PDA

View Full Version : Primary Operating System?



lyonadmiral
October 30th, 2012, 07:45 PM
With the advent of Windows 8, I'd like to ask my fellow community members what is their primary operating system, with primary being defined as the system on the computer they use the most?

Also, what are your thoughts on Windows 8? I was a beta tester for Microsoft for years. Windows 8 was the first version of Windows since I started to not be on the beta for, and I can say that my opinion is this, unless you have modern (Core iX or AMD equivalent CPU) and touch screen, don't bother with it. A colleague of mine said this about Windows 7. "Windows 7 will be the new XP." I think he is right.

Ole Juul
October 30th, 2012, 08:30 PM
FreeBSD

Agent Orange
October 30th, 2012, 08:31 PM
I preorded W8 and picked it up from the Micro Center on the 26th. Where else can you get a legal OS for $38.38? That was not what my main reason however. I'm currently upgrading my main box to include the new AMD FX-8350. This chip requires W8 to be fully effective running 8 cores. There was a severe issue with 8 core chips on W7 and eventually Microsoft issued a patch. The problem was that when handling multi-threads, a core would get turned off. I don't know if I'm going to like W8 or not. I will give it a shot and from what the beta testers are saying, it has the makings of a good gaming platform. I played with a beta release last summer and wasn't impressed. The Metro feature looks like it was designed for the touch screen crowd and seems a bit confusing. I understand that Microsoft has changed the name of the Metro desktop but I don't know what it has become. Time will tell but the price was right.

commodorejohn
October 30th, 2012, 09:02 PM
Been using XP since 2004 and it hasn't stopped being a perfect fit for my needs yet. I'm crossing my fingers that ReactOS will be in a usable state by the time I finally can't keep XP going anymore.

Caluser2000
October 30th, 2012, 09:10 PM
Xp here. It was free with the machine I was given. Windows 8 doesn't appeal at all. Linux peps were predicting the end is ney with the pif feasco but this XP box just keeps on trucking on.

retrobits
October 30th, 2012, 09:23 PM
I love Windows 8 as a desktop OS. Yes, the tiles screen might throw you off at first (it did me). But once you get used to it, it's actually a lot nicer to have your programs one click away, instead of digging through a cascading hierarchical fly-out menu. Also, at the "Start" screen (the tiles), you can just start typing the program you want, and it will come up with a progressively narrowed list as you type. The fonts and iconography are nice. I know a lot of people don't like the look and feel - but it works for me.

Caluser2000
October 30th, 2012, 09:39 PM
But once you get used to it, it's actually a lot nicer to have your programs one click away, instead of digging through a cascading hierarchical fly-out menu. We did that in dos with the likes of Magic Desk and Quikmenu. Hardly innovative. Hell, thats what I use Window Maker for.

lyonadmiral
October 31st, 2012, 02:45 AM
My XPS 720 will be running 7 for a very long time. The Core 2 Quad 6600 that it has doesn't have the SLAT instructions in the CPU that Windows 8 uses for Hyper-V and is required. I did try all the work arounds, but nothing worked for me. I used Oracle VMBox, but that just didn't have the simplicity for me that Windows Virtual PC with XP Mode had. There were some other things that were missing too, some visual, some not. I prefer Aero, and I am also partial to the classic menu system, not the tiles.

DOS lives on!!
October 31st, 2012, 05:44 AM
XP has everything I need for my projects, and mainly DOS support. That is why I do not use Windows Vista or 7 much. For my Macs, it depends on the most recent operating system will run smoothly on it. My Mac Mini has OS X 10.4 and my iMac G4 has 10.3.9.

Compgeke
October 31st, 2012, 05:52 AM
A mix up of Windows 7, Windows Server 2012 and Debian.

Maverick1978
October 31st, 2012, 06:29 AM
My laptop and work desktop use Windows 7. My general-use computer is WinXP. I'll be purchasing Win8 just because it's cheap, but having using the RTM in a VM at work, I can tell you that I hate it, and from a tech support standpoint, it's going to be a nightmare. Apps ran in Metro aren't the same as program ran from within the desktop. Things are rearranged, etc. Getting computer-illiterate senior citizens to give forth the information needed for my guys to figure out where they're at in their operating system in order to help them will be a NIGHTMARE.

Personal opinion - metro sucks for computers without a touchscreen, and are great for those that have them. My solution? Start-8. (http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/) It's $5, and it brings back the Windows "Start" button, automatically booting to the desktop. If and when I go with Windows 8 as a primary OS, this will be a necessity. IMO, an operating system shouldn't get in the way of the user's ability to use and be productive with that operating system. Metro, IMO, gets in the way if one doesn't have a touchscreen. So I will be using Start-8.

Old Thrashbarg
October 31st, 2012, 08:11 AM
I use XP64. It's kinda the black sheep of the MS lineup, and it's true that there are occasional compatibility issues, but it's not nearly as big a problem as it's made out to be. So far there hasn't been anything I haven't been able to work out, and it's otherwise quite reliable. Machines where XP64 won't work get regular XP32. Vista would be my second choice (but only after attacking it with vLite to strip out all the cruft), followed by some flavor of Linux. I really don't like Win7... there's no one particular reason I can point to, there are just too many little annoyances that add up. And I'm just going to pretend Win8 doesn't exist and hope it goes away.

