I don't care what OS you use....

[Vlad]

Just a note: This was sparked by an MSN chat, not from anyone here.

People who describe themselves as a Mac person or Mac guy, Linux Guru, Windows fan what ever you call your selves, What is the point? You like that OS or platform, great just do us all a favor and not make yourself look like a moron by saying "I'm a mac guy" every chance you get. I'm not picking on Mac, its just the most common one I hear. Seriously, why are you so passionate about what OS you use? Its not life and death, its a chunk of machine code on a hard drive. Calm yourself down. I don't get why some people make such a huge deal over having to use Mac OS or Windows. Its not like you're going to get AID's from using a Windows machine. It just gets annoying when you get one moron that takes it personally and everything turns in to a Crusade just because someone doesn't like the OS you use or you don't like the one they use. I've seen this happen in may a chat room. Who cares?! Is just an OS.....

Before it starts here or I get accused of being a fanboy of some random OS, I DO NOT favor anyone OS. I've used Windows 1.0 to Vista, Mac OS 7 to X, Sun Solaris 9 and 10, I like them all. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages. I don't care which one I get, I'll use anything I have to.

No arguments about which OS is better. Remember, I've got the Delete button.....

-VK


I feel better......

[chuckcmagee]

It's a spin-off of the old "well, who are you?". Ask just about anyone that question and they will tell you what they do for a living. Not who they are. Most people don't know who they are. I was no different. "Oh, I'm a programmer." Modern life is so demanding that once I started working for a living, I spent little or no time on the "who are you" queston. I had the usual "identity crisis" at around 20 years old. I never did figure out what I wanted to do for a living so I did what I knew how to do.

[atari2600a]

Finally, someone said it! :p I hate people who are OS fanboy xTremists! They're all great! Stop fighting!

[fxg]

Well, I'm a Mac guy... JUST KIDDING, DON'T SHOOT!!!

You're right, I've been using most Windows versions, MacOS6 to X, AIX 4-5, Solaris 5-10, etc... They all have pros and cons, so it's unfair to compare them.

Bottom line, use whatever you need and keep quiet about it :D

[Mad-Mike]

LOL, that problem is the sole source of my aggrivation with lots of people in Information Technology.........particularly when it comes to Windows.

- My computer boots too slow - GET XP!
- My hard drive is making a noise - GET XP!
- I See Smoke coming From My RAM - YOU NEED XP!
- Hey, can I buy some CD-R's to burn a copy of XP from my friend - NO XP FOR YOU!

Then comes Linux guy, with his home T-1 or Fiber Optic Line, "Oh no, don't succumb to the evil empire, get Linux, you can download it free via FTP, oh, and by the way, get Firefox, you know IE sucks".

Then comes the Macintosh guy, both of you guys have it wrong, Mac ALWAYS works..........

Personally, after 5 years at this, and having run the following O/S's

- DOS 2.1, 3.30, 3.31, 4.0, 5.00, 6.00, 6.21, 6.11
- DR-DOS 6.00, 7.01
- Windows 1, 2, 3.xx, 9x, ME, NT, 2000, XP, and Vista Beta 5539
- OS/2 2.1
- RedHat Linux 6.1, Slackware 96', RedHat Fedora 2, RedHat Fedora 5
- Open BSD 3.4
- Mac O/S 7.1, 7.0, 9

I've come to two conclusions, one, they work right if properly configured and setup, and 2, the bad ones like ME are almost always the prettiest ones.

[bbcmicro]

hmmm...that makes me think of the OS's I've used, and actually not a lot, so I don't think I could justify any opinions I post in this thread with fact, so I'll just count the one's I have used;

DOS 7.x, 6.22, 4.01
Win XP, 2000 pro, 98, 95, 3.11
OpenGEM, Owen Rudge's FreeGEM
Mac/OS 6.0.7

I BRIEFLY used Slax and Knoppix, but not in depth.

