NationStates Jolt Archive

There are a lot of Operating Systems out there, and I wondered what OS's do the people on this Forum use? You can choose multiple answers, of course, its easy to have more than one and/or multiboot computers.

Windows XP home

Dos.

Etch-A-Sketch.

XP Profressional Edition - uh...dunno why...

i don't know why people get mac's. i think they are absolutely terrible

X = 10! :mad:

By the way...the options aren't divided well...

Windows XP should've been its own, as no other Windows OS is quite like it...

Windows 2000 and Windows NT should have been one option, and possibly include ME.

Then put Windows 95 and 98 together...

And then put Older Windows/DOS as an option, as I'm pretty sure that everyone who used Windows 3.1 and previous also used DOS a lot...and that also gives an option for people who do legitimately use DOS...like I do, when I'm at work...

By the way...the options aren't divided well...

Windows XP should've been its own, as no other Windows OS is quite like it...

Windows 2000 and Windows NT should have been one option, and possibly include ME.

Then put Windows 95 and 98 together...

And then put Older Windows/DOS as an option, as I'm pretty sure that everyone who used Windows 3.1 and previous also used DOS a lot...and that also gives an option for people who do legitimately use DOS...like I do, when I'm at work...

Rubbish. XP is just 2000 with a fancy skinning system. 2000 is descended from NT. Me is not based upon the NT core, and therefore shouldn't be included in that category.

Me, 98, 98SE and 95 are all based on the 9x core. 2000, NT and XP are based on the NT core.

I'm stuck with Windows XP Pro on the laptop (coz we need to test multilingual software), Windows 2000 for our server (we're using 2000-only software with license) and Windows XP home on the third system.

Since we have to run SDLX and Trados, which are very expensive translation softwares, we don't have the choice -- Windows!!!

By the way, Internet Explorer has died on the 2000 system after I've installed Visio 2003 demo and I can't get it to work now. The file system explorer is awefully slow. Damn I hate this OS.

By the way, Internet Explorer has died on the 2000 system after I've installed Visio 2003 demo and I can't get it to work now. The file system explorer is awefully slow. Damn I hate this OS.
Mozilla Firefox.

Windows XP Home on my beloved laptop and Windows 2000 Professional at my crappy job. Frankly, those are the only two OSs Microsoft makes that are worth a damn.

XP Pro on most of the laptops (3) and desktops (1). OS-X on my roommate's powerbook. Windows Server 2003 on the file server. I'm trying to find a decent, easy to use Linux distro for one additional laptop.

Also, we have 6 Compaq rackmount servers that are sitting here doing nothing.

Yes... this is just in our apartment. :eek:

EDIT: That's not counting the 3 C-64s, 1 VIC-20, 1 C-128, 1 PET-4032 and 1 Mac Classic I have sitting in storage.

<---geek :p

1 - OS X running on an imac G5
3 - Win XP Pro which beats the hell out of 98 in stability

I like OS X a lot and prefer to use a Mac.

Main PC: Dualboot - WinXP and Ubuntu Linux
Laptop: WinXP

Mozilla Firefox.
I'm using it 100% of the times now (been using it for a few months).

But still, all programs that have IE embedded inside them are either crashing, going into "timeout mode", or refusing to work.

I'm using it 100% of the times now (been using it for a few months).

But still, all programs that have IE embedded inside them are either crashing, going into "timeout mode", or refusing to work.
What programs do you use that have IE embedded?

Debian linux at home for everything but gaming.
Windows XP for playing games.
Windows 2000 and a variety of Unix flavors at work (mostly Solaris and Linux)

What programs do you use that have IE embedded?
Some stupid translation software (from the automotive industry; used to translate owner's manuals as well as technical doc). They use IE panels to display help, search pages for expression look-up, "integration preview", and so on. And I'm lucky I didn't damage my Microsoft Word, coz guess what, the translation software embeds some code from Word as well...
Well at least they don't crash, it's just that the first invocation takes 5 minutes. After that it goes OK.

Oh, and I have a old NHL game that won't work now. (It uses IE for all multiplayer / online play).

I use Windows XP Home Edition on my laptop, Windows 98 on my desktop and Tiger on the Macs at school.

I have a PC with XP Home and a PowerMac G4 with OS 9. I had a dual boot with XP and Ubuntu, but my mom bought WUSB when she got the Mac (from work). There are no Linux drivers for the WUSB, so I got rid of Ubuntu. I would like to try Solaris 10 but I do not have a computer that meets the Hardware Compatability List.

Oops did not mean to write Mac OS X 10.

i don't know why people get mac's. i think they are absolutely terrible
Many people, especially senoirs, love Mac's because they are extremely easy to use. You do not have to defrag the harddisk, installing files is done by draging and droping files, Malware is not an issue, etc. For someone who wants to check emails. Although many new games are coming out for Macs. Some sites like www.extremetech.com, Mac OS X Tiger is supposed to be as good as, or better than the next version of Windows called Longhorn. IMO that is not "absolutely terrible"

By the way...the options aren't divided well...

Windows XP should've been its own, as no other Windows OS is quite like it...

Windows 2000 and Windows NT should have been one option, and possibly include ME.

Then put Windows 95 and 98 together...

And then put Older Windows/DOS as an option, as I'm pretty sure that everyone who used Windows 3.1 and previous also used DOS a lot...and that also gives an option for people who do legitimately use DOS...like I do, when I'm at work...
Windows 95 and 98 do belong together. ME should be there too, because esencially(sp?) it is Windows 98 Third Edition. Win XP, 2000, NT should be a group, and in hindsight I should have put NT into the first option. I did not make Windows 3.x and DOS as its own Option because of a lack of space,

bump

I used XP for a while a couple of years ago, but went back to '98 after getting fed up with its instability.

For all the constant claims that XP is more stable, I've found it to be barely capable of maintaining stability while idling, let alone trying to do anything complicated.

I know a guy who still uses his APPLE II GS !!!!

And until recently I was using OS9 Level 2 / NitrOS9 on a old Motorola 6809 machine... but it blew up, and I couldn't find replacement parts. OS9 Level 2 was a heck of a good OS.

Ahhhh vintage computers...

Mac OS X on a PB G4.

XP Pro Corp (the perfect version to... arrr... because it needs not microsoft verification).

I also use OSX Tiger for media-related stuff. It is definitely superior to Windows, but it is very niche. So it works out for me.

My PC: AMD AthlonXP 3000+ running WinXP Home and SuSE Linux Personal 9.1.

My family's PC: Intel Celeron 600MHz running WinXP Pro and Win98SE.

I wish I had a mac, they're stress-free, crash-proof, sexy-lookin' computers.

I use Win XP Home. I'd love to learn how to use something else, but I'm happy using windows until I'm out of school.

I've seen some intresting comments so far on Windows. First, I do agree that Win 3.1 and older should be separated from other programs because they ran on pure DOS. Win 98 SE and 95 shoud be by themselves because they are prefered by some user as opposed to 2000/ XP. About Explorer and file systems. Explorer IS your file system while running Windows. It's my number 1 complaint because explorer likes to lock up and that takes down your entire system.

However on the plus side almost every piece of hardware and software (except apple computers) are designed to fully integrate with windows. Which can sometimes get annoying (no I don't want to add an icon to my desktop, it's crowded enough already.)

The bad one. You know, the one that sucks but everybody uses it.

Mike...something

I'm using a pure Turing Machine.

About Explorer and file systems. Explorer IS your file system while running Windows.
Actually, no. FAT, FAT32 or NTFS are your file systems under Windows. Explorer is your SHELL when running Windows, just like KDE or GNOME are essentially SHELLs for Linux (although most would call the window managers).

