NationStates Jolt Archive

I figured I would make this discussion thread I know it comes down to a lot of arguments

*nix, windows, Mac OS

I want to eliminate the hardware argument (which is vigorous enough) and strip it down to OS only discussion

So what is your choice? why?

Mac OSX. I've been a Mac user since I left the Vic-20 behind. It makes sense to me. It works for me. I use Windows fine, but I like the Mac OS mo' betta.

Mac OSX. I've been a Mac user since I left the Vic-20 behind. It makes sense to me. It works for me. I use Windows fine, but I like the Mac OS mo' betta.

Cool any specific applications you are looking for?

I know I use my mix because of a combination of applications and networking needs which sort of makes my choice but is there is anything in particular that is a "make or break" sort of choice?

Mac because only stupid people who like a problematic OS and can't seem to find the bandwagon in the parking lot use Vista. God, what a stupid question.

:p



Kidding of course, I'm not a fan of fanboi elitism. I do use OSX (10.4 to be exact) because that happens to be the OS that came with my laptop. I do have an Apple II emulator as well, just so I can play Lemonade Stand and The Oregon Trail in 4 colours.

Windows. I'll admit it. I get a little flak at school and work about it, but I don't mind. I tend to use Ubuntu at work, and I can run Linux on my Windows XP machine (don't like Vista much, think it sucks) in a pinch with VirtualBox and/or VMware (tried both, prefer VirtualBox).

If the games my friends and I tend to play worked in Linux I would probably use it exclusively.

Cool any specific applications you are looking for?

I know I use my mix because of a combination of applications and networking needs which sort of makes my choice but is there is anything in particular that is a "make or break" sort of choice?

I'm a music teacher, and find that music editing and publishing software (Pro Tools, Sibelius) are better suited to the Mac OS as I know it. When I try to use Sibelius on a PC, I start twitching. And Finale can go fuck itself.

Ubuntu, it's idiot proof and fast and idiot proof.

Mac because only stupid people who like a problematic OS and can't seem to find the bandwagon in the parking lot use Vista. God, what a stupid question.

:p



Kidding of course, I'm not a fan of fanboi elitism. I do use OSX (10.4 to be exact) because that happens to be the OS that came with my laptop. I do have an Apple II emulator as well, just so I can play Lemonade Stand and The Oregon Trail in 4 colours.

Hehe understandable

To be honest I have not tracked what release what they are on

Reguardless of the fact that it is not much use for my unique combination of requirements. The update structure is one of my biggest solid dislikes of the Mac OS

Ubuntu, it's idiot proof and fast and idiot proof.

I would argue for the more true Debian line but that is my pure performance orientated self

I would argue for the more true Debian line but that is my pure performance orientated self

I'm not computer literate. :p (or I am but my mother isn't and she calls less since I Ubuntu'd her)

As long as Microsoft makes operating systems, I have a job.

Providing support for an incredibly widespread OS that constantly needs adjustments keeps tons of IT professionals employed, so color me a Windows fan. Which is not to say I don't have other OSes running at home, but I do tend to use my XP box most of the time, just 'cause I can't remote into the corporate network on anything else.

I will also admit the two new focus's of my career have made my CLI Linux history of utmost important

Equallogic SANS (NetBSD based with SSH interface)
ESX (redhat based at least in some respects linux cli based either way)
Networking (all the network tools as well as scripting interfacing with all of our Cisco gear)

I'm not computer literate. :p (or I am but my mother isn't and she calls less since I Ubuntu'd her)

To be honest if you spent about 20 min with me with your ubuntu background you would have enough to run with debian

The only difference is spending some time getting the packages you want out of debian

Both are so close I feel comfortable in either

As long as Microsoft makes operating systems, I have a job.

Providing support for an incredibly widespread OS that constantly needs adjustments keeps tons of IT professionals employed, so color me a Windows fan. Which is not to say I don't have other OSes running at home, but I do tend to use my XP box most of the time, just 'cause I can't remote into the corporate network on anything else.

Completely understandable. It's like working for WHole Foods but shopping at Wal-Mart. One must be practical.

As long as Microsoft makes operating systems, I have a job.

Providing support for an incredibly widespread OS that constantly needs adjustments keeps tons of IT professionals employed, so color me a Windows fan. Which is not to say I don't have other OSes running at home, but I do tend to use my XP box most of the time, just 'cause I can't remote into the corporate network on anything else.

I can understand as an admin for a windows certified partner ;)

I may have in the last 2 months focused on infrastructure (Networking, Virtualization and SAN's) but still can feel at home with 03 and 08 and love making money from it

As long as Microsoft makes operating systems, I have a job.

