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.
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.
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...
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.
Windows 2000 is the way to go!
...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.
1. It can handle 80% of the same things that Windows XP can handle, but it requires a lot less system resources.
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.
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.
Windows laptops start around $400-500 with a 15.4" lcd, Macs start around $1k with a tiny 13" screen.
But for most things, Windows wins.
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.
But for most things, Windows wins.
Solaris.
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
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.
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
$500 laptops are plasticky pieces of crap
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.
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.
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 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.
I'd buy Apple stock (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=AAPL) over, say, Dell stock (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=DELL) 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.
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)
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
Hell, BeOS was great.
Have you checked out Haiku (http://www.haiku-os.org/)?
No keyboard present
Hit F1 to continue
Zen engineering?
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)
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...
Nothing pisses me off more than preacy Linux nuts trying to convert everyone to their cause.
Show Image(http://threadbombing.com/data/media/2/throwingmac.gif)
It's been a while since i have looked inside a Mac, but I remember being stunned by the incredible details in PowerMacs. You'd look in and see chrome and anodized aluminum and organized round cables. At that time PC insides were still ugly. It was like looking into a show car.
Yesterday it worked
Today it is not working
Windows is like that
Yeah, that's nearly as bad as silent data corruption with certain Silicon Image SATA controllers on Linux...
:)
Yeah, that's nearly as bad as silent data corruption with certain Silicon Image SATA controllers on Linux...
:)
They don't use the same Service Packs. XP is on SP3, 2003 server is R2 SP2.
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.
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.
Apples and Oranges... Home doesn't have the same networking tools than 2000 has. Pro probably would.
However, with secondhand machines, I've found most of them to have XP Home so I just install 2000.
but I hear that Microsoft's anti-cracking people spend the most effort on XP because it is the single most pirated software in existence.
With Windows 2000 keys and the installation disks I have, you need to use a key that came on a Dell computer with a Dell, along with a Dell installation disk. Same with Micron PC's too.
It's just like if someone gives you a hard disk with Windows that originally came in a Hewlett-Packard. It's OK if you put it in an IBM.
Yeah that's going to be successful....10 billion Chinese can't be wrong :peep:
I just installed Windows 7 yesterday and I am liking it already, but it still doesnt beat good old Windows 2000. Being more use to the classic style of Windows, it is a learning experience using any Windows operating system newer than XP.
whats with the "learning to use the new windows!" phenomenon? almost everything is in the same place and called the same thing. the couple of things they change are small. they make it look like mac, so people pretend it is a mac.
I just installed Windows 7 yesterday and I am liking it already, but it still doesnt beat good old Windows 2000. Being more use to the classic style of Windows, it is a learning experience using any Windows operating system newer than XP.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Windows 7 - less than 1GB of memory usage with only IE8 and Outlook 2007 running
Windows XP x64 - about 1.37 GB of memory usage with only IE8 and Outlook 2007 running.
Thanks for playing.
Actually, I was referring to Kishy. Windows 7 runs suprisingly smoothly.
Maybe on 10-15 year old hardware, but I think you'd find Windows 7 would make much better use of newer hardware than 2k would. And using the least amount of resources is not necessarily the best way to go, otherwise we'd all use DOS still... I'd rather that an OS uses the power of my PC to provide the best foundation without compromising on the performance of the applications I run.
One thing about 7 that impresses me about 7 is how it scales it's RAM usage relative to how much RAM you have. On my main PC, it uses about 900MB of my 4GB of RAM. Yet on a friend's machine that only has 1GB of RAM, it only takes up about 350MB. That isn't much worse than XP.
Windows 2000 is actually better than you think. It's light enough to run fine off of 32mb of RAM, but still a powerhouse which can run over 95% of new programs.
When I say "relatively old" I mean K6-2s and Pentium IIs <400MHz. 7 would slaughter them and you know it lol
And if they aren't ATX it won't run at all (I tried to run the installer for either 7 or Vista, I forget which, on a non-ATX system and it halted while scanning the hardware before running setup. It cited a lacking power management standard as being the issue)
Hmm...I'll have to try 7 on my Socket 7 rig...
Oh wait, I can't, because there aren't drivers for half of the hardware in that computer for anything beyond XP.
This would be inaccurate. Windows 7 even had drivers for my now 15 year old HP Laser Jet 4. The mfr. might not make drivers for it, but Windows will have their own.
Are there OSX drivers for it?