My PC: AMD AthlonXP 3000+ running WinXP Home and SuSE Linux Personal 9.1.

My family's PC: Intel Celeron 600MHz running WinXP Pro and Win98SE.

I wish I had a mac, they're stress-free, crash-proof, sexy-lookin' computers. I like that last sentance, I am adding that to my signature. Is the AMD 64 Bit or 32 Bit?

About Explorer and file systems. Explorer IS your file system while running Windows. It's my number 1 complaint because explorer likes to lock up and that takes down your entire system.Explorer is your File Manager not your file system. A file system is a system of storing and organizing files. A file manager provides a user interface. FAT32 (Windows), NTFS (Windows), HFS+ (Mac) and UFS (Solaris) are all filesystems. Explorer(Windows) and Finder (Mac) are file managers. You are right about Explorer sucking. It's terrible. I've searcher for a replacement from the net with no success. I would much prefer Finder on my PC than Explorer.

IMO, Windows is so unstable because they want to ensure that all the software that has been writen for a Windows OS will work. While it is a good idea, I think they need to start cutting down the compatablity with older programs? Does Longhorn need to run a spreadsheet from 1981? These older applications require a specific AUI to operate and it means that newer apps. do not have a AUI that is made to meet its higher demands; it is equivilant to driving a Dodge Viper on bicycle tires.

Does anyone know of a diferent File Manager for Windows? One that is fairly recent.

IMO, Windows is so unstable because they want to ensure that all the software that has been writen for a Windows OS will work. While it is a good idea, I think they need to start cutting down the compatablity with older programs?
I still find it STUPID that they try to keep first-hand compatibility!!!!

Just look at how the Mac does it: they have software emulation for a few old running modes that existed back in the time of 10 MHz CPUs... so software emulation works just fine.

Windows could rely on very efficient programs such as DOSBox. Hell! Microsoft could licence it!!!! It's MUCH better than any crappy on-the-fly "compatibility mode" that tries to juggle with the problems while crippling the whole system.

As for the Windows 1.0 and 2.0 APIs, they should be totally phased out. Bye bye EVERYTHING that is 16 bits or "real mode" or other old, potentially unstable stuff. I don't know how many hundreds of MUTEX they keep just for that. Debugging Windows XP must take an army of pimple-faced interns.

So here's a solution:

1) A DOSBox-style compatibility sandbox / emulation box for everything that is MS-DOS, Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/

2) An 32-bit "emulation desktop" (graphical sandbox) for emulating Windows 3.11 (running in 16/32 bits), Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me programs. They would run in FULL EMULATION mode (software emulation), on a windowed desktop, and wouldn't be allowed to communicate with other programs (even through the clipboard). They would also be limited in their access to certain resources, including modems.

I still find it STUPID that they try to keep first-hand compatibility!!!!

Just look at how the Mac does it: they have software emulation for a few old running modes that existed back in the time of 10 MHz CPUs... so software emulation works just fine.

Windows could rely on very efficient programs such as DOSBox. Hell! Microsoft could licence it!!!! It's MUCH better than any "c".

As for the Windows 1.0 and 2.0 APIs, they should be totally phased out. Bye bye EVERYTHING that is 16 bits or "real mode" or other old, potentially unstable stuff. I don't know how many hundreds of MUTEX they keep just for that. Debugging Windows XP must take an army of pimple-faced interns.

So here's a solution:

1) A DOSBox-style compatibility sandbox / emulation box for everything that is MS-DOS, Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/

2) An 32-bit "emulation desktop" (graphical sandbox) for emulating Windows 3.11 (running in 16/32 bits), Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me programs. They would run in FULL EMULATION mode (software emulation), on a windowed desktop, and wouldn't be allowed to communicate with other programs (even through the clipboard). They would also be limited in their access to certain resources, including modems.

You need to work for M$.

Brings up an interesting question.

Sony's Playstation 3 is supposed to be back compatable with PSX, just as the PS2 was. If Sony continues making their consoles back-compatable all the way to PSX, will they start running into the same problems that Windows has?

Brings up an interesting question.

Sony's Playstation 3 is supposed to be back compatable with PSX, just as the PS2 was. If Sony continues making their consoles back-compatable all the way to PSX, will they start running into the same problems that Windows has?
It depends on the emulation mode. But I'd be tempted to say that their solution will be quite stable.

Unlike Windows, they don't have to run multiple programs from multiple platforms at the same time, in the same CPU mode.

So they can basically SWITCH CPU MODE. Or kick in an emulation engine when the game boots/loads.

It depends on the emulation mode. But I'd be tempted to say that their solution will be quite stable.

Unlike Windows, they don't have to run multiple programs from multiple platforms at the same time, in the same CPU mode.

So they can basically SWITCH CPU MODE. Or kick in an emulation engine when the game boots/loads.
Good...because most places don't buy PSX games back...and in another year, they won't be buying back PS2 games...besides...these will be classics and worth tons of money on EBay some day...so I like the fact that I can play them in the meantime...

Main PC: Dualboot - WinXP and Ubuntu Linux
Laptop: WinXP

Ah, I like Ubuntu, I use Win2k in dualboot with Ubuntu Linux.

Windows XP Home.

Ha!

Ah, I like Ubuntu, I use Win2k in dualboot with Ubuntu Linux.
I wanna do a daul boot with Mac OS X and Ubuntu. I need to convince to buy a computer so I can do homework on it next year. For our needs a MiniMac would be the cheapest. They are both so stable. :D

Mac my just be easy enough for my to use (more than just msn).

A Microsoft Windows XP professional Version 2002 Service Pack 2
Yeh

One computer running Windows XP SP2 and Debian GNU/Linux through CoLinux.

Another computer with Windows 98b and Slackware 10.1 dual booting.

I'm not a nerd! Just a level 6 paladin...

Oh, and i'm getting a mac when I go to uni.

Networking all that wirelessly will be interesting.

Ubuntu (Linux) on one machine and Windows 2000 on another that I use mostly for games.

Windows XP Pro, but I'll be switching because a friend of mine is doing an OS. I imagine it will be impressive.

Win XP Pro, but looking into Linux dual boot soon.

AmigaOS

Windows XP Home (SP1) on this PC (Athlon64 3200+)
Windows XP Pro (No SP) on my laptop (P4 1.7Ghz)
Windows 2000 SP4 Workstation on my work PC

I did have Windows 98 on a AMD K6-2 but it blew up so the Athlon64 replaced it.

XP. I hate it. I prefer 2000.

XP. I hate it. I prefer 2000.

Updates for Windows 2000 have stopped by Microsoft.
For workstations, they want you to use XP and Windows 2003 for Servers.

There are a lot of Operating Systems out there, and I wondered what OS's do the people on this Forum use? You can choose multiple answers, of course, its easy to have more than one and/or multiboot computers.

1. Windows XP on my Athy64
2. Windows 2k Server (SP4) on both my P3-500 and Dual P3-800
3. Windows 2k Advanced-Server (RC2) on my Digital AlphaServer 1000RM 4/266 (as a cluster; the RM is composed of 3 units in a rack, each unit has a DS21064 "Mikasa" 266MHZ EV45 Alpha Processor, and 1GB of ram [using SIMMS!; 20 slots; 5 SIMMS per bank, 4x64MB EDO's and 1 64MB ECC per bank (ECC banks are used for level-4 cache)], unit is 10 years old....).
4. FreeBSD (AXP port) on my Compaq AlphaServer DS10 (4 CPU monster, EV68 866MHZ 64bit Alpha CPU's and 1 GB RAM, unit is 5 years old...)
5. MacOS 9 on my UMAX PPC Mac_clone....

Updates for Windows 2000 have stopped by Microsoft.
For workstations, they want you to use XP and Windows 2003 for Servers.

No, just Service-Pack updates have been stopped by Mircrosoft for Win2k Pro and Server.... Individual updates will be available till 2010....

No, just Service-Pack updates have been stopped by Mircrosoft for Win2k Pro and Server.... Individual updates will be available till 2010....

They didn't release SP5 so I guess SP4 + billions of hotfixes will do.

They didn't release SP5 so I guess SP4 + billions of hotfixes will do.

You still have "rollups"; which exist as well.... Periodic package updates (not as extensive as service packs...) They did the same with NT4 after SP6.... Putting out Post-SP rollups.... (Which only include updates compiled since the last SP/rollup)...

Win XP Home

i don't know why people get mac's. i think they are absolutely terrible

Good...good...that's what we want you to think.


I run Mac OS 9.2.2 on a Power Mac G4 Cube at 450 MHz and 384M RAM. I've had it for five years without so much as a millisecond of down time. No viruses, hacks, worms, or anything untoward. I have all the software I need and I couldn't be happier...until I go to work and must use PCs mostly running Windows XP. Blech.

Eventually, once I've saved enough, a lovely new G5 iMac will be mine.

Mac OS X on G4(Emac). It's what I'm using now.

I have two desktops, a self built PC and a heavily upgraded Quicksilver PowerMac G4:

The PC:
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ @2.4GHz
1GB of RAM (2x512MB Dual Channel)
200GB 8mb Cache Hard Drive
GeForce 6800 Regular w/ 128MB DDR RAM
DVD Burner & DVD Reader

Running Windows XP Pro SP2.

For all those that keep mentioning Firefox as the answer to IE's issues, I must ask you why is it that my Firefox has graphic lag when I scroll up and down a graphically intensive website where as IE and even an older version of Netscape have no problem doing so (meaning that the scrolling isn't smooth but sporadic and jumpy). Until they increase its' speed and decrease the amount of resources it consumes, I will be sticking with IE. Oh, and check out this non partisan test http://www.lowendmac.com/macdan/05/0214.html conducted by LowEndMac testing various browsers accross various platforms. Under Windows XP, IE was faster than FireFox in 4 out of 6 tests (including twice as fast in the initial loading category). Enough said.

The Mac:
Dual 1.8GHz G4 (yes, it's possible; upgraded from a single 733Mhz)
1GB of RAM (4x 256MB)
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
120GB 8mb Cache Hard Drive
DVD Burner

Running OS X Tiger (no OS 9 Classic installed)
Tend to use it as my primary computer. My PC is basically there just for gaming.

Until they increase its' speed and decrease the amount of resources it consumes, I will be sticking with IE.

Performance isn't the the main reason people are switching, but rather security and features. IE may be faster, but it's still a terrible browser.

I selected XP and Other, because I'm not actually using Windows XP per-se, but Windows XP Embedded, which is a custom built, hardware specific version of windows which actually runs much better than actual XP.

Before that I used Windows XP Pro and Ubuntu (on my second computer), and before that I used ME (for about two weeks) then went back to 98SE.

Performance isn't the the main reason people are switching, but rather security and features. IE may be faster, but it's still a terrible browser.

The only feature that Firefox has over IE is tabbing, which I find highly cumbersome and turn off at my earliest convenience. Other than that, the Active X and popup blocking are standard features in SP2 IE and FireFox alike. As for security, I would have to say that it's only a matter of time before FireFox gains enough popularity to become truly appealing to the crackers out there coding worms and looking for browser exploits. FireFox is only secure because nobody bothered truly looking for its' security flaws yet, or at least not with a malicious intent.

One computer running Windows XP SP2 and Debian GNU/Linux through CoLinux.

Another computer with Windows 98b and Slackware 10.1 dual booting.

I'm not a nerd! Just a level 6 paladin...

lol. DENIAL! Just start with your name...

