Hey,I have now Mac OS X Leopard now,and I am wondering witch os is best?I have Linux,XP,Vista,Mac OS X Leopard and Tiger.I am running Mac OS X Leopard right now.
Which OS is best? Easy! The one YOU most like to use. I use Vista and Linux currently. XP was good. 98SE was good. I have never used OSX except illegally in vmware. It sucked, but in fairness to Apple, I did not run it on the hardware it was designed for. I wont be getting anything Apple anytime soon. I feel Linux is the best. I could live with Vista alone but I would prefer to live with Linux alone. I have used Linux alone for a few years, only school has forced me to use Vista. But I am happy for the experience and actually like it a lot. Better than XP? Yeah, I think so. It is still Windows though... I am the master of Linux. I can tweak any distro to my liking. I have no problems doing anything I want. I do not like the way Linux is heading, especially Gnome and KDE. I do not like distros that install everything including the kitchen sink by default. I do not like distros that hide features because the developers fear the stupid noob is gonna screw things up. I do not care if I have to install codecs and drivers myself, in fact I prefer it. It is easier to add to a distro instead of having to strip it. I laugh at all the crybabies who complain it is too hard to install a binary using a package manager with a GUI frontend. All the dummies saying "Linux will never beat Windows..." Good! Serious Linux users are already paying the price for those who want to make Linux appeal to more Windows users. I say "go away!" "Go back to Windows, we dont want crybabies and whiners!" "You are ruining my distro!" Which OS is best? I hope Windows wins this poll! I like Windows, it is a great OS. Easy to use and understand, it just works for the most part, it is fully supported everywhere. Does it have flaws? Sure, they all do. But I agree Windows is probably the best OS for most people. Me? I am a Linux user through and through.
OS9 if I had a choice. OSX with no choice. Windoze is a salami OS; good for what it is, but don't expect too much. Linux/Unix- nerd candy Os's; not for the masses
Fair enough. But I wonder, have you looked at Linux lately? They have all come a very long way especially in the last 2-3 years. If you get a spare hour or two why not download an iso from here and try it out http://www.linuxmint.com/ I am using the Xfce edition and it is just "right." You no longer have to be a nerd or even open a terminal. Everything is automatic and with just a little knowledge you can have the best 3D window manager in the OS world by using the shame debian compiz-fusion repo. I still stick by my post above in that I agree the masses should stay with Windows, but the folks over at Mint would disagree and they have certainly created an attractive product for someone looking for an alternative.
Windows is good for nothing. The only decent Windows version was windows 2000 more stable than XP and Vista together If Linux is for nerds .We dont the fault windows users dont wanna use nothing else or cant undertand it. That what the Linux forums are for but lots of them dont even bother asking just flamming . That not our problem pure envy. They always hate Linux never have even see it OSX is more closed than Guantanamo even than Windows Apple is supposed the the anti M$ but do as the same as M$ but with worst protections and drms on all macs and ipods . Now the mac popularity is increasing and are not are a thing from the 2% of population anymore and re noe liek 15% . Apple coule become the next M$ but worst. M$ have been decling slowly since Ballmer is the new ceo this past years. Evene Linux have been increasing i have knew more Linux users on my stupid town In others we are returning to the tendency prior back to 1992 whwne were most options than just MS DOSI mean whne was also DR DOS PC -DOS Novell DOS. Was back then when I first started not just only one stupid Winbloze to follow I am happy I thought I was never gonna see this again but the history constantly repeat itself What is happening these is that people only see Obama i dont what. The global warming I dont what, the global economy to hell. And dont see the other things that happens on this life And if you hate nerds. The lens on themwhat just a hollywood created crap. Intelligent isnt doing by some stupid sunglasses The same with they dont do exercise or are fat And younger generations dont discrimante nerds as used to be coz all youngers are on their laptop. The nerd thing is getting fashion these days It looks jag is getting stuck with the things and statics of 5 years back
Keep politics out of this thread - only warning. All of the OSs mentioned serve a purpose. Windows is the "everyone" OS - it will do pretty much everything you want, and it has a fairly low learning curve. OS/X really shines with the graphic programs - almost all art schools advise their students to purchase a Mac for a reason. Linux is great because it's efficient and free - however, it has the largest learning curve. With a bunch of learning and research, you can get it to do whatever you want. However, for someone who is not computer savvy, Linux is not a good choice. You need to have a fair amount of computer knowledge to pick it up well (novices can learn to use it, but it'll take more effort than learning Windows). Now, yes, there are Linux forums, but they tend to be very technical, and for someone who has no idea on computers, this would be quite overwhelming, IMO. Linux has begun to shy away from as much console (there is quite a bit of GUI implementation now), but it's still much more efficient to use the console (for the same reason I prefer standard cars).
i think the problem relies in that people tend to give it up pretty soon. Linux isnt hard to learn as once was.