Chuck(G)
October 31st, 2012, 08:39 AM
Although I keep systems with Windows around, for everyday use it's Ubuntu. On older machines, it's Debian or NetBSD.

I no longer need to write Windows code (thank heavens) and about the only thing I do on the web is browse and email. Almost all EDA tools are available in *nix versions and the security is better than Windows. I've been on and off of Unix since about 1978, so it's not as if it's strange territory.

dpatten
October 31st, 2012, 11:28 AM
At work we still use Windows XP. They finally upgraded to service pack 3 about 2 years ago. They finally got rid of IE6 about the same time. Yes, they are a bit risk averse.

On my personal machines I held out upgrading to XP until 2007. I ran 2k on all of my machines, except the wife's which was 98SE until that time. By '07 Service Pack 2 was out and XP was stable enough to consider using on everything.

I still run XP Pro on on my wife's new machine because HP decided not to release a new Windows 7 scanner driver for our $500 professional quality scanner, instead coughing up a generic hairball driver that doesn't support all of the scanner's features like automatic picture scanning and the back lit slide scanner. Also, her machine only has a PCI-e X1 slot for a graphics adapter upgrade and the built in vampire video doesn't support Aero.

I will admit to early adopting Windows 7, but only because it was really a renamed Vista Service pack. I have found it to be uniformly excellent.

Running 64 Bit Win7 Pro with "XP Mode" installed, I can run literally every program I've ever owned for Windows. Right down to Windows Entertainment pack for Win 3.0 that I had on my 286.

I've tried Ubuntu in the past and it works OK, but WINE generally hasn't been able to emulate all of my legacy Windows programs. It's been a couple of years so maybe its time to try it again.

Chuck(G)
October 31st, 2012, 11:35 AM
You can run XP in a virtual box under Linux also. That's for the hard cases. Most of my Win32 stuff is pretty tame. For DOS development, DOSEMU actually does quite well (there is also DOSBOx, but I find the integration of DOSEmu a bit easier to work with).

generic486
October 31st, 2012, 12:13 PM
I do not like Win 8. It is a simply a tablet OS that could be used on a desktop. This is a Microsoft scheme to drag people away from desktops. Desktops are declining in sales and I think bundling Win 8 with them is a bad mistake. I will be keeping Win7 for a long time I'm afraid. Nothing will compare to XP. Best MS operating system of this century. XP was innovative, stylish and designed for desktops (or the then many less people then who had a laptops). I thought that Win 9 when released will fix this for desktops but after reading the article below, the chance of microsoft going back are almost none.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/261567/windows_8_hate_it_already_why_waiting_for_windows_ 9_wont_help.html
Some compared this to the transition from DOS to 3.0, later 3.1 in the early 90's, however I don't remember so much negativity about it.

dpatten
October 31st, 2012, 12:47 PM
You can run XP in a virtual box under Linux also. That's for the hard cases. Most of my Win32 stuff is pretty tame. For DOS development, DOSEMU actually does quite well (there is also DOSBOx, but I find the integration of DOSEmu a bit easier to work with).

XP Mode is virtualization, but it doesn't run in a box. Well, not an obvious one after you initially install the target program anyway. It puts a shortcut for programs that you install in your XP virtual machine on your Win 7 start menu. After you initially install the program in the Virtual XP environment, you can thereafter run it transparently from within Windows 7 without having to manually fire up the virtual box. It runs as though it were just another program instead of what it really is; an emulated machine running off of a virtual hard drive. With file sharing installed it's a wonderful thing.

Of course if I wanted to run something natively I could just use a 32 bit version of win 7 which supports 16 bit windows code and thunking.

I've got virtual OS's ranging from Dos 3/4/5/6 and OS/2 2/3/4 up to XP and Windows 98. It does make it handy when I have to interact with a real machine.

GottaLottaStuff
October 31st, 2012, 02:47 PM
I'm about 50/50 between XP and Android. I don't like Vista, Win 7 looks OK, Win 8 looks terrible. It's usually best to skip every other version anyway. 3.0, no. 3.1, yes. 95, no. 98, yes. ME, no. XP, yes. Vista, no. 7, yes. 8, no. :) They try to innovate, it comes out awful, then they fix it on the next one. Then they try again.

Chuck(G)
October 31st, 2012, 02:48 PM
Um, I was talking about Linux, a la QEMU/VMWare or VirtualBox. (I thought I mentioned Linux)

barythrin
October 31st, 2012, 02:53 PM
I'm afraid I got tired of maintaining multiple systems so I do run what I have on the system and generally unless I'm upgrading the hardware there isn't much reason to upgrade the OS to me. My primary though is the same as the sheeple these days though. I sorta put up with whatever it comes with (well I take that back I build my own systems) so while my notebook is win 7 my home computer and work computers are triple booted with xp, 7 and freebsd (home) and gentoo which I don't use much anymore on work. I spend most of my time in Windows though for day to day use, the others generally are for troubleshooting or server configuration, etc.

