Simple enough, right? CJ didn't like Azure Dragon and I feuding over Windows and Mac earlier, so here is such a haven. Mods: if the thread isn't in the right place, then feel free to move it and say where it is being moved to! This seemed a logical place since it asks a question and demands an answer! Hehe.

You can answer the poll in whatever context you like: Which do you use more? Which do you prefer more? etc. The only limiting factor is I want you answer based on what you use at home for personal use, not what you use for work. Ordinarily you don't have a choice of what you use for work and some of us require the use of a computer for work, so that negates any and all preferences.

As far as the poll's separation goes, I separated it according to differences in operating systems. Windows 9x is completely different from ME/2000/XP/Vista. ME is completely different from all others in its own unique ways *shudders at the memories*, 2000 and XP are essentially the same and most people are using these, Vista is of course very different from XP even though some people would have you believe that Vista is simply a glorified XP.

Likewise OS 9 and X are different. They also have different versions (OS X Tiger, Leopard, etc.) so please specify which version you are using.

Other pertains to the many operating systems that people use and aren't at all mainstream (Linux, Windows, and Mac are the biggest ones out there AFAIK), including Ubuntu, Solaris, etc.

Also please say why you prefer one operating system over another.

This isn't meant to be a fight, just seeing who uses what in their personal activities.


I personally use Windows 2000 as my primary operating system. It's lighter than XP and, in my experience, is the most stable operating system Microsoft has ever produced. I refuse to downgrade to XP simply because I much prefer using 2000 on my desktop than I do XP MCE 2005 on my laptop. Prior to my last hardware overhaul, 2000 was running faster and more efficiently on my desktop than XP was/is on my laptop. At that time, my desktop had a 2.0 GHz single-core processor, 256 MB dedicated graphics card, dedicated Creative Labs sound card, 512 MB DDR memory, 550 watt power supply, etc. My laptop had/has a 1.7 GHz Centrino mobile processor, 1 GB DDR2, 64 MB onboard graphics and onboard sound in a Dell Inspiron 17" WXGA package. The Dell ran video games better, but Win2k definitely outperformed WinXP in all areas despite having less ram and a comparable CPU. Now it's no contest since I upgraded to dual-core and 2 GB DDR2 and plan on getting two 8800 or two 9600 GT graphics cards to use SLI and kick ass in every video game out there.

Which brings me to what I use my PCs for... web surfing and video games. In a year or two I will be increasing that to CAD, after doing the aforementioned graphics upgrade, upgrade memory to 4 GB DDR2 800 MHz, and possibly upgrading to quad-core if AMD can get their act together to improve their Phenom line of processors. Lucky for me, Phenom uses the same socket as XP+ X2.

That said, I am waiting for Microsoft to either get the kinks out of Vista or for them to release their next Operating system (if it's at all good, since MS seems to have hit its pinnacle with Win2k is and now in a decline with the quality of each new release). I'd like to get 64-bit Vista just so that I can finally make full use of my 64-bit hardware and can also make use of DX10.

Reasons that I use or don't use some OSs:
Win9x - No longer using: 98SE was a good OS, just not as nice at Win2k. I really don't remember it though.
WinME - No longer using: MOST INFURIATING OPERATING SYSTEM EVER MADE!
Win2k - Using: Most familiar, most compatible, not infuriating at all.
WinXP - Using: Most familiar (set to Windows Classic mode), kind of compatible (some programs require XP+), not as infuriating.
WinVista - Not using: Slightly familiar (a little confusing, but nothing I can't handle in hour of perusing), not immediately compatible, but almost there, security prior to SP1 was infuriating, haven't played with it since then, performance prior to SP1 was sub-par according to tech articles.
Mac OS 9 - Not using: Never used, so no comment. This OS was before I knew anything about computers and so I had no opportunity to use it.
Mac OS X - Not using: Infuriatingly unfamiliar. I played with Tiger and Leopard at Best Buy and gave up figuring out how to open programs after ten minutes of mucking around. I want to throw it against the wall, but I didn't want to have to sell my left nut just to pay for it. Without desktop icons or a Start button, I'm totally lost. BUT I like that the desktop changes on my friends Leoparded MacBook Pro. As far as Mac as a whole is concerned, I absolutely detest their physical systems because of how proprietary they are... I switched to custom builds in 2003 and haven't looked back (except for the laptop, but that will change in a few years when I decide to get a whole new custom-built laptop for a lot less than any crappy name-brand system).
Linux: Not using: Never used, so no comment.

My OS preference is based on the role that the machine is playing.

As a client, Win XP is the most stable and bug free windows distribution that I have used.

As a high performance workstation, a fast Intel CPU, lots of hard drive and RAM and one of several Linux variants. Mandrake is my favorite but Ubanutu has a lot going for it.

As a web/email server for a box that is going to deliver network services, Linux is the gold standard. I've used Mandrake, Red Hat and a couple of distros. On one server I had an uptime of over four years. The only reason I shut it down was to add RAM and hard drive space. Another one was pushing 2 years when I had to shut it down for the Y2K network upgrade/cutover when I readdressed that subnet.