Linux is for more advanced users,so I don´t like it.I like Windows and Mac OS X.On Linux I don´t know install anything.Windows and Mac are more for beginners.Just I don´t like Apple computers.They cost too much.
Okay, everyone sit right where you are, hands where I can see them. I am hijacking this puppy! Myth number 1 is gonna be busted! I will not even begin to argue with the statement that Linux is for more advanced users. It is not something that you can do without any thought. But, if you can apply game patches, set up an emulator, figure out how to hook into a server and play an online game then Linux is childs play! Yes, there are a lot of people out there who use a computer every day but still fail to understand basic principles. They have learned just enough to open Office Word and write a document or open IE and get to where they need to go. The saving grace Windows has over Linux for these folks is that there is always someone around that can fix Windows for them. But, I state my above challenge to Jag again, directed at everyone who thinks Linux is still hard. Go to the Linux Mint URL, download the Xfce edition and run it live. Be warned it will lag bad, live CDs are not fast. Installed on a drive this thing is like greased lightning. It prompts the user for everything. Drivers and codecs are installed, if it is a restricted driver you have to click "yes." It is EASIER to install than Vista!!! I believe the skill level for a home desktop user would be harder to install and learn Vista IF THEY WERE STARTING WITH 0 KNOWLEDGE. But the myth I want to bust is the program installation myth that it is hard to install apps in Linux. I mention this above in my first post. I cannot deny that people have problems with this, every day tens, even hundreds of people are crying in Linux forums around the web. But this is all due to a lack of understanding of the system. See, unlike Windows, Linux packages are usually kept in repositories for each distro. One stop shopping. Now, there are essentially three ways to install a package (program or app, but a package might just be a piece of a program). The first way is to compile from source. Any Linux app can be run in any Linux distro with the exception that a dependency may not be available, such as a kernel version, etc...But if an app is created for Ubuntu then it can be made to work in any distro. Linux is Linux. This is how Linux started and why people still use distros like Gentoo where certain flags can be set during compile to optimize that app for your system. Now, I will grant that this takes some knowledge. The compile itself is usually straightforward, extracting the source and using ./configure, make, make install. The problems come in solving for dependencies. It can become quite a tangled web. So Linux developed package managers to take care of this. These package managers have to use special binaries such as RPMs or .deb's. You can install a .deb or rpm package without the package manager and still fight the deps, but this is where apt-get and yum and others come in. They will not only install the package you want but all the deps that go with it. Most serious Linux users use binaries through a package manager these days. Using the package manager through the terminal is very versatile and powerful and also very fast with no overhead. Just about every open source package known is compiled from source by that distro's package handlers (groups of volunteers that "watch" certain packages that interest them) are built to optimize for that distro and are stored in one place in a "safe" repository. There are levels of supervision here so the user can be assured the package is 100% safe from any malware. Fedora just went through a long period where they SUSPECTED their repo was hacked so they shut down, rebuilt everything with new keys and did not offer updates till everything was secure, which was about three weeks. Extreme? Maybe, but they take this stuff seriously. But, this was still hard for people who just dont like seeing weird words in a terminal. So there are a ton of GUI frontends for the various package managers, with Synaptic being the best known. Now there is just no excuse for this myth. I want a package. I open my menu, select Synaptic and open it. I am prompted for my password and the GUI opens. Inside are thousands of packages of about every app anyone has any interest in. I have a search function I can use, say if I want an audio player. I get descriptions of all the packages. I select what I want to install and the computer thinks for a second and i get a list telling me of all the deps it will install with my package. I browse the list, see everything is acceptable and click ok. The computer installs the packages, they appear in my menu and I am happy. Hard? How so? Unlike Windows, where you have to google and search all over the web for what you need it is all in one place. I dont even need to open a web browser. When I want to remove an app it is simply the reverse. The package manager handles everything.