Regarding Win7:
Overall, its a nice OS with many enhancements n tweaks compared to XP (skipped Vista). It also installed fine on my aged Athlon XP box, including all the old drivers, even the 10 year old on-board audio and LAN ones, great... But what I really hate about it is the UI! It has nothing to do with "getting used to it" or so, its just that I find it inefficient and it slows me down... Someone knows a way to add a top menu like I did in my XP (http://soulhunter.razorbb.net/data/PC04.png)? There are also a lot other small things I dislike (like the new Control Panel). Seems I have to wait for some modding/hacking work to get done before I finally switch... :/
Ooh yeah...
label: cli
jmp labelIts DOS box was compatible with MS-DOS, and the system was so damn stable that you could do even this without freezing the whole machine:I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but OS/2 used a virtual machine to emulate DOS, so there is nothing special here.
I'm a bit surprised that Windows 95 allowed the execution of privileged instructions like CLI (that is, that Windows 95 apparently ran DOS "boxes" in ring 0). By the way, there is a more efficient way to hang the [strike]system[/strike] processor:Code: [Select]label: cli
jmp label
(Disable all interrupts, again and again in an endless loop.)
This little code was an instant killer for Win95 (and also for pure DOS, of course)
CLI
HLT
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but OS/2 used a virtual machine to emulate DOS, so there is nothing special here.
I'm a bit surprised that Windows 95 allowed the execution of privileged instructions like CLI (that is, that Windows 95 apparently ran DOS "boxes" in ring 0).
By the way, there is a more efficient way to hang the system:
I'm a bit surprised that Windows 95 allowed the execution of privileged instructions like CLI (that is, that Windows 95 apparently ran DOS "boxes" in ring 0).
BTW, the stupid control panel is nothing new in Windows 7, this came along with Vista. Deserves a Designed By Monkeys award in gold.
Anything, if it can follow these points:
One critical thing we often forget is that the problems we experience on a computer are usually not the operating system, they are nearly always an application. But the OS takes the blame for it. If Weatherbug consumes system resources and makes your system slow and annoying, it's your fault because you told the OS to allow Weatherbug to do that. The OS performed perfectly in this case.
For Linux I stick to the time tested and fully supported RHEL/CentOS.
Your list is missing Debian GNU/Linux. According to your criteria, I think it could be among your top three OSes.
i use archlinux on my laptop, but when i have to spend more tahn one hour to set up X, i get bored and usually install debian or ubuntu.
it was fun younger to learn things with distros like gentoo, but now i don't want to feel the pain to spend hours to set up basic things (and gentoo can be specially boring for that and other things too)
at work we mostly use debian and a few freebsd boxes, but they're all servers
I like Windows better than Linux. Linux doesn't run Microsoft Bob!
And Windows runs Office '97.
It does with VMware.
Office '97 is much faster than Open Office and does everything I need any Office software to do.
That's the key factor: does it do what you want it to do?
The big problem here is that people don't know what they want their computer to do. They get cosy with some piece of software and ignore newer programs that would make their lives much easier on the basis of "Well sure, I'm grand with what I have"
Moral of the story: People are idiots.
Office '97 is much faster than Open Office and does everything I need any Office software to do.
$ time ooffice
real 0m0.444s
user 0m0.044s
sys 0m0.032sOffice '97 runs faster simply because there's less stuff to load. I used Open Office on my machines before and it took over a minute to load sometimes. Office '97 loads in just a few seconds.
Remember, though, my machines aren't the same as yours. The computer I'm using right now is about 10 years old (1.4Ghz PIII, 512MB PC133 RAM, 10GB hard disk).
It's all irrelevant anyway - True men use LaTeX.
It's all irrelevant anyway - True men use LaTeX.
i find office softwares to be extremly complex and hell about ergonomy.
hopefully, editors like vim or emacs suffice my needs
I've always wondered why Vi and Emacs are so recommended... it seems like they are both rather counter-productive to me.
Then again, I've never understood the point of having text-mode editors when you have GUIs available.
My communication skills don't offer me the ability to rightfully explain to you the advantages of VIM. I wouldn't be able to do it justice. I can say to you this: if you can master VIM, you're productivity can increase greatly.
I would suggest googling or searching stackoverflow.com. Here is a nice article, but it literally only scratches the surface: http://www.viemu.com/a-why-vi-vim.html
It seems kind of silly to have a text-mode editor in the OS characterized by the lack of command-line.
Do you know some lightweight app to do basic spreadsheets?
Which OS doesn't have a command line? Surely you don't mean Windows?
