What is the best OS?

[zwmalone]

Also I hate how u have to file-close every program lol

Command-Q is your friend

[ch_123]

Maybe its just me but I find OS x annoying...the GUI and windowing is awkward and the filesystem is a bit odd (much different from Linux).

Do elaborate. With the exception of case insensitivity (which you can have, but it's not the default) it's like any other *nix file hierarchy.

[timw4mail]

Do elaborate. With the exception of case insensitivity (which you can have, but it's not the default) it's like any other *nix file hierarchy.

Since when are *nix file hierarchies consistent?

[ch_123]

There's some degree of consistency across platforms. Often things will go in different places, but that's just a case of remembering where the different places are, the same underlying operation still applies. It's not like going between Windows, *nix and something like VMS, all of which work in completely different ways.

[keyboardlover]

There's some degree of consistency across platforms. Often things will go in different places, but that's just a case of remembering where the different places are, the same underlying operation still applies. It's not like going between Windows, *nix and something like VMS, all of which work in completely different ways.

I don't remember exactly, but its different enough to be annoying.

[ch_123]

I would agree that the Linux one makes more sense to me. But I think that's because I used Linux before I used Mac OS X. I'm sure if I was first exposed to something like AIX or "Hockey Pucks", all of them would make me scream.

[keyboardlover]

I seem to recall that how it's represented in the GUI is the most confusing thing (not so much the command line).

[MissileMike]

I don't have anything against osx, but I have just as many problems with it as I do with Windows.  The computer in my house that causes the most issues is my wife's Macbook Air.  Something is always going wrong that I have to fix.  Also, websites are far less snappy and responsive on my osx machines compared to the PC, especially the ones that use flash.  I know that's not apple's fault, but the experience is worse for sure.

For linux, I like linux mint the most of all the distributions I have tried.  But man if you have to do configuring, be prepared for an hour long session with your uncle google.

[platon]

I had never used a mac until 2 years ago.

I didnt "approve" of apple products until then. Finally i got a mac mini
because i wanted to begin developing games for the iphone.  

I dont like reading instructions so yes it took me some days to find my way with the gui and the shortcuts.
Apart from that though i was really impressed.

I believe apple developers worked a LOT to give mac os x its look and feel.
There are all these little features that mac os x doesnt really need to survive.

You will probably only use some of them. Nevertheless, all that functionality along with nice aesthetics
deliver a superior user experience imho.

On top of that, mac os x is *nix based and with fink installed  i can do everything i was  doing in linux.

So thats why i choose mac os x.

[mr_a500]

The best OS I've ever used is Amiga Workbench 3.1 (with modifications) - seriously, and I've used nearly everything.

Name a current OS that lets you:

1. Create bootable backup copies of itself simply by copying files to another partition or drive - including OS files currently in use and any applications
(well, Haiku can do this, but no other OS I know of)

2. Alter the OS directory structure if you want, using assigns to put system folders (and applications) wherever the hell you want, named whatever the hell you want

3. Trim the OS, using only the parts you need, even down to having a bootable multi-tasking OS with GUI in less than 1Mb of disk space (only possible with a microkernel OS)

4. Have the ability to USE any settings - where every change you make (including icon positions) can be temporary unless you deliberately SAVE them (settings stored in RAMdisk unless saved - this is extremely useful, believe me)

5. Back up ALL system settings - including window sizes and positions, all application settings, even icon positions onto a single floppy to copy to multiple systems (even save alternate settings!)  

(It doesn't have to be saved on floppy - just pointing out that the settings themselves are very small individual files (which can be used separately), not a giant monstrous mega-conglomeration like the Windows registry - which is a real ****er to back up without screwing something else up!)

6. Add support for new filesystems, simply by copying one file to a system folder (no tedious kernel compiling required)

7. Add new file support to all applications - without recompiling those applications - simply by adding the datatype  (copying a file to a folder)


I could go on and on (and on) and elaborate until I'm blue in the face (...and collapse from lack of oxygen), but unless you know what I'm talking about, you won't get it.

