OS choiches

[achilleasgr]

I use both.
But there are at least 1000000+ different reasons why people use a PC. We can't say that one configuration is always better than another.
It depends on what you are doing with your tool!

For example, I want the best free stuff, and love Unix.
But I also want to play a game from time to time. And play it well, not sitting there and trying to break my head configuring propriety drivers and following 10 pages of Wine instructions on how to install and configure the latest version of a game to play with wine.

So I use Linux most of the time which is great for exercising and calming my mind, and I have a Windows installation, too, on my 1TeraByte harddrive.

Though I have never used it, Mac OS X would seem the best for me, as it is a Unix system, that grows constantly more and more famous, and if game developers start supporting it any time soon, it will be the best compromise between Microsoft and Linux

 

[monkey97]

:thefingerMicrosoft

 

[Sharky]

I would choose Linux. You can do literally ANYTHING on Linux. Even running windows programs (using WINE).

You'd be fascinated to know that you can run Windows programs on Windows...

 

[monkey97]

But on linux, you can run Windows AND Linux apps.

 

[icywind]

The Windows Operating System is the best! They've been so popular in many years of serving people through computer technologies! The Apple, Linux can't beat Windows. As why? People love to use windows because it is the most standard OS in the world. Apple making some other standards to make people use their standards, but people were used to be in Windows which is the most Highly Standard OS.

In Windows OS you can do things within a second. How much more they've released the new OS Windows 7? The real organizer of life. Also the Windows OS is more affordable than MacOS.

The MacOS is also great too but many people were confused on using it, because it's not a friendly-user OS.

The Linux system is 2nd in the best in Server or Web Technologies in the world.

That's only my opinion, no hurt feelings.

 

[ah-blabla]

The Windows Operating System is the best! They've been so popular in many years of serving people through computer technologies! The Apple, Linux can't beat Windows. As why? People love to use windows because it is the most standard OS in the world. Apple making some other standards to make people use their standards, but people were used to be in Windows which is the most Highly Standard OS.

Standards? What standards? Apple adheres more to standards than M$ does: Mac OSX is a fully compliant Unix system, it has full POSIX compliancy. Then there's the OOXML fiasco: Microsoft pushed through an invalid "standard" despite there already being a standardised office format standard (Oasis ODF), basically wrecking ISO. Furthermore, they don't even implement the official OOXML themselves - how would anyone else be able to implement such a "standard" (6000 pages, and that doesn't even include proper definitions of what certain commands actually do, i.e. not a properly defined standard). And why are there all these antitrust cases against M$? Maybe it's because M$ have a Monopoly?

In Windows OS you can do things within a second. How much more they've released the new OS Windows 7? The real organizer of life. Also the Windows OS is more affordable than MacOS.

Not as affordable as GNU/Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris etc. Doing things within a second is also impossible due to lack of good shell tools (i.e. you first have to wait for the window to appear, which takes times). Surprisingly *Nix systems have good shell tools, allowing you to do certain things much faster than with a GUI.

The MacOS is also great too but many people were confused on using it, because it's not a friendly-user OS.

Despite my disliking apple, I still admit that their UIs and designs are pretty good. If you want a really easy to use / user-friendly interface, look at the Gnome desktop. Some people complain it is too easy to use actually...


//Edit: Seems my post was completely misunderstood. Another thing to add on is, that if windows is so good, and has a monopoly, why is it LOSING market share?

 

[icywind]

So man I'll ask you if it is real of what you are saying...

What is popular OS? Heh...

I'm not asking for the UI for MacOS it the processes... Ok...

 

[oprettyman]

Generally I would chose Windows XP Professional. It is a solid OS with great structure. It has areas to improve, however, it has never failed me in the past. I have recently been dabbling in some Linux within the confines of Ubuntu, however, I find it rather unfamiliar and I am not sure if I am going to convert over yet. I have my comfort zone.

 

[Sharky]

But on linux, you can run Windows AND Linux apps.

Like what?

And for those who want to have a fast efficient computer without having to spend lots of money on the latest hardware just to keep it working fast. And for those who want to feel a relative safety from viruses and the like. (Viruses are possible, but hardly any exist, and I don't think there are any in the wild. Even if there were many, infection of computers would be difficult.) Being FOSS GNU/Linux has any possible infection routes discovered much earlier than the behemoth that windows is, which could have any number of holes in its code, which we don't know about due to its closed source nature.

Like my fairly old 1.8GHz P4-m laptop running Windows 7 ?
And free/open source has NOTHING TO DO with possible infection routes because of the size of the OS. Never heard of security through obscurity? The Microsoft devs aren't stupid, bugs get patched. As it is, the user is the biggest flaw in modern computing, installing crap. Eg., seeing an ad on facebook that looks like it's a facebook game. Only, it's not. It's adware, showing constant crap. And guess who has to try and remove it? Yeah, you guessed it, me. Linux is not inherently more secure than Windows. It's userbase just employs more commo.... no, 'geek sense'.

 

[ah-blabla]

Like my fairly old 1.8GHz P4-m laptop running Windows 7 ?
And free/open source has NOTHING TO DO with possible infection routes because of the size of the OS. Never heard of security through obscurity? The Microsoft devs aren't stupid, bugs get patched. As it is, the user is the biggest flaw in modern computing, installing crap. Eg., seeing an ad on facebook that looks like it's a facebook game. Only, it's not. It's adware, showing constant crap. And guess who has to try and remove it? Yeah, you guessed it, me. Linux is not inherently more secure than Windows. It's userbase just employs more commo.... no, 'geek sense'.

Ok, windows 7 is maybe an improvement, but it still won't run on my laptop according to the hardware requirements. GNU/Linux on the other hand works very fast. I have heard of security through obscurity - a.k.a. lack of security - fat lot of good that has done. I don't think you've heard of security by design have you? Why are there so many virus scanners, anti spyware tools etc? I know Microsoft does patch bugs, but they shouldn't arise in the first place. Since developers are human, they will happen, but the frequecny of occurence can be minimised. The development methodology of FLOSS and OSS means holes are seen much earlier. Not many people have seen the windows sources, so not many people know how many possible holes there are, and worse, many holes won't even have been discovered since not many people have scanned the code.

Yes, the user might be stupid. M$ however made the cardinal mistake of not making it easy to reduce what the stupid user can do, (i.e. the whole admin rights thing). That might have improved with Vista and Win 7 with UAC, but the fact is it happened. Linux is probably more secure than Windows - it has a lot less code, being a pure kernel, is inspected a lot more, etc. Security flaws don't usually lie in the kernel but in the OS tools. And the Unix system design is rather safe. (Any criticisms you make should also be made of Mac OSX since it is also a Unix system, albeit an official Unix) Give the user minimal rights, restrict what they can do SENSIBLY, but let them get rights when they need them. Pretty clever, non?

However what I think many people miss is the main reason for using GNU/Linux, i.e. that it is free. Not free as in price (which it is as well), but free as in freedom. I am allowed to do what I want with my software, use my computer in a way that pleases me.

Ps. there is quite a bit of software that you don't get on Windows that is useful. The KDE and Gnome desktops are examples (though I think KDE is getting ported). Amarok, as part of KDE (media player). Bash is missing (maybe through cygwin, but that's pretty horrible). Lack of multiple desktops is another thing missing. It is possible with addons, but not very easy to use.

And that was a subtle insult btw. By your analogy anyone that has a safe computer must be a geek. Well done!

 

[Sharky]

Ok, windows 7 is maybe an improvement, but it still won't run on my laptop according to the hardware requirements. GNU/Linux on the other hand works very fast. I have heard of security through obscurity - a.k.a. lack of security - fat lot of good that has done. I don't think you've heard of security by design have you? Why are there so many virus scanners, anti spyware tools etc? I know Microsoft does patch bugs, but they shouldn't arise in the first place. Since developers are human, they will happen, but the frequecny of occurence can be minimised. The development methodology of FLOSS and OSS means holes are seen much earlier. Not many people have seen the windows sources, so not many people know how many possible holes there are, and worse, many holes won't even have been discovered since not many people have scanned the code.

Yes, the user might be stupid. M$ however made the cardinal mistake of not making it easy to reduce what the stupid user can do, (i.e. the whole admin rights thing). That might have improved with Vista and Win 7 with UAC, but the fact is it happened. Linux is probably more secure than Windows - it has a lot less code, being a pure kernel, is inspected a lot more, etc. Security flaws don't usually lie in the kernel but in the OS tools. And the Unix system design is rather safe. (Any criticisms you make should also be made of Mac OSX since it is also a Unix system, albeit an official Unix) Give the user minimal rights, restrict what they can do SENSIBLY, but let them get rights when they need them. Pretty clever, non?

However what I think many people miss is the main reason for using GNU/Linux, i.e. that it is free. Not free as in price (which it is as well), but free as in freedom. I am allowed to do what I want with my software, use my computer in a way that pleases me.

