flavor you like.  Print/File/Security/Etc.... now you've got problems if your environment is very large, back to Windows winning again in most cases.  Even mail servers are not a clear cut choice to go with a Linux based solution like Qmail.  (Though people love to mention that Hotmail runs on Linux systems running Qmail) For specialized needs, *ix is very valuable and it is reliable BUT ONLY in some circumstances.  We are an Oracle shop where I work and must have Unix to support Oracle.  It's fast and rock solid, but we ask very little of it.  Try plugging your grandma's USB multifunction printer into a Unix system and get it to meet her needs, not going to happen.  We're getting closer but we're not there yet.

Mac is awesome, but very overpriced and yes you can get a virus on a mac, yes you can have problems on a mac... and they are increasing as Macs have become more popular.  Now virus and malware devs are writing code for Mac.  It used to be such a small percentage of the PC population that they didn't bother, but no longer.

Windows XP is the most used, yet the most underappreciated pieces of software out there.  When you consider the number of situations it is expected to work in, the number of devices, etc. and the fact that most issues have nothing to do with the OS, but with subpar drivers and software that people install on it, but MS releases patches to fix it... I think Microsoft has done a great job.  Your $100 or so dollars for Windows XP that you have been able to use every day for years with free updates is definitely getting your money's worth.

Vista was a disaster.  They screwed up by jumping the gun and rushing the OS.  It's a lemon like Windows ME was.  And definitely not suitable for network environments.

Windows 7 looks like it's going to be a rockstar and just in the nick of time with XP in extended support already and Vista causing problems for so many people.

But like I said before.  ALL of this is changing with cloud computing allowing us to do so much through a browser.  You don't even need an office suite installed anymore if you don't want it.  So as long as your PC will boot, print, save data and launch a web browser, it will do it for you.

And add in virtualization and things are changing even more.  That is one area that Unix is extremely valuable.  VMWare, Xenserver, HyperV and all virtualization technologies are a new breed of OS based in linux because it's so lightweight and can use such few resources.  Then  you run your real servers on top of it.

For a Desktop/Laptop with all things considered including value, Windows 7.
For a Desktop/Laptop if you like overpaying for pretty things, Mac does have some value.  I like Macs, but they are 2-4x the cost of a PC so it's hard to justify for me personally.
For a server, it depends on what you're doing with it and how many servers you have to manage.

Operating Systems are like religion to many people and arguing a point, no matter how logical or right you may feel you are, they feel equally justified in their preference.

1. Vista was largly drug down due to drastic interface changes, driver issues, and other apparent issues.

2. Unix was designed for a server environment. Windows was not.

3. 2-4x is a gross over-exaggeration. Apple computers have different form factors, Operating System, and support.

4. Grossly inaccurate points don't help your case.

[didjamatic]

1. Vista was largly drug down due to drastic interface changes, driver issues, and other apparent issues.

2. Unix was designed for a server environment. Windows was not.

3. 2-4x is a gross over-exaggeration. Apple computers have different form factors, Operating System, and support.

4. Grossly inaccurate points don't help your case.

Vista was rushed in response to enchanted ipod users making a move to Mac.  It's is completely different than was planned.  It was a huge mistake, should have been delayed and has been the greatest selling point for Mac since it was released.

Unix was designed for a server environment and is excellent for SOME types of servers.  Linux fans have struggled to make a viable desktop out of it ever since.  With some great progress obviously, but it's not there for most users yet.  Don't get me wrong, I even had a cat named Unix, but it doesn't do everything for us.

Windows Server editions were also designed to be a server, from NT 3.51 to now.  They have completely different kernels, memory architecture and core components.  They are not the same animal as Windows Desktop systems.  In fact, you can run Windows 2008 server without a GUI of any kind, purely command line.

Windows laptops start around $400-500 with a 15.4" lcd, Macs start around $1k with a tiny 13" screen.  It's no exagguration, it's reality.  If an average user walks into an Apple store and gets a computer they want, they will probably be $1500-2k on average.  PC is a fraction of that, but you won't get a shiny "apple concierge" doing ballet leaps across the store to help you buy a PC, that only comes with a Mac.  
Of course you can spend more on a PC based system, but Mac is generally 2x the price.  For systems I have considered it is around 3x difference so I could buy a PC for me, one for my wife and one for my kids for the same price as a Mac.



If I had spare cash that I wanted to spend on a computer, I would get a Mac.
If I had to build a server for some specific needs, Unix would be my first choice.

But for most things, Windows wins.

