Which Operating System Do You Prefer?

[TalonStrike]

I like Windows

 

[nemesismk2]

I like Windows too

 

[stahlhart]

Me three

 

[gmaster456]

Windows. It does the most for me. Although recently I have been enjoying Ubuntu. I used it a lot a few years ago.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Windows. I have tried several Linux distros over the years and yes, I can see great merit in them. But I'm accustomed to my Windows/Office workflow (OpenOffice Calc will never match Excel), plus I game.

I should also state that I am the only person I know who owns a Zune HD 32GB and a Windows Phone 7 cellphone. Yeah, I guess I'm a Microsoft Windows guy. I am also holding off on Tablets until Windows 8 Tablets arrive.

 

[ThatsABigOne]

If I were not a gamer, then I would definitely use Debian linux.

 

[insect9]

I use Linux. Mainly because that's what I use at work, so I use it at home too. I don't game much anymore either.

 

[wiin]

I like windows so i could see the birds and the bees outside.

 

[nickbits]

Os/2 warp

 

[VinylxScratches]

OpenSuse

 

[Red Squirrel]

Linux for servers, or any machine that has a dedicated purpose, Windows for workstation where things just have to be easy and work out of the box.

 

[Paperlantern]

I use the tool (OS) that is right for the job. I like the one that fulfills that role best.

I use Windows, Mac OS, Linux Mint, CentOS, Peppermint Two, Ubuntu, and Debian among others.

 

[Chaotic42]

Windows for gaming and productivity
OpenBSD for firewalling

I like Debian, and in fact I'm about to install it on my new laptop, but with Windows getting better and better, I really have no true use for it. I like it, but it doesn't fill any of my needs. It's just fun, I guess.

 

[Rifter]

Windows for gaming.

Linux for anything else.

 

[Chaotic42]

No Plan 9 or HURD users here?

 

[IronWing]

CP/M

 

[Magic Carpet]

I have liked Windows XP. Windows Vista / 7, not so much. Prior I had been using almost exclusively FreeBSD. That was a great OS. Apple knew what it was doing ;-p

Thinking of moving my business computers to open source at some point next year. The newer Windows software is starting to frustrate me big time. Control is everything.

 

[sourceninja]

I'm a mac user, although I'd prefer linux, I'm just lazy.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Wouldn't it be nice if Windows... would be able to compile its kernel exclusively just for your hardware without having tons of legacy / inappropriate junk spread across your hard drive / memory footprint.

Windows is an AMD bulldozer. Good at everything, excels at nothing. Kills your brain too.

3) Wouldn't be nice to have a console-like gaming OS for PC hardware so people could dual-boot or smth. Current Windows D3D technology is a fail. Can't make use of hardware, slow... inefficient.

Bill Gates's invention. The world would have been a better place without him ;-p

 

[MBrown]

Windows. I've played around with Linux and OSX but Windows just does what I need.

 

[Nothinman]

Wouldn't it be nice if Windows... would be able to compile its kernel exclusively just for your hardware without having tons of legacy / inappropriate junk spread across your hard drive / memory footprint.

No, that would be pointless. The core of the Windows kernel is already as small as it's going to get and 99% of the hardware support is in the form of drivers which aren't loaded if the hardware doesn't exist anyway. So you might save a little disk space by choosing to not install them, but then it becomes a PITA when you add hardware.

People thought the same thing about the Linux kernel for a while, but the savings just aren't worth it. The "inappropriate junk" spread across the drive is all userland legacy support, you can't remove that if you expect to actually do anything with the system.

Windows is an AMD bulldozer. Good at everything, excels at nothing. Kills your brain too.

3) Wouldn't be nice to have a console-like gaming OS for PC hardware so people could dual-boot or smth. Current Windows D3D technology is a fail. Can't make use of hardware, slow... inefficient.

Maybe, but then how would MS sell consoles? The whole gaming OS thing has been thought of for years, but it's just not worth the inconvenience of having to reboot. The same reason no one likes to dual-boot Linux and Windows either, you just end up using whichever one you're more comfortable with and wasting space on the other.

Bill Gates's invention. The world would have been a better place without him ;-p

As much as I dislike Windows and Bill Gates, he made the PC ubiquitous so he deserves some amount of respect.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Maybe, but then how would MS sell consoles? The whole gaming OS thing has been thought of for years, but it's just not worth the inconvenience of having to reboot.

I am just saying.. that I would certainly buy a product that would be 100% games oriented and work with current PC hardware. Why not make for example a.... Windows 7 Gaming Edition?

I don't have issues with dual-booting. The main culprit is DirectX though and the way modern games are developed. Probably will just remain a niche product in the from of consoles but I hate consoles. I would upgrade every year if there was a need. Life's too short to rely on consoles ;-p

But yeah... business and enthusiasm are two different animals. I really adored 3dfx... and look where they are now!

As much as I dislike Windows and Bill Gates, he made the PC ubiquitous so he deserves some amount of respect.

oh, I do have respect for the him. However, it would be really interesting to see where things could have gone, had IBM picked a different partner.

 

[TheVrolok]

I prefer linux, but I still game occasionally so I'm stuck with Windows. I used to dual boot, but I just don't like the inconvenience.

 

[HeXen]

From a technical standpoint, i prefer Linux. But from a compatability and commercial application development standpoint. i prefer Windows.
Linux just has far more control. Windows is kinda dumbed down and has a tendancy to get slow over time. more vulnerable to junkware abuse and shady TOS agreements from 3rd parties. then theres viruses and countless, worthless apps that you shouldnt have to use anyway.

 

[Nothinman]

I am just saying.. that I would certainly buy a product that would be 100% games oriented and work with current PC hardware. Why not make for example a.... Windows 7 Gaming Edition?

Because in order to work well the hardware list would be so small that it would effectively be a console anyway. So why not just get an XBox and do it right? No one wants to fight with driver and DX issues when trying to get a game to run and the only way to do that is to tightly control the hardware and drivers in use.

I don't have issues with dual-booting. The main culprit is DirectX though and the way modern games are developed. Probably will just remain a niche product in the from of consoles but I hate consoles. I would upgrade every year if there was a need. Life's too short to rely on consoles ;-p

Then you have more patience than I and most people do. I can't stand having to reboot and lose my place in everything that I have open.

But yeah... business and enthusiasm are two different animals. I really adored 3dfx... and look where they are now!

I think 3dfx's fail was that they were so proprietary. It worked out really well at first, but once they got some competition and more open standards like OpenGL and DirectX appeared they got screwed. Why use Glide and support 1 set of cards when I can use OpenGL and support all of them?

oh, I do have respect for the him. However, it would be really interesting to see where things could have gone, had IBM picked a different partner.

True and the primary difference would be in that partner and IBM's target focus. Gates wanted a PC on every desktop, but if IBM were in charge they would probably focus on business and mainframes and leave the regular consumers out in the cold. IBM has opened up a lot over the past few years because of the open nature of PC hardware, Linux, etc but if they were in control I doubt that would've happened.