Poll: Best Operating System for an x86 platform

[JonJon]

Well it's been awhile since i've done one of my infamous polls but i think it's time to break the silence to let's hear what you guys think....also remember that although i do like to believe that i'm divine, i am not all knowing and all seeing so let me know if i left anything out...thanx ladies and gentlemen.....

Jon

 

[Noriaki]

It would be Win2000 by a large margin, but I had some issues with ATi TV-Wonder drivers (no that that is MS's fault) and I had some issues with refresh rates always reverting to 60Hz (I think this might also be a driver issue).

While neither of those things are enough to displace it from the best x86 OS running, they are annoying enough to make it a close call between that and Win98SE (which is very stable on my machine BTW).

I'm going to give my Vote to Win2000Pro though I don't really use it right now.

(And lets not have any mentions on the Tux, I love Linux, but it's more of a hobby for me and it's good for a lot of things, but for all my games and most of my productivity with my computer is windows based, any serious work I do goes to the Windows side)


Edit: hey JonJon could you make a distinction between Win98 and Win98SE? Win98 1st ed. was the buggiest most crashiest OS i've ever seen or heard about . Win98SE is a huge jump over 98FE...I think Win98FE->SE was a bigger jump than 98SE->ME (ok I'm biased, I can't stand the sight of WinME :cool

 

[JonJon]

yeah but noriaki if i started to get that specific then i would have to write every edition for every OS up there....win98 is still win98 so in general that's what you're voting for....

 

[JonJon]

and by the way for my vote i chose win95 b/c it was the first step for ms away from DOS and it was very simple...wasn't loaded with all that MS junk that you find in 98. it also seemed to be quicker and had a few less bugs on my machine. i've never been able to get 2000 to run right. there's just not enough support for it when taking about software but it's great for productivity but overall i think 95 takes the cake.....

 

[delano]

You should add *BSD..

 

[TonyRic]

OS/2 (Tony ducks at the thrown rotten vegetables). But seriously, even though the device support id gone for the newer stuff, it still has the most advanced and feature rich interfaces and was fairly rock solid for stability.

 

[FOBSIDE]

i dont think this poll is going to get anywhere. some people like windows, some people like linux, and some people like *nix. each OS has its strong points.

its like trying to figure out what car is better. some cars handle better, some have more power, and some never break down.

 

[JonJon]

<< i dont think this poll is going to get anywhere. some people like windows, some people like linux, and some people like *nix. each OS has its strong points. >>



i disagree fobside, i think you can pick out which operating system you think performs the best...it's not really much different from picking a video card or processor...they both do the same function...it's about which one you think can perform the function the best and the function of the os is managing your hardware resources so just vote about which one does this the best for you....

 

[jtshaw]

I voted for Linux for some simple reasons. Linux is bar far the most customizable, easy to mess with, OS on that list (I don't get your UNIX choice...there is no one unix, there is BSD, Solaris, DecUnix, AIX, ect.). I like linux because not only can I run it on my x86 AMD or Intel system but I can run it on tons of other systems too, Sparc's, PPC, IA-64 (once the damn chips come out), ect. ect. Both Intel and AMD bring up there new processor in Linux before everything else because it is the easiest OS to optimize for a processor. You don't need months of work with Microsoft engineers, you just need a guy that knows the processors features and architecture and the C programming language. In my experience Linux is the most stable and efficient OS on that list too, though it must be set up right for that to be true. Basically, it comes down to the fact I am a control freak and windows doesn't give me enough control Why did you leave out BSD btw?! Oh well, I suppose I would have had to debate between Linux and BSD then which wouldn't have been easy.

 

[themadmonk]

JonJon for the x86 platform, I think Windows family is definately the best. Personally I feel that the software and hardware support on the x86 is unmatched compared to other OSes.

 

[Rendus]

What, no QNX entry?

One vote for BeOS.

 

[jkersenbr]

It depends on the purpose of the machine. My picks:

General home use: Windows98SE
General SOHO/business use: Windows2000 (or NT if <400 MHz and <96MB RAM)
Gaming: Windows98 First Edition w/SP1 and DirectX7.0a
File/Print Serving: Linux (my distrib is Mandrake); W2K is a close second but takes faster hardware
Web Serving: Linux (Apache -- what else)
Routing (Internet): Freesco (derivitive of Linux, but much easier than Linux Router Project)
MP3 Player (dedicated): BeOS (not that I've done this but that I want to do this!)

I don't do programming, but see how Linux running various Windows in VMWare could be a useful programming/web development platform.

That's my $.02

 

[JonJon]

come on guys voice your opinions

 

[BCYL]

Windows 2000 in general... although many knowledged computer ppl would prefer other OS's, for the average computer user MS's ease of use would be important...

