What is your opinion on Windows/Mac/Linux?

I thought I'd ask here, because most forums I'm on have no sign of intelligent life. Anyways, I just want to know what people here end up going with, why they make those decisions and just general opinion stuff.

1. What do you think about Windows, Mircosoft in general and Vista.

2. What do you think about Mac, and its weak (yet good) position in the computing market?

3. What do you think about Linux? (This is the important question, go into detail) Have you changed? Do you plan on changing or do you have high requirements and find Linux doesn't do the job? If you don't find that Linux does the job for you, do you still support it strongly and plan on changing if it hits mainstream/gets somewhat better?

-------------------------------------
---- My response
-------------------------------------

1: Micro$oft writes trashy software, I don't back anti-competitive and evil corporations. Vista gives no reason to upgrade besides the fact that XP will lose support. Vista is just an exploitation of stupid people.

2: I don't really care about mac, I pretend it doesn't exist. Mac is only used by people doing film or graphics or stupid people who are convinced that its the next most basic OS to Windows and use it only for its security, not knowing that Linux exists.

3: Linux is clearly the future, but only time will tell. Personally I can't be bothered with Microsofts "home user solutions". For me, sorting out security by paying up to all of the security firms and everyone else who jumps me for $$$$ is just a waste of time. You also need broadband to get the patches for XP plus firewall updates (which is a huge waste of time, I half expect security firms to pay me for the waste of time it takes to download their crap). Linux would be the perfect OS if more people used it.

Irrelevant story in which I don't want responses to unless you've answered the 3 questions already.

To add to that, its hard to explain how pissed off I was when I reinstalled windows once. I was like - HOLY &*$#*%$!!!. It was amazing how many drivers there were and then I had to go online with no firewall to "validate" that I was throwing $$$$$$ at symantec. It turns out that the online validation didn't work and I had to ring up and put up with voice mail and get a really really long validation code because security firms are that &$&(%^&$## insecure to think that I'd try to freeload their ^%^$(&^ software. Reinstalling XP is like installing two different OS's, you install XP and then you install SP2 which is what XP was meant to be like in the first place. A few months after this and reinstalling 10+ times, I decided to stick with Linux.

I see no real point in using Windows now - hence the reason I went for 3 Macs :

No need for AV programs.
Desktop loads quickly.
No need for defragging.

Games are pretty plentiful, but if you need Windows there is always Bootcamp.

In addition, its very easy to use and more streamlined than Windows.

Linux, I found to be highly unreliable and a real pain to use - having tried two different ones, I couldn't get any to compile BlitzMax; most didn't like the hardware and some wouldn't shutdown properly. Graphics drivers were also an immense problem and updates weren't always found or everything was being reported as being too old. And there are printer troubles...
Crashes would take out the whole machine.

If Linux is to be the future (and I dont see how), it needs to be more streamlined, simplified and less emphasise on using the command line to do anything.

When I tried the beta of Vista, it was slow, and due to security settings, programs like Pervasive wouldn't run without fiddling with said settings. I can see the support queries I'll be getting about that...

Um... because it is becoming more streamlined, simplified etc? And because its open-source? Linux still has its place - a lovely place free of commercialism too :)

I definitely back Linux...

It really boils down to.

Which OS runs the programs you want to run?

1. What do you think about Windows, Mircosoft in general and Vista.

I like windows XP, It supports all the software I need, and the desktop tends to be more responsive than a similar spec Mac.

It has all the industry standard software and the most comprehensive range of hardware, which can be a curse if you buy junk, but fantastic if you pick good components.

I don't care about Microsofts dodgy history and have noticed a huge improvement in all their products since around the time XP and the Xbox came out.

Without Windows I would not be as productive with my work and would have to make too many compromises with inferior products or more limited support so I use windows. I also wouldn't be able to play the games I like.


2. What do you think about Mac, and its weak (yet good) position in the computing market?


The Mac all but died in the 90's. I was a big amiga fan and considered the mac, but my experience at university in the school of graphic design, and 3D in particular proved them to be junk, with poor multitasking, and frequent instability and lockups.

They have come a long way in the last 5 years, but their off the shelf hardware combinations are too restrictive, the software avaliable for game artists is limited, and if I have to dual boot windows to play the latest games, I may as well have just bought a PC in the first place.

I quite liked OSX if I ignored some of the quirks, but was surprised at home more snappy and responsive XP was in comparrison. Having said that I do tweak XP to get rid of any delay with menus and task bars, popups etc.

3. What do you think about Linux? (This is the important question, go into detail) Have you changed? Do you plan on changing or do you have high requirements and find Linux doesn't do the job? If you don't find that Linux does the job for you, do you still support it strongly and plan on changing if it hits mainstream/gets somewhat better?

With linux there are very few standards, what little commercial software avaliable for it has very poor support.It's a tweakers heaven, and great for networks and techie stuff.

I find it a pain to use as I'm not willing to fiddle with something to make it work. Driver support is a bit hit and miss. The software catalogue for work is extremely limited, and there is no real market for selling games.

I think Linux has a long way to go if its going to attract users like me. I'm not your typical small office desktop user, but neither am I your nerdy power user that wants to play with the OS and figure out how it all works.

The way I see it on the nerdy tech scale Linux and the Mac are on both on the opposite sides of the fence with Windows sitting up there in the middile offering the most choice, and allowing you to dig into the system if you really want to, whilst the mac goes out of its way to hide itself from the user.