You don't need to be using a UNIX-like system to enjoy the great benevolence of VIM. The first, wondrous feature of VIM that is mastered can be used in any OS. That feature being the great use of macros to edit text in ways you haven't even imagined. VIM is a much more natural way to edit plain text files than any other text editor or IDE that I know of. There is no other text editor or IDE that I have ever encountered that gives the user the ability to edit text as quickly, accurately, or efficiently as VIM unless it was running VIM internally (there are Visual Studio and Eclipse plugins to do that).
By the way, VIM is one of THE most portable pieces of software out there.
+1 for VIM
But your statement makes no sense. By "office softwares" it sounds like you mean something like Microsoft Word. But OpenOffice and Microsoft Word are word processors; VIM and Emacs are text editors.
Besides, if you're looking for something that isn't complex then you want to look somewhere else besides VIM and Emacs. They both have very steep learning curves:
Well, I was referring to OS X, not that it doesn't have a command line, but it's definitely not known for it's command line.
Personally, I don't see the learning of a whole different philosophy of editing worth the time. Considering how little time is actually spent editing in programming I don't personally see what the point is.
If I have to use a text-mode editor, I'd rather just use Nano. Slower yes, but I don't use it enough for it to matter.
A guy I know told me that he was once working for a company that outsourced part of a software package they were developing to Indian subcontractors. When they got the completed code, they tried to compile it, but it just spat out a load of errors at them. They went through the code and found loads of superfluous characters thrown around the place. Then they realized, much to their horror, that the subcontractors had written the code in Microsoft Word...
Whenever I feel stressed out by college work, it always relieves me to remember that there are a lot of people out there in the software industry who know absolutely jack ****, and yet still get paid for their effort.
It seems kind of silly to have a text-mode editor in the OS characterized by the lack of command-line.
All well and good until your laptop's charger dies and the replacement gets lost in the post for three weeks. In the meantime, the only way you can get work done is by ssh'ing into a server from a Windows machine. Then the wonders of command line text editing start to become apparent as you are forced to use it.
Also, the odds are that when you are using Gedit, or whatever GUI text editor, you're either using so many key shortcuts that you might as well being using Vim or Emacs, or you're using the mouse alot and therefore doing it wrong.
I've always wondered why Vi and Emacs are so recommended... it seems like they are both rather counter-productive to me.
Then again, I've never understood the point of having text-mode editors when you have GUIs available.
Computer newcomer? Was your mother in prison for the last 30 years?
Linux is also community supported and needs additional software just to run programs that a Windows machine can run without any additional software.
Examples?
imagine that, an OS needs additional software to translate software compiled for another operating system to run on it lol
But when it comes down to an OS, I prefer a closed source OS.
Something that most people don't realize is that GUIs and mouses are not a natural way to communicate with the computer. They are natural to humans, but not computers. If you force the computer to work like a human, it'll never be as efficient as if the human worked like the computer. So when you work, you need to make trade offs between what is most efficient (the computer way) and what is easiest (the human way).
I believe that it is more natural for a computer to write programs than humans. Just like it is more natural for a computer to play chess than a human (due to its mathematical nature) and it is more natural for a human to play Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29) than a computer (because of its intuitive nature). That's why it will always be easy to make a computer that can beat the best humans in chess...
well gui's are not so much intuitive, specially when i see how my mother is lost with them :-)
i think that interactive text mode, and vocal commands can be more easy for computer newcomers
Im in a gui right now, but using AHK I can win+c and I'm at a command prompt or win+p and I'm in putty. So you can have the best of both worlds without having to choose one over the other. ;)you forget libcaca : http://libcaca.zoy.org (http://libcaca.zoy.org)
When you consider what most people use their computers and the internet for, I don't think text based interaction is of much interest to them.
iI'm too used to vi.[esc]zz
Have you tried apvlv (http://code.google.com/p/apvlv/). PDF viewer that doesn't suck so much.
PDF viewer that doesn't suck so much.
makes me think about this http://www.suckless.org (http://www.suckless.org)
...on Windows I can assume that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) works without a hassle.
Have you tried apvlv (http://code.google.com/p/apvlv/). PDF viewer that doesn't suck so much.
When I started trying out Ubuntu I was pleasantly surprised at how much stuff I managed to get working. But for me it takes more effort to get the stuff to work on Ubuntu than on Windows. I've installed Ubuntu a few times on different computers and some really basic stuff such as Flash has always been a pain to configure. Sometimes it works right away, but after some minor software update Youtube might stop working and then I have to install some beta plug-ins or whatever. When I upgraded to version 9.10 the sound in DosBox went really f***d up without any obvious reason. On Ubuntu it's totally useless to try mixing some songs on Audacity because the sound starts distorting when it really shouldn't. Minor but annoying things such as these force me to think Linux just isn't quite "ready" as a desktop OS yet. In the long run I consider the open-source OS's to be the only way to go but I'll use Windows until developers (game developers too -- current "Linux gaming" is just a joke even though Ur-Quan Masters has a port) take desktop Linux more seriously.