[ch_123]

1. Create bootable backup copies of itself simply by copying files to another partition or drive - including OS files currently in use and any applications
(well, Haiku can do this, but no other OS I know of)

I've done this with Windows using Linux, does that count?

2. Alter the OS directory structure if you want, using assigns to put system folders (and applications) wherever the hell you want, named whatever the hell you want

So the system doesn't access things directly, it would access it through some list of certain applications, and where they are located? You could do that hackishly with other OSes, but not particularly well I guess.

5. Back up ALL system settings - including window sizes and positions, all application settings, even icon positions onto a single floppy to copy to multiple systems (even save alternate settings!)

Dot files in *nix to an extent?

I could go on and on (and on) and elaborate until I'm blue in the face (...and collapse from lack of oxygen), but unless you know what I'm talking about, you won't get it.

I've heard great things about Amiga OS, and I've rather surprised that there hasn't been a serious attempt by the open source community to replicate it.

[mr_a500]

I've done this with Windows using Linux, does that count?

Nope. That doesn't count. Try booting Windows, then copying the system folder. (I actually tried that once. It wasn't fun.)

So the system doesn't access things directly, it would access it through some list of certain applications, and where they are located? You could do that hackishly with other OSes, but not particularly well I guess.

The Amiga "assign" command allows you to assign logical device name to a folder. This can be any folder on any partition or drive. So, let's say you're not happy with the "Fonts" system folder. It's already quite reasonably named, but maybe you want to call it "****ing Fonts" and move it to another drive. You simply say "Assign Fonts: 'Otherdrive:****ing Fonts'" and you're done. Now any program looking for the Fonts folder will find it on the other drive.

[ch_123]

That sounds suspiciously like logical names in OpenVMS, which work in pretty much exactly the same way you describe, also using an "ASSIGN" command.

The idea, IIRC, was to abstract the location of resources on machines sharing network drives, so that the OS and software would not need to be familiar with where everything was stored.

EDIT: Heh, it actually mentions AmigaOS in that link. Too bad you're as unlikely to bump into an OpenVMS machine as you are an Amiga one.

[mr_a500]

That sounds suspiciously like logical names in OpenVMS, which work in pretty much exactly the same way you describe, also using an "ASSIGN" command.

The idea, IIRC, was to abstract the location of resources on machines sharing network drives, so that the OS and software would not need to be familiar with where everything was stored.

I would have been surprised if there wasn't an equivalent on some OS somewhere. It seems a logical, useful feature to have.

I've never used OpenVMS, but doesn't seem to be a desktop OS. My list was mentioning things I haven't seen in other desktop operating systems.

[ch_123]

It was sold on workstations in the 80s and 90s, using an mwm derivative and later CDE as the GUI... does that count? =P

[mr_a500]

It was sold on workstations in the 80s and 90s, using an mwm derivative and later CDE as the GUI... does that count? =P

I'll get back to you on that one. (...after I call my lawyer)

[ch_123]

I think using CDE on a desktop machine is probably a fate worse than death...

[D-EJ915]

I would agree that the Linux one makes more sense to me. But I think that's because I used Linux before I used Mac OS X. I'm sure if I was first exposed to something like AIX or "Hockey Pucks", all of them would make me scream.

HP-UX is pretty good with its adherence to the file system hierarchy compared to other Unix variants and Linux/BSDs

[NewbieOneKenobi]

All time favourite probably DOS 6.22.

[platon]

All time favourite probably DOS 6.22.

Uh-Oh ...

[microsoft windows]

Now I don't feel so alone...

[vicariouscheese]

GENTOO

i love taking 6 hours to compile my os

[Findecanor]

The best OS I've ever used is Amiga Workbench 3.1 (with modifications) - seriously, and I've used nearly everything.

Hear, hear! Some things that were very simple on AmigaOS are quite difficult on others. The fact that the structure of the OS was simple and easily understood by everyone -- the KISS rule.

