What is your favorite operating system?

[Dumbass 0]

Let's settle this. Maybe if Windows wins I'll do another poll on specific varieties, maybe not.

[Avani 0]

DOS. :)

[Tachyon 0]

Unfortunately, I'm Clinically Addicted to Windows, since it's the only operating system I've ever used. But it is far from ideal.

 

98 is my favourite Windows version.

[DaryusZaphodDracal 0]

Window's win's it for me. I've tried other system's, but always have come back. My version is 98, tried and true. And after 6 years, they've finally gotten all the bugs worked out. :)

 

Zaphod,

"Meow is not just another four letter word."

"Neither is purr."

[Igor 0]

I know that Windows is garbage. But I have to use it. It is necesserie evil. So I voted Windows.

 

But it is the worst from all of the above. And windows is extremely stupid.

[Travis Kroells 0]

What is...operating system?

 

Muh...?

[Nemesis 0]

Windows, it works for most programs unlike stuff like Mac and Linux.

[Seiben 0]

Windows, definately Windows. It's the operating system I'm most used to, and grown accustomed to. Windows XP being my favourite version.

[NDak 0]

::whistles the death march:: Go Windows!

[Dumbass 0]

The reason I am so big on Microsoft products is practicality.

 

I'm an accountant. That means I pretty much live in Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. I also am an active member in a couple volunteer organizations (usually in a financial role - occupational hazzard I guess, people usually look for an accountant to run for Treasurer, etc.) with members in different parts of the country. The ability to send files via E-mail is essential.

 

The problem I run into is people running on a version of Mac OS or (to a lesser extent) Linux or some other operating system most likely don't have Microsoft Office either. If that is the case they can't open my attachments.

 

There is also the issue of information portability and conversion. When I owned a Mac and started a project on a Mac I could only work on that project on a Mac. This was a problem for group projects in college since everyone else was using Windows. There's ways around that now but back in 95-96 this wasn't the case.

Edited August 20, 2004 by Dumbass

[Darrik 0]

:), when I saw this post on the message boards, they cut off the "-ting system?", so I thought this was "What is your favorite opera!" :P

[Captain Huff 0]

Me too, Darrik! I was like, oh cool, this should be interesting... lol. Oh well. My favorite operating system is whatever is on the last computer we bought. My next favorite will be whatever is on the next computer we buy...

[LoAmi 0]

The problem I run into is people running on a version of Mac OS or (to a lesser extent) Linux or some other operating system most likely don't have Microsoft Office either. If that is the case they can't open my attachments.

This is actually a *problem* with Microsoft, not something they're helping. If Microsoft released their file formats, any system could be fully and reproducibly compatible with Office. But, MS formats are proprietary and have to be reverse-engineered in order to make anything work similarly. They're even trying to patent the XML DTD for the new Office formats to make sure no other software can (legally) offer full compatibility.

 

If you're having problems sending attachments, the best thing to do is stick to sending them in open formats.

 

I started out using DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.0 and I've used every home-market version of Windows through XP. I've used multiple GNU/Linux distributions, starting back when kernel 1.0.13 was out (The latest version is 2.6.8.1). I've had minimal experience with MacOS < X, and it was all bad (I remember getting an error message that went something like "Your printer isn't working. Call tech support." Gee, thanks for all the information.). I don't know enough about MacOS X to comment, but I've heard only good things about it (Darwin is based on Mach/BSD, so it probably has more in common with Linux than Windows). The setup process for GNU/Linux distributions has come a long way since it involved configuring lots of different setup files. The basic configuration for an average user is about as easy as it is for installing a modern version of Windows. Unfortunately, if you have installation problems, they're no easier (nor harder) to correct than equivalent problems in a Windows installation.

 

I voted for GNU/Linux -- it's stable (!!), does practically everything I need it to, puts me in greater control of my system than proprietary software and... it and thousands of applications for it are free (both in the sense of free-beer and in the open-source sense).

 

That said, GNU/Linux and its application base have some major deficiencies:

- major proprietary software used by big corporations have no GNU/Linux or open-source equivalents and the companies that wrote them won't support it. With more commercial support for Linux, this problem will disappear.

- games (!!)

- The major free-software productivity applications (KOffice, OpenOffice.org) have the feature set of about Office 97; it's a reasonably good enough set of features for most people, but makes the transition from Windows to GNU/Linux less wothwhile (why go backwards in feature sets?).

 

Counting numbers of programs is a ridiculous comparison. If you compare the base feature set of the standard MS Windows distribution to the base feature set of an average GNU/Linux distribution, you'll find that the GNU/Linux distribution actually offers more functionality.

[Dumbass 0]

:), when I saw this post on the message boards, they cut off the "-ting system?", so I thought this was "What is your favorite opera!"  B)

You know the funny thing? I did the same thing, even though this is MY TOPIC!! :P

 

Kinda like that one Fred (at least I think it was Fred) did about something to do with "HP". Everyone thought he meant Hewlet-Packard but he actually meant something completely different.

Edited August 21, 2004 by Dumbass

[Garnoopy 0]

I'm running Windows XP Professional, however I do enjoy using the Macintosh system.

 

I believe that each system has its advantages. Windows for it's compatiability in networks and the buisness world at large. Macintosh for it's amazing work with video and imaging abilities. Linux is great for those who don't really like either of the systems and know more about computers. Really depends on what you are looking for.