Ole Juul
October 31st, 2012, 06:50 PM
Although I keep systems with Windows around, for everyday use it's Ubuntu. On older machines, it's Debian or NetBSD.

I no longer need to write Windows code (thank heavens) and about the only thing I do on the web is browse and email. Almost all EDA tools are available in *nix versions and the security is better than Windows. I've been on and off of Unix since about 1978, so it's not as if it's strange territory.

I think that's the main reason that many people are still running Windows - they need it for work compatibility. I've never had to deal with computers in a work situation (other than as a user) so it's been irrelevant to me and I've had the luxury of making my own choices. I know I'm lucky in that regard.

As I said above, my choice now is FreeBSD. I still have a couple of Linux machines, and actually just put Ubuntu Server on a new box and added Fluxbox for a GUI since it will be used for some browsing as well as home server. Ubuntu Server is just so damnd quick and painless to install. I also put Linux Mint on my wife's new (to us) laptop a month ago because Mint is really good at running codecs right out of the box - which is good if you're not too critical about the purity of your system. Still, I'm moving away from Linux specifically because distributions are generally continuing in the MS-Windows wannabee path which doesn't suit me well. BSD seems to be holding it's own and not giving in to fashion quite as much and is built with user choices and not defaults. It's also got (most recent count) 24011 programs to grab with a click (or "make install clean") and can run all Linux programs too. So - HUGE freedom. :) /salespitch

Unknown_K
October 31st, 2012, 06:58 PM
XP here.

Chuck(G)
October 31st, 2012, 07:31 PM
I think that's the main reason that many people are still running Windows - they need it for work compatibility. I've never had to deal with computers in a work situation (other than as a user) so it's been irrelevant to me and I've had the luxury of making my own choices. I know I'm lucky in that regard.

As I said above, my choice now is FreeBSD. I still have a couple of Linux machines, and actually just put Ubuntu Server on a new box and added Fluxbox for a GUI since it will be used for some browsing as well as home server. Ubuntu Server is just so damnd quick and painless to install. I also put Linux Mint on my wife's new (to us) laptop a month ago because Mint is really good at running codecs right out of the box - which is good if you're not too critical about the purity of your system. Still, I'm moving away from Linux specifically because distributions are generally continuing in the MS-Windows wannabee path which doesn't suit me well. BSD seems to be holding it's own and not giving in to fashion quite as much and is built with user choices and not defaults. It's also got (most recent count) 24011 programs to grab with a click (or "make install clean") and can run all Linux programs too. So - HUGE freedom. :) /salespitch

Well, with tablets and other small gizmos shifting the market, I can well imagine that the market will shift toward *nix. (i.e. I don't think that the Surface stands a chance of becoming the predominant platform).

krebizfan
October 31st, 2012, 07:44 PM
As long as I am programming on the Microsoft stack, I will be using an MS operating system. I don't see anything objectionable with Win8 but I have no compelling reason to upgrade from Win7. If some great program needs Win8, I will reevaluate then.

I have lots of different Virtual Machines and some installs on real hardware for testing, none of which qualify as my main system.

Rick Ethridge
October 31st, 2012, 08:49 PM
I use just about all of them save for Mac and Win8. Mac's alright but I tried 8 and what I saw I didn't like. My most-used system runs a "modified" XP SP3. It's smooth, uses few resources, and is easy to use and maintain.

angel_grig
November 1st, 2012, 01:34 AM
In my netbook I use win 7 in my other computers win xp.


My laptop and work desktop use Windows 7. My general-use computer is WinXP. I'll be purchasing Win8 just because it's cheap, but having using the RTM in a VM at work, I can tell you that I hate it, and from a tech support standpoint, it's going to be a nightmare. Apps ran in Metro aren't the same as program ran from within the desktop. Things are rearranged, etc. Getting computer-illiterate senior citizens to give forth the information needed for my guys to figure out where they're at in their operating system in order to help them will be a NIGHTMARE.

Personal opinion - metro sucks for computers without a touchscreen, and are great for those that have them. My solution? Start-8. (http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/) It's $5, and it brings back the Windows "Start" button, automatically booting to the desktop. If and when I go with Windows 8 as a primary OS, this will be a necessity. IMO, an operating system shouldn't get in the way of the user's ability to use and be productive with that operating system. Metro, IMO, gets in the way if one doesn't have a touchscreen. So I will be using Start-8.

I agree 100% with Maverick.If I'll decide to use win 8 it will be only with start-8...

Doug G
November 1st, 2012, 10:09 PM
At any given moment it may be Windows 7, Fedora 15, Windows Vista, XP or XP Media Center, W2008 Server depending on which machine I'm sitting at.

I got a couple real cheap ( < 300 ) rack mount dual xeon w/ 16gb off ebay that I use as virtual machine hosts. I use Fedora with kvm/qemu for the many vm's.

Windows 7 xp mode is a nice tightly-integrated vm, and besides being a fully licensed xp it manages to nicely share host resources with the xp vm.

I must say, my preferred system for normal work is my windows 7 machine, it seems to have the most comfortable desktop for me. I haven't fired up Windows 8 yet, from what I've read W8 may not be as usable for a desktop non-touchscreen user like myself. I couldn't use Gnome3 when Fedora released it, it seemed to take many more steps to get any program started. Luckly in linuxville there are alternative window managers available.

