What's your Operating System?

Captain Patrick · Commodore Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2421

Hmm. Curouis as to what all you use.

I use Windows XP on my Laptop and Mac on my Desktop. I have been thinking of putting Linux on my laptop but have no idea how

.

WeAz · **Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:46 pm**

Its called Ubuntu. I use Windows XP.

Sonic74205 · **Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:50 pm**

I use Windows XP on both of my computers

syd2002 · **Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:53 pm**

Windows XP.

Brightstar82 · **Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:04 pm**

Windows Xp Home Edition.

Captain Patrick · Commodore Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2421

TrekkieMage · **Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:36 pm**

^To do that you need to have a dual partition on your hard drive. We did it to my sisters computer, but you have to do it when you install the first OS, I don't know of any way to do that to a computer that's already got an OS on it...

We've got Windows XP on all the compters in our house, but I'm gonna get a Mac laptop soon.

Republican_Man · **Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:40 pm**

I use Windows XP on my computer. In the basement we also have XP, as does my dad's laptop.

TrekkieMage · **Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:41 pm**

I wonder, who here will switch to Vista when it comes out?

Captain Patrick · Commodore Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2421

stroppy · **Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:49 pm**

XP for me. Have toyed with the idea of going to LINUX but I'm still not convinced that all devices have driver support. Vista...well I'm going to wait a while and see how this pans out after its introduction. I suppose we'll all be forced to move onto it eventually for hardware compatibility.

LightningBoy · **Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:04 pm**

Windows X64

My only complaint is that I cannot use my Scanner with the 64bit framework. Otherwise I love it.

The XP family is the most stable group of OS's ever designed; I really wish we weren't being pushed toward Vista. (But then again, I said the same thing when pushed from 2000 to XP...)

stroppy · **Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:04 am**

lionhead · **Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:46 am**

We have Windwos XP proffesional edition, Home edition and Media Center(which works great with an Xbox 360).

Seven of Nine · **Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:40 am**

Can you rephrase that to the most stable group of WINDOWS OS's ever designed? Unix and Linux are much more stable. I've yet to have a crash on my pc

I use Kubuntu at home, CentOS on our server (you have to be an idiot to have a Windows server- they're so unstable!) and Putty on the stupid college Windows XP to get around the college's firewall (ahem).

I'm currently installing Windows 2000 on Virtual PC at college. I need it for my practical work

TrekkieMage · **Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:06 pm**

^Awesome. And quite right about stability. Windows in the least stable OS. Hence why I'm switching over to Mac soon (once I get my laptop!!)

We're using Ubuntu at school and tinkering with Edubuntu on the small server in the classroom.

PrankishSmart · **Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:08 pm**

Windows is quite stable if you know how to set them up properly. They are quite secure if you know how to update them. The thing that makes them unstable is all the 3rd party software that is installed on them, and ignorant people blame the OS for instability first. This is in comparison not as much a problem with UNIX.

I am a certified microsoft professional and have worked on many windows 2000 and 2003 servers and improved the security of servers running servers like ISA server, IIS, Exchange etc. At the same time this has involved configuring cisco routers with ATM dialers and configuring the ACL suited to the companys needs (have about half of the CCNA qualification. I would challenge anyone to crack a network that was setup and maintained by me.

I have also worked on Novell netware but less knowledgeable on the server OS so I prefer windows OS because this is what I'm most knowledgeable on. But Novell is also very good.

startrekgirltng · **Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:12 pm**

MAC OS TIGER

G5 PROCESSOR!!

I just got this new computer... one of the new Macintoshs!!

squiggy · **Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:45 pm**

Alright, My home actually has a small network on it.

Network Main Server Computer(Also My own computer.): Windows 98 SE
Room-mate's Computer: Windows NT(Should be the network server, except that it doesn't have as much space, and it wasn't designed to be a network server)
Mom's Computer(Connects to network through internet): Windows 98 SE
Other Room-mate's Computer: Windows 3.1(Patched so the network thinks it's Windows 95)
My Laptop(Network-back-up Server): Windows 2000 ME(Re-programmed a few things for mobile/laptop usage)

LightningBoy · **Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:09 pm**

LightningBoy · **Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:11 pm**

Hitchhiker · **Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:01 am**

Windows isn't unstable per se. But it isn't that great, because it's bloated from spaghetti programming. Windows wasn't programmed; it was coded.

Vista isn't going to support legacy hardware.

I use Windows XP as my production environment, since it is what I am most familiar with and it runs best on my machine. I have Kubuntu installed on another partition, but my processor doesn't support CPU frequency-scaling (so it runs hotter in Kubuntu). I'm learning to work Kubuntu, though. It's quite wubbly once you get to know it.

Linux isn't for everyone (it is not the be all end all of operating systems) but then again neither is Windows. But I appreciate that alternative operating systems, including Ubuntu, Debian, Mac, etc, are becoming more viable alternatives to Windows, because it gives customers more choices. And choices are good things.

The fact that Microsoft has been a dominant force in the software industry since that industry's inception has been both a bane and a boon. The problem with such a near-total monopoly is that a lack of competition essentially allows Microsoft to do whatever it wants. Healthy competition acts as a sort of quality-monitor to ensure that one's product continues to live up to standards. With Windows, it's more like "take what we give you, or else have a nice time trying to use something else".

PrankishSmart · **Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:25 am**

I also think I would rather stick with the devil I know, than migrate to the devil I don't know.

Windows really does get the best marks for compatibility. The issue of microsoft being the dominant software corporation is also an intresting one. I tend to think what would happen if macintosh (for example) was instead the dominant software corporation, would things really be better? I don't think so.

squiggy · **Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:50 am**

The stability of windows(A nifty thought)

My mother's computer has been windows 3.1 for ages now.
Everytime she upgrades her computer, she makes sure the techy knows bloody well not to mess with her operating system.

With appropriate maintenance, a decent firewall, and anti-virus system, and... a program which allows you to access patches(Among other things), you can keep windows running pretty long.
My mother has been using her computer for the internet since she bought it in 1992!

Just because it is old, doesn't necessarily mean it won't stand up to todays uses.
((Heck, I'm still running windows 98 SE, and my laptop would too, if I could get the setup disk for it))

PrankishSmart · **Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:41 am**

The problem with pre windows 2000 operating systems now is that support is no longer avaliable, which makes security patching harder to do.