I don't dislike Windows for any real reason, but Apple is the standard for graphic design and most programs like QuarkXpress and Indesign run better on Macs, so I made myself get use to them and happened to like them. It also helps that Apple tends to get it right the first time without releasing shit that's full of bugs, and not having to worry about spyware or viruses (for now) is a plus too. It does suck that most computer games aren't Mac-compatible though. But I have my Warcraft and Spore is due out this summer, so I'm content with that

I agree with what James said.
All in all, i do prefer Linux (especially for servers), but i run Windows (2000/2003 server/XP) on most of my boxes as i develop software which needs to run on windows. And i agree with rknapp on his comments about the various windows versions. Actually i never used ME (it was too crappy to begin with), and i only use Vista for testing. I am not a fan of all those fancy visual features (usually i switch it all off so XP/Vista does look and behave more like 2000 ).
From my experience Windows is really OK since Windows 2000. Win98 was already much better than 95 or 3.1 (not to mention Windows 1.0 *lol*).
As for Mac's: i have never owned one, but i had to help some friends out when their Mac crashed and they didn't know what to do. So, from my experience, the "user friendliness" of the Mac ends if you have a serious problem... I actually don't think Macs are better or worse than Windows in terms of "stability" or "user friendliness". They definitely look better, and are more expensive. The benefit of not being so vulnerable to viruses/trojans because there are not many viruses/trojans that affect the Mac is still there, but the hackers actually do catch up on that recently. And from a research some guys in Switzerland did recently, it seems Apple takes longer to fix bugs and close security holes than Microsoft does..
All in all, i think we do get a lot for what we pay for a Windoze PC or Mac. Considering the complexity of a PC's hard- and software (whatever OS you run on it), they are amazingly stable nowadays.

My favs has been XP Pro and OSX Leopard.

During school it was mostly on the pc side windows 2000, worked great for the most part.

Although mac fixed the bugs quickly with Leopard.

I won't get into the whole mac vs windows debate, be to much energy

Well, I can still remember using windows2.0 Way back then, I could get it to do everything I needed. Windows 95 was nice and 98 just added a few things(and killed all my dos based games ) I kinda got forced into XP and I'm kinda liking it .

Vista isn't bad, I just need my nephew to show me how to log in as an admin so I can delete things...Okay, Okay, because of all the "protected' filesthat windows thinks it still needs and I know it doesn't...VISTA SUCKS!!

sorry, didn't mean to get all rilled up

Hugs,
Tom

How dare you complaining about WinME? *pets screen: he didn't mean it like that*

Tob

As I've stated before I am quite agnostic in terms of what OS others prefer. Whatever works best for you is what you should use.

I grew up writing software that ran against MS-DOS so transitioning to Windows seemed reasonable to me. I've made a good living using and selling Microsoft products to end users.

For my own personal daily use I like XP Pro. In all the years I've been using it I've never seen a BSOD. Applications have crashed, but the OS has always remained stable. About the only time I reboot is during Patch Tuesday.

In terms of servers I very much like Server 2003 and IIS6. Again both have proven themselves to be very reliable. IIS6 in particular is so much easier to use than previous versions. The Application Pools are a godsend. Again, I totally understand why some people prefer Apache. I guess it depends upon what you're used to. I'm used to Windows. I'm beta testing Server 2008 and believe it will be Microsoft's best server OS to date. The whole virtualization architecture is brilliant.

I've got seven machines here at home.

Two run Server 2003. I use one as a web server and the other for database development and other things related to my business.

The third one is my beta-testing machine and it's currently running Server 2008.

The fourth and fifth run XP Pro. Those would be my desktop and my lappie.

The sixth runs Server 2003 Web Edition which I use to coordinate all the backups I need to do both locally and for all my production websites.

The seventh runs Win2K. It's as stable as XP but without all the bells and whistles. I use it for all my multimedia stuff. My phone management software. Trillian. iTunes. Various other things.

That's what works best for me. I hope whatever you're using works well for you.

XP but I got sick of it so Vista was a nice change.

I mentioned Linux in a thread last month my growing interest in that OS. Ubuntu Hardy Heron was in the final stages of development with a beta 5 which I had installed on my laptop. Hardy was VERY IMPRESSIVE from the get go. Much like windows so it was comfortable right out of the gate. Ubuntu 8.04 was released last week and I fell in love with it. It has replaced XP on my laptop and am doing a clean up on my desk top as I am writing this. Ubuntu will be installed on it later today.

I can't even begin to express my pleasure with Ubuntu. Much faster than XP - cleaner desktop, configurable (customized) in a few hours (instead of days with XP) with everything being handled from a 1/4 inch band at the top of the screen with drop downs for applications/places/system and room for small icons (1/4" x 1/4") for favorite programs. No more digging through endless windows buried behind more endless windows and then duplicated a half dozen times!! Firefox 3.0 beta is included in the package.

On top of all that great stuff is an awesome tech support forum with real people that know what they are doing! Just really awesome!!!

Have a look see here http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/hardy/alpha5 -- Download the live CD from their website here http://www.ubuntu.com/
You can boot from the CD (you need to burn the download to a CD) no changes are made to the harddrive but it is a full functioning drive through disk. (edit) The same CD will also serve as the install media.

Do yourself a favor and give it a try -- I'm 99% sure you will love it!!!!!!

I meant every word. When I switched from WinME to Win2k, life was worth living. My grades improved dramatically, I was happy (for once!) and the BSOD was a thing of the past. I upgrade way back in 2002 and I haven't had major system trouble since then beyond the occasional bug that pops up around formatting time anyway.

You might think I'm kidding or being dramatic, but I'm dead serious.

WinME was the kind of OS where it either worked fine or it was totally buggy. There seemed to be no middle ground. I know someone who is still using it and it works fine. As for me I skipped it and waited until Win2K was released.