Ole Juul
November 1st, 2012, 11:22 PM
Well, with tablets and other small gizmos shifting the market, I can well imagine that the market will shift toward *nix. (i.e. I don't think that the Surface stands a chance of becoming the predominant platform).

I think you're right. Most people, at least non-technical ones, don't really encounter the actual operating system, and don't really care. In fact they can't tell the difference between an MS-Windows machine and a (your choice OS) machine with KDE configured to look and act like some version of MS-Windows. They never open a terminal, so it doesn't make a difference. I do think that *nix will become more dominant as MS declines (very, very, slowly) but the "tablets and other small gizmos" will accelerate the shift. Only technical people care what they're running.

bezerkus
November 1st, 2012, 11:55 PM
Android. Used on my phone the most and tablet. Linux Mint KDE right now is used the most at home and work, Windows 7 for my video editing and ripping software, with FreeBSD coming to replace my Windows Home Server and XBMC replacing Media Center. I do not like the way MS is going as I am no fan of the closed ecosystem that only opens to the cloud, removing functionality, while adding little. All where openness goes out the "window" in computing. I am building out a monster of a machine right now using a Thermaltake GT Level 10 case that will last me for many years as I move my XPS 700 and 720's into server modes. It will dual boot windows 8 as I have to keep up with this for my job. Not a metro hater really, I think their tile interface on phones was very unique and innovative. I still enjoy Linux and like that CLI when I want it, while still having 3d multi screen eyecandy. Yet I still see the incredible beauty and nostalgia of the IBM PS1 Expert running dos and 3.1.

Mad-Mike
November 8th, 2012, 05:26 PM
Out of all those, I'd say Windows 7 64-bit and Android almost equally, though I do plan to move to 8 on my convertible laptop (I've run the CP on it and it works really good). On a convertible I see 8 like having 2 devices in one - one that'a tablet (albeit a heavy and thick tablet), and the other is a classic laptop.

I'm only moving to 8 on the home desktop if I can find an affordable tablet/touch interface for my home desktop (which I'm also looking at so I can do artwork on the computer rather than paper). I'm looking at the Wacom Cintiq 12ux for this, but it is a tad on the pricey side for what I spend on hardware (I'd rather use a stylus than my finger....less fingerprints). I don't want to grab the new technology without being able to have my old-standbys to cling onto, and unless it adds something useful.

I also still use XP a LOT! My Fiancee has a 10 year old Dell Dimension that just won't die, so we both keep using it (Even if she has a 7 laptop), works great as a Netflix/Hulu box when she's not using it to play music and surf the web (and do the 9000 things for our wedding).

Then behind all that I have 4 DOS machines, one runs WFWG 3.11 (the 486), and a ton of VMs on my main computer that I tinker around with ranging from OS/2, to DOS/Win, Win 9x, Win NT, Server, and Open BSD 3.4.

tezza
November 8th, 2012, 05:57 PM
We did that in dos with the likes of Magic Desk and Quikmenu. Hardly innovative. Hell, thats what I use Window Maker for.

You can also do that in Xp and Windows 7 by just "pinning" the program (or the shortcut to it) to the taskbar. All your important programs just one click away.

Tez

facattack
November 9th, 2012, 02:24 AM
I have XP. The computer is a Dell Dimension E-520. In all likelihood I'll buy a new PC (if I can afford one) to run Hero Engine when they upgrade. I barely ever use it but I'm doing a little help with a game that utilizes it as an game engine.

Pepinno
November 9th, 2012, 04:50 AM
At home, I have a desktop Pentium 4 with Windows 2000 Server, which is my main workstation.

Also at home, I have a Dell Latitude D600 laptop, which I double boot between Windows XP Professional and Debian.

My computer at work is an HP laptop, which runs with Windows XP Professional.

I refuse to upgrade any of my hardware or operating systems. They work fine.

tingo
November 9th, 2012, 10:25 AM
FreeBSD

ditto.

TandyMan100
November 19th, 2012, 07:07 AM
What, no Debian?

Chuck(G)
November 19th, 2012, 07:44 AM
What, no Debian?

Well, in effect, yes, as many Linux distros are built from the Debian base. I do use Debian on some of my slower systems. Generally, it's proven to be very stable.

Ole Juul
November 19th, 2012, 03:54 PM
Well, in effect, yes, as many Linux distros are built from the Debian base. I do use Debian on some of my slower systems. Generally, it's proven to be very stable.

I've found Debian to be really good on less capable systems like old laptops. I suppose one of the draws for me is that, because of all the Debian based distros out there, I'm familiar with the layout and there's no friction. I install it to the command line, add X11, then fluxbox. Great setup for a user driven OS.