Windows offers all the industry standard tools for most things, the best and latest games and lets you do whatever you want currently without much restriction.

I agree completely with Evak

Windows is the best because there's such a massive user base (hence support from communities, software availability). I'm not liking the look of Vista much but will probably end up using it.

Mac - sounds great on paper and I really like the O/S, but its a pain seeing so much stuff out there that's not compatible with your system. Sure you don't need an Antivirus which is a bonus, but that's because no one can be bothered writing viruses for a little used machine. (Yeah ok I'm sure it's a bit better than Windows in the security dept, too). There's always the Mac/bootcamp option for the best of both worlds, but in reality its a pain not having all your software available in one OS.

Linux - perhaps it is the future, but it's not the present for the desktop as far as I'm concerned. I'm pinning my hopes on Ubuntu, cos it's FREE! Tried a few flavours of Linux recently and it really is still too much effort to set up for me to be bothered. They really need to sort out automated driver installation but I understand it's hard without the backing of device manufacturers.

In summary - Windows is the lesser evil at the moment as far as I can see.

I thought someone would at somepoint post that Linux doesn't do the job... it sucks how all software works for XP :( Has anyone heard of offices using Linux? Or is Linux invisible to the public?

As a Mac user I like the Mac, it is pretty good at doing everything you would want to do. I don't see enough reason to say Windows is better except the user base is bigger for Windows software/hardware. I would say Windows is a quantitative platform whereas Mac is a qualitative platform. Windows is very bloated and fragmented and not so user friendly while Mac lacks some of the numbers and completely up-to-date software. I don't think either is better or worse than the other, but given the choice I'd prefer a Mac as it suits me better. I don't generally like Windows or some of the attitude and business mindset of Microsoft but it doesn't matter to me anymore what they do. I don't know much about Linux, have never really used it and have only seen it running once or twice. I think it still has a cloud of uncertainty hanging over it in terms of support and therefore reliability - people more likely trust the platform with the most users, regardless of actual merit. I don't have a need for or interest in trying to use Linux at the moment.

Open office, star office, there's plenty (and I mean more are poping up every day) of choices.

But yeah, Linux is good for servers, bad for workstations (or game stations). I have 3 linux servers, and I wont even go into the pain it is to change a configuration (or add new software). I just spend forever and a day setting it up, and then leave it be (which is pretty much what linux is good for).

Dark Half: read my post again about "offices" =P

Anyway, I agree with the "setup and leave it" style of operation that Linux uses. I haven't installed any patches and nothing has gone wrong security wise :)

About Mac and video-editing. The Macoids want you to believe that Mac is the artistic computer. Utter blahblah, their last weak defence before their fort collapses. In recent studios I've been in, ppl used Avid on PC, there are countless more gfx tools for PC than for Mac, so anyone doing visual art can perfectly work with a PC. As for audio: all the new stuff comes first on PC these days (unless you were a Logic user).. it used to be different, but all that matured. It's mainly a matter of what people used in earlier days. If you used a Mac in 1992 to make art, chances are you'll be doing so today. PC ppl weren't doing art then, but they are doing so now, so what's the diff?

In addition: PC's are cheap, being a mass-product, that's only logical.

Linux doesn't seem to have many standards (which makes sense since Linux is merely a kernel and there are many different desktop managers and fancy applications of it), but application management tends to work far better in a good Debian-based distro than in Windows. (In Windows there is actually no pattern whatsoever; applications dump their data wherever the hell they like, be it My Documents, Program Files, the C drive, the registry, or maybe - Just maybe - the right place, which is one of the two Application Data folders).

What does that say?

Also, thanks to how most software that distributions use is open source, everything can be made to fit in quite well. Ubuntu is an excellent example of this, though there is currently the problem where the repositories have ancient releases of software, which should hopefully be fixed some day in the future.

I agree, more widespread standards are needed to get desktop Linux further and to get more proprietary software available (which, contrary to the opinions of various annoying zealots, is a VERY important thing!).
I do think, though, that there are some pretty good standards already in place such as the well organized Unix file system.

For Linux to really take off, then those software repositories need to be centralized, merged and perfected. There is a ton of wasted potential here.
Just imagine if you could simply send a message to a single network reporting an update or a new release, and have every computer in the world suddenly aware of it and able to download it!


Anyway,
>>My opinion<<:

Computer operating systems are all piles of garbage in one way or another, so there is no need debating it.
It would be like seagulls arguing over who gets the discarded hamburger wrapper, who gets the broken plastic jewellery and who gets the slice of mouldy bread.

1. What do you think about Windows, Mircosoft in general and Vista.

I don't particularly like Windows. Being the market leader, they like to play by their own rules, while most of the others OSs have embraced some Unix variant. This means Windows doesn't play nice with others, and they don't make an effort to either. They're the biggest, so they feel they can do it their way. I haven't tried Vista, but I feel like I'll be in no hurry to upgrade.

2. What do you think about Mac, and its weak (yet good) position in the computing market?

I like Mac more than Windows. They work for computer illiterate people and tech geeks alike. You have a Unix shell underneath, and a simple nice looking GUI on top. At the moment it's my prefered OS (even though I run all three).

3. What do you think about Linux? (This is the important question, go into detail) Have you changed? Do you plan on changing or do you have high requirements and find Linux doesn't do the job? If you don't find that Linux does the job for you, do you still support it strongly and plan on changing if it hits mainstream/gets somewhat better?