Although, the GEMs can be categorised as DOS shells, and Windows 3.11 can be debated to be but not without going in circles.
Considering I've only been into computers for just under 2 years, that's not bad. The only ones I can really use efficiently are DOS 6.22 and Windows 9x, being the ones I used most frequently, but not always by choice. Perhaps I could do more with a differnt OS if exposed long enough ;)

I think Tim Absath illustrates his opnions quite well. Note, his opinions :D
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20031226

On further thought, I think the whole Mac Guy, Windows XP guy, Linux Guy etc. etc. is used as a means to feel a sense of belonging to a particular group. I think (and this is only a thought, mind) that those who pledge their loyalty to a particular OS, guard it fiercly and critisise others who do different have either never used an other to any level of depth, (whether that is due to no access or having dismissed them straight away), or use it to belong to a group and enjoy that whole feeling of being part of a bigger number. Let's face it, there's plenty of them.

Of course, OTOH, they may just really like it....

[TroyW]

Well said, they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

I think it's fine to prefer a particular OS, but don't be blind to it's disadvantages, and keep in mind that an OS is only as good as what you can run on it. Even if there was a "perfect" OS (I don't even know if that is possible), it's only any good if it can run software that is useful to you, which is something many people seem to overlook.

[Unknown_K]

I always tell people to find out what software they need to use and buy the OS and hardware that works with that software.

I prefer Win2k for my main machine but I have many versions of mac OS, Amiga OS, DOS and earlier Windows depending on what I want to run and what that software needs.

[DoctorPepper]

Well, the simple fact is, most people are passionate about the things they like. As any martial arts student which style is the best, and of course they will say the one they are studying. For those of us that are OS junkies, we are the same way.

Personally, I'm a Linux user. I make no bones about it. I've used quite a few operating systems out there, and the one that works for me (that's the operative phrase) is Linux. That doesn't mean I'm a Linux snob. I used to be, but I guess time and age turned me. I have two computers in my house that run Windows: Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Home (sorry, it came on my notebook, and I'm too cheap to "upgrade"). My wife runs OSX on her iMac. The rest of the "modern" computers in the house run either Linux or one of the BSD variants.

A computer AND it's operating system, are nothing more than tools. Just like any other profession out there, you should use the right tool for the job. If I get a contract to write a VB program on Windows XP, then that's what I do. I don't preach to the client, telling them how much more stable and virus-resistant Linux or Mac OSX are.

Life is just too short to get into holy wars over something as silly as an operating system!

http://www.hotpeppersoftware.com/images/phearSW.gif

[ziloo]

They say using an operating system is like shooting yourself in
the foot. Now then, what are the differences between using different
operating systems you ask,...well...:

Unix
You shoot yourself in the foot.

DOS
You keep running up against the one-bullet barrier.

MS-Windows
The gun blows up in your hand.

Windows NT
The gun is so huge and unwieldy that you have to keep
swapping it from one hand to the other.

OS/2
The gun and the bullet aren't speaking to each other any
more.

Mac Finder
It's easy to shoot yourself in the foot -- just point
and shoot.

AIX
You can shoot yourself in the foot with either a .38 or a .45.

IRIX
The Terminator shoots you in the foot. A T-Rex bites
your other foot.

SVR4
The gun isn't compatible with your foot.

Minix
You learn how to shoot yourself in the foot with a
Saturday Night Special.

Linux
Generous programmers from around the world all join
forces to help you shoot yourself in the foot for free.

HURD
You'll be able to shoot yourself in the foot Real Soon
Now.

VM/CMS
IBM shoots you in the foot.

VMS
\FOOT\ ambiguous: supply more toes.

AMIGA-DOS
The gun works pretty well, except that few people use
one and it's impossible to find bullets.

Mach
The bullets work pretty well, but they don't make guns
for it any more.

Cray
You shoot yourself in the foot with an Uzi.

MasPar
You shoot all of your friends' feet simultaneously.

By the way, some of the OS names are chinese to me :biggrin:!

[chuckcmagee]

Snicker, for a time I was one of those angry with the way Bill Gates totally dominated the market. I even had 5 linux distros on the same machine + freebsd and XP. Have you ever tried to keep gentoo current using only a 26.4K dialup connection? Ain't easy, let me tell ya.

Recently, I tried out MSN dialup service because I could get it free for 3 months. Just as Bill had hoped, I got so I just loved the way MSN Explorer works, especially the email client. So now, all my machine have XP Pro or XP Home as the primary op system and I use various virtual machines for the rest (OS/2, Linux, Win98, DOS).

In another post, I already mentioned how Vitual PC 2004 is a free product now. I use that and Parallels Workstation.

[DoctorPepper]

They say using an operating system is like shooting yourself in
the foot. Now then, what are the differences between using different
operating systems you ask,...well...:

Hehehe. That's the funniest thing I've read all day! :-)

[Vlad]

Yeah, that was a good one...

-VK

[fred3rd]

I guess that leaves me footless and fancey free :rolleyes:

[carlsson]

I kind of better like the text how to shoot yourself in the foot using various programming languages. It appears more spot-on. All those texts have been circulating for the past 10 years, often without additions.

[dreddnott]

SVR4 and MasPar are the only two that don't spring to mind immediately.

Most of those descriptions are quite accurate.

I like to think of an operating system as a tool for the job, and kind of a mediator tool between the computer hardware and the job that needs to be done.

I have Debian Linux installed on my P4 laptop, Windows x64 and Windows 2000
on my gaming desktops, and MacOS X on my eMac out in the trailer.

They all accomplish different things very well, but they all do everday tasks equally well.

Certain operating systems can make certain combinations of hardware very functional. I'd definitely prefer to run IRIX on an old SGI system than, say, Slackware MIPS or what-have-you.

[DoctorPepper]

Certain operating systems can make certain combinations of hardware very functional. I'd definitely prefer to run IRIX on an old SGI system than, say, Slackware MIPS or what-have-you.

Same here. I have the Sun Ultra 5 workstation, and I really bought it to run Solaris. I have limited experience with Solaris (I have more with HP/UX) and wanted to work with it. I know, I could download OpenSolaris and run it on a PC, but when in Rome... :-)

[carlsson]

I think SVR4 is an abbreviation of System V Release 4, i.e. one direction of the UNIX tree (where BSD is the other major branch).

[Mad-Mike]

I don't really pay much attention to another O/S if I've already used it and made a verdict. I can find things to like and hate about all the different versions of windows, all the Linux distros I've tried, OpenBSD, Mac OS (pre Linux based), DOS, and whatever else I've tried, I think the only stuff I have'nt tried are OS/2 Warp, Unix, CP/M, and some of the really lesser known operating systems.

[atari2600a]

Mac OS (pre Linux based)

IIRC, I think OSX is Unix based...

[carlsson]

I think OSX even is based on BSD Unix, unlike e.g. Solaris which is a System V derivate IIRC. Some variants of Unix are more obvious from where they origin than others; I never was certain which branch AIX 4.X was based on. By today, I suppose a bit of mix'n'match has happened in that market. New dialects take appropriate chunks of what is previously available and pay any appliable license fees. What happened with IBM leaking AIX sources to Linux developers? Did SCO sue the sh*t out of them, or did the lawsuit end up into nothing? At first they threatened to sue commercial Linux distributors (and the whole community?) too, but that would just look silly and possibly be the final nail into the SCO coffin when people around the world would take revenge in various forms.

[Vlad]

The UNIX core of Solaris is SunOS, which is concidered its own UNIX thing. Mac OS X uses the Darwin Core which is opensource and is built around the XNU Kernal. It is hard to find, but Apple will let you download the Darwin core, but thats all you get. No X no GUI, just the Core. I don't know if it can run Mac programs or not, but it does come in both PPC and Intel versions. I tried it once, its pretty much UNIX with no GUI. That would be a good project for someone. Get Darwin, and X 11, add KDE or what ever WM you like and try to run an OS X prog on it......

-VK


Ok, I looked it up, SunOS is indeed based on System V......

[carlsson]

SunOS 5 is based on System V. The older SunOS 4 was mostly a BSD dialect, IIRC. I got into using different Unices (sp?) around 1994-95, which was the end of the SunOS 4.X era - briefly packaged as Solaris 1 - and the beginning of the SunOS 5.X era, alas Solaris 2 to begin with.

However, I'm sure that a real old-timer, one of those who worked in UNIX in the late 1970's to mid 80's would find current SunOS/Solaris quite a big step from the original System V, and find OSX (or the Net/Free/OpenBSD) a possibly even bigger step from Berkeley Unix (?), so it is of academic interest. For what it is worth, some inner mechanisms of the Windows NT core is said to come from VMS, or at least it did in the mid-late 1990's.

[random_rodder]

I've used everything from DECB (Tandy COCO) to DOS, Windows 2.0 thru 2003 Server, MAC OSX and several flavors of Linux. They all suck and they all are great. Each has area it does better than otheers and vice versa. (though I do prefer the simplicity of the old 8 bitters now days)