4. Have the ability to USE any settings - where every change you make (including icon positions) can be temporary unless you deliberately SAVE them (settings stored in RAMdisk unless saved - this is extremely useful, believe me)

And you did not have to have the settings on the RAM-disk either. You could assign the settings volume ("ENV:") to any directory.
You could also revert a setting to a previously saved state.

This is almost, but not quite, like the "Apply" option that WIndows 95 had. It did not have any option to revert a setting, that I know of.

So the system doesn't access things directly, it would access it through some list of certain applications, and where they are located? You could do that hackishly with other OSes, but not particularly well I guess.

It could be through a device driver, but it could also be a simple "assignment", such as "assign LIBS: mylibraries/other/".

Under Unix, because it does have only one root, you could do equivalent to the simple assignments using symlinks. "ln -s /somewhere/else/ /usr/lib", but you would need something like FUSE to do the more advanced stuff.
For instance, the settings volume under AmigaOS ("ENV:") is managed by a special device driver that constructs a special "union directory" that you would need unionfs-fuse to emulate.

I've heard great things about Amiga OS, and I've rather surprised that there hasn't been a serious attempt by the open source community to replicate it.

AmigaOS is owned by a commerical entity and is not entirely dead. Many minor improvements have been done.

[keyboardlover]

I like the idea of AmigaOS, but what's the point in using an operating system for which no modern-day software is written to support?

[ch_123]

It could be through a device driver, but it could also be a simple "assignment", such as "assign LIBS: mylibraries/other/".

Under Unix, because it does have only one root, you could do equivalent to the simple assignments using symlinks. "ln -s /somewhere/else/ /usr/lib", but you would need something like FUSE to do the more advanced stuff.
For instance, the settings volume under AmigaOS ("ENV:") is managed by a special device driver that constructs a special "union directory" that you would need unionfs-fuse to emulate.

Again, VMS does that. For example, it defines a SYS$SYSROOT logical path for accessing system utilities that is actually the union of two systems folders.

[mr_a500]

And you did not have to have the settings on the RAM-disk either. You could assign the settings volume ("ENV:") to any directory.
You could also revert a setting to a previously saved state.

This is almost, but not quite, like the "Apply" option that WIndows 95 had. It did not have any option to revert a setting, that I know of.

The Windows "Apply" option is seriously flawed. You'd think you could "Apply" to test a setting, then "Cancel" to revert the previously used setting - but that's not the way it works. "Apply" is exactly the same as "OK", but it just keeps the settings window open. Linux does this stupidly too - change a setting, close the window with the close button without saying "OK" and it's saved! Stupid.

I like the idea of AmigaOS, but what's the point in using an operating system for which no modern-day software is written to support?

This is the curse of every non-mainstream OS. When you don't have masses of companies or huge teams of developers supporting your OS, it's very hard to keep having "modern-day software" - especially when the "modern-day" keeps moving along. AmigaOS programmers were struggling but doing pretty well up to around 2005/06, but eventually most of them gave it up as futile and moved on.

There are still giant masses of Amiga software out there, free and easily available (way more than BeOS or Haiku software), but obviously it's getting less and less "modern-day"... daily. :wink:

[ch_123]

I like the idea of AmigaOS, but what's the point in using an operating system for which no modern-day software is written to support?

Well, if everyone thought that, no one would make any software for other platforms would they?

[keyboardlover]

Well, if everyone thought that, no one would make any software for other platforms would they?

I don't know any developers who can make a good living writing software for platforms that most people don't use. Do you?

Edit: Aside from mainframe systems. Those jobs still pay very well but are few and far between.

[ch_123]

People write open source stuff for these kind of things. In many cases, the open source equivalent is much better than commercial ones.

[keyboardlover]

People write open source stuff for these kind of things. In many cases, the open source equivalent is much better than commercial ones.

Writing open source software doesn't pay well (if at all), so I would argue that the majority of software developers write commercial software. Open source teams usually consist of volunteers who contribute in their free time.

[ch_123]

Yeah, but it doesn't matter if a 'majority' of software developers make closed source software just as long as someone churns out some good open source alternatives here and there. Which is what often happens with any OS for which there is sufficient interest.