Which brings us to the definition of Operating System. The above is particularly great because of the minimal resource usage. However, there are varying uses for computers and one of the uses which is increasingly taken for granted on non-server systems is a browser. Much desktop usage revolves around this, usually huge and complex, software. In fact, for a modern desktop one can logically consider a capable browser as the operating system - the older definition only referring to the support system that the browser needs to run.

bezerkus
November 20th, 2012, 05:17 PM
Which brings us to the definition of Operating System. The above is particularly great because of the minimal resource usage. However, there are varying uses for computers and one of the uses which is increasingly taken for granted on non-server systems is a browser. Much desktop usage revolves around this, usually huge and complex, software. In fact, for a modern desktop one can logically consider a capable browser as the operating system - the older definition only referring to the support system that the browser needs to run.
OS to me is software that communicates with the hardware and allows other programs to run, if you let the blurring of the browser and OS become one then it can be an OS, but no longer a browser (cause you are not browsing anymore, just being told what to use). Firefox is making an OS that will only use a Firefox Browser. Firefox is now the OS cause it is the only thing communicating with the hardware. As long as I can uninstall the browser or use an alternative in the same hardware, while not removing the software that manages the hardware, it's still just another layer of middleware software and not an OS and the separation is helpful. Defining what manages the hardware is what your OS is. Even if the OS is written in web languages it still is an OS and the browser is going away, not the OS.

Hatta
November 20th, 2012, 05:46 PM
What, no Debian?

That was my thought too. Debian is the universal operating system. It can be all things to all people. You want a cutting edge dekstop? You want a rock solid server? You want a secure router? You want an HTPC? Debian can do all those things and excell at it. It's all about the packages you install. Start from nothing, just a netinst base install, and craft the system you want.

Ole Juul
November 20th, 2012, 08:32 PM
OS to me as software that communicates with the hardware and allows other programs to run, if you let the blurring of the browser and OS become one then it can be an OS, but no longer a browser (cause you are not browsing anymore, just being told what to use). Firefox is making an OS that will only use a Firefox Browser. Firefox is now the OS cause it is the only thing communicating with the hardware. As long as I can uninstall the browser or use an alternative in the same hardware, while not removing the software that manages the hardware, it's still just another layer of middleware software and not an OS and the separation is helpful. Defining what manages the hardware is what your OS is. Even if the OS is written in web languages it still is an OS and the browser is going away, not the OS.

I get your point that there are advantages to defining "the OS" as the part that communicates with the hardware. In DOS, for example, COMMAND.COM is not part of the OS because it is just a shell and can be replaced. However such a strict definition is not very applicable to the average user. Besides, I didn't really intend to take this discussion to those extremes. I suggested the browser as an OS because it becomes the DE for the average user. I often ask people what operating system they are running and it is very common for them to not know. Also when asked what browser they are using, they will commonly say "Google". In other words, the part which is relevant to their computer use is all that concerns them, and anything "below" that is the OS. So, "Google" is the app, and the browser is unknown and just part of the OS to many users. In fact I see somebody around here who does not do a single thing (no e-mail, no documents, etc.) other than Facebook. That is functionally their OS.

I just think that if one is going to accept the desktop environment (which is layers away from "the OS"), as an OS, then why not simply look at it from the common user's point of view? As I explained above, when I install Debian, it is without any GUI of any kind - that's how it comes. Completely separate from that, I then chose some kind of desktop environment if I feel that will be of use - which it will be if I want a graphical browser. And therein lies the problem. I can install a perfectly good Debian with a very functional DE on a low(er) resource machine, but I cannot install a perfectly good browser on top of that. A modern browser with support for movies and what not, is another level, and the defining one - particularly when it comes to hardware requirements. Because, in the life of an average user, it is what they require and all they know, I consider it of practical value to now call that the OS. Even if we, for our individual technical reasons, prefer to not do that.

This is all particularly relevant in this thread. You will note that the OP did not pick the base distributions of Linux, but rather just a couple of random ones - yet detailed every edition of MS-Windows as if it was the DE that was the OS. Note too, the glaring omission of the BSDs, which a number of members here like to use, and which is particularly relevant among serious computer users such as found on a computer related forum. These base type OSs (like Debian, or FreeBSD) are not desktop systems with desktop environments chosen for you ahead of time, but rather operating systems where you can install whatever you want. I know everybody here knows that, but I am pointing it out in the context of this thread to suggest that we are probably talking about desktop environments more than actual operating systems. I don't know if this was the intention of the OP or not, but it looks like it.

bezerkus
November 21st, 2012, 08:31 PM
Not belabor this too much, but...

I see where you are coming from as the OP just wanted Operating Environments and had to choose the most popular distros, but I disagree that the browser is the defining one no matter how important to do what you do. I use three browsers as a web developer and I hardly remember which one I am in, no matter what hardware I am on or what app I am running. I see hardly any benefit to calling the browser the OS and any difference currently as it is still just middleware and not modern hardware dependent. Some Distros are and can only run certain hardware and software. It is not helpful to say you just drive a GMC, but that it's a 2003 GMC Yukon 1500 with a V8 engine for whether you are getting it fixed, trading it in, or wondering if Sirius XM is available for it, or whether someone is just curious about your mode of transportation. Sorry to be blunt but it is a question of freedom and the more it is consolidated the less free you are as an end user. Apple is a perfect example of making up a chip for the iPhone 5 so that there is no comparison to other chips and other phones they'd rather you forget the specs and just see the beauty of the OE and the case of the phone (yet you wonder why it can't do certain things that Apple just refuses to allow). If only one browser is allowed and integrated into the OS, no choice. It is not just a technical reason. If you let GMC only allow you to put OEM tires on without choice, well you know where I am going. Less freedom, pay more, less competition, less choice for best of breed. I'm betting OP wanted to know Year and Model (Windows commonly defines that with the known versions of Windows), but did not care about what tires were on it no matter how important for it to run. BTW I love Debian base stuff, I want to try Arch Linux here soon, but currently just running Linux Mint (OS) with KDE (DE) using Firefox and Dolphin Browsers. Very helpful to define the individual pieces to it ...even to the average user.