Linux is nice, but it has some problems. I have Ubuntu at home and installing it was easy, untill you encounter something that is not standard. For me it was an old 24" CRT screen and a Wacom tablet. For me it was not to hard to get working, but would probably have left a non-geek tearing their eyes out. Though with compatible hardware, Ubuntu is easier to install than WindowsXP.
We have also use Linux at work, for all servers and the 3D workstations. We use OSX for Photoshop and Shake, and the administration uses Windows (for some reason). So Linux is being used in Offices.
The reason I wouldn't currently switch to Linux at home as my only OS is Manga Studio. It's only available for Windows and OS X (I'm using it on the latter), and I've not been able to find anything similair for Linux.

Then again....this http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/04/mac-tablet-at-macworld-its-not-what-you-think/ really got my interest today.

Yay, Linux 4 offices :D ... I heard that not only is Linux used in pcs and servers, apparently its also used in embedded stuff including traffic lights, which makes me glad that Micro$oft doesn't do embedded :S

You've heard of Windows XP embedded, no?

after I took my Power Mac G5, Quad 2.5 Ghz, I'm realized how blinded I was with windows ...this beauty is so damn fast...

Well, I may agree that Linux is one of the few OSes that shies away from that DRM that Vista's going to have, but I have to be honest with you. Linux is great as a SECOND OS, NOT a PRIMARY OS. Just as long as you have a big enough hard drive to partition into halves or thirds, you can have Windows Vista as your primary OS, followed by a Linux distro, and then another Linux distro, Mac OS X Leopard, if you own a Mac, or an older Windows OS, if you still want to hold onto Win 2000/XP, or Windows 98, etc... That's how I see it. I mean, as far as gaming, there are some ports written for Linux, but the stability of those games can be 50/50. After all, Windows may or may not be stable for some intense games, either, but it is easier for Blitz game design, that much I can tell you.

Windows is a mediocre OS that does what it's supposed to, somewhat competently, and does what it's not supposed to rather well.

Microsoft is a dangerous monopoly, and the sooner the DOJ breaks it up, the better for everyone.

Vista is a shining example of why Microsoft is dangerous. In 7 years, all they managed to acheive was "Catching up to MacOSX graphically".

You've heard of QNX, no? So given that we have QNX, why would someone chose to use XPe?

Well that's a bit of a loadede question. I don't particularly care for the Mac, but Steve Jobs is an absolute genius, so I expect the Mac to pick up a lot of momentum in the next couple of years. But in the imortal words of Bill Gates "Noone cares that you have the best product Steve, noone cares". Let's just hope the market has changed significantly since the early 80's, huh?

Linux makes using a computer fun again. It#s small, light-weight and efficient. It does what it's supposed to do really well, and doesn't do what it isn't supposed to do at all. I switched to Windows while at Uni, because all the programs I needed (like Matlab) didn't have Linux equivalents. Now that I'm back in the software game, and there's a flavour of Blitz that actually works on it, I'm switching back.

Just run the OS that runs the software you want to use. For me, that's XP. I will stay away from Vista as longs as I can. Mac doesn't run any software that I want to run and Linux is forcing me to do too much tweaking and troubleshooting, even the 'user friendly' Umbuntu, and the absense of standards is just too much to cope with on the desktop side. (I'm using Linux on the server side though, for which it is excellent)

No.

My point was that M$ do embedded, not whether it's any good.

Heh, I thought people would eventually come to terms with the fact that Linux & Mac have their place. Steve whatshisname is indeed a genius, Mac is very unique. Linux is on the way up and Windows looks set for a steep decline in the future. That gates quote about not caring who has the best product is pretty sad, I guess it all comes down to manipulating the public and marketing in the end (reference: Vista)

Good thing I'm not doing much with my computer now, that way I can have Ubuntu as my primary OS. Ubuntu has some nice software with it - OpenOffice & Firefox being the highlights. Can't believe Micro$oft still sells Micro$oft office :( ... whats worse is that people buy it.

Windows is good for a lot of great applications and gaming.
OSX is good for feeling more home, secure and surfing.
Linux is still too much of a hack and maybe good for client stuff in xx years.

Do people expect to be taken seriously when they constantly replace "s" with "$" when spelling Microsoft?

Yes, it doesn't matter. I just do it because I can. Micro$oft is an anti-competitive business primarily for making money so why not? In a way it describes them further =P

Do you care about peoples opinions on a company and how they choose to spell it? What you said is kind of a retarded statement to make... then again, I see where you're coming from. It is a bit over the top and stupid to do the "$" thing, but then again I don't care what you think about a one letter difference and I'll continue to do whatever the hell I like. Micro$oft $ucks ca$h... its 11.37pm so I think I'll go to bed before I go mad and start posting even more crap.

Everything I've tried has worked like a charm. As an extra bonus, they also run noticably faster. UT 2003 run nearly twice as fast on Mandrake Linux (the Linux flavour I was using at the time) as it on Windows 2000 (which struggled to run it at all).

Also everyone who says that drivers are a mess in Linux needs a reality check. Windows ships with drivers from 2001 (I'm talking about you, MCE 2005), that don't even properly account for dual-core processors. Install a regular out-of-the-box Windows XP (no, not the tweaked version that shipped with your PC) on your system and you'll have random BSODs at a frequency of about once every hour. Got a RAID controller? Hope you have a floppy drive in your 2007 PC, because guess which drivers you can't install otherwise? I can only assume that anyone who thinks installing drivers on Windows is less of a hassle than on Linux, bought their Windows PC preinstaled.

