Favorite OS

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-03-26 01:55pm

You couldn't do it in WinME?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-26 02:21pm

not really having used enough of the other systems to really say. . .and the fact that i find the Mac OS awkward, i'm going to have to put down windows.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2004-03-26 03:23pm

What...you mean there are options out there OTHER than Windows? Wow!

(duck and cover)

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-03-26 04:27pm

Windows XP. I'm sure I can try to tie my personality to my OS, and be all hip and cool and such... but I like not having to rewrite the code for half the products I buy (and not being able to use the other half).

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-03-26 04:39pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:You couldn't do it in WinME?

Not unless you hack it somehow. No "command-line only" boot mode.

But you can use a boot disk.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2004-03-26 06:01pm

Windows XP!!!!

My second favorite OS has a really complicated interface:

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-03-26 07:18pm

OS/2 Warp 3 and 4 all the way.
Hell, those ran native DOS and Win16 apps better than DOS/Win did.
Of course, IBM couldn't properly market a desktop OS if their lives depended on it so...

Of the various Win OS excuses I'll go for XP.
It's the only one I have NOT had to reinstall on a quarterly basis (so far...)

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2004-03-26 07:30pm

AmigaOS all the way, baby!

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-03-26 07:35pm

Since it's the only one i've used, Windows , more specifically Windows 95. 98 crashes too much, NT is too restrictive and XP crashes more than 95 and also has a load of annoying changes to stuff i've gotten used to.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-26 07:38pm

Chardok wrote:I rather miss DOS, There was something infinitely gratifying about not having a GUI. Made you look and FEEL smart to know and use some of the more obscure DOS commands. Impress your friends...make them think you are a computer GOD... There was a time when I would actually use DOS instead of Windows. remember back in the day when you had to launch windows FROM DOS Manually? Yeah, just like that. I miss DOS. I forgot many commands, but i'd get it back, I'm sure.

DOS pales in comparison to *nix. Microsoft has basically killed it, leaving 2000 and XP command line-less (that DOS emulation mode doesn't count). But in Longhorn, they're working on what appears to be a new command line interface. I don't know how capable it will be, since the command line probably won't actually be the operating system, though.

A command line has distinct advantage even in modern GUIs. If my GUI has a fully-featured command line shell, I can SSH into it and pretty much do anything I need to do without having to put up with a slow remote GUI.

Anyway, my favorite OS is, of course, Mac OS X.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2004-03-26 08:28pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:What is your favorite OS

oh yeah and no Sci-fi programming OSes....

Bah, you do realize that there are three flavors of Windows that you've deprived the Windows people of having to choose?

1) Windows up to 3.11 -- Not really an OS per-se, though it added a GUI and half-assed multitasking to old DOS.

2) Windows 9x -- Marketed as an improvement, crippled by frequent BSODs, dodgy network support and real-mode DOS lurked around there somewhere just to muck things up.

3) Windows NT 5.0/5.1 (Windows 2000/XP) Really the same OS, except with some irritating GUI and "features" bolted on in the case of XP. Though some would maintain that they are, from the standpoint of the idiot user, two seperate OSes.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-03-26 09:10pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Windows. But I'd dump it for Linux in a heartbeat.
Why don't you?

I run Linux on my other machine. Its not of much use unless you're doing something like running a server.

Um... it's pretty useful as a dev platform, web, email, and word processing like I'm doing now. Also there's the expensive stuff you can run on workstations.

SPOOFE wrote:Windows XP. I'm sure I can try to tie my personality to my OS, and be all hip and cool and such... but I like not having to rewrite the code for half the products I buy (and not being able to use the other half).

Um... I have never had to rewrite code for anything (besides, anything you buy probably wouldn't let you rewrite code anyway), and packaging obscure programs because I like my system clean unlike most other *nix and Windoze systems without files littered all over system directories doesn't count. Stop spreading FUD.