Gaming on PC will be history before Linux will be ready for it.
On the other hand, I never encoundered the problems you describe. I guess it is all hardware or distribution related.
You used to be able to run Linux on your PS3 before the Slim. No more.
Not exactly seeing a large public outcry about this.
Gaming on PC will be history before Linux will be ready for it..Very true, not that linux isn't ready for it - everybody makes games with dx (opengl ftw, i love standard things - which is why i hate ms - sorry i'm nuts) now and everybody uses windows or mac now so there's really no point - linux is only common in production servers, only over the past few years growing in popularity for desktop users.
When I started trying out Ubuntu I was pleasantly surprised at how much stuff I managed to get working. But for me it takes more effort to get the stuff to work on Ubuntu than on Windows. I've installed Ubuntu a few times on different computers and some really basic stuff such as Flash has always been a pain to configure. Sometimes it works right away, but after some minor software update Youtube might stop working and then I have to install some beta plug-ins or whatever. When I upgraded to version 9.10 the sound in DosBox went really f***d up without any obvious reason. On Ubuntu it's totally useless to try mixing some songs on Audacity because the sound starts distorting when it really shouldn't. Minor but annoying things such as these force me to think Linux just isn't quite "ready" as a desktop OS yet. In the long run I consider the open-source OS's to be the only way to go but I'll use Windows until developers (game developers too -- current "Linux gaming" is just a joke even though Ur-Quan Masters has a port) take desktop Linux more seriously.
3. Fedora (just as easy as ubuntu, has annoyances of redhat and is more annoying to do custom things but sucks less than ubuntu)
As far as I can see, Fedora is like Ubuntu, except with a package manager from hell.
As far as I can see, Fedora is like Ubuntu, except with a package manager from hell.
ubuntu has serious flaws, specially when you want to go text mode
Not sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate?
Not sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate?
Not sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate?
For one, a lot of essential command line tools are missing. I remember trying to fix an Ubuntu machine. Went to get a package, told me that there was no network - as the GUI was unable to start, networkmanager had failed to kick in. So I ran 'dhcpcd' and lo and behold - 'The package dhcpcd is not installed...'
And that was when I acheived enlightenment - rolling releases are the only way to go.
Debian also made me wanna throw my boxes out the window. That wouldn't work though, because my office is on the 1st floor. No matter which Linux I try, Slackware always kicks its butt. So easy to set up and get it *exactly* like I want. No flab.
Lots of fanboyism in this thread. We're not only bashing other operating systems, we're now bashing different flavors of the same OS.
Wake me up when one of them gets over 10% market share.
MySQL > M$ Sql Server
either.
I'm a primarily MS DBA/dev at a company that is half linux/oracle, so I'm not going to spew off any religious nonsense. That is a bold statement, though. It's pretty amazing what MS is doing with SQL Server/.NET/Source Control/Project management/integration. Especially with the 2008 iteration of everything.
There is no way a disjointed product-set could match it. Of course I don't expect Google to run SQL Server, it's better suited for the midsize sector that needs to be flexible/agile.
Speaking of VAXen, this (http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/~vance/vaxbar.html) has to be one of the most awesome things ever.nice lol, SGI made an "Expressigo" out of an Indigo in the same way lolShow Image(http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/~vance/images/vaxbar5.jpg)
having a DEC monitor doesn't really count lol
Lots of fanboyism in this thread. We're not only bashing other operating systems, we're now bashing different flavors of the same OS.
I've always intended on trying a BSD, but never quite got around to it. Which is the best? I hear FreeBSD is a good all rounder, OpenBSD is designed to be secure at the expense of being... usable, and NetBSD is focused on being able to run on anything. How does NetBSD stack against FreeBSD?
Thanks for the info!
Which NetBSD version did you use? I've heard that NetBSD 5 is miles better than the previous releases.
Reformatting is unfortunately the lot of pretty much all PC OSes,
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 7. Why? Because it's the only commercially supported operating system viable for use by home users on almost any hardware.
No, GNU/Linux users, your operating system is not "free" and you do not own it for use and redistribution under any terms. It still has a license, and for a reason. The GPL restricts you from using it in closed projects. If it were truly "free" you'd have the option to choose not to be with derivative works. It's like rms and the other smelly-basement-dwellers-who-really-need-to-shave are trying to spite non-free (read: gratis) software. Learn to BSD License, or WTFPL.
