Os Wars

Preferred OS For Desktop Use

  • Linux

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • FreeBSD

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • OSX

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • AmigaOS / Workbench

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Windows XP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Windows Vista

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

AireTamStorm

Unix Addict
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
971
Age
38
Website
Visit site
Since every thread has the potential to erupt into an OS War, I figured we might as well simply have a proper place to have it. Link here if your topic gets off topic.

Flame away!
 
Windows isn't bad, it is just not open source. When you buy it, you don't own it and that's its main problem.
So imo Linux distros are the future and when you have the choice Windows shouldn't be used on any platform.
 
I like WinXP truth be told, since I never had any major problems with it... excluding the blaster virus before that hole was plugged... I cannot abide by Vista at all however, it's a train wreck of an OS disguised by a fancy desktop and instead of allowing you to do more with your computer it actually hinders your possibilities.

Linux is great, I really like it, it has a few things missing though, a foobar2000 port and more companies should better support linux gaming :)
 
I use windows mostly, because I've had such an abysmal time getting linux to run. I'm using Vista on my laptop, which is my main machine. I've two other machines, both running XP.

Linux is my choice to hate. I have an old laptop - 486 DX/2, 50mhz with 24mb RAM. Runs win98 just nicely, and has the nicest screen I've ever encountered - fully visible in direct sunlight, crisp and clear. I'd love to put a linux distro on it, but I can't.

Not without some help from Microsoft, at any rate. See, the CDRom drive is proprietary and linux cannot see it at all. The only way to get it to see the drive is to create a DOS boot partition, use DOS to load the CDRom driver and then load linux. There's also the small matter of window-managers - I've tried them all on this one, and even at 640x480 in 8bit colour they're all dog-slow. Win98 runs at full 24bit colour and runs very fast indeed.

I'll not bother with linux - it can't even compete with DOS 6.22 which supports my hardware out of the box - I don't have to supply a manfacturer's own driver. There's not likely to be a driver that linux can use, either - the hardware is probably too old for anyone to bother :(

D.
 
Linux is great for a server os, but for a number of companies (the one I work for included), it is much cheaper to install Windows Server. Sure, it costs money to buy, but maintenance is much cheaper, so the overall cost is cheaper.

I also run Windows XP at home, simply because my work requires me to use Windows - Linux just isn't practical, as the required applications are not available for it.
 
I refuse to take part in any OS War that fails to list Amiga OS/Workbench
 
Linux: nothing works for it, you need to go into terminal every five seconds to do something to stop it going pissy, and nothing is available for it. Plus, every distro seems half done.
It's good for embedded stuff, like handhelds and set top boxes though.
 
foleyjo said:
I refuse to take part in any OS War that fails to list Amiga OS/Workbench
I included "other" for that reason.

I hate Windows, its not stable, security bugged like crazy, hand it to an ignorant teenager for more than 5 minutes and you've got pr0n popups every 10 seconds, it uses the RAM that my programs should be using instead, only successful because it it preinstalled on 98% of computers out there by default, and the company behind it wouldn't even write bugfixes if they didn't have some serious competition from other alternatives. It has destroyed alot of potential hardware platforms by only supporting x86, is looking to destroy any chance of 64 bit computing in the mainstream, and is loaded with potential lock-in DRM code. Its bloated and truly makes my life miserable on daily basis.

My applications just don't run anywhere else. Linux for the win.\

Edit:

In all seriousness, I'd like to see more than anything else a good collection of the goods and bads of all, and some personal experience. I think that everything has something to offer to everyone. I knew a buddy that couldn't keep Linux from crashing. We tested the RAM, hard drive, even did some motherboard checks and everything came up green. But Linux still continually kernel panicked on a system very similar to mine. The lack of commercial applications, quality free applications, and good hardware support exist on all platforms to a degree. It all depends on the practicality and cost effectiveness for your purposes really. For me, a free OS means more money into hardware, and a pretty much virus / spyware free system. For others a free OS would mean giving up their gaming abilities. The good, the bad, and the ugly are all important factors. Vote what you think is good for you, and criticize the software, not the people. Nobody gains anything out of people criticizing other's decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Goity said:
Linux: nothing works for it, you need to go into terminal every five seconds to do something to stop it going pissy, and nothing is available for it. Plus, every distro seems half done.
False, false, false and what?

