I invite you all to list the operating system of your choice to be run on a modern multimedia computer system. Feel free to provide reasons why you favor a particular operating system over others. My hope is that through debate we can all learn something new about various operating systems available today.
DESKTOP OS! Whats your preference?
- Thread starter ZombieJesus
- Start date
OpenBSD, Linux, Win2k, or Mac OS X. Not necessarily in that order. I use threeof the four as desktops/workstations.
Anything linux.
Debian unstable specificly, although Fedora is a close second (displacing Gentoo). But that can change on a whim.
Probably pick any of the *bsd's, I just haven't because Linux does everything I want and does it fairly well.
I like the general unix philosophy a lot in software design.
I beleive that making a OS nothing but a bunch of gigantic do-all programs with lots of features and dialogs may make it initially easier to use, but drasicly cut down on the overal usefullness. By dividing tasks and roles into a bunch or interrelated tools that the user can directly manipulate will make it harder to use at first but will make a much more powerful and flexable system. Once a user understands how to fit the pieces together that user can do things faster and acheive higher overall quality then otherwise would be possible.
Then again you don't want to get bogged down with trivialities (allowing laziness thru automation are wonderfull things in a OS), a quick GUI is great as a front end to those tools and makes work easier, just as long as it doesn't interfere with the ability of a user to manipulate most parts of the OS at the various levels of abstraction. (which is a very hard thing to design a GUI to do)
OS X is good and enjoyable to use, but not Free (don't care about $, it's as in freedom) and the big overcontrolling GUI and related systems are annoying after a while so I am not going out of my way to use it, but I would like to definately dual boot it because I like how Apple does the UI and would like to learn from it and I admire the foward looking nature of the technology they include in their computers.
It is a nice diversion from normal *nix way of doing stuff once you get over the constrictive nature of Mac OSes (even windows users feel constrained at times.) it's nice to use. (go with the Apple flow)
Debian unstable specificly, although Fedora is a close second (displacing Gentoo). But that can change on a whim.
Probably pick any of the *bsd's, I just haven't because Linux does everything I want and does it fairly well.
I like the general unix philosophy a lot in software design.
I beleive that making a OS nothing but a bunch of gigantic do-all programs with lots of features and dialogs may make it initially easier to use, but drasicly cut down on the overal usefullness. By dividing tasks and roles into a bunch or interrelated tools that the user can directly manipulate will make it harder to use at first but will make a much more powerful and flexable system. Once a user understands how to fit the pieces together that user can do things faster and acheive higher overall quality then otherwise would be possible.
Then again you don't want to get bogged down with trivialities (allowing laziness thru automation are wonderfull things in a OS), a quick GUI is great as a front end to those tools and makes work easier, just as long as it doesn't interfere with the ability of a user to manipulate most parts of the OS at the various levels of abstraction. (which is a very hard thing to design a GUI to do)
OS X is good and enjoyable to use, but not Free (don't care about $, it's as in freedom) and the big overcontrolling GUI and related systems are annoying after a while so I am not going out of my way to use it, but I would like to definately dual boot it because I like how Apple does the UI and would like to learn from it and I admire the foward looking nature of the technology they include in their computers.
It is a nice diversion from normal *nix way of doing stuff once you get over the constrictive nature of Mac OSes (even windows users feel constrained at times.) it's nice to use. (go with the Apple flow)
Mac OS X. Windows XP Pro. Not necessarily in that order. 
Linux? Heh. On servers, fine. Or if you REALLY like to experiment. IMO, it STILL ain't ready for the desktop.
Linux? Heh. On servers, fine. Or if you REALLY like to experiment. IMO, it STILL ain't ready for the desktop.Originally posted by: arsbanned
Mac OS X. Windows XP Pro. Not necessarily in that order.
Depends on what desktop you like.
Why does everything have to be absoletely generic and always be designed for the stupid people? What if grandma can't use my computer, then it's useless for me? And if a computer is something my grandma can use then that's better for my needs?
I don't think so.
I set up my desktop for me, my needs, and how I want it. It's more effecient and well designed then anything Apple or Windows can hope to produce.(for you it may be crap, but why not have it different for your needs or your wants?) It's like having a tailored suit vs spandex.
For me if one button is good, 2 buttons are better, and 3 buttons are better yet. But sometimes I like my interface with a 104 buttons and 90% of the time I don't want it dumbed down.
For me MS Windows still has just a bit of an edge over others just because when hardware manufacturers make a new product, they always write Windows drivers for it. That makes most hardware more functional sooner on Windows than on other systems.
With companies line nVidia, ATi, and Promise now writing native drivers for Linux, that's eroding at Microsoft's advantage and pushing Linux towards best choice for savvy users,
With companies line nVidia, ATi, and Promise now writing native drivers for Linux, that's eroding at Microsoft's advantage and pushing Linux towards best choice for savvy users,
Linux, except for the the GODDAMN STINKING PEICE OF ANIMAL WASTE THAT IS ATI'S BINARY DRIVERS
ARGH
oh and xfree86 sucks the great big balls in the sky too
ARGH
oh and xfree86 sucks the great big balls in the sky too
Windows 2K. It works for me. Stable and customizable. I have tried Linux variants and it's too much like work.
seriously? how is it? ive been wondering but am too lazy to try new stuff on my main rig, if i get my second one up agin i may try sky, and definitely linux of some sort. prefer linux, use windows...must game
Skitzer
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2000
- 4,414
- 3
- 81
Windows 2K Pro ....... still the best Windows OS out there. I use Win XP on another machine and it runs Ok but not as good as 2K IMO.
My 2k Pro machine has been running without issue for almost 3 years and has gone through 3 computer overhauls (mainboards, cpus, memory, optical drives, video cards, etc). I almost feel bad about never having to format and reinstall ....... NOT!
My 2k Pro machine has been running without issue for almost 3 years and has gone through 3 computer overhauls (mainboards, cpus, memory, optical drives, video cards, etc). I almost feel bad about never having to format and reinstall ....... NOT!
I love anything that is linux related except the old linux that are archaic. I personlly hate their old fashioned looking guis.
my two cents.
my two cents.
Ditto.
I would (of course) have OS X as a dual boot, and use Mac-on-Linux to get the best of both worlds.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
I use XP 2003, but only because it was free... any of the XP's are pretty great for desktop use.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter