The best non-windows OS

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-10-12 10:19pm

Is it still OS X? (when answering, do not consider all of Linux as one OS, regard each major distro as a separate OS)

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-10-12 10:55pm

OS X is okay, but you need a good mac to run it ($$$$).

Linux is better. I prefer Mandrake and Redhat.

But I still stick with XP, for some reason. Probably laziness.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-12 11:13pm

Are we taking hardware ties into consideration, here? Because that changes things a bit. But, speaking purely from a usability standpoint, Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther) is by far and away the best operating system out there (well, it will be once it hits on the 24th ... I just happen to be running the GM). Exposé is probably the most innovative GUI feature to come along from anywhere in the past 5 years. I never thought the window management problem would be so fully solved.

But like anything, it depends on what you're using it for. Are you going to run 3D StudioMax under OS X? Nope. From a simple usage perspective though -- surf the internet, check E-mail, do some IM'ing, writing papers -- OS X has everything you need. Like Windows, you generally need to buy Microsoft Office separately. But Panther comes with the X11 environment as an installation option, which means that the user can install OpenOffice, which will satisfy 99% of students' needs. It's got Safari, iChat and Mail all sitting in the Dock after installation. All are very good at what they do, and none of them have the glaring security holes that their Microsoft equivalents do. I certainly prefer working in OS X to Windows XP or any Linux distro. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the distros out there, but none of them have the sense of consistency and attention to detail that OS X has.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-10-12 11:20pm

In theory, BeOS (everything multithreaded, runs recompiled *nix programs, fast) . But HW support sucks, and it doesn't support binary-only programs. Besides, Linux in general will catch up eventually. Therefore, Linux, specifically Debian, and it's derivatives (Lycoris?, Xandros, Lindows, Libranix). All other distros suck in terms of upgradability and software aquisition.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-12 11:42pm

I'd have to say OS X....

Yes, OS X....it actually has support, and while it does have it's
annoying quirks, they're not as annoying as Linux.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-10-12 11:45pm

Mandrake is pretty decent, in terms of support and configuration, but even it's not really ready for the general populace yet. It's getting there, but slowly.

lukexcom · Post by **lukexcom** » 2003-10-13 12:32am

I hear that some say Debian Linux, but that it takes a lot of time, dedication, and knowledge to set it up right.

But I'd say Mandrake if you're a fairly newbie Linux user like me. Of course, I tend to dive into the settings as deep as I can, and experiment with them, to see what I get. Lots of formats of that partition, though, let me tell ya.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-10-13 12:36am

lukexcom wrote:I hear that some say Debian Linux, but that it takes a lot of time, dedication, and knowledge to set it up right.

But I'd say Mandrake if you're a fairly newbie Linux user like me. Of course, I tend to dive into the settings as deep as I can, and experiment with them, to see what I get. Lots of formats of that partition, though, let me tell ya.

I'm willing to generate config files to win converts to the Holy Debian Distro.

.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-13 12:54am

I agree 100% that OSX 10.3 is increadible and the best OS right now from a usability standpoint. Obviously the real consideration for most people is going to be the cost of the hardware and the existance of the software aps they want to run. OSX is good on the software front, but you really need a G4 to make the most of it.

Windows 2000 is a nice, stable OS that doesn't have the overhead of XP and has fixed many of the security vunrabilities and performance issues of previous Microsoft OS's. It's great, runs anything and runs on cheap hardware. Still, running a Microsoft OS can be an excercise in frustration from time to time. But if you play games, Microsoft is the only way to go.

Linux is a decent alternative to Windows, but it still feels like it isn't quite done to me. It's about time that the Linux community settles on some standards and until they do, they will always have the opposite problem that Microsoft does. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that Linux still needs some streamlining to be a mainstream desktop OS. It has great fundamentals, but not enough polish.