Ps. there is quite a bit of software that you don't get on Windows that is useful. The KDE and Gnome desktops are examples (though I think KDE is getting ported). Amarok, as part of KDE (media player). Bash is missing (maybe through cygwin, but that's pretty horrible). Lack of multiple desktops is another thing missing. It is possible with addons, but not very easy to use.

And that was a subtle insult btw. By your analogy anyone that has a safe computer must be a geek. Well done!

Security by....design? Wow, here's me thinking security always came by accident.
And it wasn't intended to be insulting. Only referring to the logic that installing a Linux distro commonly involves replacing the OS shipped with the machine (well, if it came with it, in which case you shouldn't have to reinstall any time soon), which many people are not inclined to do. In fact, I'm almost positive there are quite a large number of people who haven't heard of Linux, and I don't just mean the elderly. Like those who think the internet revolves around Google/IE...

And yes, I've purposefully not addressed the rest of your argument ,because it's old and I can't be bothered. You're lucky I'm on here this much: I have a job interview coming up and am brushing up... Wish me luck

 

[ah-blabla]

Security by....design? Wow, here's me thinking security always came by accident.
And it wasn't intended to be insulting. Only referring to the logic that installing a Linux distro commonly involves replacing the OS shipped with the machine (well, if it came with it, in which case you shouldn't have to reinstall any time soon), which many people are not inclined to do. In fact, I'm almost positive there are quite a large number of people who haven't heard of Linux, and I don't just mean the elderly. Like those who think the internet revolves around Google/IE...

And yes, I've purposefully not addressed the rest of your argument ,because it's old and I can't be bothered. You're lucky I'm on here this much: I have a job interview coming up and am brushing up... Wish me luck

Installing most GNU/Linux distros doesn't require wiping a disk: it can happily coexist with other OS's, and unlike Windows doesn't wreck the bootloader on installing. (Actually, rather interestingly, an increasing number of computers are available with GNU/Linux distros, so that's on an up as well.)

Yes, I know my argument is old, but it is the truth, and most people don't bother refuting it, exactly for that reason (in my opinion at least, but I'm opinionated :nuts...

Then again, OS choice can be a rather controversial topic, so I'm not too surprised that it mostly ends up being the same arguments again and again, so there's not that much point in discussing this.

It does seem however that the OS Landscape is going to get a lot more diverse in the next few years (as it already has been). We have GNU/Linux distros growing (it seems to me that Ubuntu is the main one here?), especially in Asia, Google are soon to release Chrome OS (you could technically group that under the Linux label, but I personally wouldn't: most people don't have a clue about the difference between GNU and Linux anyway, calling GNU by the name Linux, and Chrome seems to only share the kernel in common with GNU/Linux, with the rest of the Chrome OS being separate, i.e. no GNU, though I doubt they went as deep as to completely redesign everything in their OS.). Now that Windows 7 is out though, things are likely to change again. (It is interesting to note there were articles written naming Windows 7 as a competitor to Ubuntu, not the other way around...) What are your opinions on this?

Oh, good luck as well with the interview.

 

[Sharky]

Thanks

 

[icywind]

Windows is the winner!

 

[fractalfeline]

I like Windows only because it's hideously user-friendly and most games run on it. I tried Linux and found it too complicated (granted, my experience is probably not the best to judge Linux by). I don't like the idea of running slow Windows emulators just to run a PC game. Few companies write their software for Mac and Linux, so I find it easier to just get Windows. Yay variety!

 

[primefalcon]

I'm solely a Linux user myself

 

[cybercool10]

I use Ubuntu Netbook Remix and Windows 7 On my Laptop and Windows 7 Solely on My Desktop.Love the Linux Stability

 

[adamparkzer]

I like Windows only because it's hideously user-friendly

I thought Macs were more known for being user-friendly, or basically being a "normal person" computer as advertised in their "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercial?

 

[phuketmeditation]

No need to burn other systems because you get along with yours... I use XP since years and I am happy with it. Between I was switching to Mandriva and Ubuntu but xp came in more handy. If you like coding and computerlanguage, you are probably happy with Linux distributions. I need something, that directly recognizes and accepts ALL my hardware without hundreds of extra compilatons. Thats the reason why I swapped again. (And actually I was pretty pissed off when I finally changed back to XP and it works like a charm for years for exactly the things I am doing. Music production, Graphic design and Webdesign.
Best regards