I can't say I've had no problems with Linux. I have. But I also had problems with Windows; the difference here is that I can actually solve them on Linux. The terminal is powerful and useful, but far from necessary. Practically everything a normal user needs is now done in GUI, and if there are any really weird problems the community is there to walk you through it provided you're reasonable.

Linux has good hardware support. It's not all-encompassing like Windows' is because of manufacturer support, but it supports near everything recent. Wireless cards are either supported out-of-the-box or by ndiswrapper (which now in Ubuntu has a really nice wizard). A decent percentage of webcams - even no-name ones - are there. There is a lot of software; practically everything I need is available from the repositories. I have the Supercard converter and the Orange Box on WINE, which both work perfectly - and I manage just fine. I can't stand Windows now. It feels so bulky and cramped.

That said, my most hated OS is Vista. I didn't mind XP while I used it. Vista is slow, buggy and has a stupid interface.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nickspoon said:
Goity said:
Linux: nothing works for it, you need to go into terminal every five seconds to do something to stop it going pissy, and nothing is available for it. Plus, every distro seems half done.
False, false, false and what?

I can't say I've had no problems with Linux. I have. But I also had problems with Windows; the difference here is that I can actually solve them on Linux. The terminal is powerful and useful, but far from necessary. Practically everything a normal user needs is now done in GUI, and if there are any really weird problems the community is there to walk you through it provided you're reasonable.

Linux has good hardware support. It's not all-encompassing like Windows' is because of manufacturer support, but it supports near everything recent. Wireless cards are either supported out-of-the-box or by ndiswrapper (which now in Ubuntu has a really nice wizard). A decent percentage of webcams - even no-name ones - are there. There is a lot of software; practically everything I need is available from the repositories. I have the Supercard converter and the Orange Box on WINE, which both work perfectly - and I manage just fine. I can't stand Windows now. It feels so bulky and cramped.

That said, my most hated OS is Vista. I didn't mind XP while I used it. Vista is slow, buggy and has a stupid interface.



For Linux, a lot of things are compatible, but there's also a lot of stuff where you need senseless terminal-goings and hacked kernels, or doesn't work at all.
And using WINE is just running Windows through a layer, so it's basically just running windows imo.

As for Vista, i have had no problems whatsoever. As long as you have enough ram (>1.5gb I hear) and turn off that crappy message-you-four-times-to-move-a-shortcut-system it runs flawlessly. That may be a lot of RAM, but Gnome isn't exactly innocent of that crime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's true that Windows has a lot of security holes, but these are normally found simply due to the amount of people looking for them. More holes would be found in Linux if it had the same user base.

Windows per se is quite reliable - it's normally badly written drivers that cause it to fall over. Same goes for Linux.

However, due to the open source nature of Linux and it's drivers, problems can usually be fixed much more quickly, rather than having to wait for Microsoft to acknowledge the fault, and then wait for "Patch Tuesday" before you can get around to actually installing the patch, which could mean a month of people attacking your PC before the patch is released. The reason for this again is cost - sysadmins can prepare for the "big day" of patch installing each month. Personally, I would prefer it if the patches were available immediately, and then left upto the sysadmin when they decide to install them, but that's MS for you.

(and of course, the above also means you get "Exploit Wednesday", when everyone tries to attack your pc by using the information given to them in the patches, just in case someone didn't install a patch yet for some reason)
 
I use windows XP on my laptop and it's OK with a few tweaks installed.

For me I've not yet used an OS which I thought was amazing, I did used to really like some of the stuff on the Amiga though - but that is what you get when all the machines are the same, it's easier to code things and make them stable.

I really like Linux for handhelds and again I think it is because the systems which run it are all the same hardware, if something works on one GP2X it will almost always work on another etc. this eliminates random crashes and incompatibility, you can spend more time polishing things.

I have tried to get to grips with the 'amazing' mac OS and found it to be horrible. I'd rather use XP.
 
AireTamStorm said:
foleyjo said:
I refuse to take part in any OS War that fails to list Amiga OS/Workbench
I included "other" for that reason.




It deserves more respect than "other". :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
craigix said:
if something works on one GP2X it will almost always work on another etc. this eliminates random crashes and incompatibility,
Unless I've written code for it of course :D I seem to have a knack of writing code that works on my hardware, but doesn't on someone elses, even when they are both identical! (I remember the same happening on the gp2x when I first introduced blitter support into SS)

foleyjo said:
AireTamStorm said:
foleyjo said:
I refuse to take part in any OS War that fails to list Amiga OS/Workbench
I included "other" for that reason.