[Mnemonix]

Windows laptops start around $400-500 with a 15.4" lcd, Macs start around $1k with a tiny 13" screen.

Windows laptops of quality comparable to Macs start at $1k. Please don't compare Macs with cheapo laptops.

But for most things, Windows wins.

I disagree. :wink:

[AndrewZorn]

no matter how good you believe their build quality to be (and i like them too, still have to resist getting one and wiping the hard drive),
you cannot deny that they charge a really big price premium for having exclusive software and being the current fad

[timw4mail]

Vista was rushed in response to enchanted ipod users making a move to Mac.  It's is completely different than was planned.  It was a huge mistake, should have been delayed and has been the greatest selling point for Mac since it was released.

Mostly due to Nvidia's video driver.

Unix was designed for a server environment and is excellent for SOME types of servers.  Linux fans have struggled to make a viable desktop out of it ever since.  With some great progress obviously, but it's not there for most users yet.  Don't get me wrong, I even had a cat named Unix, but it doesn't do everything for us.

I never said anything about Linux or Unix for the desktop.

Windows Server editions were also designed to be a server, from NT 3.51 to now.  They have completely different kernels, memory architecture and core components.  They are not the same animal as Windows Desktop systems.  In fact, you can run Windows 2008 server without a GUI of any kind, purely command line.

Doesn't change the fact that they have similar security exploits, viruses and malware.

But for most things, Windows wins.

At being a hack-job that was forced into being the market leader, and then improved? The only advantage Windows has is for PC gaming, and that's mostly due to it's monopolistic market share.

[Mnemonix]

Solaris.

Ugh. I am using that at work every day. It doesn't suck all the time if you don't have to rely on its original user land tools, but it always feels a bit dusty nevertheless (Solaris 10 here, SPARC and x86 versions).

[timw4mail]

no matter how good you believe their build quality to be (and i like them too, still have to resist getting one and wiping the hard drive),
you cannot deny that they charge a really big price premium for having exclusive software and being the current fad

Really? Take a look at the new iMac: it has a very high density IPS display. You could pay nearly as much for a similar display by itself.

[AndrewZorn]

i have mentioned before that i actually AM interested in the new imac, to buy instead of a 30" IPS... but i havent actually read how well mac has pulled off this IPS panel (they have been behind dell, NEC and LG for a while now)

but i was talking about the laptops that Mnemonix was talking about

[ch_123]

Windows Server editions were also designed to be a server, from NT 3.51 to now.  They have completely different kernels, memory architecture and core components.  They are not the same animal as Windows Desktop systems.  In fact, you can run Windows 2008 server without a GUI of any kind, purely command line.

Wrong, they are exactly the same underneath it all. If what I was saying wasn't true, why do they use the same service packs for the Workstation and Server OSes?

Windows laptops start around $400-500 with a 15.4" lcd, Macs start around $1k with a tiny 13" screen.

$500 laptops are plasticky pieces of crap, and who wants a portable computer that has a screen the viewing area of an old CRT monitor anyway? I have a 14.1" screen and even that seems too big at times. At least the Macs are well built and reasonably sized, and I usually hate Macs!

[vyshane]

My journey with various operating system flavours went something like this. I started with DOS and went from:

- Using Windows exclusively, having never used a Mac for any significant length of time, but looking down on Mac users nonetheless - "Noobs need simplistic software, are only attracted to pricey, shiny bling."

- Switching to Linux, being your average obnoxious elitist zealot - "Norton vs. McAfee for firewalls? Pah! Me, I roll with iptables."

- Switching to BSD, being an even bigger elitist prick - "The Linux scene is full of FSF zealots. I'll take the higher moral ground."

Then I switched to a Mac.

[didjamatic]

They don't use the same Service Packs.  XP is on SP3, 2003 server is R2 SP2.

$500 laptops might not be the best, but for 90% of the public who does little more than browse the internet, edit photos and do word processing, it's MORE than they need.

Screen size is a personal preference thing, you can get a Windows netbook with a smaller screen for even less than $300 if portability is your goal.  

With PC you have the OPTION for a cheaper system that is not junk.
With Mac you don't have this choice.

One thing I am VERY GRATEFUL FOR is that there are multiple viable OS options, it keeps innovation going and we all benefit, whether you're a Mac, PC, Linux fan.




LOL @ vyshane, awesome post.

