Favorite OS

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-12-20 07:39pm

Dahak wrote:I prefer my XP pro. I like it, I can game on it, and work in my true and trusted environment.
Personally, I try to avoid Linux like the plague, it always gets my irritated.
Though sometimes this year, I want to get a small MiniMac to give Macs a try. You never know...

Wait a month and get the Intel one.

Braedley · Post by **Braedley** » 2005-12-21 12:02am

Stark wrote:It's called a loaded poll. The OP doesn't define the question well either: OS X is the best OS I've used, but I certainly don't use it on any of my desktops, since it's utterly worthless for gaming. It's just stable, easy to use, attractive and I love it.

My feelings exactly. That and the fact that the majority of the software I need in school will definately run in windows and that windows boxes are cheaper than Macs.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2005-12-21 01:22am

The only reason I run windows is because I'm addicted to cybercrack (read: games) and never could get wine working accecptably. And the first person to mention the steaming pile that is Cedega get's their nads dunked into a deep fat fryer (or other body parts if they're lacking in the department of testicles). Ideally I'd be using Linux.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2005-12-21 03:25am

Spacebeard wrote:OpenBSD and Solaris. Neither one is listed, though of course we needed to list about seven (!) different versions of Windows. I'm torn between Linux and Mac OS X as the least worst option listed on the poll; I think I'll give it to Linux.

EDIT:

I find it especially silly that the OP chose to distinguish between DOS and older versions of Windows which were just a graphical shell running over DOS, but doesn't distinguish between Mac OS classic and Mac OS X which are completely different under the hood.

Hm... need to try OpenBSD and/or OpenSolaris- I do like Linux specific features like FUSE on the server though, plus the need to run some proprietary software- currently have Debian on my home server. As for general use, Linux (specifically Ubuntu (used Debian for awhile, then got bored of having the unstable distro break every so often)).

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2005-12-21 12:10pm

Heathens. Workbench is the one true OS.

Jack Bauer · Post by **Jack Bauer** » 2005-12-25 10:04pm

Hear the mighty TIGER roaaarrrrrr!!!!

OS X hands down.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-12-25 10:05pm

Order 66 wrote:Hear the mighty TIGER roaaarrrrrr!!!!

OS X hands down.

Thread necro baaad your pushing it.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-12-25 10:44pm

Four days, over Christmas, is necro now? What. The. Fuck. Ever.

DesertFly · Post by **DesertFly** » 2005-12-26 02:48am

Maybe it's not the best operating system ever, but Windows 98SE will always hold a special place in my heart. It's the OS that Windows 95 promised to be, and one day, it grew up and was a real system, not just one waving a stick around and pretending to kill baddies.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

P.S. Necro? What you smoking? Can I have some?

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-12-26 06:15am

Mr Bean wrote:
Order 66 wrote:Hear the mighty TIGER roaaarrrrrr!!!!

OS X hands down.
Thread necro baaad your pushing it.

It's four days dude. Not really that necro.

My favorite OS...er...well, I'm kind of partial to XP Pro SP2.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2005-12-26 06:35am

DesertFly wrote:Maybe it's not the best operating system ever, but Windows 98SE will always hold a special place in my heart. It's the OS that Windows 95 promised to be, and one day, it grew up and was a real system, not just one waving a stick around and pretending to kill baddies.

If only it didn't need reinstalling every couple of months if you liked installing stuff...

For that, and many other reasons, I'd say WinXP. Linux is nice, however it's not yet there for desktop use for non-techies, and while I'm not in that category, I don't really feel a need to tinker with my system often anymore so I only use it for certain apps that require it. OSX I haven't really had a chance to use so I have no opinion.

Oh, and the joy at finding out I out-optimised the auto-optimiser (can't remember the actual program name) of conventional memory in MS-DOS was the best feeling related to computers for a long time (had 612kB with cdrom, vesa and sound support!).

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-12-26 06:36am

Praxis wrote:And hackers have gotten the current Intel Mac builds running on Dell laptops (I have the video), but this would be illegal by OS X's license agreement.

I've seen it running on a (vaguely bastardised) Compaq with no problems, and I hear of it being run on AMD kit.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2005-12-26 11:58am

I'd really like to have voted Linux here. I love the fact that it's open-source, is based on sound security principles, etc., but if I honestly felt that way, I'd be dual-booting it with my WinXP install, and I'm not. The fact is that running XP is just plain easier. Easier to install stuff, easier to configure things, easier to find drivers and software that will run on it. Linux has come a long way, but it's still a pain in the ass. When that changes, or when MS puts some really offensive DRM-enabled stuff, then I'll make the switch, not before.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-12-26 12:34pm

Similarly, I too am simply too lazy to use Linux.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2005-12-26 01:18pm

I've been using Linux for a few years now and like it a lot, but I'll always be an OS/2 fanboy at heart.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-12-26 01:53pm

I use XP and Mandriva 2005 Limited Edition.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-12-26 02:02pm

ggs wrote:
GrandMasterTerwynn wrote: Oh yeah, all Windows variants with MS-DOS running at the core suck too (95, 98, ME . . . especially ME. Especially "I'm a lucky boy if I don't have to reinstall this POS every six months" ME.)
Windows 9x (Win95,98,ME, etc) are not MS-DOS based!

Sure it bends over backwards(and takes it up the ass) and has significant core architecture design choices to enable MS-DOS applications to run as first class citizens but it is not MS-DOS based!

Wrong. Deep within the dark dripping depths of Windows 95 and 98 and 98's retarded cousin ME, lurks MS-DOS. When the computer's BIOS completes POST and accesses the MBR from the hard drive, Windows 95/98/ME first loads 16-bit DOS which loads all the DOS system files (IO.SYS, CONFIG.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and then COMMAND.COM, which runs AUTOEXEC.BAT and after that, it starts up the Windows 9x core.

The only purely 32-bit no-DOS-heritage MS operating systems are Windows NT (3.1, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0 which is Windows 2000, 5.1 which is Windows XP, and 5.2 which is Windows Server 2003) and Windows CE/.NET.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-12-26 03:05pm

I'm pretty sure DOS is only used for the initial boot process, and doesn't run underneath 9x like it did with 1.0-3.1.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-12-26 04:01pm

Actually, there is a version of DOS running underneath Win95/98, which is always available to handle things like 16 bit drivers. ME doesn't work quite the same way. They tried to keep the 32 bit OS seperate but still have the 16 bit one there, which is why it rarely works at all.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-12-26 08:14pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote: Wrong. Deep within the dark dripping depths of Windows 95 and 98 and 98's retarded cousin ME, lurks MS-DOS. When the computer's BIOS completes POST and accesses the MBR from the hard drive, Windows 95/98/ME first loads 16-bit DOS which loads all the DOS system files (IO.SYS, CONFIG.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and then COMMAND.COM, which runs AUTOEXEC.BAT and after that, it starts up the Windows 9x core.

The MS-DOS is a fucking interactive bootloader, you can rip it out and replace it with other bootloaders if you wanted too.

The Win9x Core OS is not MS-DOS based, one the Win9x kernel has loaded (provided you have 32bit drivers) it never needs to touch the BIOS again.

Thats like saying grub (a linux bootloader) is a part of the Linux kernel. I've got shocking news people, it isnt

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-12-26 08:20pm

Vendetta wrote:Actually, there is a version of DOS running underneath Win95/98, which is always available to handle things like 16 bit drivers. ME doesn't work quite the same way. They tried to keep the 32 bit OS seperate but still have the 16 bit one there, which is why it rarely works at all.

Nope.

Under Win95/98/ME 16bit drivers where directly run in the "kernel". This was done with what amounts to a DOS emulation shell, and actually preformed 16bit<->32bit mode transitions in the kernel itself.

WinME was so unstable due to trying to push the Win9x "kernel" too far. System restore from WinXP is actually an improved version of the System Restore from WinME, but without added nasty hacks to the core OS to make it work.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-12-26 08:43pm

IIRC, there were serious proposals within Microsoft to remove the DOS bootloader entirely from Windows and boot straight to it, but it was removed due to backwards-compatibility requirements.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-12-27 12:24pm

Vendetta wrote:Actually, there is a version of DOS running underneath Win95/98, which is always available to handle things like 16 bit drivers. ME doesn't work quite the same way. They tried to keep the 32 bit OS seperate but still have the 16 bit one there, which is why it rarely works at all.

Yes. When DOS first loads in Win9x it goes out and loads whatever 16-bit low-level device drivers you've specified in CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT and runs whatever other crap you've got in those old startup files.

It's not recommended that the user do this, because, firstly most of the functionality of CONFIG.SYS was duplicated in the Win9x core, and because the 16-bit DOS drivers are much slower than their Win9x counterparts, which has a significant impact on system performance. Windows 95/98 and MS-DOS 7.0 have a similar relationship to one-another that Win 3.11 and MS-DOS 6.0 had, though the execution in the former case was much better, and Windows took on much more of the low-level system stuff.

And, for that matter, it was possible to modify the MSDOS.SYS system file so that Windows 95/98 wouldn't be loaded at all, and one would be left with the ordinary MS-DOS 7.0 command prompt with the complete MS-DOS low-level device driver set and DOS software environment. If one wanted to then run Windows 95/98, they just typed "win" just as they would if they had Windows 3.11 installed in MS-DOS 5/6. For that matter, if one really wanted to, they could run Windows 3.11 under MS-DOS 7.0 if they had it installed.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-12-27 01:31pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:It's not recommended that the user do this, because, firstly most of the functionality of CONFIG.SYS was duplicated in the Win9x core, and because the 16-bit DOS drivers are much slower than their Win9x counterparts, which has a significant impact on system performance. Windows 95/98 and MS-DOS 7.0 have a similar relationship to one-another that Win 3.11 and MS-DOS 6.0 had, though the execution in the former case was much better, and Windows took on much more of the low-level system stuff.

Windows will bypass any DOS drivers loaded in the AUTOEXEC.BAT/CONFIG.SYS phase if at all possible - back in the W95 days I still ran some old DOS programs and had somewhat lengthy versions of those files to get what I wanted going. As far as the relationship between 9X/DOS7 and W3.X/DOS6, they aren't quite that similar.

JediToren · Post by **JediToren** » 2005-12-28 01:55pm

Linux, specifically Mandriva 2005 LE is what I use. I'll be updating to 2006 when I get back to school.
It's easy to install, comes with lots of software installed, easy access to a massive list of software via URPMI, and is low-maintence. No OS rot, no viruses, no spyware.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Favorite OS

What is your favorite OS?