In fact, you can run Windows 2008 server without a GUI of any kind, purely command line.
Windows are special thought. There you get no f*cking choice. You can tweek nothing, you never get to see whats under the hood. Plus you get to pay for it. It's like owning a car and not being able to take a look at the machine. That sounds nice.
Windows is basicly best for using certain applications, it desing philosophy and user space might not be as safe as it main competitors. Still MAIN reason for it unsafeness is it popularity, just think how many OSX viruses/etc. there would be if it was as wide spreaded as Windows... One other factor is that Linux might have bit better users, not doing always "Oh, it wants to install something, I just write admin password here..."
But yes, end user stupidity is always the key attack vector in any OS.
Windows 7. Why? Because ...
Tiny Tim and Richy Rich both hang out on the playground at recess, and there happens to be a lot of bullies on this playground.
Both kids are huge pussies, and are easy targets for the bullies. However, the bullies only care about money (market share) and they find out that Richy Rich is aptly named, so they pick on him exclusively.
Tiny Tim is sitting there keeping his 2 cents to himself, knowing they could easily take his **** too, and the only thing stopping them is that they are happy to plunder Richy's Riches day in and day out. Should Tiny Tim acquire such a fortune himself, he might also become the target, but until then, does he care? Nope, as long as he's not getting his ass kicked every single day by the mean bullies.
And furthermore, nobody really gives a **** anyway. Any computer you're going to buy nowadays has an operating system installed, and it isn't Linux.
Kinda defeats the point of being "free"
Given that something like 60% of the net is hosted on Linux servers (and probably a good deal more hosted on other *nix systems like BSD) you'd think that it would be an even more lucrative target than Windows is.
But yes, end user stupidity is always the key attack vector in any OS.
I'm not 100% sure on security, but they sure as hell aren't reliable as *nix systems. The London Stock Exchange found that out the hard way. (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1588339/london-stock-exchange-switches-linux)
Having installed Windows 2008 Core, I can tell you that is not the case; you don't get Windows Explorer (i.e. the desktop, menus, etc.) but the "command-line" that starts up is a window in the middle of a gui screen.
I think you're in turn missing the point of a command line OS - ditching the GUI element reduces complexity, which in turn reduces potential security and unreliability issues. You also have to consider the waste of system resources used to bring up a GUI whose only purpose is to show a command line. Then you have to have some sort of video hardware in the server, which is only going to add to cost and energy consumption... not by a huge amount, but nontheless.
At the end of the day, Microsoft's inability to create a modern version of Windows that can boot into a proper command line only environment shows how bad their handling of the OS' development is.
There are many reasons for 2008 Core, if you're hung up on what the command "window" looks like, you're missing the boat entirely.
The GUI is how most people interact with the OS so it's arguably the most important part of the OS. User-interaction is what makes or breaks software. Also, people only use the Linux or Windows command line when they have to. I use the Linux command line more often than the Windows command line - but only because I have to. (Mainly because the package management GUI sucks!) Command lines are becoming less and less important IMHO.
We're talking about the server versions of Windows. GUIs don't really exist in the server world outside of Windows... And even then, MS is making a big push with their "PowerShell" stuff.
I think you are wrong. I have much use for a command line. save for photo/video editing and graphical web browsing, it is where I spend a large amount of my time. Command line tools have the benefit of being far more efficient to use, IF you know how to use them properly. Even if I use a graphical UI, I prefer that it doesn't get in the way of the graphical application I am running. Im not a HUGE fan of tiling window managers, but openbox-style minimal is my preference.
Also, windows 7 is a very usable platform, regardless of how much of a linux zealot I may appear to be.
Even then, I've set up server-side software on Windows Server 2008 (and previous versions) without using (or barely using) the command line at all. Sure, in the VB6 and COM days you had to use it a lot, but it just seems like it's becoming less important.
What command line tools do you actually use on a daily basis?
The GUI is how most people interact with the OS so it's arguably the most important part of the OS.
for server in dns0 dns1 dns2 dns3 dns4 dns5 dns6
do
winrs -r:http://$server "dnscms /zoneadd foo.example.com /secondary 10.0.0.12"
doneWhat command line tools do you actually use on a daily basis? And also, you had to take time to LEARN how to use that stuff. The average user doesn't want to do that. They want to be able to do their tasks in the most efficient way possible. That's why the GUI is the most important. Does command line software sell anymore? No way!