So I pick Windows 2000 over other Windows versions for it's stability...

 

[Matero]

The best OS on x86 is definantly Windows 2000. Under each question is a ranking of Win2k, Linux, and Be.

1)Does it have excellent hardware support?
Win2k-Yes
Linux-Supports some hardware, people making lots of drivers
BeOS-No


2)How stable is it?
Linux-Extremely stable to moderately stable depending on quality of user
Win2k-Not as stable as Linux tweaked perfectly but more stable then almost anything else.
BeOS - Stable, but not to the level of Win2k or Linux. Definantly still a strong point of the OS

3)Does it have excellent software support?
Win2k - Yes
Linux- Yes but no (Lots of develpoing tools, little stuff for entertainment, and we are talking about an all around package
BeOS - Absolutely horrid

4)How easy is it to use?
Win2k - Arguably the easiest here
BeOS - Macs should have been like this
Linux - Anyone who thinks linux is easier then Windows has been using linux too long =)


5)How fast is it?
All 3 OSes are very fast, but Be wins the crown here. I don't want to call Win2k or Linux for #2

6)How well do they scale?
Linux is the best at scaling, allowing room for a tiny little network to a massive worldwide powerhouse.

Windows 2000 scales very well to large systems, but not as well as Linux

Be was intended as a desktop OS, not a server OS.

7)How ubitiquous is the OS
Win2k is supported almost everywhere, hands down

Linux is quickly growing and might overtake Windows someday, but that day is not today

Be is a dead OS in this regard, almost noone uses it.


8) How good is the OS for a desktop? (Single user overall capabilites)
Win2k wins it here, for the whole package deal. It isn't the fastest (But it is fast), it isn't the most reliable(But it is reliable), it is arguably the easiest to use, it is what most people are used to so you don't need to retrain. It just works.

BeOS comes in second. While it dosen't have MS Office or even staroffice, it has equivalent programs (That are much less bloated but nearly as functional I might add) but they aren't compatiable with Office. It is also easy to use, and it flies. Problems are lack of hardware and software support and lack of networking.

Linux comes in dead last as desktop OS because it is so hard to use. It has an MS Office equivalent program that is compatiable, but it is very hard for most people to use. Take your average secretary in front of a Linux box even with Eazel running and they will be confused and having no idea what they are doing. Try it and see .

So Linux gets the #2 spot, and Be takes #3.


I am only considering those 3 OSes because if you want something that is

 

[lsd]

<< Win2k-Not as stable as Linux tweaked perfectly but more stable then almost anything else. >>



I don`t see how Win2k is not as stable as any linux distro.
Win2k is rock stable, on the level of any linux distro.

Been running win2k for close to 1 year now. (used RC 2 for about 6 months).
I voted for win2k.

 

[IamDavid]

Win2K all the way...

 

[jmcoreymv]

Its not as simple as whats the best x86 OS... If its a server then *nix is the best in general and if its a workstation then win2k pro is the best in general although it depends on what you want to do.

 

[Sunner]

For a server, UNIX/Linux anyday.

For a gaming machine, Win2000.

For a serious work/development box, Linux.

I like Linux best generally cause of its open nature, you can literally do anything you want with it, even make your own distro should you feel ambitious.

I definately dont like Windows since I dont like Microsoft, and their habbit of sticking stuff down people's throat.

 

[Looney]

<< i disagree fobside, i think you can pick out which operating system you think performs the best...it's not really much different from picking a video card or processor...they both do the same function >>



Well, you said it right in your own words... are there any absolute, concrete agreement of what the best videocard is out right now? Some will say GF2 for FPS, some say Radeon for FPS, quality, and features, some say V5 because of FSAA (and hopefully soon fps too with the new HSR).

 

[BudB]

W2K - stable!

 

[Priit]

Linux everywhere. IMHO Win9x/2K is better only for gaming. Linux might be hard to install, but end-user with KDE should be even happier than behind Windows (I've seen one user, who worked under KDE over half year and always thought that he is using W98 ) And KDE is translated into my native language, too, so &quot;dumb-user&quot; don't have to understand english for working

 

[Rigoletto]

I put my vote in for WindowsME.
Advantages:
fantastic support for hardware and software, and multimedia
fast in every way
superb system restore facility saving me from having to reinstall after all my tweaking and installations
Disadvantages:
none but a higher use on memory than previous OSes. But RAM is quite cheap, who cares?

 

[Rigoletto]

I put my vote in for WindowsME.
Advantages:
fantastic support for hardware and software, and multimedia
fast in every way
superb system restore facility saving me from having to reinstall after all my tweaking and installations
Disadvantages:
none but a higher use on memory than previous OSes. But RAM is quite cheap, who cares?

 

[Rigoletto]

><