Providing support for an incredibly widespread OS that constantly needs adjustments keeps tons of IT professionals employed, so color me a Windows fan. Which is not to say I don't have other OSes running at home, but I do tend to use my XP box most of the time, just 'cause I can't remote into the corporate network on anything else.

By the way I have to admit this week i sold my soul over .. the first time without a debian OS as my work desktop

1) reason only, the pain to write to NTFS sources from my local desktop

I use Windows vista for browsing the net and games.
Linux for other interest.

I use OS X out of inertia. My first computer was my father's old Mac+, and I continued using his hand-me-downs (a performa, then a couple power macs) until I turned 16 and bought a cheap ass Titanium Macbook from a company that was changing over from Mac to Windows.

I use OS X out of inertia. My first computer was my father's old Mac+, and I continued using his hand-me-downs (a performa, then a couple power macs) until I turned 16 and bought a cheap ass Titanium Macbook from a company that was changing over from Mac to Windows.

To be honest the first thing I did when I got an extra old G4 was find an linux distro that supported PPC lol :)

That being said I can understand, while as various forms of "computer" guy I have stuck with a strong windows background both because of history and market need I can sympathize

Even though after spending some time linuxing that G4 I managed to get osx on it to get some experience

It was sad though the first thing I did was open a console so I could get back to my BSD roots lol

For working, I much prefer to use Macintosh. The operation system is more streamlined and faster in many instances and its in my opinion easier to multitask.


For play... I love Windows. Especially XP Pro for office.

For working, I much prefer to use Macintosh. The operation system is more streamlined and faster in many instances and its in my opinion easier to multitask.


For play... I love Windows. Especially XP Pro for office.

For multi tasking I personally prefer XP's ability with multi monitors and utramon utility
Or Linuxes Compiz/XGL

Both allow a more streamlined dual monitor interaction, (or even Linuxes default multi desktop functionality)

I multi task for a living and I have not found anything to match

I use XP, and I will continue to use XP until I am forced, kicking and screaming, to update to Vista because nothing new runs on XP, or they miraculously make Vista not suck. Whichever comes first. I'm hoping for the latter, but I don't hold out much hope.

It seems that Microsoft can only release a quality OS every third attempt.

I use XP, and I will continue to use XP until I am forced, kicking and screaming, to update to Vista because nothing new runs on XP, or they miraculously make Vista not suck. Whichever comes first. I'm hoping for the latter, but I don't hold out much hope.

It seems that Microsoft can only release a quality OS every third attempt.

How else to make so much money?

I use XP, and I will continue to use XP until I am forced, kicking and screaming, to update to Vista because nothing new runs on XP, or they miraculously make Vista not suck. Whichever comes first. I'm hoping for the latter, but I don't hold out much hope.

It seems that Microsoft can only release a quality OS every third attempt.

I would say it is a bit more varied then that

95 and 98 did not suck, NT4 was good, ME sucked, 2000 was solid, XP turned out to be good, 2003 is good, vista and 08 have their issues ...

How else to make so much money?

Apple makes a tone capitalizing on marketing rather then product; ) that seems to be one way to make at least a considerable amount of money

(Sorry you know I am going to argue any side lol)

I would say it is a bit more varied then that

95 and 98 did not suck, NT4 was good, ME sucked, 2000 was solid, XP turned out to be good, 2003 is good, vista and 08 have their issues ...

My use of a computer doesn't extend beyond personal, so I had no use for NT, 2000, or 2003. That left me with 95, which was good, 98, which was mediocre, ME, which awful, XP, which has been very good, and then theoretically Vista, which by all accounts is atrocious. I admit it's not much history for a pattern, but based on it, Windows 7 will be meh, and then whatever they put out after that should be a great OS again.

Linux.

The only reason I don't have my laptop dual booted is that I have a thesis to write and I shouldn't spend a lot of time tinkering with my computer.

How else to make so much money?

They could release a quality product every time to encourage brand loyalty. Mac users are almost fanatical in their use of Macs because Apple puts out, by all accounts, consistently quality products.

Apple makes a tone capitalizing on marketing rather then product; ) that seems to be one way to make at least a considerable amount of money

(Sorry you know I am going to argue any side lol)

Well, yeah, but you can't capitalize on marketing if your product doesn't live up to its hype. Apple's had a few failures (I own one -- the Cube), but for the most part, it is what they say it is, at least in my own experience.

They could release a quality product every time to encourage brand loyalty. Mac users are almost fanatical in their use of Macs because Apple puts out, by all accounts, consistently quality products.

Thank you for saying what I tried to with much greater economy.

*bows in supplication*

How else to make so much money?

My use of a computer doesn't extend beyond personal, so I had no use for NT, 2000, or 2003. That left me with 95, which was good, 98, which was mediocre, ME, which awful, XP, which has been very good, and then theoretically Vista, which by all accounts is atrocious. I admit it's not much history for a pattern, but based on it, Windows 7 will be meh, and then whatever they put out after that should be a great OS again.

Eh Server 2008 VDI and other features seem to be impressive we have quite a bit of experience just waiting to take advantage of them

Old Mac for purely personal reasons. OSX might be just fine, but I've had very little experience with it. Back in the Dark Ages when I had a Mac that ran 8.6, I loaded all sorts of dodgy shareware onto it, played around with ResEdit even though I barely knew what I was doing, and the darn thing never crashed. Never. It was easy for a computer idiot like me to tweak, and the OS took up a pleasingly small portion of memory so I never felt like I had to upgrade the memory just to run basics.

Linux because:

http://www.internetling.com/wp-content/antivirus.jpg

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/BoXDoS/why-linux-owns-windows-68197.phtml

http://farbeyondtheedgeofreason.blogspot.com/2008/05/5-linux-distributions-that-rival-os-x.html

Well, yeah, but you can't capitalize on marketing if your product doesn't live up to its hype. Apple's had a few failures (I own one -- the Cube), but for the most part, it is what they say it is, at least in my own experience.
My dad had one of those, that was an experience.
Does yours randomly turn off and on when the air gets dry?

Eh Server 2008 VDI and other features seem to be impressive we have quite a bit of experience just waiting to take advantage of them

I'm a technological neophyte, so what you just said might as well be Greek to me. I've never heard anything but good things about Microsoft's server software, but unfortunately, I can't speak intelligently to their quality.

Old Mac for purely personal reasons. OSX might be just fine, but I've had very little experience with it. Back in the Dark Ages when I had a Mac that ran 8.6, I loaded all sorts of dodgy shareware onto it, played around with ResEdit even though I barely knew what I was doing, and the darn thing never crashed. Never. It was easy for a computer idiot like me to tweak, and the OS took up a pleasingly small portion of memory so I never felt like I had to upgrade the memory just to run basics.

I can agree with that

Personally I think the change to OSX and the change to Intel procs may be looked at as the first steps twards the distruction of MAC's

The blending seems like the selling out of what made them adventagous in the past ...

Also I found this an interesting point:

http://mojaveexperiment.com/html/?fbid=lNShvnNSgRK

That experiment is why this commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjo629JpTyE

makes apple look like a douche.

My dad had one of those, that was an experience.
Does yours randomly turn off and on when the air gets dry?

It did that. It turns out there was a switch that wasn't properly locked down. It was a warranty fix, covered down to the shipping. I was out my compy for a week, but it was not a huge hassle. I had my computer desk altered to allow the top of the Cube to be flush with the desk's surface. When I inserted a disk or ejected one, it looked like it was coming out of the table. 10 out of 10 for style, but minus a hundred for initial quality. That said, once the fix was in, that compy worked fine for the five years I owned it. In fact, I still own it. Anyone want a Power PC G4 Cube @ 450MHz with 384M of RAM? 17" Studio Display and printer included! $300, including shipping!

EDIT: I am currently typing on the last of the Power PCs, a G5 iMac. I love it.

Also I found this an interesting point:

http://mojaveexperiment.com/html/?fbid=lNShvnNSgRK

That experiment is why this commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjo629JpTyE

makes apple look like a douche.

Except that the "I'm a PC" commercial retaliations were created on a Mac (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/).

I'm a technological neophyte, so what you just said might as well be Greek to me. I've never heard anything but good things about Microsoft's server software, but unfortunately, I can't speak intelligently to their quality.

No worries 2 years ago I could have said the same
I was a networking/personal computer OS guy

thats changed but :)

Except that the "I'm a PC" commercial retaliations were created on a Mac (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/).

Reguardless of what reality in marketing goes I would have created it on the MAC simply for the irony

Never said I was a marketing genius though lol

I'm not computer literate. :p (or I am but my mother isn't and she calls less since I Ubuntu'd her)

Ubuntu'd her! You should sell them that line. "My mother bugs me less since I Ubuntu'd her. What can Ubuntu do for you?"

My ex gave me a laptop with Ubuntu, it's pretty cool. My home comp runs XP and the computer I'm forced to use at school is an iMac, of course, that makes me want to throw it out a window every five minutes. Luckily, I rarely have five whole minutes to myself to be on it.

I would say it is a bit more varied then that

95 and 98 did not suck, NT4 was good, ME sucked, 2000 was solid, XP turned out to be good, 2003 is good, vista and 08 have their issues ...

I updated from 2000, like, maybe a year and a half ago. Never wasted time with NT4, ME, 2003 or 2008, and I bet I can outlast Vista's assiness until they come up with something better.

None of them. Okay that's bit extreme. I hate Mac's because everything hard to find on them. I hate Windows primarly because mine isn't working very well lately. The damn thing has been crashing a lot lately on me. I've done a registry cleaning, I've done a disagnotic mode, I've done safe mode. The damn thing isn't cooperating.

I am ready to blank them all.... :mad:

With Linux you get what you pay for.

I use Mac mostly - I also have a Dell Inspiron 700m - for various reasons.

1. I just couldn't choose another PC knowing that, no matter what I bought, it was going to load Windows
2. Purely for aesthetic purposes, I'm not ready for Linux yet, yes I'm shallow
3. I do a fair amount of presentations and Keynote is quicker, easier, prettier and simple to convert
4. Perhaps PC has a similar application but Skitch is essential to me
5. The ability to close and walk away, open and start using, no need to wait for the OS to load up
6. Strong centrally-located community - any problem is fixed pretty quickly and by myself.
7. The Dock - I so much prefer it to the drop-down and/or loads of shortcut icons

That's enough for me.

Let's see...haven't done an inventory of my home computers for a while:

Silver - Windows Vista Ultimate (I worked for MS for a while and got this from the company store for $40 just after it came out)

Platinum - Solaris 10

Radium - Kubuntu 8.10

Plutonium - Kubuntu 8.00 (dual-core Intel laptop)

Bronze - Windows XP Pro

Gateway - Windows 2000 Server

Gold - Windows 2000 Professional

Uranium - Windows 2003 Server

Titanium - FreeBSD

Iron - Windows 98 (it's a Pentium-90 laptop)

Copper - Windows 3.11 (it's a 486 DX/66 laptop)

Christine - Windows XP Pro

For multi tasking I personally prefer XP's ability with multi monitors and utramon utility
Or Linuxes Compiz/XGL

Both allow a more streamlined dual monitor interaction, (or even Linuxes default multi desktop functionality)

I multi task for a living and I have not found anything to match

I do all my multitasking on a single computer, with a single monitor. OSX is best for that. (I aint rich enough to afford a set up like that)

Kastria (laptop) - Windows XP
Karfel (desktop) - Ubuntu Linux

I prefer Linux, but there are some things that you just need Windows for.

Linux, Ubuntu specifically, with regrets. My computer is really unstable, but I'm holding out for the next release.

I use Ubuntu Linux for everything that is not a video game, and winXP for everything that is a video game. Because as much as I love certain things in Linux (like Compiz), Audiosurf under WINE kills my graphics card.

Don't care which operating system I load, as long as it's on punch cards, does not take up more than 2Kb, and gives me full access to the 8Kb RAM, the teletype console and the hard disk (I have one with a staggering 10Mb capacity!).

Win Vista, XP and 98 for development.
Free BSD for networking.

I'm starting to think that i'm gonna use OS/2 Warp for Bastion hosts... ;)

Edit: I quit using MacOS when Macs stopped being worth their cost (Performa was the last IMO)

Win Vista, XP and 98 for development.
Free BSD for networking.

I'm starting to think that i'm gonna use OS/2 Warp for Bastion hosts... ;)

Edit: I quit using MacOS when Macs stopped being worth their cost (Performa was the last IMO)

Personally I would lean towards a BSD variant for a Bastion host myself, as I am also a FreeBSD guy my familiarity tends to go that direction

Windows XP. Because I've always used Windows, it works with all my games, and having seen people using other operating systems I don't feel I'd gain enough by changing to justify installing a new one.

I still use Win98SE because I'm a lazy bastard and it does have several advantages I cherish.

For one, I don't want to redo my system. I want to keep the down-compatibility to DOS (for all the games. DOSBox isn't always the answer for my machine is too slow). Plus I don't have to worry much about viruses all that much since most are aimed at XP. Last but not least, the system is doing just fine and I have it the way I want it.

Given, some applications won't work any longer in their latest installment and I have to accept that some web-stuff simply won't work (what with media players and streaming video). But I do have a brand-new copy of WinXP from 2005 sitting on my shelf waiting for a new computer which I can hopefully afford next year. I sure won't be installing Vista.

XP SP2 is probably the best currently, but I think it will be a hinder soon, when more and more applications begin to get targeted at Vista.

Vista. To be honest, I've never had any issues with it, it and I get along very well.

Vista. To be honest, I've never had any issues with it, it and I get along very well.

It really really sucks for music production though.

Abacus.

I figured I would make this discussion thread I know it comes down to a lot of arguments

*nix, windows, Mac OS

I want to eliminate the hardware argument (which is vigorous enough) and strip it down to OS only discussion

So what is your choice? why?

XP for me, for I am a gamer.