[AndrewZorn]

you are all mixing the hardware and software decision, just like mac wants/forces you to.

if i could buy a unibody aluminum 13" macbook pro with a blank hard drive for, say, $200 under retail, then i probably would!  i mean, all they advertise is how windows fat-guy gets viruses and pays for photoshop, and how easy you can check your email... if all they are going to talk about is their software, then surely the prices aren't so high because of the hardware, right!?  i don't want it, just let me have the box, i will do with it as i please... but no, they don't want that.  just as they won't let the opposite happen, they have to sue psystar because they proved that a person can own a mac (at least, for all the reasons they advertise and people buy them for) for $600.

they cloud the specifics of what you are actually paying for by mixing it all up into one package and not giving you the option to get anything separately.

LOL! windows users pay hundreds for an upgrade, mac people only pay $30!

[Mnemonix]

no matter how good you believe their build quality to be (and i like them too, still have to resist getting one and wiping the hard drive),
you cannot deny that they charge a really big price premium for having exclusive software and being the current fad

OK, Macs are probably a bit more expensive, but not by that much; just take all the components and quality into account.
I mean, the differences between the regular discounter laptops on the lower end (nonames, cheap models  from Samsung or Lenovo, whatever) and any Macbook or a T-series Thinkpad are obvious. I like my T60 and also my colleagues' Macbooks quite well, and I start liking them much, much more when I need to fix other peoples' Really Cheap laptops.
I don't know about the desktop Macs, though; I'll simply assume they are OK, too.

Still, I won't buy a Mac because I don't want to use OS X all the time. Buying a Mac to install Linux or Windows on it (is that possible after all?) would be ridiculous. I only use Macs once in a while for testing/porting software on/to OS X.

$500 laptops are plasticky pieces of crap

That's what I meant to say. :wink:

Wrong, they are exactly the same underneath it all. If what I was saying wasn't true, why do they use the same service packs for the Workstation and Server OSes?

AFAIR, Win ME was the last DOS-based Windows, and XP was the first MS system for the desktop that used the NT kernel.

[itlnstln]

AFAIR, Win ME was the last DOS-based Windows, and XP was the first MS system for the desktop that used the NT kernel.

Close.  Win 2000 was NT-based.  NT 3.51 and NT 4 had desktop versions, but they weren't well-supported driver/software-wise.  Win 2000 was the first well-supported NT desktop OS.

[AndrewZorn]

Mnemonix,
it is possible to install a different OS on it

my post above (that was probably done while you were typing that one) basically agrees with you

except, by the way, the insides of a mac are usually not up to the same standards as fat guy PeeCees when it comes to cooling and upgradeability, they basically cram it all in there like any other cheap laptop (which is what the full-size macs pretty much are, a laptop on the back of a big screen)

EDIT and i just went on their website.  apparently they still try to hide what you are actually getting, i mean, they still dont even list the actual processor name/model, just "2.26ghz Core 2 Duo"

i still really like the idea of a really light linux on a sleek aluminum MBP, the price is high, but hey, you have to pay for the best... but the hardware is still undeniably behind, and i hate for such a big chunk of change to go to the hipster commercials and software i dont even want.

[patrickgeekhack]

Operating Systems are like religion to many people and arguing a point, no matter how logical or right you may feel you are, they feel equally justified in their preference.

Very nicely said. The Social Psychologist student in me will explain this as people self-serving, justifying that they made the right choice. It's a very subjective topic for best is a very subjective notion to begin with.

[didjamatic]

EDIT and i just went on their website.  apparently they still try to hide what you are actually getting, i mean, they still dont even list the actual processor name/model, just "2.26ghz Core 2 Duo"

Maybe they're still embarrassed that they finally caved and moved to Intel i86 based processors from the previous processors that they used to tout as being so superior.    Ok sorry that was a jab.  

I like Mac, they're just expensive and I get annoyed at the Mac culture that feels they are superior... like an engineer where I work that just lectured me on how his Mac is so superior and that the hard drive will never crash because it's a Mac hard drive.  When I informed him it's the same type of drive that a PC based system uses, he was confused.

[AndrewZorn]

thats a problem too, i wonder if buying one means i have to hang out in coffee shops with thick black-rimmed glasses, talking about how macs are 100% recyclable

[ironcoder]

That doesn't go in software. There are measureable things that aren't opinions. But like some people have said, when it comes to PC operating systems a lot of preference has to do with what you want it for. I wouldn't try gaming on Solaris and I wouldn't run anything critical on Winbloze. That's not based on religion. Your choices will be different if you're an appliance user, a coder, etc.