Windows:
It's a medium quality OS, at best... Sadly.
It's got the largest userbase, by far, which is kind of bad, because it makes MS try to force their own home-grown standards upon both the users and hardware makers.
(and their "standards" are often of poor/rushed quality)

Mac:
I like the Mac. The OS is well thought out, and it has got the solid "Unix" base, with a very nice GUI ontop.
And with the switch to Intel processors, which makes it possible to run windows on it as well, I think they have gained quite a few more customers/users.

Linux:
I like linux as well, possibly because it's an alternative to the commercial business that often makes decicions based upon income, rather than quality and performance.
What Linux lacks is STANDARDS! (someone else mentioned it earlier also)
The lack of standards makes linux highly unlikely for the normal user desktop market.
Until the linux society decide to agree on a few things, I'm afraid it will never become an OS for the future. Sadly.
One of the things they need to do, is to make a standard compatability layer around the OS fir the GUIs to talk to.
That way it wouldn't matter if you were running KDE or Gnome or Ice or whatever..

I'm not defending Microsoft, Uber-nerd. It's just one of cases where your *valid points* and objections to some of Microsoft's business practices won't be taken as seriously by many people simply because of your insistence of your childish behavior.

If all you want to do is preach to the choir, hey, then go right ahead. If you want to make valid points and attempt to sway the opinions of those who currently disagree with you (i.e. Microsoft supporters or at least those who are apathetic to MS's ways) then you might consider changing said behavior.

It's up to you.

Why do people keep insisting that Linux lacks standards? And standards for what? Linux is a fully POSIX compliant OS (just like Windows). expect unlike Windows, most (if not all) of the applications available comply to one or more open standards, as opposed to closed propriety ones.

You mean like X11?

It doesn't. What matters is whether you have QT4 or GTK+ installed or not. Most people just install both and use whatever window manager suits them. I like IceWM because it's rediculously lightweight.

Trying to sway the opinions of the religiously inclined (never mind trying to do so on the Internet) is a pointless exercise. Nobody is ever going to take someone who calls themselves FlameDuck, SculptureOfSoul or Uber-nerd seriously. It's the Internet, and the average person is a moron (present company excluded), just look at myspace or youtube.

That's why the first time you meet someone IRL you always go: "You're not at all like I imagined". What not a retard? Imagine that.

While I agree with your premise Flameduck not everyone is a zealot when it comes to OS'es or anything else tech related for that manner.

Anyhow, I still don't see the logic of obscuring an argument with what effectively amounts to 'taunts' aimed at the opposing side. Of course, it doesn't really bother me personally as I don't allow myself to get entwined in such discussions simply because of the futility of them all - as you mentioned.

*giggle* I love reading threads like this.

I still haven't made a serious effort with Linux, although I intend to. My casual experiments have generally led to trouble.

This is probably because, like most people, I followed this procedure:

1. Start with a PC that was built to run Windows.

2. Toss in a Linux disk and hope for the best.

This may work well, or not, depending on the quality of Linux drivers for your particular hardware. Even if good drivers exist you may have to do some work to find them. And, of course, they may not exist.

The ideal solution is to start with hardware you know is well supported.

No. But you don't have to be a zealot to be religious. You can usualy tell who they are tho', because they tend to think the quality of an OS is directly proportional with the number of mice buttons the computer it runs on is shipped with, the amount of shovelware you get with it, or some other arbitaray metric otherwise unrelated to the Operating System.

Since you can't win them over anywaqy, you might aswell insult their inteligence.

If you're running a stable Debian then hardware that's about a year old or so, shouldn't be much of a problem. If you have to have cutting edge technology, you'll need to go for an unstable version. By far the biggest issue is sound. If you have an on-baord Intel chip, or a soundblaster card, don't worry much about it. If you don't Linux might not be the OS you want to experiment with, unless you enjoy getting technology to work.

Are USB wireless cards well supported on Debian? This has been one of my main nightmares with Ubuntu.

I can answer all those in one. The first thing most people do when they install Linux/buy a Mac is install a Windows Emulator / install Windows XP. Nuff said.

I would say no (Ubuntu is a Debian variant). They aren't very well supported on Windows either in my experience. Maybe I shouldn't have bought a D-Link.

Then maybe they shouldn't have installed Linux/bought a Mac in the first place. I don't see how the ignorance of "most people" is somehow a testimonial to the greatness of Windows. See above comment.

Agreed that I haven't really been hit by any problems with different programs using different desktop environments.

I'm using XFCE, but with it I am only running GNOME programs yet it's running them far faster than Gnome does and they blend in perfectly. (Since it seems that they both use the same library for skinning, or something...)

It would be nice if those desktop environments shared a single smart library for stuff like the main menu, panel / desktop applets, panels, etc. , though. Adding GNOME applets to an XFCE panel involves adding yan XFCE applet that hosts GNOME applets, which is very tiresome to do.

As for programs not always agreeing on what to use... Apt is a great invention.
My eMail program and my web browser use different libraries? Who cares?! (I sure won't notice, since it all installs automatically anyway unless a bunch of sponge-brained rhinoceroses screwed up the repositories).
It could be said that these numerous libraries is a space problem, but that isn't true. Also thanks to smart package management, every unused package is removed (and this even includes stuff like installed XFCE applets that aren't attached to any panels). No packages are installed twice, so I save space.
The Democracy Video Player takes up about half as much space in Ubuntu as it does in Windows, for example.