It deserves more respect than "other". :p


Well, with the original posters consent, I'm sure I could add "AmigaOS", as it was my favourite too :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Goity said:
For Linux, a lot of things are compatible, but there's also a lot of stuff where you need senseless terminal-goings and hacked kernels, or doesn't work at all.

The vast majority of hardware is compatible out-of-the-box. Most of the rest is installable with some internet help and a few commands. Only a very tiny percentage of users will ever need to patch a kernel - and even that isn't difficult if you just follow some instructions word-for-word.

Goity said:
And using WINE is just running Windows through a layer, so it's basically just running windows imo.
WINE does not require Windows to run. There is no Windows code in WINE. It's not running Windows at all.

Goity said:
As for Vista, i have had no problems whatsoever. As long as you have enough ram (>1.5gb I hear) and turn off that crappy message-you-four-times-to-move-a-shortcut-system it runs flawlessly. That may be a lot of RAM, but Gnome isn't exactly innocent of that crime.
I am currently using 557MB of RAM. This includes Firefox, compiz, beagle, Amarok, OpenOffice, Pidgin and the Gnome desktop environment itself. And I have all the flashiness of Vista and more. I see no point in investing in a sluggish, strange OS which sacrifices usability for prettiness and the colour black.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everybody that has complaints about user unfriendliness or difficulties installing should, before any more complaining, go to http://www.ubuntu.com/ and download the latest 8.04 release.
It is great. I am using it for a couple of weeks now and I am impressed. Ubuntu is getting better every release and I think this release can win some skeptics over.
Out of the box recognition and install of my NVIDIA videocard and USB wifi dongle. Also easy auto codecs install and the compiz bling is really nice (especially with the advanced setting).

No guarantees it will work for everybody without tweaking, but I think this is a very solid release.
 
Squidge said:
Well, with the original posters consent, I'm sure I could add "AmigaOS", as it was my favourite too :)
You've got my blessing.

You could replace VMS as it seems there's no real awareness on it, too ^_^

Goity said:
For Linux, a lot of things are compatible, but there's also a lot of stuff where you need senseless terminal-goings and hacked kernels, or doesn't work at all.
And using WINE is just running Windows through a layer, so it's basically just running windows imo.

As for Vista, i have had no problems whatsoever. As long as you have enough ram (>1.5gb I hear) and turn off that crappy message-you-four-times-to-move-a-shortcut-system it runs flawlessly. That may be a lot of RAM, but Gnome isn't exactly innocent of that crime.
WINE is an open source implementation of the Win32 API, it isn't actually running Windows. The Wine dev team have coded their own libraries.

Kubuntu, 384MB of RAM used with a few Firefox windows open (including cache). I don't know about Gnome, but my KDE boxes have always used less than 1/5th XP does, let alone Vista. Something like Xgl with alot of windows open can use a lot of memory, but Every OEM copy of Vista (Basic even) that I've tried have used a gig and a half of it by default. The most frustrating thing about it was, I could see the RAM was used, but I couldn't see what was using it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AireTamStorm said:
Every OEM copy of Vista (Basic even) that I've tried have used a gig and a half of it by default. The most frustrating thing about it was, I could see the RAM was used, but I couldn't see what was using it!
My copy of Vista Home Premium is clocking 660mb used (of 2gb installed), with Firefox taking up nearly 200mb of that. Also running Delphi, ZXSpin, mIRC. This is with all of Vista's bells and whistles up and running (full aero, animated desktop wallpaper, sidebar with gadets running etc).

The question of "what's using my RAM" is probably superfetch or similar. The idea is that the memory you're not actually using is put to use, rather than standing idle. Disk buffers or somesuch, as I understand it. It's not a bad idea, tbh - though I suspect it slows RAM allocation down a tad when it has to start chucking buffers back to disk to provide an app with more RAM. Mind you, I'm not generally well up on this sort of thing, so I'm only guessing as to exactly how it works.

D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dunny said:
My copy of Vista Home Premium is clocking 660mb used (of 2gb installed), with Firefox taking up nearly 200mb of that. Also running Delphi, ZXSpin, mIRC. This is with all of Vista's bells and whistles up and running (full aero, animated desktop wallpaper, sidebar with gadets running etc).
Are you on an OEM machine or did you build / setup your own box?

Another issue I'd like to see addressed is the anti-Firefox default browser lock. The moz team get around that yet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top