I theorize that everyone who says windows XP is the best OS have never used anything else...
If you think that XP is the greatest and have used non-Microsoft OS's That are actually new (such as fedora core or macOS X), feel free to shoot this theory down.
linux, mac os are much better than other OSs, but as microsoft likes to rub in your face, they have the biggest software compatibility which is a result of their monopoly (paradox?).
windows is eye-candy only.
best? definitely not in reliability and security. 
Actually I've use only Win. I have no chance to use othet Operative System. I'd like to try in the future, so can't say which is the best, but using Win, I've found it quite good.
I've used DOS, (FreeDOS, MS-DOS, PC-DOS) Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98 and SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, SkyOS, various Linux distributions. Which I prefer depends on the situation. On the old computers I recycle I usually install lightweight Linux distros. The problem is they require pretty much inside knowledge, and using all-GUI stuff is no option because the hardware can't deal with those distros. I don't have time to go really deep, so the only OS I really know a lot about is Windows because that's what's used most. That's why I prefer Windows - because I want to be able to do as much with my system as possible, and I don't have time to explore the advanced opportunities of Linux on a lightweight system. I've tried, but it's different from having new hardware and the common, well-known distros.
Ive used win 3.11, win 95, 98 se, ME, 2000, XP, server 03 & R2 Vista and MACOS 8-X and mac os is well lame. IMHO MSFT makes a good OS and its a poular, pretty much it is the best thing we have got.
if you don't do programming, go and use windows otherwise there's not much point in using linux unless your computer's really slow.
most games nowadays are still on windows anyway.
I don't think so
The Linux system are also very good
and the freebsd
.....
Windows is Far from perfect.
I got in a discussion with one of my friends about windows vs linux. One of the main points we talked about was simplicity of each operating system. We both said that Windows is very easy and really just touches the surface of what an operating system is compared to Linuxes complex learning style but more funcitionality. Also, we talked about software that comes with the operating systems. With Linux, you get probably $1000 dollars worth of software that you would have to buy seperate for Windows. Also with linux, there isn't just linux, theres Red Hat, SUSE, Fedora, Debian, Mandriva and so on. With Windows, theres Windows XP and Media Edition, really not much flexibility with stuff.
Heres how I think of it:
Windows: For Grandmas, Gamers and People that want to scratch the surface
Linux: For those who want to know the true potential of their PC
Windows: For people who want to use their computer.
Linux: For people who want to spend hours setting up their computer.
| lockwolf wrote: |
| With Linux, you get probably $1000 dollars worth of software that you would have to buy seperate for Windows. |
Windows also has freeware. I never bought any extra software for my computer. The only non-freeware I have is Windows and Works which both were delivered OEM with my computer. Works I hardly use because I have freeware alternatives. A lot of good Linux applications are also available on Windows, for example Audacity. $1000? No way!
Getting the 'full potential' isn't just a Linux thing. Somewhere on this forum I mentioned that on old hardware you're usually better of both in speed and functionality with Windows 98 than with some lightweight Linux distro. Besides that you have to invest a lot of time to get the full potential out of Linux - there's a lot of stuff you have to learn before you can really do things.
SunburnedCactus: On the other hand when you've finished setting up your Linux system, it's a powerful tool. Linux really can be useful.
The problem in discussions such as this is that there's no nuance. The majority of prejudiced opinions usually is that Linux either 'pwns' or 'sucks'. | Arnie wrote: |
| The problem in discussions such as this is that there's no nuance. The majority of prejudiced opinions usually is that Linux either 'pwns' or 'sucks'. |
That's because most opinions on the subject are uninformed. Surprisingly few people have used Linux to it's maximum capacity when compared to Windows, and so don't really have a lot to say. I admit if you spend a bit of time you can get a lot more out of Linux, but I don't have that sort of time, and plus things work well enough under Windows for me.Hey, if its got a network stack and a browser, its ok for me! 
(but, of course, I've used FreeBSD, NetBSD, Windows 3.1,3.11,95,98,ME,2000,XP,NT, Linux - Gentoo, RedHat,Mandrake,Yoper,etc, BeOS, DOS, ...so I don't care...) | SunburnedCactus wrote: |
Windows: For people who want to use their computer.
Linux: For people who want to spend hours setting up their computer.
|
touché i tend to agree! | Arnie wrote: |
| I've used DOS, (FreeDOS, MS-DOS, PC-DOS) Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98 and SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, SkyOS, various Linux distributions. Which I prefer depends on the situation. |
Basically the same here. Windows is useful in the sense that you can sit down and use it straight away - Linux usually needs to be modded a bit. Older Windows distros were a pain in the ass - Windows ME was terrible and so was 98. At home - (now) - I use Windows XP Professional, DSL Linux and Xandros.Windows is something of a necessary evil. Everyone complains about it, but they are more or less bound to it. True, most of the stuff Windows can do, Linux can do just as well, but there are certain things that the Linux community needs to work on; WYSIWYG web-editors and gaming are a few. At home, I use Win2000 pro and SuSE Linux.
I think every major OS such as Windows, Linux, MacOS, can be powerful if you know how to work with it. I've been on 98 for a long time and if you know it well it's easy to work with and maintain. ME is another story, it's just buggy I have used almost all versions of Windows and several flavours of Linux as well.
and I think XP is a pretty good operating system.