Standards are there, in the form of popular packages such as DBus, and of course that wonderful application management thing which usually only breaks if a user (be it yourself or the repository people) has done something stupid.
I doubt Linux will ever have a huge number of standards, because that would go against its open-endedness. If everything was tied down to the same method of communication, there wouldn't be as much innovation such as what is being attempted by Project Looking Glass. Abstraction layers and the like are definietly good, though, to keep things from going out of date. For the most part it doesn't matter since everything seems to talk to everything else just fine. (And when it doesn't work, it just doesn't work; nothing cataclysmic happens).



Edit:
I'm going to back up the package management joy with this thread here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=326700
This is using the Ubuntu Feisty (7.04, I believe) development release, and I encountered a complete disaster with packages. Every single package installed had mysteriously disappeared, only one (very old) kernel was booting (nice that I have the selection, though!), though everything seemed to run fine (for example, the web browser which the package manager claimed was not installed and not installable was working fine) except that apt was moaning at me and the system seemed to start being clattery after a while.
This, obviously, was very bad. The solution was also very bad, since the package manager decided that the best way was to remove even more packages, then install everything again. (Except losing me a bit of my software). I did it anyway, and it all worked flawlessly; I dug the computer out of an enormous hole, reinstalled 80% of my programs (essentially the whole operating system; no, these were not all user-space), and even installed something new while I was at it... all with the OS (in its full GUI glory) still running from start to finish with only a single restart suggested at the very end. It all ran perfectly again, even before I restarted.
With Windows, this would have definitely meant a complete reinstall; no questions asked. In Ubuntu, I just pressed a few buttons and watched as the thing somehow fixed itself.
(Of course, probably neither Windows or Mac OS would encounter such a package management cataclysm in reality, but that's beyond my point and this was a development version so these things are bound to happen).

Technically, all three have their strong and weak points.

Microsoft's monopoly gives them market dominance, bazillions of 3rd party developers, a huge community and the perception to management that it's a 'safe bet'. The downside is that from a quality point of view, their products are nothing more than mediocre. Thanks to many years of lock-in, not going away any time soon.

At this point, Vista looks like a trainwreck around the corner, but that doesn't matter - 4 years from now, 80%+ of the computers in the world will still run it simply because any new PC gets shipped with it preinstalled.

Mac: supposedly user friendly, althgouh personally I can't stand how they implemented many things, I prefer the windows 2000 classic UI and way of doing stuff. Perception of being easy. Arguably look pretty. Downsides is a much smaller selection of available software. Slightly more secure than windows, although in part that's because of the smaller market share - after all, apples releases plenty of patches for critical security vulnerabilities as well, just as Microsoft does.

Apple's control of the hardware means better overall stability of the OS, since it doesn't have to deal with a hundred thousand different hardware configurations with poorly written drivers.

Linux: Very nice for mail servers, web servers, file servers and database servers, but as of yet insignificant in the desktop market thanks to the lack of ''popular' software, especially games. While there is a huge market of freeware/open source stuff for those who know where to look, but you sure won't find anything at your local department store. Great OS for people who know what they're doing, but not for the majority of users (or even those who need specific applications / compatibility for work, since the world-at-large runs on windows)

I've been using Linux for a long time, last windows I used was 98. I'm soo used to Linux, that when I have to use a windows based PC I find it a bit odd and difficult to use, but I bet it's the same for Windows users using Linux. Actualy I don't use the shell that often, I use KDE.

Blitzmax works very well in Linux. All I need works well. It's simple to use and you don't need to spend a fortune on $40 programs to get the OS to work as it should. In Linux you just google for an answer and type a few commands on a console to fix problems, even takes less time and no installing software that fixes one thing and breaks 20 other.

Nothing wrong with Windows most should keep on using it. It's just not for me I just use the computer to do things, the OS is something necessary, but not something I want to spend too much time on. Maybe If I was an OS geek I'd spend hours tweaking and patching my WindowsVista and admiring the new 3d buttons or whatever. But for know give me the simplicity and ease of use of Linux & KDE.

Ah... Why on earth would someone want to install a windows emulator on Linux? ...beats me.

Maybe the emulation just isn't so successful in beating up a NTFS partition during read/write access?! :O)

Neither do I. Perhaps you didn't grasp my point.

One of the reasons I installed Linux was to install a Windows emulator. Enough said :P

Edit:
Hm... Deja vu.
(Sorry, I just obsess over sorting things when I'm trying to solve problems such as why this stupid program keeps crashing. If you don't know what I'm on about, good).

Actually, for me it wasn't - I brought First To Fight, BlitzMax and various other bits. Then I got Bootcamp & Windows.


And since the Intel Mac came out (and the beginning of last year), I believe there's only been 8 or so updates...

And its Apple - not apples...


More to the point, how would you get it to work properly ?

Linux is great: set it up and it never goes wrong. The average person can easily use Linux if they have someone set it up for them, also assuming their hardware works OK with Linux. Windows XP is the hardest to maintain, yet Microsoft says its an OS for the home user... which is total crap.

Hmm, well, we'll have to see where the trend goes at the end of this month with the release of Vista, as well as Mac OS X Leopard, due before Easter, I think.

