Which OS are you using and why?

[spazm_1999]

I use W2k pro in my pc even tho i'd be better with the server one. I mainly use it 'cus of it's stability and it's service (ftp/web). I also use win98SE in my brother pc.... he don't much more for working with word&excel. I still have win95 running in my mom pc which again is mainly used for writing. Here maybe most of u would say "hell get rid of 98 and install 2000", but it's totally impossible since that pc only have 32mb of ram.

Spazm

[Dilitante1]

Microsnot has got enough money out of me over the years, so why upgrade each and every year JUST to have the latest? My color printer only works with Win9X, and not Win2k. Yes I could buy a new one, but the investment was made and I havent got MY $$ worth out of it. Dual CPU support is nice, but I cant swing the Dual Athlon setup I want, and XP will force me to relicence every time I change something.....F@#k that. M$ has gone TOO FAR. The system requirements are steep FORCING hardware upgrades just to try it out. NOT worth it.

As for Linux, you get used to the apps you run. Everyone has favorites, it is human nature to prefer something you get used to as opposed to something that you dont or are to lazy to try.


/rant

(dons Holy Asbestos Armor from the Church of M)

-Dil

[spazm_1999]

bof... i don't run after patches nor serial numbers 'cuz i've bought a MSDN. Each time microsoft release something i receive a copy of it by mail on cds.... what ever it is.... beta softwares/patchs/os... anything. I don't like linux.... i never liked it, and probably never will. The last time i installed that thing i had to turn off almost everything in the bios and the install it to prevent it from crashing.... that was when it was'nt hanging after asking the username.

Anyway i'm running win2k pro on my system without anyprob. I don't install XP pro 'cuz i just don't have time.

Spazm

[PowerHungry]

Lets see, I have:

Win2k Pro on my main system
Win98se dual booted on my main system

WinME, Win98se, NT4 on my secondary system

Win2k Server on my server

WinME (soon to be 98se) on my Winbook XL

Linux-Mandrake 8 on my old AST notebook AND on a junk system, so I can fool around with Linux

Oh, yeah, WinCE on my palmtop.

I think I got everything.

[rugger]

Linux anit useless grum

Linux (and UNIX) is far from useless,

While Windows makes a better desktop, Linux is by far the most flexible internet server operating system avaliable.

And on grums original post, what is wrong with using ideas that are 30 years old. Its like some people who use computers have this weird idea that new stuff is always better than old stuff. And if you want to get technical grum, WinNT is more than 10 years old, so is it now too old?

Anyway, I run

Win-98 on my main system to play games dual booted
Linux on my main system to write programs, or surf internet
Win2000 on my mums system (for its stability)
Win-98 on my sisters computer to play older games

[Gurm]

No, WinNT isn't "too old". The problem with old paradigms is that technology changes so bloody fast. We are using a 15-year old architecture, so a 10-year old OS is just fine.

However, an OS that was only intended to run mainframes and play Space Wars, and has been classified (quite seriously) as a virus, AND is closing in on the 40-year-old mark... should be retired.

And I never said Linux didn't make a good server, just that you can't get anything done on it. Things you can't get done:

- Gaming
- 3D design
- Graphic design
- Anything that requires compatibility with the rest of the windows-based world

- Gurm

[Jammrock]

Hmmm...the question to ask me is, what OS don't I use?

Home Computer is a quad boot:

Win98SE - Used mainly for gaming, as there are no good drivers out for WinXP for my Kyro II card (at least that I have found). That and my SB Live! doesn't pop and crackle in 98SE.

Win2k - I use it for internet gaming since my NIC likes 2k more than 98SE (TCP offloading and all). It's stable, but not perfect. Best OS for my multimedia stuff like burning, DivX creation and picture/video editing.

WinXP Home - I loaded it to see how it runs. it's pretty good. I haft to use my Win2k video drivers for it, but they seem to run just fine. My SB Live! still pops and crackles so the SB Live! drivers still haven't been fixed for 2K/XP. It's fun to play with, but I haven't used it seriously yet.

WinXP Pro - Just be cause I can. I'm sick like that.


At work:

Win2k - Because NT sucks.

WinNT - Because I haft to support it.


Unix may be '30 years old', but so are parts of Windows. It's called legacy support. Plus, after 30 years they've got most of the crash bugs fixed =) I don't use Linux/Unix since I feel it's only good for server platform at the current time. If the Linux communtiy standardizes a GUI format and gets one working right...I might dive into it once more.

Gurm said all there is to say about BeOS.

As for the MS OS's...depends what you do. Win98SE is still the defacto standard for gaming. Win2k is the best for stability and business use. Good for resource hogging multimedia since it won't crash and doesn't leak memory quite as bad. Better memory management as well. WinMe sucks! It may run okay in the beginning, but eventually it will blow itself up and suck. I hate WinMe.

WinXP RC1 looks really good. After tweaking the resources and service a bit it runs really fast (on fast computers with at least 256 MB RAM). I like it so far, but I won't take it seriously until RTM hits in September. It looks very promising so far.

WinNT sucks. No MURC'er should use it unless they are forced to by work.

That's all I haft to say about that.

[3rdStone]

I use OS/2 Warp 4.50, Windows 98 SE, and Linux in that order. The main reason I'm posting is to see if I'm still a murcer, or if I've been downgraded since it has been so long since I poster here.

[DentyCracker]

As usual Gurm exaggerates and/or over generalizes.

The sig says what I use.
Most time spent in win2k.
BeOS mainly to use the free overburning capabilities of CD Manager
Linux because I can. (I can play UT and Q3 on it)
WinMe when I fubar win2k with shit like IE6.
Do not have XP and don't plan to upgrade to it unless I can get around the activation shit (even if I buy it)

[Ovi]

I use Win Me. It works fine for me, is stable and fast (of course, I have disabled system restore!) I think I'll soon upgrade to Win2000, but the only thing stopping me is gaming performance and application compatibility!
Cheers
Ovi

[Novdid]

Computer no 1: W2K SP2, stable, fast, bla bla bla.

Computer no 2: W98 SE, printer doesn't work in 2K, good for gaming, bla bla bla.

[Rags]

Windows XP faster than win2k? That's a laugh. My compile times for VC4 are about 20 percent longer when running XP compared to win2k. My general 2D performance is lower as well (using any of my video cards at that).

Oh, you mean gaming....well I don't really have a problem with win2k's gaming performance, or game compatiblity for that matter either.

Rags

[Gurm]

Rags,

Depending on your drivers, and the hardware in your system, and how well you tweak the services (Home Edition comes with services pre-disabled), yes XP can be substantially faster.

- Gurm

[Joel]

I use WinME on all 3 of my machines and I have no complaints.

Joel

[Electric Amish]

According to Anandtech, if you use WinXP & Office XP vs. Win2K & Office 2K you will see a 30% drop in performance.

amish