Few days back, out of curiosity, when I was cleaning my PC (formatting and reinstalling stuff) I decided to install FC4 as well as XP.
I installed both the OSs for bare minimum usability - no office suite...nothing.
I noticed several performance differences -
- XP boots faster than FC4, it takes about 20-22s for XP to startup and settle down and more than 40s for FC4. Similarly FC4 takes more time to shut down.
- XP's idle RAM+pagefile usage was about 1/5 that of FC4. XP was using 60-70 MB whereas FC4 was using 350+.
- I launched Opera 8.50 (the only software I had on both the OSs) - It took <1s to lauch in XP, and more than 4s on linux. (internet is one of the prime uses of my PC)
- I also ran Quake 3 demo (which is again the only common game I have) on both. It did ~350 fps on XP and ~300 on linux. Using the latest official drivers off nvidia and the same in-game configuration. (gaming is the other use for my PC)
Not to mention the moment, when after running FC4 for about 3-4 hours, I noticed Disk thrashing...
That's right ! my PC with an expensive 1.5 Gigabytes of RAM was actually disk thrashing severely 
.
I immediately fired up the KDE system monitor (it took a while to show up, mind) and noticed that "X" was eating almost 1.4GB of memory !
After that it didn't take me long to shutdown and reboot in Windows.
My current machine is a decent P4 + 1.5G RAM + UDMA5 HDD.
I have had similar experience with my ancient Pentium 133Mhz + 32 MB RAM + 2gb non-DMA HDD system.
same with a P3 866 Mhz + 256 Mb RAM + 20 Gb UDMA4 HDD system.
I favour speed over anything else, and from my own experience I found XP to be better. ok here`s my opinion
1) My system : P3 celeron at 700 Mhz, 128 sdranm pc 133, video geforce2mx 32Mb.
2)OS`s that i am currently using: Windows XP PRo, Vector Linux(a flavour of slackware)
3)Linux Pros
It comes preinstalled with a lot of packaged software: audio/video players, codecs, games, 3 browsers(Mozilla, Dillo and Lynx), ftp agent, gtk-gnutella for file sharing, gaim for Instant messaging, etc etc etc. all this with 4 desktop managers everything being completely customizable. Ignoring the internet applications this is for start a better choice for someone without an Internet connection. All the applications work about 50% faster than in windows. For windows there are about ...what...300 trillion viruses out there? For linux there are only about 40 or 50 i think...not trillions....just 40 or 50
Also...stability is an important issue....Windows should be reinstalled at 6 months to work acceptable whereas a Linux instalation once properly installed can go on for years without problems.
Furthermore, Windows XP takes up 2,15 Gigs of HDD space, whereas Linux takes only 1 Gig (BTW i didn`t count Program Files:) ) .
4)Linux cons. WINE is pretty sucky and you can`t play the top of the line games.
All this should be enough reasons for a medium computer user used only with a graphical interface to choose the "Open Source Choice". About more advanced features it will require another thread and a whole lot of time...
So..this was my opinion...hoped it helped I don't like preinstalled software. I want small distribution packages, and I can get the software I want myself. In its' latest version, unlike many software delivered with the distro. So that can be a con-argument as well.
The fact that applications are faster on your system doesn't mean that's a general fact. Look at the posting above you. It's a comparison between XP and Fedore Core, and XP was faster in every way. It depends on what programs you use, what hardware you have, and how you configure the OS and applications. Things also may appear to load faster to you because the window appears while the program isn't fully loaded, or when you want a certain function it has to load that still, etcetera.
I use Windows without having had viruses and without reinstalling for a good while. Fools are able to wreck Windows just as they're able to wreck Linux. The only difference is fools don't know how to get Linux on their system, they can only work on their preinstalled Windows, so that's what they wreck. It's not just the OS that's responsible, it's the person operating it.
Your Windows takes up 2,15GB? My 98SE takes up 400MB and XP 1,5GB. Look at the size of modern harddrives. Let's say Linux and WinXP differ 5GB (very much overestimated). On a 80GB harddrive, that's only 6,25%.
My conclusion is your arguments are unbalanced and not nuanced. Both Windows and Linux can be a good choice, it depends on a lot of factors. People ignore a lot of significant factors and then come to the conclusion that "Windows sucks, Linux owns" or "Windows owns, Linux sucks". Start speaking for yourself instead of generalising your opinion and saying that Windows/Linux is best for everyone.
| Quote: |
| For windows there are about ...what...300 trillion viruses out there? For linux there are only about 40 or 50 i think...not trillions....just 40 or 50 |
Never heard about virus for linux... is it true?OK...I'm not fighting you, but only disagreeing upon certain points that you made.
| raver wrote: |
| It comes preinstalled with a lot of packaged software: audio/video players, codecs, games, 3 browsers(Mozilla, Dillo and Lynx), ftp agent, gtk-gnutella for file sharing, gaim for Instant messaging, etc etc etc. all this with 4 desktop managers everything being completely customizable. Ignoring the internet applications this is for start a better choice for someone without an Internet connection. |
I agree, linux does contain a lot of pre-installed packages, but there are a lot of users who consider this as "not good".
when installing Linux, I usually end up spending a lot of time going through the documentation and de-selecting the packages that I don't ever use.
| raver wrote: |
| All the applications work about 50% faster than in windows. |
All the common programs that I've run, seem to be more like 50% slower on linux.