I haven't got SP2. I was SUPPOSED to recieve it in the mail (I'm on dialup) but never got it... thanks a bunch, Microsoft...

The only feature that Firefox has over IE is tabbing, which I find highly cumbersome and turn off at my earliest convenience. Other than that, the Active X and popup blocking are standard features in SP2 IE and FireFox alike. As for security, I would have to say that it's only a matter of time before FireFox gains enough popularity to become truly appealing to the crackers out there coding worms and looking for browser exploits. FireFox is only secure because nobody bothered truly looking for its' security flaws yet, or at least not with a malicious intent.

Can IE block ads? Block flash, except those you actually want to play? Run scripts that can rewrite any page you want, as you want it to look and work? Alert you of the target of links? Remove from any page any object you don't like? All this, and much, much more, is available to firefox users via plugins.

And what exactly does it matter WHY Firefox is more secure? I don't agree with you on why, but it really doesn't matter, because it's a fact that it is. And it is a reason people are switching.

I've got Windows XP Office at work and school, and XP Home for home.

The only feature that Firefox has over IE is tabbing, which I find highly cumbersome and turn off at my earliest convenience.
It's a question of choice -- I LOVE TABBING!!! I am currently tabbing through new posts in this board, it's so easy to keep track of unread threads.

And what exactly does it matter WHY Firefox is more secure? I don't agree with you on why, but it really doesn't matter, because it's a fact that it is. And it is a reason people are switching.

Because the myth of Firefox security will be a self fulfilling prophecy. People are switching because it's secure, yet with every user that Firefox gains, it becomes that much less secure. If FireFox ever reaches a majority market share, I guarantee it will have more exploits than IE or any other "minority" browser. The same applies for Windows XP vs. Linux and MacOS X; they only seem more secure because malicious coders tend to target the greatest possible user base, hence focussing their attention mainly on Windows.

Because the myth of Firefox security will be a self fulfilling prophecy. People are switching because it's secure, yet with every user that Firefox gains, it becomes that much less secure. If FireFox ever reaches a majority market share, I guarantee it will have more exploits than IE or any other "minority" browser. The same applies for Windows XP vs. Linux and MacOS X; they only seem more secure because malicious coders tend to target the greatest possible user base, hence focussing their attention mainly on Windows.

There's truth in what you say. But "security through obscurity" is still a valid concept - and there are other good, but lesser known, browsers out there. I'm a big fan of tabbed browsing and of Opera (the browser). As secure as any and more secure than most. There'll always be exploits, but obscurity limits them.

At least on my computer, firefox is a much faster browser. Starting the browsers (no other apps were open, i have XP HOME SP2) firefox had loaded in about 30 sec. I closed firefox tried it with IE it took a couple minutes. Using the task manager, the firefox process used 10,000-15,000K of memory, as the active window, IE used 15,000-20,000K (did climb to 26,000K, but it only lasted a second or two). Firefox is also customizable, you can change how it looks and works, IE you are stuck with what M$ gives you. If firefox does get hit with some security issues, I think it will be able to deal with it faster. Firfox has a large community that is able to contribute to the product. M$ just has its paid programmers to work on their browser, which is probably not a large priority seeing as a pop-up blocker was added in SP2 but available on the web when ME was released, and that there biggest project has had its release date pushed back a year and a half.

As for Mac and Linux, I think they do get security from having a low market share, but alot also has to do with security in the OS itself. For Ubuntu, each user had his/her own folder (like on Windows), but that was the ONLY place that user could write to the disk. A user would have to use sudo in order to be able to modify any important files and only one user can use sudo. For malware to do more than just a pop-up or change the background, it would first have to be infect a file/ download itself in the folder of a specific user. Then it would have to use sudo, it would have to hack a password. Then it could do some damage. It is possible but it would require alot more work than malware for Windows were it can just infect your computer, and start screwing with stuff.