Now, what happens when I need something not in the repo? Google earth is a good example. Many proprietary apps have their own systems. So the first thing you do is try to find a binary for your system. I look for a .deb i386 file and click on it and my package installer opens prompting me to click OK. Hard? Hardly! Lol. In the case of google earth you do have to compile. So you download the tar.gz (like a .zip) to your /home (like my documents) and extract it (right click - extract here) then you right click-open a terminal here and either copy paste the command given in the instructions into the terminal or just type it in. sh GoogleEarthLinux.bin. Yep, real difficult! Very very rarely will you ever have to actually compile anything from source. It is really not as hard as people make out. But, most distros have friendly forums where someone would most likely be very happy to build a binary for you. Hey, it is what it is. It all depends on what you know and your mindset. But having used (and still using) both Windows and Linux i can assure you that this whole installing programs thing is all in the user's head. I have 5 kids who all use Linux and who will all tell you that installing programs in Windows is a PITA. I agree.
Best os, depends on what do you need, what will you use it for, and how do you like ti. There is no ultimate best os. Yes, Linux is very good os, especially if you want more freedom and options. Installation, very easy. Use, too. Installing apps, did it, once you get it is not hard. Until you don't run in problems. And few frustrations. For example: When it came to my two displays, resolution and drivers - nightmare. It only used smaller display, and i couldn't find way to tell it to use bigger one, except if i unplugged small one. So I tried to install some drivers i found on nVidia, not installing no mater what. And resolution was locked on 1024x786. And codecs didn't give me easy time too. Installed DivX codec, opened .avi and no picture. Solved that one in few hours, but never could make a dualview on my two displays. Windows is for those who don't like to have learning curve for few days. MS policy do it for idiots, and everyone will use it, is success. As for vista, have it, works fine after SP1 runs without errors. You just need good computer for it. Could use some improvements, but ok for now. Hope Windows 7 will be even better. But ill test that distro JN4OldSchool suggested. Might work better for me than previous one.
Yep, video drivers is a weak point with Linux. The fact that every distro seems to have a different method of installing it does not help either. In Fedora it is NOT a good idea to use the driver right from nVidia, in other distros this IS the one to use. Once you figure out the distro's system it is not bad, but every time you switch to another distro you have to figure out their system. Dual head? Yeah, I have heard the same complaints as yours. I dont know if that is even fixable. Running the same res on both monitors works fine but there seems to be a problem with trying to run two different resolutions. Wireless is also a major headache but is getting better with every new distro release. There are a few problem chips but most do have solutions. Between madwifi and nidiswrapper most can be made to work, but it is a major trial most of the time and it gets really difficult when you cant plug the computer in to the router. In Linux's defense though there is a reason for these problems and others such as the codec issue and other peripherals that wont work. In fact, considering the FOSS framework it is a miracle that ANY peripherals work. Linux developers do a great job of making these things work any way they can. Lack of standardization in packages (see my lecture in my last posts) also makes life hard for the manufacturers like nVidia who DO support Linux. All in all though, I will take Linux as it is. These flaws, though hard on noobs, are mostly easily overcome. It is a very rare device that simply will just not work in Linux and then if you are a Linux user you know to steer clear of these. There is also something to be said about keeping Linux to the old ways. One of my most used quotes is easier is always better but not at the price of function. I strongly feel that anyone using Linux NEEDS to learn to be comfortable with the terminal, needs to understand the file hierarchy, needs to be able to use nano, vim, or at least gedit or kate to edit xorg.conf or fstab. A Linux user needs to understand hard drive labeling and be able to manually mount a device. If someone does not want to become this involved with their OS then I feel they have no business using Linux. That said, Mint proves the opposite. It will probably have the same problem running dual head but you will find the codecs are no issue.
For me Problem relies on this. Most now Born and grew with win++++es. I am before Windows When people saw my Windows 3.0 (not 3.1) they looks strange rare. Several didnt want to abandon the DOS ccoammandline that now for most DOS its a pain in the ass do it any thing say command My sister didnt want to abadon Works 2.0 over MS Word 6.0 If OSX were the popular and trhe WInbloze were the rare the OSX should be the most easy to use right? And M$ have cotributred to people become lazy honestly. I am agree the guy that say hat. The icon dispares and they do ont now how to launch the executabale from the \program file folder anymore and dont mention what is executabke for the most you try they never undestand and is basic no somthething advenced And for those things like they finish with expensive nerd idiots like me to fix their pc. The difference that I dont try to scam people or make lies cheating get easy money like others of how I can I call them? mates? on my city And OSX is not bad os at all is very stable more than Windows . But my main gripe rae that very closed source and the drm protections what I dont like. The same goes for itunes
For me I am a Wintel chap, so I am happy with XP. But I am liking Vista all the time. As a gamer DX10 does give you a few added extra's. Which is great for me Poll added
Soo true JN4OldSchool. But I just like to experiment with other oses, so I just cant pass not trying it. Dual boot should do the trick. I have started using Linux half year ago, and can say thats really true. Still don't know half of it, but i am making progress.