10.5 will probably be out during the middle of the year.

Would like it earlier though...

I'm really looking forward to this, especially the OS will now be totally 64-bit.

Windows XP as my Desktop. Why?

Adobe CS2. 3DS Max. Mindjet MindManager. I like MS Office (so sue me).

I would rather pay for well written software that works then get someones WIP for free.

I have tried the Gimp (several times) and I simply do not like it

I have tried Blender. same.
I have OpenOffice.org installed on all my windows boxes but I never use it.

All Major PC Games run on XP. Mac and Linux are niche.

I like Ubuntu for a server. In Fact, I Love Linux. I like that Linux Exists and I even Like to think that Bill Gates despises it. But I just don't use it all that often.

I love Macs (they are adorable) butfor now I will stick with windows xp.

btw. I have spent about $3,000 for all my software over the past 2-3 years. (yes, I buy licenses. What a concept!)

Now, There ARE some FOSS apps that I feel are irreplaceable. I am a HUGE fan of Python. I use it for linux scripts as well as for my windows calculator. (interactive command line is just lovely!)

I predominately use Firefox. It just feels better than IE (all Versions) but there are times when I have to use IE for work.

Overall, I feel that the Opportunity cost of going with the Free/Open Source alternatives of the pricey apps (3DS, Pshop, MS Office) would be much more than the $3,000 I mentioned


just my $0.02

I will use anything free where possible, so its OpenOffice, Skype, 0xED and GIMP, Firefox (and sometimes Opera). Web design & publishing program comes with each Mac, so I use that...

After all licenses, for 4 (3 Macs and a Windows) machine gets rather expensive.

"1. What do you think about Windows, Microsoft in general and Vista."

I guess I'm stuck with it, they got loads of cash, some of it was once mine, they don't know me from a hole in the ground, not interested in vista at present.

"2. What do you think about Mac, and its weak (yet good) position in the computing market?"

I was asked to baby sit one for two weeks and was told I could use it if I liked. Used it for ten minutes, spent the rest of the two weeks giggling now and then, and wondering what on earth was up with my mate. While he was on holiday, I tried to track down an old mate who deals with mental disorders. I intended to get the two of them in the same room with a tin or two. I was trying to do a mate a favour, without him realising. Never did track down my "shrink" mate, and the other mate got committed under a section order. OOPS. Can't win them all.

It'll be interesting to see if they stay in business as far as computers goes, and in the long term. I'd imagine not personally. They are very likely the new "Creative Labs"

"3. What do you think about Linux?"

It might be interesting once it's finished, assuming it ever does get finished. I've got about 30 CDs of installations here for various flavours. I've run them against dozens of sets of hardware. It has never installed in a satisfactory manner, or to an acceptable state. Documentation is always out of date. Users tend not to give useful answers and don't realise the docs are out of date since they don't read them anymore. So much for RTFM.

Could be more interesting providing it installed right and had _useful_ docs, plus it seems to need some sort of audit to be set in place to get rid of those problems. I mean if it won't install, then how much use can it ever be to me, a potential user?

As far as I know everything about it is beta or free at own risk and none claim to work, all disclaim any sort of responsibility for just about everything. That seems to show a certain lack of faith, in my view.

It also seems to be for servers and not really for desktop use as some claim, that bit seems to be wishful thinking. Despite that it is fairly attractive to pipedream that one day it will all work just fine. I'd imagine I'll hear about that if it ever happens.

Might not be all that far away; Bill Gates got out of Microsoft (substantially) and he's no fool in general, something is going to be up soon and he knows it.

Windows is for lots of software, lots of everyday people, and ease of use for the general public.

Mac is for the trendy that don't mind paying for style.

Linux is for people who want to play with the OS, not with the software on the OS. People who like the fun of messing with the system, but it is really only good for long running applications you just leave go, like servers.

The funny thing is, most users will only really install some games and maybe some other software that mgiht come with a linux. Had linspire a while ago and never even wanted to get more software, had everything from open office, gaim, firefox, and much other stuff.

I'd like to see a user-friendly linux. One that is designed to be installed, have everything the user needs at their fingertips, from music software to office things, a real chunk of everything people tend to get. And then no one will need anything else.

Something you can put on grandmas PC which would give her everything she needs and doesn't let her screw things up.

Can a linux TCP based server in any way match the performance of a Windows server that is using Input/Output Completion ports?

I mean, I know that it is generally assumed that Linux is still the more stable server platform, but it seems like the performance edge (at least in certain areas, such as IOCP w/ TCP) can't be matched by Linux.

You can get all of those for the Mac.

There are commercial Desktop Linux products available, like Linspire or Xandros you can try if you want. Ofcourse most PC owners only want to try the free, unsuported versions.

Actually it's more a matter of lack of funds. Why would I want to help a bunch of freeloaders benefitting from my hard work? You want support, you have to pay for it (or join a LUG).

Maybe he just figures that since he has more money than god, he might aswell start enjoying it.

Here you go.

Linux has "IOCP" from Kernel version 2.6 onwards. The just don't use buzzwords, and instead opted to call it epoll.

>1. What do you think about Windows, Mircosoft in general
>and Vista.

Windows: David Cutler did a good job on NT. It was fast, stable and worked well. It's sad that he stayed on when Microsoft decided to integrate graphics into the kernel, but maybe he figured that poor quality drivers and sub standard hardware wouldn't be a problem.