[jpc]

Ah nostalgia  DOS 6.22 was a local maximum for Microsoft, before descent into Win9X hell.

DOS doesn't blue screen, doesn't forget your settings, doesn't require multiple MB of memory and a CD-ROM drive.



C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
RUN\DOS\RUN

[keyboardlover]

Yeah, but it doesn't matter if a 'majority' of software developers make closed source software just as long as someone churns out some good open source alternatives here and there. Which is what often happens with any OS for which there is sufficient interest.

I'm not arguing with that, troll-baiter

[jpc]

I don't know any developers who can make a good living writing software for platforms that most people don't use.

There are whole ecosystems built around platforms that consumers haven't heard of, in the server space, the R&D space, the industrial space, and the embedded space.

Glamorous? No. Pays well? Uh-huh.

Sometimes you don't want a platform that many people use.

[keyboardlover]

There are whole ecosystems built around platforms that consumers haven't heard of, in the server space, the R&D space, the industrial space, and the embedded space.

Glamorous? No. Pays well? Uh-huh.

Sometimes you don't want a platform that many people use.

That is true...but like the mainframe jobs they are either few and far between or difficult to get. Sometimes you need a PhD or a Security Clearance.

[ricercar]

I don't know any developers who can make a good living writing software for platforms that most people don't use. Do you?

Any non-Windows professional development house writes software for a platform that most people don't use. For example, MacOS X -only developers and Linux-only developers. Poor phrasing is poor.

[keyboardlover]

Any non-Windows professional development house writes software for a platform that most people don't use. For example, MacOS X -only developers and Linux-only developers. Poor phrasing is poor.

Your mastery of reasoning is astounding. True, there are Mac developers who make a decent living. But as I said, I don't know any =)

[microsoft windows]

Macs are retarded. Get a real computer instead.

[pikapika]

Writing open source software doesn't pay well (if at all), so I would argue that the majority of software developers write commercial software. Open source teams usually consist of volunteers who contribute in their free time.

ask people working on openoffice, mysql, or for redhat

[keyboardlover]

ask people working on openoffice, mysql, or for redhat

Did you notice the word usually in my post?
And in general, working on those projects doesn't pay very well.

[NamelessPFG]

The best OS is the one that runs the software I want/need, while having an elegant interface and remaining stable. For me, that happens to be Windows 7.

In fact, it's part of the reason I'm looking to sell my PowerBook G3. Mac OS 9 and prior all suck at multitasking (a Web browser that's too busy loading something locks up the whole system 'til it's done, for example) while not integrating very well with anything else that isn't a similarly old Mac, and while Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger integrates much better from a network file sharing standpoint, it's rather demanding on the old G3 400. (Even watching low-quality YouTube is out of the question on that thing.) I just tend to notice what I CAN'T do with it. (And, yes, I realize that a lot of this stems from using a decade-old laptop, but I don't see the modern Intel Macs working that much better for me if I'm going to have to Boot Camp into Windows for much of what I want to do.)

Modern Linux distros are a fairly compelling alternative nowadays, but fall short in two key areas:

-I'm a PC gamer, and one with an interest in combat flight simulations at that. The peripherals I use for those only have Windows drivers, most notably my TrackIR.
-Wine is a great API wrapper, but it doesn't support the Ink library. I need that to use OneNote as I usually do-handwriting on my convertible Tablet PC, with background recognition and indexing for search purposes.

Furthermore, I foresee myself having to use programs like 3ds max, Maya, Softimage, Lightwave, modo, or other 3D modeling applications in the future, as I progress through my game development course. Much of that stuff is only available on Windows.

It's not that I particularly like Windows (okay, Win7 is really nice, but XP was an unreliable mess that would ruin itself and require a reformat in normal use after a year or so, possibly less, and let's not get started on Win9x), but that it's the only means to the end. I even have to use multiple versions of Windows on multiple computers of varying ages just to please some of my older games...