Ole Juul
November 21st, 2012, 11:08 PM
Not belabor this too much, but...

Yes, I see that you and I could easily hijack this thread on this one. We're probably not very far apart on personal sensibilities so it's just a matter of a pleasant discussion. I was actually taking a bit of a devil's advocate position above. The reason being that I always associate MS-Windows with people who buy computers ready made in a store and only use the browser, possibly not even e-mail. They seem to be the 90%. I do know that a professional user is capable of even using Vista as a web server - it's not that. :)


. . . BTW I love Debian base stuff, I want to try Arch Linux here soon, but currently just running Linux Mint (OS) with KDE (DE) using Firefox and Dolphin Browsers. Very helpful to define the individual pieces to it ...even to the average user.

I'm moving away from the Linux world because I'm tired of the featurism which is allowing many developers to drop things which aren't quite finished and generally keeping them from working on what needs to be done. Hence my more recent interest in FreeBSD - the land of the conservative. Actually, as a long time serious DOS user, it feels like home (just waaaay more complicated).

That said, a little while ago I got a new (old) laptop for my wife, and to make the media and browser experience painless for me to install - I took a Linux Mint disk. It would be impossible to accomplish the task any faster or with less effort on my part. That's what I expected from Mint, and I wasn't disappointed.

PS: I also run a variety of browsers simultaneously. It's the only way to go - and particularly handy when writing a web page.

Unknown_K
November 22nd, 2012, 12:10 AM
I wonder if mac users are prone to ditch their current OS for newer versions faster then PC users do (I expect so).

Ole Juul
November 22nd, 2012, 12:35 AM
I wonder if mac users are prone to ditch their current OS for newer versions faster then PC users do (I expect so).

I would be curious as well. There are a few Mac users around here, and I'm certain they don't have, or plan to get, the skills (or even interest) to upgrade the OS. At some point they will probably just get a new machine and use that for some years. Yes, PC users tend to do an upgrade (or get a friend to do it) at some point, though it is true that there are still some XP hangers-onners.

You know, I think the Linux crowd is the worst for upgrading incessantly. Ubuntu users tend to follow the 6 month release schedule religiously and of course then Mint follows that. I've gotten tired of it. Particularly because something always breaks.

Mostly the BSDers prefer stability and it is only developers and experimenters who rush to upgrade. AFAIK, FreeBSD 6.4 is still maintained, and version 6 actually goes back to 2005. We just started version 9 this year, but all along it's just been incremental changes - and things don't usually break. I really like that.

PS: Any MS-Windows users who are interested in BSD, I suggest you try PC-BSD as it is targeted specifically at Windows users and works a lot like it. KDE on top and FreeBSD in the back - good concept.

Tor
November 22nd, 2012, 01:00 AM
Seems like a rather arbitrary selection of Linux distros in the poll..
anyway, I run Debian Linux on all my own computers and the one on my desktop at work.
Company mainly uses SuSE Linux.

Caluser2000
November 22nd, 2012, 05:51 PM
Yes, PC users tend to do an upgrade (or get a friend to do it) at some point, though it is true that there are still some XP hangers-onners.Over 20% that access the internet by all accounts. I'd hate to think what the total figure is. Not bad for an OS that's been "replaced" by 3 versions of NT based Windows.

Ole Juul
November 22nd, 2012, 06:11 PM
Seems like a rather arbitrary selection of Linux distros in the poll..
I'll say. Relegating BSD to "other" also seems like a "statement". lol

Ole Juul
November 22nd, 2012, 06:35 PM
Re MS-Win XP:

Over 20% that access the internet by all accounts. I'd hate to think what the total figure is. Not bad for an OS that's been "replaced" by 3 versions of NT based Windows.

Interesting. That's quite high, and I wonder how many of those are regular consumers with 10 year old machines, and how many are people who know what they're doing and like to keep what works. I have a feeling that most are people who know what they're doing. From what I see (local sample), people who are not too savvy always have someone (who thinks he is) come along and install Vista or Win-7 and after a bit the machine becomes unpleasant to use and they just buy a new one.

BTW: Are all those versions really based on NT? Pardon my ignorance of the topic, but that's really interesting. That would mean that NT is a very solid OS. It would also indicate that all those different names of supposedly new OSs as announced by Microsoft are not really that different and would probably be better described by major version numbers of NT - adding weight to my suggestion that this poll seems to be more about the desktop environment that the actual OS. I certainly don't think a change of DE counts as a change of OS.