Hope you dont get upset that day I was having a bit fun that day but I was not angry You know I hate Windows But If you like well use it
The only thing 5 years old here is acal's mental development. My fondness for OS9 is due to the fact that it was the only truly modern OS developed thus far. Developing the true next step was too much even for Apple. Copland, Rhapsody: the OS 10's that never were. OSX is OS9ish enough that I tolerate it; as if I have much choice left. 90% of my surfing is on an OS9 machine; all my email goes through this. It has no viral or trojan protection~ doesn't need it. I give Windows credit for trying to come up with something new. Sure it's just a much evolved MS-DOS that ripped IBM's PC-DOS. I said trying not 'did'. Yeah DX-10 is like MS' insurance that linux remains a minority. Gaming is best done on a Windows equipped unit. Apple only costs more if'n you buy cheap PC's to begin with. My Alienware cost as much as either Powerbook. My daughter's dell's are pretty cheap though. Linux is just a gussied up Unix- --which is why I'm not crazy about OSX(it's a gussied up unix too). Praising Linux is almost as laughable as lamenting the passing of Cobol and Fortran from the commercial sector(they still flourish in the govt). the developers of Unix themselves are on record stating that none of them ever thought an OS they developed in the 1970's would still be of significant use in the 21st century. They assumed a better OS would have been developed by now. The kernal mod that became known as linux is still a reprise of the same Old Song. we can do better but why bother, we're all too lazy and this way is much easier JN4~ my brother inlaw has been an ardent linux evangelist for awhile now. Given everything I've had to learn to troubleshoot the PC's, I'm in agreement with your take regarding the overall efficacy of LX vs MS. If you can rebuild your desktop from a significant crash; you can run linux. As noted by another, drivers can be iffy sometimes. Also, not all PC games run as well on Linux(due mostly to gfx driver issues). All in all I hate all the present OS's, they're all lame in their own unique way. Our edwin's need to get off their collective arses and develop a true OS designed for hyperthreaded-multicored-mrammed-petaflopped CPU's. We're using OS's designed for CPU's with a speed of 75Mhz running a 26k modem to Arpanet~ and we wonder why there are system issues? It's like the B52's still flying in 2050. Not as much a triumph of 1950's industrial design, as it is an indictment of us refusing to do any better.
I am pretty much in agreement with all that Jag. Linux certainly has its roots in Unix which certainly has been around since the seventies. Even though this is kind of like saying you dislike the modern automobile because it has its roots in the model T. You quoted the Unix developers, Linus Torvaldes has even better quotes about his kernel. It was a science fair project, never meant to be much more than a novelty. Its very framework, FOSS, really precludes it from ever becoming a market force. It is a toy for tinkerers. It is almost ashame it is such a darn good OS for desktop, enterprise, server, and even embedded. I agree that it has evolved about as far as it can go and the only way for further change is to become something else. Linux is to MS as a chopped and channeled '32 is to a Lincoln Navigator. The hot rod is stripped, fast, functional and easy to work on. It is designed for those who find pleasure in this simplicity. The Navigator is full of crap you simply do not need to get to the store. Overall, all the current OS's, even those not mentioned like BSD and Solaris, plus the dozen or so less known or specialized operating systems, are all really just more of the same. Most are Unix based because that is simply the best model. Even Windows is due for some new thinking. I feel that the time just has not been right till now. A few novel OS's have been tried through the early part of this decade and have flopped. People (the customer base) are resistant to change, especially big changes. I think there is going to be a hardware revolution first. There will be some major changes in hardware and how computers work. Then, I hope, the software is going to follow. I dislike many of the ideas being thrown around now, such as cloud computing and invasive mini computer chips in every single thing we touch, but we can do better than what we use today. Much better. The secret will be to keep the computer in its place, not reach a point where nothing can function without them. The computer age is still new, even though we have had mainframes since the 1940's, it really wasnt until the late seventies that it took off. I remember that point in 1999 when we got the old Dell that is still up and running Mint today, and I sat back and said, "hmmm, 30GB drive, 256MB RAM...yep, we have reached a plateau here!" Computers keep getting better, 1GB RAM is bare minimum today, 30GB is very cramped today, but 1999 or so marked the point where home computers actually became useful. The internet had matured into what we see today, broadband was coming in, the hardware could actually perform tasks in a reasonable time without freezing, games became good, 3D graphics became the norm...We are still at the baby stages here, our current OSs are like baby bottles compared to what lies ahead. Windows is just a flash in the pan something we will remember back to when that OS dominated for a couple decades. Linux will be buried eventually. Time marches on.