You can always find some fansites claiming such performance differences, but I've never found any such claims to be very true.
Dragging or resizing a window causes the CPU utilization to rocket to 80-90% (as long as the window is being dragged or resized)
That means "hiccups" in media players like xmms or amarok if I move a window around ! (yes...the latest graphics drivers are installed)
I don't experience the same if I'm listening to songs on winamp and if I happen to be juggling around with explorer.
| raver wrote: |
For windows there are about ...what...300 trillion viruses out there? For linux there are only about 40 or 50 i think...not trillions....just 40 or 50
Also...stability is an important issue....Windows should be reinstalled at 6 months to work acceptable whereas a Linux instalation once properly installed can go on for years without problems. |
Call me lucky or a slightly experienced windows user, but not a single one of those 300 trillion viruses has infected my computer since I assembled it...that was about 2-2.5 years ago and I'm been running XP all this time without any antivirus whatsoever.
As Arnie said, it's all up to the user... if a user wants to wreck his computer, he probably will.
Only in windows, all the virus authors will gladly help him in doing it more comfortably 
and re-installation troubles ensue.
Just why do you think windows needs to be re-installed every few months ??? 
Is it not just because the users install too much junk on their machines ? and because badly written software uninstall routines don't do a good job ?
But overall Linux definitely is more secure by default and whereas Windows needs to be tweaked to be secure by limiting the most commonly targeted "weak spots".
| raver wrote: |
| Furthermore, Windows XP takes up 2,15 Gigs of HDD space, whereas Linux takes only 1 Gig (BTW i didn`t count Program Files:) ) . |
What can I say ? my winXP installs to ~750 MB.
And after spending about 5 minutes stripping it down, I've been able to install it to less than 350 MB of space (CD image size ~160 MB).
The main difference is the GUI being a non-separable part of OS in windows, not so in Linux.
| raver wrote: |
| 4)Linux cons. WINE is pretty sucky and you can`t play the top of the line games. |
If you play the so called mainstream "PC games", you have no option but to use windows.
And I do play a lot of games.
It's a different thing that I even prefer listening to music and surfing the internet on windows.
| raver wrote: |
All this should be enough reasons for a medium computer user used only with a graphical interface to choose the "Open Source Choice". About more advanced features it will require another thread and a whole lot of time...
So..this was my opinion...hoped it helped |
I won't argue about :-
being opensource and free ...there's nothing to disagree with.
the advanced features...I don't know much about that.
enough reason to use Linux rather than windows...again debatable to no end.
p.s. - I'm writing this post from Firefox on SuSE 10.0 best.... how?
"Oranges are the best"
See how that assertion is a little empty?
Right, time to clear up some crap:
Linux is not hard to use
The main argument against it is that it is too hard to use. This argument comes in several flavours:
"Windows: For people who want to use their computer."
"Windows: For Grandmas, Gamers and People that want to scratch the surface"
So, let's examine things that are 'difficult' in Linux:
Installation: I find Linux installation easier than Windows, as it auto-detects far more of your hardware. Sure there's some scary partition-shizzle going down, but if you're not technically competent you probably couldn't or wouldn't install Windows anyway. So let'[s ignore installation for the time being.
Hardware installation: Which is easier; having new hardware auto-detected and just work, or having to fiddle around with driver disks and help forums? And again, if you're a 'grandma' user you're not going to be installing your own software anyway.
Software Installation: Windows installation process has far more steps than the apt, yum or emerge process. Also, install files are larger and less compatible across systems. Finally, there is not a standardised interface for installation in Windows and this makes it harder to learn. Also, if you're a 'grandma', you're not going to install software yourself or want to complie anything anyway.
In short, the only things that more difficult on Linux are those that an inexperienced user wouldn't attempt (or need to) on either system, and the things they would need to do are far easier.
Linux runs games
OH NOES I CAN'T PWN NOOBS IN CSS WTF DO I DO?
Calm down, 1337y, you can pwn noobs in CS:S on Linux. Or Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Or Unreal Tournament. Or any version of Quake. Or Neverwinter Nights. Or basically any mainstream Windows game through the $15 Cedega (which you can get, legally, for free by CVS).
Stfu n00b.
Linux is only for geeks and programmers
"if you don't do programming, go and use windows otherwise there's not much point in using linux unless your computer's really slow. "
Shut up. I don't do programming (except PHP, which I can do just as well in Windows). I use Linux. I can do things faster and more easily, have greater HW compatability, better performance, more money not spent on software, more time not spent on reinstalling Windows and also a clearer conscience.
Linux is for everyone.
Linux is for power users
I'm a Windows power user, with a working registry knowledge, a passing love of gaming and some pretty 1337 admin skills. I'm the one type of person that shouldn't like linux but I do, and I was prepared to bear with the pretty easy learning experience for some good in the long-run. I'm probably not as good in Linux as I am/was in Windows yet, but I'm already faster than I was in Windows.
Linux power users can put Windows power users to shame in terms of speed; the commandline, whilst sidelined and lampooned on Windows is rightly held as the best tool available to the true power user in Linux, and makes most tasks into a careful single line of instructions.
Just so you don't think I'm some fanboy, I've used:
Windows 3.1 for Workgroups
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows XP Home
Windows XP Pro
MacOS 9
MacOS X
Slackware Linux
SuSE 9.1 Personal
Ubuntu Hoary Hedgehog
Ubuntu Breezy Badger
Favourites are Windows 98 SE, OSX and my (current) Ubuntu Breezy. Least favourites were Win3.1, 95, 98 and SUSE.
Try Mac OS Tiger x86, some newest Linux distribution or maybe Solaris 10.
Windows is only "user friendly" - "dummy outside" designed, and nothing else.
Concurent OS from above have better memory and disk management, better network performace, stable shell, better security etc.
XP urgently need to be replaced, but I heart Vista will be nothing more but face lifting XP.
I wish it would be true that Linux autodetects hardware. Try installing a minimalist distribution on a Pentium I or II. While Windows 98SE autodetects everything, Linux is a real pain. I still use Linux on P2 but the autodetection is worthless. Nearly everything needs manual installation or configuration.
Well i use both however i like to change between my os's because i like them both. but seeing that linux is much more powerful i stick with it. and for all those people out there who have only used microsoft windows xp. think again. never by those expensive cheap microsoft bill gates products because they rip u off buy or download linux. it's the best os in the world for me. but if u haven't used any other os before other than windoes i'd stick to it becos more software adn hardware it more compatible with microsock wnidows xp. for now. (read below)
Go LINUX ENTERPRISES!!
i found out like sum people have noticed that u have to manually install everything for linux. because the autodetect is so pour. but when u do it manually u choose a better driver and it yor choice not the computer. but windoes xp properbly has the 1 of the best autodetects. however LINUX ENTERPRISES beats all the OS"s
Go Go Go LINUX!! 
Hey,
Best Operating System?
Here's what i think. Windows is great because there is a lot of programmes out there for it. Almost every software supports it. The bad, it looks ugly, bloody prone to viruses, worms and crashes.
Linux is for people who knows their computer. It's hopeless if you know nothing. Just like giving someonw a top of the line SLR camera, if they dont know what to do, it's a waste. The good, it's free, more flexible than windows and looks better than Windows.
Finally, there is Apple. Apple looks the best, the sexiest. You go in a shop and the first thing that cateches your eye would be the elegant design of the macs. People in the design and arts industries mostly used macs. The bad, limited software, thou, the software available for it is top notch. Lastly, bloody expensive.
So, i think windows is okay. for the computer illiterate maybe.
Linux for those who know what 'they're doing. I reckon people who has got 2 machines at home should install Linux on one of them and learn it when they've got time.
Lastly, Macs. They're lovable. Best for arts and design. For the rich.
SunJay
MACs rock!!!
XP is my 2nd favorite.
No software would be the best ever...for the progressive tech.
But I do agree XP is quite good to this moment.
XP sucks, I mean it's the worst you can find!!!
Mac OS is very beatiful, stylish, much more effective and reliable than XP... much better!
Linux is free, it includes all free software needed and you run much MUCH faster with the same hardware. If you think watching the sand thing in Window$ whenever you switch from one window to another with a few programs running is normal, try and see Linux-based systems!!! No interruptions!!!!
And where do most servers run? In UNIX and Linux of course!
Haven't tried BSD based ones, but they look great too!!!
Simplyw00x, you claim that Linux auto detects your hardware and just works.
Sorry, I've installed Linux many times, and I've had hardware problems every single time. With current or old hardware.
First, it may or may not detect all of your hardware. For example, it could not detect many onboard built-in video accelerators such as those on laptops, it could not detect my GeForce 4 Ti 4200. (It did detect my X850 XT, to my suprise.)
Hyper-Threading. I'm not even sure if Linux liked HTT on.
X64-84. I was too afraid to try installing Linux on my AMD64 systems, though I haven't done much research on Linux's 64bit support. I'm pretty sure Windows supports it better.
Software. Windows has support for a lot more softwares, a lot more easier to use ones. Linux, believe it or not, is really not for the casual computer user who just wishes to enjoy their time on their computers.
Dual-Core. Would Linux support my Dual Core Athlon64 like Windows?
Games. Many games do not work on Linux. Graphics drivers may also not be avaliable for certain cards.
Need I continue?
Windows is the best OS? Is this a joke?
Everybody laughs at Bill Gates and Microsoft, but what can we do? Most of programs, games are designed for Windows - it's simply the most popular OS. Fortunately it's changing.
Probably everybody have already seen an alert, that you can't delete file because it is used by other user or aplication.
I am using poish version of Win XP and there is a very funny bug in translation. When u use Search u see a dog, wizard or other character. When you click right mouse button on it you have 3 options. The first is "Wybierz inna anonimowana postac" in polish and it doesn't mean "choose other animated character" but "choose other anonymated character" . The second option is to turn anonymated character off . LOL!
Greets
Cáno Well, as a M$/INTEL PC repair person I say...
LET THEM TAKE OVER!
and I'll have every one of those PC's in my shop at least once a year, some of them two or three times
and its $75 an hour with a two hour minimum. H3ll, I make $300 a day Part Time!
Stop raggin about windoze and go get A+ certified. Easy work for life...
| slashgrab wrote: |
| XP sucks, I mean it's the worst you can find!!! |
worse than Windows 95?I don't think so. I think Linux is best.
| gonzo wrote: |
| slashgrab wrote: | | XP sucks, I mean it's the worst you can find!!! |
worse than Windows 95? |
Maybe not worse (blue screen ), but you could normally delete files in Windows 95, and you had acces to DOS .
Greets
CánoWell, past weeks I try Mac OS X86, I try several Linux distributions, and finaly install again Windows XP.
It's true that Mac OS or Linux are superior operating systems. Better graphics, great network performance, better security,... But Windows have one little advantage above others: EVERYONE AROUND ME HAVE WINDOWS !!!!
Windows is like Volkswagen Golf, nobody is satisified with it but everyone buys it.
I work in tipical Croatian high school. Our "Department of Education and Science" made an contract with Microsoft (I believe that other countries also have that kind of contract) and in all schools Microsoft programs are common and Windows too. So if I teach students operating system, I must teach Windows XP (thats in all regular books), but I always take a time showing students work in Linux. About 80% 1. grade high school students in Croatia never heart about enything else about Windows!!! That's apsolutely true.
I also work as a programmer in small educational software development team, but we must developt Windows applications, becouse over 90% our customers use Windows!.
So I try other way - If I must have Windows, I will have Windows on my way. Visit several XP tip & tricks & hacking sites, messing with registry and system files, and finaly I got windows I like it - fast and nice. I also removed several stupid limitations (like 20% network broadband limit).
Better days maybe come with further Internet develop. Maybe some day will be irelevant wich operating system you have, couse most programs will be run from Net... or something ... i think ... or we all doomed...
I have only used XP and Linux. So dont know about Mac , i find XP handy as i always get its compatible software.... I have experienced it so much that it is difficut to switch any other operating system.
so XP is the best
| Arnie wrote: |
| I wish it would be true that Linux autodetects hardware. Try installing a minimalist distribution on a Pentium I or II. While Windows 98SE autodetects everything, Linux is a real pain. I still use Linux on P2 but the autodetection is worthless. Nearly everything needs manual installation or configuration. |
Nobody can claim against a system like you just did. I have a P-III and a Duron system. On neither of them did I have support for the network card, video card, sound card, or DMA enabled by default with Windows 98 (the stuff was newer than the OS). On the other hand, this hardware installs without problems at all with any of the 20 or so Linux distributions I've played with in the last year alone.
With Windows XP, you'd think that I'd get along fine as well, too. Not so. My generic Rage 128 Pro, which is in many Dell and Compac workstations all ver the world, for years now, and the SB Live! sound card that is just as common, both install and get recognized under XP, but I have no 3D accelleration without going to the ATI site and downloading their own driver, and I don't get proper 4 speaker or 5.1 support without going to the Creative site and getting their own driver either.
There are many other things that are equally annoying and difficult on Linux, but I'd have to pick it over Windows if I had to choose just one.
Installation? Who installs Windows? Their computer comes with it. But, lets say you had to...1 hour for Win 98 and XP (sorry, haven't installed '95 for 4 or 5 years). And then, you have to spend another hour hunting down drivers and comfort apps before you can get to work. With some Linux distros, that's cut to as low as 10 minutes. I can say that if anyone wants to get going with a few mouse clicks and 2 or 3 things filled out, they can install a distribution like Mepis or Linspire in 15-20 minutes and all the apps you want are all there. Ubuntu or Kubuntu are about 1/2 hour. That's from disk in hand to surfin the net all good to go.
Like I said before. I don't care either way, but the record should be set straight. Its no picnic sometimes on ANY operating system.
To each his own, I guess.I agree with the previous post.
For an easy to install linux distro, use SuSE.
Here's my experience with it compared to windows XP on the same computer:
Auto-detected all hardware (XP auto-detected most hardware)
Nice looking GUI from the start (XP had a nice GUI for some of the proccess)
Boot from CD to install (XP also)
No command line to mess with (XP also)
Auto-detected my tv-tuner card (I still havn't gotten that to work in XP despite hours of work)
Automaticly set up my partitioning to suit me, although I changed it (XP insisted to be installed on the primary partition of the primary drive)
Automaticly set up a dual-boot with windows (XP refuses to recognize linux)
Automaticly set up my dual video card system (XP can only use 1 at a time)
Automaticly resized my XP partition (XP didn't need to resize anything)
Automaticly detected my network and proxy server, and made itself internet-ready (XP had to install the network, then be told where to find the proxy)
| ocalhoun wrote: |
I theorize that everyone who says windows XP is the best OS have never used anything else...
If you think that XP is the greatest and have used non-Microsoft OS's That are actually new (such as fedora core or macOS X), feel free to shoot this theory down. |
I maintain several smallish networks. For the most part our end users can choose Mac OS X or Windows XP for their workstation or Laptop,. I use Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and FreeBsd for various servers.
They all work great, and play well together.
Macs are especially good for software out of the box and the friendly user interface sitting on top of the unix I use for tuning and maintenance.
Windows XP requires more work up front keeping them crap free, but when up and running they are great.
I don't particularly care for the Linux flavor desktops, but for my server purposes linux/unix are great to have.
I think they're all good.
My 2 cents.
longjackI've used many different operating systems and have found most of them confusing. I use Windows XP because it's what I've always used and because I'm familiar with it, it is the least confusing.
once mac turns all their hardware to the new intel chips and dump the powerPC chips will mac be able to play mainstream games or even run Microsoft OS software??? If it does I think everyone who is a dummy at computers will probably switch to mac at some point since mac is definaletly easier to learn.
I have to say that Windows XP sucks in many ways. I haven't been able to use a Mac but I've been using K/Ubuntu as my primary OS for the past 4 months or so. I am really impressed with the hardware support of Linux and I really love the Linux experience. I still haven't removed XP from my machine because I still do not have the time now and I still use some of the applications that are exclusive to Windows. I love those applications but I hate Windows. Anyway, there are many FOSS-counterparts to proprietary software that are even more powerful.
Windows XP has many bugs and if you do not install the latest patches, a firewall, and antivirus program, your machine will surely be compromised. I've been enjoying Linux now and I have no plans of going back to Windows.
Linux will surely gain more market share in the desktop when KDE4 is released. I am also looking forward to seeing a very significant improvement in GNOME.
Like said before Windows has and does own the OS world, heres a little explanation why.
PROS
90% of programs are either made for, or are compatible with a Windows system % Older programs = Windows 98/Me/2000, Newer Porgrams = XP
Leaving Mac the next best system for compatibility followed by Linux
Recomended/And advertised by many retail outlets
Many computers only run with Windows and are not compatible with others OS
Sometimes comes free with some computers
For those *less wealthly* people, there are many pirated and serial numbers everywhere
XP GUI alright, although not quite up to scratch with MAC OS X
Lots of hardware can only be used on a Windows OS
Very well advertised and promoted
Large support for Non-English langauges
Lots of patches/mods/features are availble due to its popularity
CONS
Very Bad Security Issues, BUT...
Windows security really isnt that bad Compared to other Operating Systems. Its just that its popularity has led it to be a targeted OS to hack (Why would you want to hack 5 MAC users when you could hack 90 Windows users)
Sluggish when compared to *nix, Mac
Cost, and who wants to give ther money to Bill Gates anyway
worse for bugs
Dosen't use all of its possible potential
Windows is more restrictive
"Classic" GUI is a bit daunting, Although some like it
Is made by M$ lol
CONCLUSION
MAC and *nix are both overall better actuall OS, However due to windows great popularity and coverage Windows tops the tables
| BCobos wrote: |
MACs rock!!!
XP is my 2nd favorite. |
yeah.. mac's are the best
the first and last computer i bought was a mac ^^I have worked on other OS's but I still like Windows XP.
| whoa wrote: |
90% of programs are either made for, or are compatible with a Windows system % Older programs = Windows 98/Me/2000, Newer Porgrams = XP
Leaving Mac the next best system for compatibility followed by Linux
|
A result of their monopoly, not a reason for it | whoa wrote: |
Recomended/And advertised by many retail outlets
|
That's a great reason to spend $300 | whoa wrote: |
Many computers only run with Windows and are not compatible with others OS
|
A complete lie (unless referring to MacOS) | whoa wrote: |
Sometimes comes free with some computers
|
Always comes free | whoa wrote: |
For those *less wealthly* people, there are many pirated and serial numbers everywhere
|
That's illigal | whoa wrote: |
XP GUI alright, although not quite up to scratch with MAC OS X
|
Why settle for alright? | whoa wrote: |
Lots of hardware can only be used on a Windows OS
|
Linux hardware compatability is far better | whoa wrote: |
Very well advertised and promoted
|
Again, a wonderfull reason to spend $300 | whoa wrote: |
Large support for Non-English langauges
|
Many versions of linux were made in other languages. Ex: SuSE is largely German. | whoa wrote: |
Lots of patches/mods/features are availble due to its popularity
|
Even more mods/patches/features are available because its open-sourceWindows XP IS the Best...
.......resource hog
.......waste of money
.......way to make Microsoft wealthier.
Take your pick.
"Windows rules the OS world"?!?
Windows owns a greater share of the desktops in the U.S., but most people I know in E. Europe use Linux. Not to mention all the web servers with Linux & Apache running on them.
On the cons list against MS Windoze did they mention viruses, adware, spyware, trojans, malware....
Many have argued that all those malicious code would start showing up in Linux/BSD if they were mainstream OSes. And it is tue that more code would be written to do just that. However, it is not as easy to remotely install progs on a linux box.
Just because many in the US want "freedom from choice" (Devo) don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone does.
Besides even former Windows programmers complain about what an awful OS it is.
the three astricks in my other post was supposed to be assume...um I missed a few letters.
Sorry.
Hey don't Be so rude!!
I have used both Windows and Linux
and have found that Windows is much more better that LINUS
Thanx Bill!!!
I mean Bill-Gates!!
I say Mac OSX is the best OS. And here's some information to back up my opinion.
It's more intuitive than all the other operating systems, and it's better looking. (Although that last bit was just my opinion) Macs are also fast, and it just feels better. People decide not to buy a Mac, however, because they think it's really expensive, they don't want to switch operating systems, they haven't actually used it a lot to see that it's better, and because everyone else uses Windows. (I know because I've switched from the OS that really, really likes the blue screen of death. A particularly annoying Windows box.)
You need to be really good at computers to be able to even install Linux, and once it's running, you need to be even better to be able to even install a application. But, I didn't really mind that, and when you finally got linux running like you wanted, it's great. But how many people do know how to do all that? I mean, I met a lot of people who don't know how to play a DVD on their computer.
And finally, the last major OS. Windows. Let's get started, shall we? First of all, it's annoying, secondly, it's just a bunch of updates held together by glue, and did I mention it's anoying? Well, Windows is kinda easy to use, I agree, but it looks bad (again, my opinion), and it's gone so long without a newer version. Vista coming out, and it looks like they just changed the look of it, thrown in a few features that's already on the other OS's, and stuck a 64 bit processor in it. (Depends on the version you get; as there's a 32 bit version too) Windows Vista also takes up way more memory, according to the review I read...
And an afternote: These information is probobly kinda biased, but I have used all the major OS's and this is just my view of things.
Also, I am not saying that all other OS's other than the Mac sucks, as they have good points also, but I am not writing a full fledged review here, or anytime soon.
I think if you are a novice at using comuters it is better to opt for an easy userfriendly OS such as XP. I've written my own programs and so on in XP but I have seen several advantages of Lineux. If you want a really good user try alien ware.
| chefur wrote: |
| I think if you are a novice at using comuters it is better to opt for an easy userfriendly OS such as XP. I've written my own programs and so on in XP but I have seen several advantages of Lineux. If you want a really good user try alien ware. |
I think that what you just said is not true all the time. What if, for example, a person with no idea of computers suddenly uses Linux? Do you think that he/she would think that "Hey, this is not a user-friendly OS at all."? I think that that wouldn't be the case. If you are/were using Windoze before then suddenly switched to another OS, then you would probably get lost with that new OS because you are used to XP. I think that every OS is great in their own respects.
Windows is "great" because many applications are being developed for Windows. The software available makes Windoze "great". However, Mac and Linux are already great even without those bulk of apps. Anyway, most of those Windoze apps are probably crap.
For many people, XP is the greatest OS for them because it is the only OS that they use. Others reason out that most of the programs being developed are Windows-only. But if you asked me, using Linux or Mac is a better choice. Linux is not that hard to learn anymore and there are many FOSS tools that are very competitive in the market.Here's a question: what would Linux fans say if I called it for example 'Linsux'?
| Arnie wrote: |
| Here's a question: what would Linux fans say if I called it for example 'Linsux'? |
Nothing !
Well, I don't think Linux is too hard to use...
If you have been used only Windows, you may say Linux is not easy to use.
Who has learned Windows in just one sitting 
Last edited by .::idealist::. on Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:45 am; edited 1 time in totalXP has 6 big problems.
1. it is tooo user-friendly. microsoft has sacrificed functionality for excessive ease of use.
2. ive had trouble with it in the past. it always seems to crash on me and thats an issue ive never had with win2k pro or windows 3.11
3. its bulky like noneother. creeping featurism has made xp about 4 times as large as it should be.
4. it takes too long to install - no os should take as long to install as xp does. ive installed distros of linux in 1 tenth as much time.
5. xp is far more ram intensive than any other win distro (until vista).
6. costs too much. linux is free.
although i like the security and functionality of mac and linux better, i have to choose windows 2000 pro as my favorite operating system. i find all my favorite software is compatible with it and it doesnt have the issues stated above.
iused ms dos,3.11,win95,98,mellnium,2000,winxp,and iam wait for windows vista ,linux is not able to connect through all modems
xp always good
| easydolphin wrote: |
Hey don't Be so rude!!
I have used both Windows and Linux
and have found that Windows is much more better that LINUS
Thanx Bill!!!
I mean Bill-Gates!! |
Are you sure that Microsoft/Bill Gates isn't rude ?
I think Microsoft(Bill Gates) is so rude.
They messed up again !
Why ?
They've marketed a -special- version of XP with great freatures(just an example in the following) in some countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Arabic Countries, Turkey...
Microsoft means that you're poor, your money is enough only for our this edition ! If you want to a real XP edition, you must pay more and more and make more rich Microsoft ! But this is not enough for Microsoft and will not anytime too...
You may be really very happy with your Xp and you may like Microsoft and Bill Gates too much but don't forget to the facts that some countries are really poor and they haven't enough money to buy licenses for each computer in their schools. 
I just mean that they can price cut a little at least for these countries instead of 'Poor Countries Edition'.
| Microsoft wrote: |
• Simplified task management: With Windows XP Starter Edition, first-time home PC users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes setting a maximum display resolution of 1024x768 and no support for PC-to-PC home networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC. |
What a great features !
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/08-10WinXPStarterFS.mspx
Please note that I don't mean that you shouldn't Microsoft products. I just wanted to try to explain some facts about Microsoft and I think they're very odd, so I wanted to share my thinkings about it. And I'd recommend that please don't forget to these facts !
Lots of love to you all,
Happy New Year,I have used RHL 9 and fell that Windows the best professional Operating System around.Windows is noted for its features and easy availability of softwares.Windows is the best Graphical User Interface Operating System
| .::idealist::. wrote: |
| easydolphin wrote: | Hey don't Be so rude!!
I have used both Windows and Linux
and have found that Windows is much more better that LINUS
Thanx Bill!!!