OK, there I am almost trolling again. :) But if different versions of Debian 2.2 (potato) is going to be lumped together with Debian 6.0 (squeeze) because they both employ a kernel named "Linux", then it would make sense to keep XP, Vista, and Win-7 under the NT category as well. As you suggest, just call them "NT based".

Caluser2000
November 22nd, 2012, 07:22 PM
Why not just lump all Linux together or go further all *nix? They all look the same at the command line.

Windows
Other

Seems to work.

commodorejohn
November 22nd, 2012, 07:29 PM
I wonder how many of those are regular consumers with 10 year old machines, and how many are people who know what they're doing and like to keep what works. I have a feeling that most are people who know what they're doing.
I know I'm deliberately sticking with it. I wouldn't mind having a more upgraded core OS, and my daily-driver machines are even fairly well within spec (for a non-Aero environment,) but they've just screwed around with the UI too much in too many aggravatingly pointless ways starting with Vista, and I'm just not going to support that.


BTW: Are all those versions really based on NT? Pardon my ignorance of the topic, but that's really interesting. That would mean that NT is a very solid OS. It would also indicate that all those different names of supposedly new OSs as announced by Microsoft are not really that different and would probably be better described by major version numbers of NT - adding weight to my suggestion that this poll seems to be more about the desktop environment that the actual OS.
Yes, everything from Windows 2000 on up has been NT-based. They do keep upgrading the kernel between versions, mind.

Caluser2000
November 22nd, 2012, 08:04 PM
I think Ole is just playing. I find it hard to believe anyone that's been into computers as long as he has didn't know that lil factoid.

Surely he didn't believe vista up had Dos at their core? ;)

Ole Juul
November 22nd, 2012, 08:43 PM
I know I'm deliberately sticking with it. I wouldn't mind having a more upgraded core OS, and my daily-driver machines are even fairly well within spec (for a non-Aero environment,) but they've just screwed around with the UI too much in too many aggravatingly pointless ways starting with Vista, and I'm just not going to support that.

That's the impression I get from MS-Windows users who know a thing or two about computers. Isn't Win-7 fairly sensible though? .. or can be configured to be so?



Yes, everything from Windows 2000 on up has been NT-based. They do keep upgrading the kernel between versions, mind.


I think Ole is just playing. I find it hard to believe anyone that's been into computers as long as he has didn't know that lil factoid.
Actually you'd be surprised at just how many bricks short I am. ;) I only keep up with MS-Windows on the very surface, and rarely actually have the opportunity to try any of those systems, other than to set up somebody's router or something simple like that. On that basic level, MS stuff seems perfectly "normal" to me. (ifconfig is called ipconfig, no big deal) So anyway, the fact is that I did not know that NT had made it this far up the line. All the talk of "new" versions seems to create way too much uproar for me to have suspected that. I see now that old time MS-Windows users can actually carry their skills forward and the changes are not nearly as serious as I've been led to believe. It would, in fact, appear to be on the level of a Linux distro version number - with, say, a change from KDE 3.5 to 4.0 - except people just changed the DE in that case. Frankly, assuming that a machine is already set up, I don't think that a professional with actual work to do, should be very concerned with the DE in general.

Anyway, yes I'm playing a bit, but I was also genuinely ignorant of the significance of NT. It sounds like the earlier versions would be very cool for vintage playing or low resource computing.


Surely he didn't believe vista up had Dos at their core?
Hehe I did know how DOS disappeared, but had forgotten how NT was introduced into the mainstream at some point. (I'll go do a Google now.) I just thought that a whole new OS and kernel was developed in newer versions. Microsoft (and users) certainly made it sound like there was a fundamental shift.



Windows
Other

Seems to work.

Actually, not too badly either. :) In fact, that was the underlying context of my comment on the poll.

commodorejohn
November 22nd, 2012, 09:24 PM
That's the impression I get from MS-Windows users who know a thing or two about computers. Isn't Win-7 fairly sensible though? .. or can be configured to be so?
Eh...you can take care of most of the big stuff on Win7 - get a less glitzy theme, use a utility to get the nice, sensible Start menu back, and such. But there's a lot of annoyingly fiddly little stuff that you can't fix - changes in keyboard shortcuts, the fact that Windows Explorer now auto-sorts folder contents so you can't look at the end of a folder you've had open to see the files you just put there, the fact that you can no longer turn off that stupid HTML file/folder pairing, to name a few - that just get in the way of the workflow I've been developing for myself since the days of Windows 95 for no good reason. Basically, they've changed some things that really didn't need changing, and canonized a lot of other annoying changes that they used to allow you to turn off, because I guess someone had a stick up their butt about making sure that everyone was appreciating their work.

I'm told that you can just straight-up replace explorer.exe with the XP version on 32-bit Windows 7, that'd certainly work for me, but I've never tried this.


Anyway, yes I'm playing a bit, but I was also genuinely ignorant of the significance of NT. It sounds like the earlier versions would be very cool for vintage playing or low resource computing.
Yes and no. Pre-Win2k versions of Windows NT can be a bit more finicky to set up than Win3.1 or Win9x, and they also have much less tolerance for DOS programs' hardware tomfoolery (hence they're not nearly as game-friendly,) but they're really quite capable, and very solid.