[timw4mail]

I like Mac, they're just expensive and I get annoyed at the Mac culture that feels they are superior... like an engineer where I work that just lectured me on how his Mac is so superior and that the hard drive will never crash because it's a Mac hard drive.  When I informed him it's the same type of drive that a PC based system uses, he was confused.

Operating Systems have no influence on ignorance.

[didjamatic]

I'd buy Apple stock over, say, Dell stock because Apple advertises itself in that world as a high-profit margin company. It's about positioning in a market segment and adding perceived or real quality (whatever suits you) with the Apple sauce, in order to reap higher profits. Both order their components at the same factories in China, where all the stuff is put together as well.

If you can get him to put his hookah down, Steve Jobs himself will be the first to admit that the 2 biggest reasons they are financially here today is...
1 - Microsoft Bailing them out to avoid antitrust issues by financially saving them.
2 - The Surprise (yes, surprise) success of a device called an Ipod.  They had NO idea it would be the homerun to save them.

Their success today has little to nothing to do with their computer systems, they were on the way out until the ipod home run which they have used to lure users in.

Apple has a history of erratic, senseless decisions made by their leadership.  They have a strong hold on iphone/ipod market and are growing in other areas but long term?  I would prefer a company with solid leadership rather than one  who reads tea leaves and consults his yogi on business matters.  (Ok the last part was totally fabricated, or at least exaggerated)

[timw4mail]

Apple has a history of erratic, senseless decisions made by their leadership.  They have a strong hold on iphone/ipod market and are growing in other areas but long term?  I would prefer a company with solid leadership rather than one  who reads tea leaves and consults his yogi on business matters.  (Ok the last part was totally fabricated, or at least exaggerated)

If you know your history, you'd know that's under leadership that isn't Steve Jobs. The issues that lead to that "bailout" were due to the leadership of the "sugar-water" CEO, Sculley.

[didjamatic]

[itlnstln]

thats a problem too, i wonder if buying one means i have to hang out in coffee shops with thick black-rimmed glasses, talking about how macs are 100% recyclable

Hey, I hang out in coffee shops on occasion, and I wear thick, black-rimmed glasses, but I use Windows.  I am also a douchebag, but don't tell anyone.

[CX23882]

I don't believe that there is a BEST operating system, but merely OS that are best for each user's circumstances and needs. Some may be technically better than others under the hood (________place-holder for Windows vs Linux vs Mac quote___________) but I believe it comes down to user needs.

My ZoneMinder system and file server runs a Linux distribution (not the best distribution mind you). That is the best OS for what it is intended for - you can't run ZoneMinder on anything but Linux (and it's the only decent CCTV app that doesn't cost a small fortune) and in my opinion, Samba is great for setting up a workgroup-based file server, and ext2/3 symbolic links are awesome. I simply could not replace that machine with a Windows Server-based box.

Linux is fine for a lot of people, but it's not the best for me on my desktop. Don't try and convince me that it is, because I know my needs. I know what hardware I'm using, and it's better supported on Windows. I know what software I need, and it may be evil and proprietary, but I need it and it only exists for Windows. WINE is not a solution. Running inside a VM is not a solution. Just using Windows is. Deal with it. Nothing pisses me off more than preacy Linux nuts trying to convert everyone to their cause. (I'm not referring to normal Linux users as Linux nuts - I mean the rabid "stick it to the man" types) Would it be possible to convert everyone to Islam? I seriously doubt it, and I respect people to follow whatever religion they choose but don't try and convert me. As for Windows vs Windows - I could live with XP, but I prefer some of the conveniences of Vista and once I move to 7 I'm sure I'll find things I find useful there too. Performance has never bothered me so long as you don't try and run on minimum system requirements. I've seen XP on systems with 128MB RAM and it's not a pleasant experience. Move to 256MB and it's much better. Same with Vista, run it on 512MB and you'll want to kill puppies. 1GB and it becomes usable. (_____place-holder for DRM and bloat quotes_________)

Mac OS X is likely the best OS if you're using a Mac. You buy a Mac knowing that some software isn't going to run natively, and perhaps you use Boot Camp to run Windows for that software, but you buy a Mac for the hardware and OS integration. By default OS X is better than Windows in that case. I don't know why Apple insist on playing the PC vs Mac game - it seems childish, especially when many Mac users I know don't give a ****.

These are just my opinion, but I can think of situations where any OS is "the best". Hell, BeOS was great.

[didjamatic]

Right you both are.  I was referring to Jobs today, not then.  If you go back further in their history with Jobs leadership you will find he is one interesting character, like an erratic nerdy diva.

FYI, I love my iphone and can't imagine ever giving it up.