I mean Bill-Gates!! |
Are you sure that Microsoft/Bill Gates isn't rude ?
I think Microsoft(Bill Gates) is so rude.
They messed up again !
Why ?
They've marketed a -special- version of XP with great freatures(just an example in the following) in some countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Arabic Countries, Turkey...
Microsoft means that you're poor, your money is enough only for our this edition ! If you want to a real XP edition, you must pay more and more and make more rich Microsoft ! But this is not enough for Microsoft and will not anytime too...
You may be really very happy with your Xp and you may like Microsoft and Bill Gates too much but don't forget to the facts that some countries are really poor and they haven't enough money to buy licenses for each computer in their schools.
I just mean that they can price cut a little at least for these countries instead of 'Poor Countries Edition'.
| Microsoft wrote: |
• Simplified task management: With Windows XP Starter Edition, first-time home PC users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running concurrently. Further simplification of the operating system includes setting a maximum display resolution of 1024x768 and no support for PC-to-PC home networking, sharing printers across a network or more advanced features such as the ability to establish multiple user accounts on a single PC. |
What a great features !
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/08-10WinXPStarterFS.mspx
Please note that I don't mean that you shouldn't Microsoft products. I just wanted to try to explain some facts about Microsoft and I think they're very odd, so I wanted to share my thinkings about it. And I'd recommend that please don't forget to these facts !
Lots of love to you all,
Happy New Year, |
I donot agree with you in this matter.Microsoft has released Starter Edition XP with local language Support and not Poor countries Edition as termed by you.You cannot speak ill about any countries in this forum please we are not fighting any battle here avoid such racial remarks .I cannot digest such posts. 
I would say windows xp is the best operating system for me personally purely for compatibilaty otherwise I would use Mac osX as I know someonje who has one who doesn't have antivirus software and hasn't had a problem with them for over 6 years. The only thing is with apple computers you pay for the quality.
| vignesh_natraj wrote: |
I donot agree with you in this matter.Microsoft has released Starter Edition XP with local language Support and not Poor countries Edition as termed by you.You cannot speak ill about any countries in this forum please we are not fighting any battle here avoid such racial remarks .I cannot digest such posts. |
I didn't want to make racial remarks...
One of these countries is my homeland. (Turkey)
I don't really understand some things...
- Why does Microsoft want to sell this edition only in these countries ?
- Why hasn't Microsoft released Starter Edition XP in the rest of the world ?
'Poor Countries Edition'. That's all, i think. It has no other meaning...
If they really want to make Windows XP more accessible and receivable for each computer user in all the world, they can price cut a little instead of a edition that has awful features.
It has released with local language support ? I wonder why haven't they forgotten this feature ? Have they gotten patent for this feature ? [ Microsoft® Windows® XP Starter Edition® Local Language Support® ]
I think these features are so awful. Microsoft has prepared it for only some countries. But there's a fact. Are these countries poor or rich ?
Users can have up to three programs and three windows per program running concurrently. Includes setting a maximum display resolution of 1024x768 and no support for PC-to-PC home networking, sharing printers across a network...
A great trade strategy on these countries ! I don't say anything more. I'm sure Microsoft/Bill Gates will make money only little several ten billion dollars from these poor people... The world is being directed by some clever worms. And then the people like them too much. I can't understand what the people can find with them.
Last edited by .::idealist::. on Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:45 pm; edited 1 time in totalIf he's a MS lawyer, you're obviously the accuser. But thanks for your highly nuanced opinion, I will probably use it as an example in the many occasions I come across this debate.
P.S. I'm not defending MS. I'm only noticing your black-white vision.
I believe that Windows XP is the best OS out there for computers that can support it. The second-best option is Windows 2000 Professional. Beyond that, go down the list with Windows 98, 95, and so on. I personally don't like Windows ME that much since I tend to get errors all the time with programs that crash in it. Yes, I have used other OS's, like Macintosh and Fedora Core (which is a distribution of Linux), but Windows is what I've learned on and want to really stay on. Yes, I know they're "different" in such ways, but Windows is the most popular and widely used OS there is nowadays.
- Mike.
| Arnie wrote: |
If he's a MS lawyer, you're obviously the accuser. But thanks for your highly nuanced opinion, I will probably use it as an example in the many occasions I come across this debate.
P.S. I'm not defending MS. I'm only noticing your black-white vision. |
I messed up a bit too much. I changed my post.
I'd like to apoligize to vignesh_natraj and to you all... I don't really like such posts and I've never sent such a post... I shouldn't wrote such a awful and stupid post... Nowadays, I don't really fell good myself...
So, I'd say a big sorry to you all...
Happy New Year.Windows works fine for me so why change I really respect that idealist. I myself would probably not apologise like that. 
| nOScott wrote: |
| Windows works fine for me so why change |
That's exactly how i feel, all my programs run with windows and i have no real reason to switch.Microsoft Windows XP is good!
I don't know what will happen when Vista will be.
XP is the best operation system now.
l've used many a mac, and nothing ever works for them 
l love the sleek design of them, but they just can't do nearly as much as my XP and for linux SuSe l believe it is, l tried that for a bit, but l didn't really like it. Sure it was nice for a little while, but l have too many things that work only in windows that l cannot live without. xp is the best 4 ever
it's my opinion 