aaaah more cyberfun!!!!!!!!! Lets start: M$ucks has contributed nothing in whole than their money a$$ on his whole time Ms dos version was a cheap copycat from pc dos from IBM first versions until 3.3 were the same code even start files were called ibmbios.com and ibmdos.com from 4.0 were io.sys and msdos.sys was when code started to change You always hate linux and critize is based in UNIX true the commaline is near the same but your osx is near the sametoo. But your osx 9 is based in unix actually in a UNIX variant called bsd so is the same as obsolete as linux is then. even more ver 9? And a UNIX pure system are pretty different in interface from linux have your seen solaris or the ancient plan 9 unix man even the windows manager is another on plan9 ? Also osx have consoles to the commanline something you hate the difference is made is made making more clicks on icons like the stupid W1nbloz3 and use less them have you cheked well your osx icons for something called xterm man ieven on Linux is available that konsole tooCongratulations. You know a lot Yes a lot but nothing from oses And industrial design? Wait what is that? Yes you are stuck on a hole from 50 years man I thought was 5 yes you are right I am wrong Forttran ? Wait nahhhhhhh That algebraic language is obsolete even more since Linux was ccreated right? If you hate every Linux distros unique OS style. What do you expect here there no standaraarization here and one of the reasons I love Linux hahahahaah!!!!! I guess Linux is not for you then. Continue on your Windoze or your "brand new" osx version PD Answer the thread fast I want more cyberrrrrrrrrrrrfun!!!!!
Sheesh Acal, you need a nap! But what you say is all true. I just wouldnt worry about it so much, people see what they want to see. Linux has a very bad side as does every other OS. I just cannot understand why people get so zealous over a computer operating system, though it really shouldnt surprise me. People argue about everything. Hey if you like the Gators then root for the Gators. If you like the Bulldogs then root for the Gators...never mind, dont try to figure it out... We love Linux, Jag does not. Jag thinks Linux sucks. So what? Does it really effect your day that much? Heck, Windows is dominating the poll (all 4 voters :sarcastic ) as if you really expected different. Part of the reason I didnt even bother voting and I am sure the same for you. Like I said, it is a good thing Windows is so popular. Linux is already being destroyed by this new generation of which we are a part. I do not mind making things easier, but the mystic is slowly disappearing. I like it when people say Linux users are geeks, are arrogant, are elitists. Darn tootin! I can work Linux AND Windows, most people are too dumb to even run Windows right! The only retaliation they have is to bad mouth Linux because they cannot understand it or make it work themselves. I am not saying Jag is in this category BTW, his complaints are legitimate and I do agree with what he said, in theory anyway. The Linux crowd has a blind spot. They want so bad to evangelize their OS that they fail to see they are destroying the very things that attracted them to it in the first place by making compromises designed to attract a handful of Windows users. The simple, cold, hard truth is that 99% of people just do not care what OS they are using. It is just a means to an end for them. It came on the computer and it works with little effort or knowledge. End of story. Linux users just need to accept this. BTW, I just got a BlackBerry Curve yesterday after decades of using cheap Nokia type basic cells. That is one neat little smartphone! I am so impressed at all the things it can do. This world is changing so fast these days. I wonder what it will be like in another 10 years?
There are also arrogant and elitist users on the stupid Winbloze side. But people always blame the Linux culture for that. Shambles was not that nice guy when he defended xp. There are a bunch of others I have known during years I dont care if people want to use a Winbloze , an OSX. Or Linux What I am tired i being called myself nerd coz they dont have brain to understand Linux And on this place I have to talk nice from Winblows since is a gamming forum . But is someone talk about bad about Linux that happens a lot then nobody complains And anyways not all people is good candidate to use Linux and less on this place