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

As crazy as it sounds, I find myself more and more (from a computer tech perspective) missing MS-DOS. I mean when it was your base operating system. There, it did exactly what you told it and nothing more. No warnings, no confusing errors, just simple and accurate responses.

 

Heck, actually copied the old DOS SHELL program. Comes in handy once in awhile when a PC's hard drive crashes and I could use a nice "Windows Explorer" type interface.

[Holden 0]

Hey there,

 

As crazy as it sounds, I find myself more and more (from a computer tech perspective) missing MS-DOS. I mean when it was your base operating system. There, it did exactly what you told it and nothing more. No warnings, no confusing errors, just simple and accurate responses.

 

Heck, actually copied the old DOS SHELL program. Comes in handy once in awhile when a PC's hard drive crashes and I could use a nice "Windows Explorer" type interface.

Mac for me!

 

and about the DOS thing: i have an old PC that is pure DOS....i wish i could use it more....

[willingham 0]

I think you know my position already. See Windows XP SP2 on the boards.

 

But I also miss DOS, it was so easy to use.

[LoAmi 0]

While those of us who "grew up on it" might be nostalgic for DOS, it did lack most of the features of modern operating systems, and did practically nothing to take advantage of the features of modern (386+) processors.

 

DOS was written for the 8088/8086 processors as a clone of CP/M and was limited by the restrictions of the first generation of x86 processors from the time of its inception (~1981) until its long-overdue demise (~1993). When it came in, 1M of memory made a dream-machine. When it went out, 8-16MB was common, but DOS could only address the first 1MB. Hacks had to be added to it to support higher amounts of memory (remember memory managers? EMM386, QEMM and 386MAX) Hacks had to be added over it to support multitasking and memory protection (and thus was born Windows). So, by the end of its popularity, a useful DOS system required a patchwork of hacks just to get all the features of the computer you paid for to work.

 

Incidentally, DOS is still useful for embedded systems that only need a simple, single-tasking system and that typically use older processors.

[willingham 0]

And we still have a mini-version of it today in XP systems. I remember having a computer with only Windows 3.1 (It used to have 95, but viruses eventually made me switch to 3.1) and DOS 6.22 and only 8 MB of RAM.

 

Ah, good times, gooood times.

Edited August 24, 2004 by willingham

[LoAmi 0]

Actually, XP is based on the NT series of kernels. They were programmed independently of the Windows 3.0 base code ... and, unlike previous "home" versions of Windows are actually fully rid of DOS. The command prompt (cmd.exe) may look the same, but it is actually a 32-bit Windows executable now, not a 16-bit binary. The only remnant of DOS in XP is the compatibility mode, which is more an extension of the OS than an integral part of it. The same was not true of Win 3.1 through ME, which were all based on the same code base.

[FredM 0]

The only remnant of DOS in XP is the compatibility mode, which is more an extension of the OS than an integral part of it. The same was not true of Win 3.1 through ME, which were all based on the same code base.

Hey there,

 

Sure enough. Windows XP has the backend of Windows NT, but a front end user interface similiar to Windows 98 Second Edition. Sure both have been upgraded to look all "pretty" and such, but at it's core...XP is NT 5.1. It is indeed the first "home" operating system produced by Microsoft to function without the FAT32 format, one of the cornerstones found on DOS operating systems.

 

Where DOS was the foundation in previous versions of Windows (with 3.1/95/98SE/ME running on top of MS-DOS), with Windows XP the roles are reversed. Only issue I have is that troubleshooting, I can't count the time's I've say there wishing for the good old F8 prompt to have an option to boot to a command prompt.

[HyperDrive 0]

Of the most recent operating systems, I enjoy Win2000Pro the best. We use it on the school servers without problems [from the operating system]. (Our last district technical leader enjoyed playing with the usergroup settings too much... it was insanely confusing to figure out who belonged where.)

 

But, I really miss Win95 (and even more, I miss 3.1). :P

 

I use XP Pro at home (and XP Home, depending on which computer I'm on). I've used a Mac one time in my life, and actually kind of liked it. There are a few around our school, but only for Journalism/Newspaper kids. :D

 

As a server OS, I greatly prefer Linux. It gives more options to the user on the remote end, and is generally more easy to configure. (However, Linux is also easier to crack unless configured properly.)

 

So, I have mixed feelings about what my *favorite* OS would be. I use too many of them. :P

 

~HD

[HyperDrive 0]

Oh, and I'll go on my Microsoft rant real quick.

 

ME didn't work right... died all the time. Win98 (first edition) stunk... it didn't even have all of the features it was suppose to have. Win98SE locked up too much for me. Win95, although I liked it, ran too slow. (I really hated Win98, because some features it was designed to do didn't work.)

 

I use XP at home, because that's what was loaded on my computer when I got it. If I had my choice, I'd duel-boot Win2000pro and RedHat 9. :P

 

~HD

Edited August 25, 2004 by HyperDrive

[Darrik 0]

Personally, I like Microsoft Warp 9.6. MW 9.4 & 9.5 were nice, but they just weren't fast enough. I also like the new MW 8.3, which is small enough to fit in a somewhat large shuttle.