What is really interesting is some of the work that Microsoft has been doing on their next-gen OS Longhorn. I can't say much about it yet (stupid NDA's) but Microsoft is breaking some new ground here and I am very impressed by what I have seen so far. This is a totally new direction for Microsoft which is obviously influenced by a need to one-up OSX. It's a little too early to tell for sure but it should be the biggest revolution in x86 OS's since Windows 95.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-13 01:20am

The Kernel wrote:I agree 100% that OSX 10.3 is increadible and the best OS right now from a usability standpoint. Obviously the real consideration for most people is going to be the cost of the hardware and the existance of the software aps they want to run. OSX is good on the software front, but you really need a G4 to make the most of it.

Well yeah, but most of Apple's line are G4's anyway, except the iBook. Even then, a 900 MHz G3 with a Quartz Extreme-capable graphics card will give you good performance with it.

What is really interesting is some of the work that Microsoft has been doing on their next-gen OS Longhorn. I can't say much about it yet (stupid NDA's) but Microsoft is breaking some new ground here and I am very impressed by what I have seen so far. This is a totally new direction for Microsoft which is obviously influenced by a need to one-up OSX. It's a little too early to tell for sure but it should be the biggest revolution in x86 OS's since Windows 95.

Right, if Longhorn ever gets here.

I obviously can't comment on it, but from what I've seen in the leaked screenshots, it seems like the interface has just gotten more congested.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-10-13 01:21am

Longhorn = TCPA/Palladium implementation.

From what I hear.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-10-13 01:37am

UIs are good the way they are. We do not need any more dumbing down- see shitty default implementation of WinXP interface- no wonder everyone changes it to classic. Anybody needing anything simpler should get a Mac.

Linux UI still clunky and incomplete in area of drag and drop and copy/paste (probably being implemented, I don't know), but otherwise I think it's adequate. My biggest fear is the commercial industry standardizing around GTK/GNOME instead of KDE/QT, which is superior, but has commercially unfriendly license unless you buy a proprietary dev license.

Longhorn will probably come in 2006. Who's going to wait that long for improvements they are not going to use, most likely. Hell, I know lots of people who still use Office 97 because it suits their needs. Shoving new products down people's throats will not be successful. Then again, it might if MS can convince ISVs and shit to develop for Longhorn only or something.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-10-13 01:38am

Durandal wrote:I obviously can't comment on it, but from what I've seen in the leaked screenshots, it seems like the interface has just gotten more congested.

User interface "improvements" make up about 75% of Microsoft's work on all new operating systems, I'm convinced.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-13 02:03am

Pu-239 wrote:UIs are good the way they are. We do not need any more dumbing down- see shitty default implementation of WinXP interface- no wonder everyone changes it to classic. Anybody needing anything simpler should get a Mac.

That depends on what you mean by "dumbing down." A lot of the UI changes I see being made to OS X and even Windows XP aren't making things simpler; they're making things more intelligent. For example, one of he biggest, most underhyped things about OS X was the way it handled the menubar. Ever fired up a new application and tried to find the preferences? Sometimes they're under the Tools menu, sometimes they're under Edit, sometimes File, sometimes Special. Not in OS X. All preferences are located in a special menu right next to the Apple menu which bears the name of the application running. Under that menu is the About option, Preferences, Quit (which are always there) and other, application-specific commands (Empty Cache for Safari and that kind of stuff). That's making things more intelligent and consistent.

UI's can still be improved. Granted, I think these 3-D UI people are taking it too far, though. But, the Dock in OS X, for example, has a lot of room for improvement in terms of functionality. The menubar does as well. Apple stupidly axed the so-called "Docklings," which were basically the Dock's equivalent of System Tray modules, because a bunch of OS 9 users were bitching about the fucking clock. So now OS X has a problem with menubar congestion because that's where all the System Tray-type stuff goes. Personally, I think there should be a space that's not in the Dock or menubar dedicated to that stuff, but I'm not sure what that would be.

The whole control panel interface in XP, in my opinion, should be scrapped and redone. It's a clusterfuck of "Advanced" and "More Options" buttons before you get to anything useful. The Network setup is a prime example of this. There are about 2000 different ways to get to it, any of which may or may not work, depending on the user's setup. The most straightforward way of getting there (right-clicking on Network Neighborhood) isn't always available, when the most straightforward way should be the one that's always open.

And don't get me started on the Linux myriad of setup options. I know power users like that stuff, but it's not good for newbies. They either get scared or feel that they have to touch everything and eventually fuck something up.

Longhorn will probably come in 2006. Who's going to wait that long for improvements they are not going to use, most likely. Hell, I know lots of people who still use Office 97 because it suits their needs. Shoving new products down people's throats will not be successful. Then again, it might if MS can convince ISVs and shit to develop for Longhorn only or something.

That's because there have been no ground-breaking UI advancements in Microsoft Word. It's a word processor, so there's only so far you can take it. That doesn't mean that there's nothing that could be improved in the UI. In fact, Office is yet another example of the fucked up preference/option system I was talking about earlier. Certain preferences have to be set from certain places, and even I have trouble remembering where the fuck everything is.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-13 03:13am

Nobody bothered asking what the intended application was. The choice of "best" OS depends entirely on what you plan to do with the thing. For example, if you want a robust server OS that is cheap (both in software and hardware requirements), easily customized, and highly flexible, then some brand of Linux is the hands-down choice. If you want one with a really cool GUI and commercial support, you have to say OS-X. If you just want to play games, then there is no good non-Windows OS. That market is pretty much locked up. The only way to make headway in the games market is to spend a gargantuan amount of money to break in and bribe developers to support your platform (see XBox).

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-10-13 05:58am

OS/2 pwns o'er all!

OS/2 is eternal!

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-10-13 08:02am

Drooling Iguana wrote:OS/2 pwns o'er all!

OS/2 is eternal!

Damn you! I was going to say that!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-13 12:30pm

According to The Register, Longhorn has been pushed back to 2006.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-13 06:02pm

Durandal wrote:According to The Register, Longhorn has been pushed back to 2006.

Although it is possible, it is likely that Microsoft will push to get Longhorn out in 2005 if at all possible. The reason is that they are stating that they have no interim OS that they will be releasing between XP and Longhorn so it will hurt their bottom line the longer Longhorn gets delayed. It's always possible that they will reverse this decision and patch something together at the last minute (Windows ME anyone?) but this didn't work very well for them last time and it would be a shitty PR move.

From what I've seen so far, Microsoft should be able to meet a 2005 deadline. Longhorn should be ready for beta sometime next year so unless there is some particularly sticky issue holding them up, there shouldn't be any reason why they can't release it in Q4 2004.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-10-14 11:18am

Well, Microsoft recently released "Windows XP Media Center Edition" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. They'll probably continue doing special editions like that until Longhorn comes out.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-14 01:08pm

Crayz9000 wrote:Well, Microsoft recently released "Windows XP Media Center Edition" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. They'll probably continue doing special editions like that until Longhorn comes out.

Windows XP Media Center isn't a special edition, it is a niche product that requires closed hardware and isn't availibile to the public (unless you buy a PC of course).

Longhorn just got officially pushed back to 2006 today, so it looks like we'll probably get that interim release of Windows after all.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-14 01:30pm

It actually took three years to develop Windows 2000 (aka NT5), so taking three years to develop Longhorn doesn't sound too bad.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-14 01:41pm

phongn wrote:It actually took three years to develop Windows 2000 (aka NT5), so taking three years to develop Longhorn doesn't sound too bad.

FIVE years, not three. Longhorn has been in development since 2001.

::blink:: Are you sure about that? IIRC, major work on it started this year, all the previous work seemed more exploratory in nature.

Of course, nothing can beat Apple and their search for a modern OS

lukexcom · Post by **lukexcom** » 2003-10-14 10:51pm

Pu-239 wrote:I'm willing to generate config files to win converts to the Holy Debian Distro. .

I might take you up on that offer fairly soon.