What command line tools do you actually use on a daily basis? And also, you had to take time to LEARN how to use that stuff. The average user doesn't want to do that. They want to be able to do their tasks in the most efficient way possible. That's why the GUI is the most important. Does command line software sell anymore? No way!
I think you are confusing 'efficiency' with 'low learning curve'; concepts which are not automatically equivalent.
They want to be able to do their tasks in the most efficient way possible.
That's why the GUI is the most important. Does command line software sell anymore? No way!
I think you are confusing 'efficiency' with 'low learning curve'; concepts which are not automatically equivalent.
I guess my point is that all you folks who use primarily a bunch of command-line tools are in the minority. Most users want to do things the easiest way, using GUIs. I am not a server admin, so I really don't know what is better for that. I think all the server admins I work with like Linux though, so that would explain it :D
Imagine this: You use windows and you have a folder with all your various downloads. Maybe hundreds of files. In you have a mix of mp3, avi, pdf and other format files.
You now want to tidy things up. Lets say you create a new folder named "MP3" and you intend to move all your .mp3 files there.
The gui version is to start selecting the mp3 files one by one having the ctrl pressed all the time. Or you could arrange them by type and select as much as you can with a mouse box selection. Then you should click "cut" move to the new folder and then click "paste".
The command line version of this is simply
move *.mp3 MP3
I believe everyone can benefit form a little command line use. You don't have to be a pro or an admin.
Accusing a free OS of not being free because it includes an inalienable right that derivatives also be free is stupid. The license isn't perfect, but your argument is pointless because:
a) you are arguing "freeness" while using a completely proprietary platform (WTF??),
b) It is well within you right to close your project if it runs ON linux, as long as it is not PART OF linux (and FYI, that is the Kernel, nothing more). It's called having your cake and eating it too. That's how us smelly-basement-dwellers-who-really-need-to-shave make our money.
Ok, so what is the issue? The lack of exploits for a given OS IS a selling point. Should that change in the future, then it would no longer BE a selling point. This is not rocket science.
As for computers coming with an OS, well, most of mine don't (because I build them myself), and I do care, so I put linux on them. Some netbooks come with linux on them, and a WHOLE load of smartphones are using "linux".
Maybe you don't understand the "point of being free". I can assure you that it is not to spend you days lamenting the use of one free license over the other to the point of never actually using anything...
Ah! A reflex "I like Windows so it must be better" bigot. Actually reasonably intelligent non-computing people can cope quite well with Linux on the desktop - a couple of relatives use it and I don't get near as many support calls as you might think. A box of cider every 6 months isn't too bad :)
FUD. The LGPL was created to allow the use of GNU software libraries in commercial software after it was pointed out to GNU that the GPL could be interpreted as preventing their use. Using GNU software from within commercial software is perfectly fine; it's only when you start modifying GNU software that you have to provide the source of the modifications you made.
Commercial software has been available under Linux for years without anyone going after them. The most significant "you're breaking the GPL" actions have been against embedded device manufacturers who take Linux, make modifications, and release products based on the result.
Really need to shave ? How else am I going to store morsels of food for later on ? Be reasonable :)
BTW: Any code I've released (not a whole lot) is either unlicensed or is covered by whatever license the Internet Software Consortium uses (a bit of hacking on the FDDI support for dhcpd).
But nobody claims that Windows IS free. Whereas the typical freetard, at least from my experience, can't stop shouting at the top of their voice how awesome Linux is because it's free and they can do WHATEVER they want with it. Linux is not "free" in the sense that it has restrictions as well. It's not stupid to accuse the GPL of hypocritical terms.
If it were truly free, I could use the code released under it HOWEVER I WANT, whether it be in an open source project or otherwise. And yes, I know you can close and sell projects that run ON Linux, that wasn't my point.
I was talking about free as in "gratis" there. It defeats the point, because most consumers already have a "free" OS that came with their computer then.
"The end user is a ****ing moron" is usually a safe assumption.
Linux isn't ready for the majority of end users.
Yes, and the LGPL is nice for libraries and all, but why should I HAVE to provide the source of the modifications I made? If it's free (read: libre) I should be able to do WHATEVER I want with it, regardless of my intentions. Most Linux users I talk to could give a damn less about that, and want all software to stay virally open so they can spite the man for actually charging money for the software he invested time and effort to write.
I'm not talking about commercial software running -under- Linux, I'm talking about commercial software based on, and modifying Linux. If it's "free", I should be able to do whatever I want with it, case closed. It isn't, I still have to adhere to restrictions.
Well not all freetards are as reasonable as you. At least when you say free, you mean free. I'll give you that.
Well then it is free-er. No less freedom than Windows, and certainly more in MANY respects.
That IS your point, though. You are arguing in thread about the best OS. The OS is largely a platform you use to do your work, run your apps and address your various hardware resources. Linux does this very well, regardless of the BS about licensing and making modifications.
So I should buy a brand new computer every time I want the benefits of a new OS?
I happen to think it is, but don't really care enough to fight you on it. Windows works fine.
Yes because developers are retards and have no idea what their time is worth. :rollmy****ingeyes:
You keep forgetting that someone actually wrote this software and chose that license. The term "license" actually TELLS you the code isn't 100% free, nor do you OWN it. This particular license allows the original creator of a piece of code to share something freely, and makes sure any changes are like-wise freely shared. If I write software, don't I have that right? The GPL is a valid license in a WHOLE landscape of licenses that fit different needs.
Nobody is forcing you to waste your time coding free patches to GPL'd code, and yet you WILL get the benefit from those who have, along with the rest of the privileges that come with. Likewise, no one is stopping you from closing your own source on YOUR project.
So, again, in a thread about the best OS (see loose definition above), you can't see the benefit to linux because you have a personal hang up about a license that dictates how you can MODIFY said OS (not actually USE in it's existing form, which is arguably the point of this discussion)?
What if he says "free to use, distribute AND modify, with the irrevocable requirement of sharing any and all modifications with the same rights and rules" (my kindergarten teacher called this "share and share alike", by the way)? It's his software, so ... you want to automatically take AWAY his right to dictate how his software is used?
The recursive or inalienable right is a very powerful thing to a programmer who may be otherwise blindly releasing his hard work into the wild. Sometimes it fits, sometimes it doesn't. It's certainly better to have the choice (believe it or not, that is part of "Freedom"), than to say "software is either FREE or it's ****ing NOT". We don't live in such a black and white world.
I have, by the way, seen RMS speak. He's a ****ing dirt, and nutball. The world needs the crazies though, we get him and Ann Coulter and many more of their blindly zealous ilk, and we learn from them.
> Originally Posted by ManjyomeThunder View Post
> But nobody claims that Windows IS free.
Windows is free. If it's Microsoft, it's not piracy.
Yeah, XP's a good operating system. It just gets the job done with no frills.Windows 3.1 got the job done with no frills. Windows 98 got the job done with no frills. But, yes, XP is better than having to cope with Vista.
? Once all the drivers were updated Vista is now a piece of cake. Still have my Media Center PC running 24/7 on Vista since I see no reason to upgrade it despite having a spare Win7 license lying around.
Windows 3.1 got the job done with no frills.
I hate hearing anti-Vista propaganda.
Its poor reception was due to a stagnant hardware market
Meanwhile, they bought brand new Macs with updated hardware and wondered what kind of magic must have powered such amazing devices.
That might be a valid issue if Vista did something useful that XP didn't. For a very large number of people, that wasn't there .... I like to use computers for doing things.
jailbroken iOS 4.1
So I'm guessing like, security isn't important, then?
But I guess Apple licenses the name from Cisco.
So I'm guessing like, security isn't important, then?
Still does for me. I can browse this forum just fine with Internet Explorer 4 and Windows 3.1.You gotta be joking - what about security? MS have been trying to get people away from IE6 because of the crap security.
I fired up an old machine with WIN 3.11 a few weeks ago, good for its time but a real pain and antique by today’s standards. Like a vintage car, OK for a very occasional drive – but you wouldn’t use it for anything serious these days.
I think that over the years I have used them all but XP Pro gave the least trouble. Vista was released too early without proper driver support and so earned a filthy reputation. Have been using WIN7 Pro since release and its a pleasure to use – a real incremental improvement. An OS is there is help you get your main work done so WIN7 is an obvious winner.
Ripster: he *does* have that Michael Cera about-to-cry quality to his voice...
Don't forget the new Windows keyboard shortcuts. Give those arrow keys a workout. Unless of course you have a HHKB. Then prepare for some contortions.
I have computers with Windows, OSX, and Linux that I use every day. I am typing this on a macbook pro 17" right now.
I choose Windows 7
Also I hate how u have to file-close every program lol
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.
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.
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
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!)
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 done this with Windows using Linux, does that count? :p
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.
That sounds suspiciously like logical names in OpenVMS, which work in pretty much exactly the same way you describe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Files-11#Logical_names), 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.
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 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
All time favourite probably DOS 6.22.
The best OS I've ever used is Amiga Workbench 3.1 (with modifications) - seriously, and I've used nearly everything.