Microsoft: Microsoft is a business, ie. it is intended as an organized means for the shareholders to get a return on their investment within the framework of the law. It's not good, it's not bad. I have no problem with this.

The problem is how Microsoft management has used the company to bully competitors, engage in uncompetitive practices and thus create a monopoly in one busines, which they have then used to monopolize other businesses. This is bad for everyone because monopolies tend to elevate prices and lower quality and innovation.

Vista: Bloat is never justified, and bloat in prettier colours is not an improvement.

>2. What do you think about Mac, and its weak (yet good)
>position in the computing market?

I supported the Mac because it provided diversity in the computer industry. Now that they have diversified into PC's, online services, music players etc, I have no love for them.

The only positive side is that OSX is BSD based, but then again they had to ruin that with Mach etc.

>3. What do you think about Linux? (This is the important
>question, go into detail)

I like the project in theory!

>Have you changed?

No! I know others have been 'saved' by Linux and have joined the movement, I just don't care that much.

I've sampled Linux, but the learning curve is very steep and very disheartening.

I went back to Windows server and did in minutes, what I couldn't get to work in Linux for days.

>Do you plan on changing or do you have high requirements
>and find Linux doesn't do the job?

Linux is a different technology and requires that you sit down and learn the terminology and the technology. I'm sure Linux will do the job, but Windows works, which is good enough for me.

>If you don't find that Linux does the job for you, do you
>still support it strongly

I never said that I supported it strongly.

>and plan on changing if it hits
>mainstream/gets somewhat better?

Mainstream? Linux is the mainstream in internet servers.

Why would I use a Unix like OS for anything other than servers and workstations. It sounds like you term desktop applications as 'mainstream'.

A mainstream OS needs to play games without crashing and without a gazillion security flaws and silly security systems. Because this is what most people want and expect.


Andy

1. Msoft: yes, they are big, but they are big for a reason. I recently posed a licening query to them and to their credit they replied within 24 hours.

VISTA: I’ll wait for the train wreck to be picked apart then upgrade once it’s stable (only when XP is inevitably phased out....) and I’ve shelled out for even more powerful hardware. MSoft might not alienate their userbase so much if they at least attempted to provide OS software which would work well on an 'average' user's system, instead of hardware that people will more than likely have to upgrade to.

2. Mac: Never had the opportunity to play.

3. Linux: Came close to going down the same road as Floyd at home…. (i.e. attempting a dual boot affair on a creaky old computer that’s on it’s last legs) Gave up (temporarily) due to time constraints and a fear of transforming into a nerdy power user. My experience (in a work environment) of REDHAT’s support is that they may have some way to go before they can attain the level of support that Microsoft can afford. If they provided effective support, this would help increase the Linux user base. I think that Linux will increase it's market share due to the fact it's hardware requirements do not seem to gallop along at the same pace as running a MSoft OS.

I still plan to change to Linux... but not on my 'main' computer for the time being. I am interested in seeing how BMax performs on Linux, by all accounts it does quite well....

Ah, finally found the old flamewar discussion...

Windows:

It is the de facto standard in the IT business and will stay there for at least another five to ten years. With Vista, Microsoft is shooting itself in the own foot, not necessarily because of the lack of innovation, but because of the more and more rigid politics behind it. Businesses are becoming more and more fed up with the way Microsoft operates and begin to look for alternatives.

The greatest threat to Microsoft is not the competetion, but Microsoft itself. And with Gates gone next year, the company will lose most of what defined it.

OS X:
The only real alternative available to Windows and the most usable and userfriendly OS on the market. Who's ever used a Mac for more than a week is not likely to go back to something like Windows or Linux, unless he has to because of some business critical application that only runs on Windows.

Besides, OS X offers ALL of the geekish things Linux has, it is just hidden under the hood, but once you go there, you will find a FreeBSD operating system with a Mach kernel. And I for sure prefer a FreeBSD userland over the chaotic Linux inconsistencies.

Linux:
Linux simply is not usable enough in everyday DESKTOP scenarios and it still lacks commercial applications (or applications that are able to compete with commercial ones in terms of quality and support) in almost every area conceivable.

Or to say it more bluntly: If you need more than a web browser and OpenOffice or the few very specialised applications that do exist for Linux (like Blender or CinePaint), you will erase it faster from your hard disk than it took you to install it.

The GIMP is no match for Photoshop - you can ask any professional photographer to tell you why. There is nothing there that gets anywhere near software like Logic, Live, Soundtrack Pro, Final Cut or whatever else you might need. And where is the business software? I know some companies who do use Macs even for "boring" business stuff like accounting and writing invoices, but I do not know any company that uses Linux on the desktop. And guess what the few companies who "migrated" to Linux actuall do: They use a Microsoft Terminal Server in the back, and the client OS is not more than just a non-MS RDP client.

The biggest problem of Linux is that many software development companies regard it as hostile ground for commercial software, and they believe that the Linux user base is not willing to pay for software. I believe they have a point there, and it explains very simple why nobody is porting commercial software over to Linux.

For certain uses, however, Linux is a nice server os. It's good as a proxy, firewall, router, web or database server, but it still sucks completely when you want to use it as a file server for Windows clients, for example. OS X can do that job better, but if you need a file server for Windows, you basically just have to use Windows Server.

Because of its chaotic nature - Ubuntu Linux is different than OpenSuSE is different than Fedora is different than Gentoo and so on - I would chose a *BSD Unix for any such use anytime over Linux. FreeBSD has a clean design and actually is a full operating system, not just a kernel with *some* userland around it.