.Although I do admit there are problems with compatibility, however there's always Wine/VMWare/Win4Lin (Wine isn't too slow, if you can get the app running in the first place, can't talk about the other two, and the other two cost money).

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-03-26 09:30pm

Durandal wrote:Microsoft has basically killed it, leaving 2000 and XP command line-less (that DOS emulation mode doesn't count)

Nobody "left" 2000 and XP command line-less.

it never had a command-line, and it was called Windows NT before that.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2004-03-26 09:50pm

Windows, simply because I play games and I don't feel like having two computers/a dual boot setup. When I become rich, I'll have a gaming machine and a separate box for my work not connected to the internet in any way. For now, though, I'll continue to use Windows.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-03-26 10:33pm

Windows. Why? Because I'm one of those stupid people who only uses a computer for recreation.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-03-27 02:16am

Durandal wrote:A command line has distinct advantage even in modern GUIs. If my GUI has a fully-featured command line shell, I can SSH into it and pretty much do anything I need to do without having to put up with a slow remote GUI.

It gets even better than just SSHing into a box and using the command line remotely. If you have X11 installed on both computers, then you can SSH into a remote box, and open remote GUI programs as needed. Better yet, they blend right into the local X windows.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-03-27 02:18am

Slartibartfast wrote:Nobody "left" 2000 and XP command line-less. it never had a command-line, and it was called Windows NT before that.

That's not really correct: NT4, NT5, and NT5.1 all have a command line. It's called cmd.exe, and it does allow you to do some system administration tasks. It's still pretty limited, though, and as Durandal pointed out the DOS emulation stinks.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-03-27 04:09am

Durandal wrote:But in Longhorn, they're working on what appears to be a new command line interface. I don't know how capable it will be, since the command line probably won't actually be the operating system, though.

This new CLI in longhorn looks sweet.

Completely programmable with any .NET langauge from the command line, with intellisense too boot.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-03-27 04:21am

Yes, the Longhorn CLI does sound sweet, but given Microsoft's history at attempted security... it'll wind up being so full of holes you'd think it was pumice.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-03-27 05:26am

Crayz9000 wrote:Yes, the Longhorn CLI does sound sweet, but given Microsoft's history at attempted security... it'll wind up being so full of holes you'd think it was pumice.

Their security record has been dramaically improving, so I'm not to worried about it being full of security flaws.

The question is how secure it will be by default.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2004-03-27 07:52am

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-03-27 01:27pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:Nobody "left" 2000 and XP command line-less. it never had a command-line, and it was called Windows NT before that.
That's not really correct: NT4, NT5, and NT5.1 all have a command line. It's called cmd.exe, and it does allow you to do some system administration tasks. It's still pretty limited, though, and as Durandal pointed out the DOS emulation stinks.

Durandal wrote:(that DOS emulation mode doesn't count) <---

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-27 07:08pm

Crayz9000 wrote:Yes, the Longhorn CLI does sound sweet, but given Microsoft's history at attempted security... it'll wind up being so full of holes you'd think it was pumice.

Much as loath to admit it, Microsoft seems to be taking real steps toward a secure operating system. XP SP2 is one such indication, and Windows Server 2003 is locked down pretty tightly by default.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-03-27 09:08pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:Nobody "left" 2000 and XP command line-less. it never had a command-line, and it was called Windows NT before that.
That's not really correct: NT4, NT5, and NT5.1 all have a command line. It's called cmd.exe, and it does allow you to do some system administration tasks. It's still pretty limited, though, and as Durandal pointed out the DOS emulation stinks.

Durandal wrote:(that DOS emulation mode doesn't count) <---

cmd.exe isnt DOS emulation mode. Thats command.com.

cmd.exe is a native CLI, not the most powerful command line but still better than the old command.com version.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-03-27 10:04pm

Perl Shell > CMD

.

In seriousness, I use Zsh (the most bloated widely used shell. I mean, it comes with an FTP client

).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Favorite OS

OS you loved the most

Re: Favorite OS