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)
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.
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.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_in_Userspace) 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.
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.
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?
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?
People write open source stuff for these kind of things. In many cases, the open source equivalent is much better than commercial ones.
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 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. (http://xkcd.com/463/)
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.
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
Windows 7 no question
(Attachment) 27684[/ATTACH]
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.
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 (http://www.Microsoft.com/windows) for work when required to. 7 has been ok.
anyone knows why mouse movement is so ****ty on my girlfriend's new iMac ?
anyone knows why mouse movement is so ****ty on my girlfriend's new iMac ?
Ubuntu/Debian imhoI am testing 11.10 out atm but I am having horrible graphical glitches. Back to debian it is
Best OS's are....but don't have much support so I tend to use....I am only a simple Simian, your contradiction confuses me........... I know not why.
I am testing 11.10 out atm but I am having horrible graphical glitches. Back to debian it is
anyone knows why mouse movement is so ****ty on my girlfriend's new iMac ?
Best OS's are OpenBSD or Solaris (OpenIndiana) but both don't have much support so I tend to use FreeBSD and Debian.
too bad fbsd 9 is on track to be like 5 months lateAs always, I think it is now going to be released on 1st Nov. Same as OpenBSD 5.
As always, I think it is now going to be released on 1st Nov. Same as OpenBSD 5.they arent even up to rc builds, it wont be out before 2012
GNU Hurd.
I would say Win 7 is the best OS overall, because it is the most compatible with most applications/hardware, even if other OS have some superior aspects.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with Windows is Microsoft's unwillingness to chuck old, crusty parts of the OS. They take far too long to do it. If they remedied this, the OS could be a lot smaller, lighter, and more pleasant to use.
But that backwards compatibility is part of why it's so popular, businesses can upgrade the OS while keeping their crufty in-house programs which were written in the days of NT 3.5.
I'm going to go with Linux (Gentoo specifically) as best OS at the moment. It does what I need and stays out of my way. My experience with Mac OS X is limited, but I've never enjoyed any Mac OS. Windows is useful but has its headaches for me.
I hope Haiku (http://haiku-os.org) gets better, BeOS was the greatest OS I never tried.
The best OS is the one that best meets the individual needs of the user using it.
Just as no keyboard is best for everyone, no one OS is best for everyone either.
Once the user pasts newbie stage, it provides great freedom of computing IMHO. The user has the power to choose what software one like to use or upgrade, what types of hardware configuration one want.
The concept of freedom provided by the linux is great, but sadly the ideal IMO doesn't go beyond the OS itself for being free and open. Once you hop onto the platform, limitation starts to show. The freedom is hindered the lack of software/hardware choices (compared to windows) and some of the standards established by the commercial entities (AutoCAD, Solidworks 3DstduioMAX, Photoshop etc etc). There are very little linux can do to catch up in the Desktop department.
Mobile space is whole other business, yet it still requires big momentum pushing from behind like Google does to Android. Even then you loses some of the ideals linux is intended to be, when Google is imposing quite a bit of control over android despite being open sourced.
Because they are not the programs you are used to does not mean linux or bsd doesn't have any programs. Just look and Debian's and FreeBSD's repo size. I have used Linux or BSD on the desktop for my whole family and we all get on fine. As far as hardware goes I have yet to have a piece that doesn't work on Linux (I did have a hard drive caddy that didn't like FreeBSD).
Looks like you are using OS X, how does it feel to be ****** in the *** by a company that cares more about taking things from you than providing you with a secure service?
nobody seems to agree on a single good set of standards for designing Linux software UIs. EVERYBODY does their own thing which leads to inconsistencies from one application to another
Have you seen windows? At least all gtk applications look the same and most qt applications look the same.
Linux is still around?
I knew it was on servers but desktops?
Reminds me. I wonder if a Chromebook will be worth it as a rarity type Antiques Roadshow investment?Show Image(http://www.google.com/chromebook/static/images/spotlight-image1.png)
Elementary OS and Linux mint are just customized Ubuntu.
ElementaryOS's next release is coming with a custom-developed desktop environmentuntil it gets backported to ubuntu, and then it's just another kubuntu/xubuntu
Why such a necrobump? And how did you find such an old thread?
Why such a necrobump? And how did you find such an old thread?
I was hoping to start a flamewar.
I don't even remember lol.
Why such a necrobump? And how did you find such an old thread?
I was hoping to start a flamewar.
I don't even remember lol.
Fail.
BeOS :D
no longer :(
BeOS :D
no longer :(
Haiku!