Caluser2000
November 22nd, 2012, 10:26 PM
Anyway, yes I'm playing a bit, but I was also genuinely ignorant of the significance of NT. It sounds like the earlier versions would be very cool for vintage playing or low resource computing.They can be. I've variants of NT 3.x and 4 to tinker with, used NT 4 with usb thumb drives-something MS said couldn't be done. Did a demo here of it, or was it NT 3.51, running from an HPFS partition here at one point IIRC. I also like playing with 2.2.x-2.4.x kernel linux distros just for the hell of it.

XP introduced NT to the mainstream so it's not surprising that there is still a relatively high user base.

Mr.Amiga500
November 23rd, 2012, 01:30 AM
My primary OS at the moment is OS X 10.5.8 on PowerMac G5. Before 2011, it was BeOS and before 2009, it was Workbench 3.1 on Amiga 500.

(...yes, I'm a little behind the times...)

DOS lives on!!
November 23rd, 2012, 04:15 AM
I wonder if mac users are prone to ditch their current OS for newer versions faster then PC users do (I expect so).
They do, and I would expect Mac users to be more enthusiastic about it. For Windows users, the thought of all the hassles of upgrading and a more lumpy operating system keeps them attached to their current OS. That is why Windows XP is still thriving on many PCs today--and why those people refuse to upgrade. They've used it for so long and they find it to fit all their needs (confortably). I bet Windows 7 was a new beginning for some of these folk. It greatly improved Vista and runs much faster.

Mac users actually have something to look forward to. To begin with, Mac OS doesn't get such bad scrutiny as Windows does. New versions are packed with enhanced features that appeal to the user. The upgrading process is simpler, although from what I've seen so far, Windows 8 has eased the process. With new features and the air of anticipation surrounding a new OS 10.x, why wouldn't they be motivated to upgrade?

Caluser2000
November 23rd, 2012, 09:20 AM
My primary OS at the moment is OS X 10.5.8 on PowerMac G5. Before 2011, it was BeOS and before 2009, it was Workbench 3.1 on Amiga 500.

(...yes, I'm a little behind the times...)Nothing wrong with that at all. Indeed if it works and does what you require of it why not?

Marketing aside I would've thought Mac users in general would hold on to there kit for longer than other commercial platforms.

bezerkus
November 23rd, 2012, 11:15 AM
PS: Any MS-Windows users who are interested in BSD, I suggest you try PC-BSD as it is targeted specifically at Windows users and works a lot like it. KDE on top and FreeBSD in the back - good concept.

I'm going to have to try this setup! Good suggestion!:cool:

nige the hippy
November 23rd, 2012, 11:33 AM
but had forgotten how NT was introduced into the mainstream at some point. (I'll go do a Google now.) I just thought that a whole new OS and kernel was developed in newer versions. Microsoft (and users) certainly made it sound like there was a fundamental shift.

Funny old business, but for a while at least Microsoft were selling Windows built on "New Technology" with a gigantically capitalised N & T in an effort to distance themselves from the original meaning of NT which was "Northern Telecom" i.e. a half decent version of windows written by someone else that didn't crash every 5 minutes.

(I'm on Debian & although there are sometimes problems at least I haven't paid through the nose for the privelege)

bezerkus
November 24th, 2012, 11:06 AM
They do, and I would expect Mac users to be more enthusiastic about it. For Windows users, the thought of all the hassles of upgrading and a more lumpy operating system keeps them attached to their current OS. That is why Windows XP is still thriving on many PCs today--and why those people refuse to upgrade. They've used it for so long and they find it to fit all their needs (confortably). I bet Windows 7 was a new beginning for some of these folk. It greatly improved Vista and runs much faster.

Mac users actually have something to look forward to. To begin with, Mac OS doesn't get such bad scrutiny as Windows does. New versions are packed with enhanced features that appeal to the user. The upgrading process is simpler, although from what I've seen so far, Windows 8 has eased the process. With new features and the air of anticipation surrounding a new OS 10.x, why wouldn't they be motivated to upgrade?

Two different types of camps, one that buys to last, one that leases a new car every couple of years.
First I have heard of features Apple has that Windows + Application does not have. Apple is designed to make as much money on hardware as possible, which is why the upgrade in hardware is more about asthetics and forcibly happens more often. I like upgrading hardware, but when an OS is open enough to run on different hardware with tons of software it is designed to last. The bad press comes from being #1 (ie Apple maps) and greater scrutiny which is usually deserved. What is amazing is an XPS I bought 7 years ago runs Windows 7 and 8 better than it ran XP. Unheard of on a hardware centric ecosystem rather than just a pure OS. It's why Mobile is designed to be thrown away and is just right for Apple. Nothing wrong with that if you like to replace your hardware every 2 years. I tend to want things that work to last a while. Too bad beginning with Windows 8 Microsoft is now in the disposable hardware business like it's rival.

gerrydoire
November 24th, 2012, 11:31 AM
Windows 7 Ultimate - cause I'm Ultimate!

Tried Windows 8, it offered nothing I needed changes too, so it was wiped and 7 put back in, lucky 7 eh?

Some of my Computers still have XP.

:)