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. Not so sure about Lion yet – there's no speed improvements this time, and I find some of the changes to the UI a bit quirky. Apple have managed a pretty good balance between engineering and understanding the importance of user experience over the past decade. Microsoft? Not as much. With the exceptions of 95, 2000 and XP, MS have spent most of the past 15 years playing catch-up to Linux. Windows 7 is a good release, but customers never should have had to suffer through the unqualified disaster that was Vista. Apart from that, I've had nothing but positive experiences using CentOS to run my webserver.

[insilica]

Linux (gentoo /-> subtleWM /-> Tmux)

[Ink`Eyes]

Windows 7 no question

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 27684[/ATTACH]

[keyboardlover]

Windows 7 no question

(Attachment Link) 27684[/ATTACH]

Haha agreed. Btw I love that pic I actually posted that before.

[Oqsy]

Is that President Tyler?

[enoy21]

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.

This.


All depends on what you want to do.


For me It's probably WinXP for business desktop , Win 7 for home/gaming rig , Debian for laptop and staying fresh on my linux.   We just deactivated all of our Netware servers and switched them all over to SLES OES.



I'm wondering how long before we have Android on the laptop rather than just the tablet.


Oh looky here what I found......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ritsxAhwbx4

[dorkvader]

I wasn't happy with SUSE, (though YAST was nice) so I'm using Fedora 15 at the moment. I'm a little miffed at Fedora's philosophy of often including bleeding edge software, but it works fairly well. I've come to value customizability, ease of use, and reliability over speed, though.

I used to be 100% ubuntu (after having tried 15+ distros, I liked how ubuntu was the best supported with new things, there's much to be said for a large userbase) and I used to run it for 104 days at a time (the exact amount of time between school starting and thanksgiving, when they make us go home) which was pretty cool.

I was really liking SUSE, but the fact that many of the programs I liked to use (my fav. LATEX editor, GNU octave, etc.) required herculean amounts of configuration to make work, I eventually gave up, and ordered a FC15 disc from the local fedora fanboys.

This has been working acceptably well for my 'everyday' OS, though due to the nature of my webbrowsing habits, my laptop needs more RAM.

My favourite portable one is crunchbang, which has some useful things preinstalled, and fluxbox makes it run nicely. I did have to change it up to add Dvorak layout to the handy keyboard switcher app, though.

Then, I have a used mac pro (I got it, and 2 G5's for a total of $80.) that I popped my windows HD into for gaming, and emergency non-linux use (mostly using software that won't run in linux, I'm also too lazy for emulators). It runs well, though my graphics card won't work in the EFI, or OSX (not that I'd use it anyway. There's really no benefit of me switching to OSX/hackintosh)

Finally, I'm setting up a samba server for backups, I'll probably use ubuntu server or some such (any suggestions? I set it up all over SSH, which was pretty cool. Don't need no GUI), since I did it before, and have most of the work done on one of my harddrives. I was surprised that HP (the OEM) put 6 HD slots into one case, almost as much as I was to learn that it was in the e-waste pile, and therefore free for me to take.
----
The mac pro will probably get some more use this winter, as it's a crazy space-heater.

[iindigo]

There isn't really such a thing as a "best OS", only the OS that works best for you and your purposes.

OS X works best for me and my needs. While I have an iMac at the moment, I'm definitely not beyond hackintoshing... in fact, depending on cash flow in the coming months, I plan to hand down my iMac to a family member and build myself a killer ~$1,500US hackintosh that should last me for a time to come.

If I couldn't OS X for my main OS, a Linux distribution would be my immediate second choice. Probably Linux Mint Debian Edition or, if I'm patient enough, ArchLinux. A FreeBSD setup is also a strong contender provided I had hardware that worked well with it.

Windows isn't even a consideration. The only places I'll have it is inside a VM for site testing and maybe as a third boot for the occasional game.

[Daniel Beaver]

Have I not responded to this thread? Strange.

I use Windows 7 on my home system. I play games, use MS Office, and some engineering software on it, so Windows is the only option. On my lab computer, I run Lubuntu (a lightweight Ubuntu distro). At work I run Windows XP (BECAUSE!).

I'm a big Ubuntu fan, since so much software "just works" without needing to configure things endlessly.