FreeBSD is what Linux should haven been, but Linux has more marketing hype behind it.

And besides all of the above, FreeBSD still outperforms Linux in Unreal Tournament 2004. So who the heck wants Linux? ;-)

By the way, there even is a Debian GNU/kFreeBSD available, for those who want to use their GNU userland without the Linux kernel...

In general, the whole discussion is useless and only good to burn some spare time. Windows will be around for the years to come, but will begin to lose market share even on the desktop. Some will switch to OS X, others will switch to Linux. Some few will then later go back to Windows, because they realize that their companies do not have the necessary knowhow to keep a Linux environment alive and going.

However, I do believe - or hope - that in ten years from now Microsoft will have lost a significant share of the desktop market to the competition. Most of it will go the Mac, some to Linux. And if not, I don´t care. I am more happy with my Macs than I ever was with any Linux or Windows machine, and from all that I see it is possible to make a living in the Mac world - even with writing software. ;-)

I like XP. It works for what i want it to do. Like most other people who use it i know. Typical home users i don't think will have much of a problem. If you keep a firewall running, you should be ok. Games work fine. Software works fine too. If something breaks in XP, it's usually easily fixable.

I'd imagine Linux people would have problems if everyone used linux. It would be the main focus of internet attackers.

Anyway, just my opinion :o)

ACtually it lost what defined it when Paul Allen left.

Or in reality, you're totally at Microsofts mercy and it takes them 284 days to address critical and well documented security flaws in their own software.

That wouldn't matter. Due to it's open source nature, anyone can patch vulnurabilities.

Flameducky knows his stuff :-) Thats so true, if XP was open source then 99% of people would have no reason to buy Vista. The only reason you'd buy Vista is because it hasn't lost support yet.

1: Great to see Windows improving. I will surelly use it to compile my games and play other people offerings.

2: I am a Mac user, a very happy one, and I believe its the best OS option out there for my needs. Others may differ, great for them, have fun and/or be productive with your "windows only" boxes.

3: I like linux. I am a professional system administrator of unix boxes, so it's my job to know about it more than most people. Like the BSD also, actually I like the BSD more, but that is another topic. As far as the desktop (for newbies) is concerned: linux is not "quite there" (yet) in my opinion... for most users Mac OS X is the only option as far as unix systems desktops. For computer geeks linux has been an option for years now, and before the rise of OS X it was the best alternative to NextStep. I believe linux will "make it", and in many devices (consoles and cellphones/pda), as well as a full alternative to windows... however, for that to happen, I believe the current development model people perceive as ideal (i.e. open source) will fail: companies will pick up the the core system (i.e. kernel and userland) and built something decent on top of it, much like apple does with the mach kernel and BSD adding the non-open-source graphical layer on top. Problem is that reproducing what Apple made with OS X is not exactly easy or cheap. But once resources are put into it... it is possible. I believe however the biggest linux success with the masses are and will be small devices (phones, PDA, game consoles, etc). Ah, on the servers side, it is obviously a whole different story. The Internet is built on linux and BSD, from servers to routers, appliances, etc.

------

I live on Mac land. I don't care much for windows at all. Looks like most people around here seem to think that mac is "style over content/technology" or a option for those that want to pay "premium rates for design". Good for them. Like windows? Does it work out for you? Great! Keep using it to work and have fun.

Mac is a whole different league, actually I think it's a whole different sport. I am not advocating it. It works for me. I actually like it a lot. I read references to windows being more "responsive" on equivalent hardware... well, on the SAME hardware it is not, not on my core duos, and I will not even go thru the reasons I end up re-installing windows from time to time since I do not have the time or the inclination to deal with crazy registry problems, overwritten dll files, spy/ad-wares and the lot. I have my Windows disk images, and rather restore them whenever things start degrading. None of that happens on OS X. It does its job. I have Macs that have gone thru 4 years of usage, with three major OS X upgrades, without ever needing to restore backup images. They just work like they did on day one. No bullshit, no need for anti-whatever-you-need-to-run to keep windows "healthy". On my windows images: I keep them updated every three months or so, they allways run on a protected enviroment (behind firewalls with very limited and very controled connectivity), without IE / firefox only, no mail, no downloads of any kind, etc, never had a virus in my machines - I work as a unix system administrator as my primary job and am the CEO of a security company). How from simple games install/uninstall (not taking into account the ocasional spyware/adware) the OS can get so damaged is behond reason (easy to understand but really inexcusable).

I use windows also, after all need to compile my games there and test them, but to be honest I do not enjoy the experience at all. I like a couple of windows "only" games and Intel based Macs allow me to jump into that with ease (in cases like catan and magiconline I can even play them in OS X without even looking at the windows OS thanks to parallels coherence mode - it allows me to place windows apps on my Mac dock and launch the programs directly which is great).

Blitzmax is great on Mac OS X (and it was even better while it had the native cocoa editor, that BRL dropped in favour of maxedit a while ago). I like Xcode also. Most of my work is done on a shell (i.e. ssh into unix boxes) and on keynote/pages (a powerpoint/wordprocessor like applications from apple) - I own office but stoped using it in 2003 or so in favour of the more elegant Apple offerings.

Anyway, whatever keeps you happy is the best option. Have fun. Enjoy your computer and OS.

PLS