Topic: OS survey (Page 1 of 1)

Rule 1 : no "this OS is better because" debate... the purpose of this thread should be : which OS do Asylumnites favor?
Rule 2 : see rule 1.
Rule 3 : two or more OS's are allowed, ordered by preference, taste is what matters here.

Having said this, my vote is :
1) Mac OS X
2) Linux Ubuntu (Feisty Fawn to be specific, had problems with GG)
3) Solaris, I find command line appealing recently, due to the incredible stability of monsters like Unix (have been working with HP UX lately, will favor the original though,
the real deal, Solaris)

Unix

1) vista - on my main comp that I play games on
2) xp - on my laptop which acts mostly as a torrent box quietly leeching away in the dark

I'm comfortable this way.

1) Ubuntu
2) XP (though i only use XP at the moment :-( due to some games)

Favourite OS: OSX (Because it's well engineered and actually exists on an end-user platform.)
Most used OS: WinXP (Because all my games and many programs are Windows specific.)
"Best" OS, idealistically: VMS (Because DEC knew what they were doing...)

--
var Liorean = {
abode: "http://web-graphics.com/",
profile: "http://codingforums.com/member.php?u=5798"};

1. XP Pro
2. Debian Linux

Interesting trends. Not many Vistas on the Windows side so far.
Many Debian based Linuxes as secondary OSs.
Mac OSX praised by a couple of techies like me.
Few Unixes and alternatives.

And interestingly enough, MacOSX is an extension of Linux, which is an extension of Unix, so who's the "true" winner?
So far, Unix based OSes seem to beat NT based OSes (but this is not enough to establish clear trends, yet the Asylum crowd reflects
an -advanced user- perspective decently enough).

Coolness all the way : the OS market will be a fun "place" in the coming years.
Will Bill Gates deliver? Will Steve Jobs continue to conquer?

(ok, I'll throw Karma in the mix : an easy equation : reality can only be bent "that much", no surprises
even if Windows was sold more than correctly for about twelve years, that a Unix foundation catches up,
as unlikely as it might have been two years ago.

why so? Because the -intention (karma) - behind Unix is rigorously respecting the nature and reality of computers, whereas
the intention behind Windows was conquering market shares. This is also an extension of the
"information tends to be free" paradigm, but I'll leave the reflexion behind this to you...).

Back to our survey

Debian at home, XP at work

Later,

C:\

quote:

---

argo navis said:

MacOSX is an extension of Linux

---

I'd say an extension of FreeBSD, but if you generalize enough, it's all just free Unix. I actually use a GNU/Linux distro myself, but I have no problem calling it 'Unix' (obviously).

Win2k for my home PC and XP at work.

__________________________
Eagles get sucked into jet engines and weasels are oft maligned, but beavers just make nice hats.
WCG|FA@H

>> if you generalize enough,

Yuppers, reisio, such a generalisation is arguable - still, in the end, in most cases, not only can you port a script based application
from one Unix "sequel" to another easilly, but the same goes for compiled code (not code to be compiled, compiled code) - all these
sequels from Unix share so deep similarities that all the Linux code I had to write so far, for example, works on Mac OS X without additional recompilation
or any fork or tweak. Drop the .so in a Mac environment, it does what is expected seamlessly - it's all standard libs in my case, though, and some java native interfaces at times.

Whereas the philosophy behind "NT" is so deeply different it shows : some core C/C++ principles and libraries may allow easy porting of code,
but still, compilation MUST be performed separately.

And this pertains to the underlying kernel : a Unix kernel, a Linux kernel, a BSD kernel "talk" very close dialects of the same language.

1) Red Hat Linux (for development and networking)
2) Windows2000 (surfing and playing mp3/pod casts)
3) Windows-98 (graphics applications)
4) Windows-95 (Office Tools, Page Layout)
5) QNX (Development)

I prefer one of the Linuxen. I've used AV-Linux, SuSE, Debian, and Red Hat. I want to get time to play with some of the others line Ubuntu. I just like the feel of Linux for work and play. However, I have quite a backlog of applications for Windows so I maintain a couple of windows machines to do graphics, web surfing, and page layout work. I would like to move all my applictions to Linux, just haven't had the money to set up new systems for several years. Also, I'm going to have to get some time to research the applications to replace the ones I use on Windows, once I get the money to get som new systems. Once we get some money, I'm also probalby going to get a couple of Macs. Those will probably replace my older Windows machines

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

1) OSX. Love it. Big time convert now ^_^
2) Windows um...something. My own custom hybrid of the XP-gen windows together with a few other bits - annoying, but a few games and a couple of applications I need
3) Any flavour of linux - often good fun, but don't get as much of a chance to use as I'd like.

Hyperbole: Have you seen the many updates here: http://www.msfn.org/board/Unofficial-Win98-SE-Service-Pack-f91.html - you can do some great stuff with win98!!



(Edited by wrayal on 12-11-2007 21:08)

Thanks for the link wrayal, I'll have to take some time to look at it in detail later

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

I come from Windows background, thus:
1) XP
2) Vista

--
Regards,
Elias

0. Amiga OS (4.1) (None of my machines work anymore, - Still my favorite. All needed functions of Win and 0SX and then some and it fit on 4 floppies.)

1. XP Pro / Home (Primary Workstation, ASP.net & IIS Dev Server/ftp server, and Laptop(home)
2. Win2k - ( SCSI scanners & Photography & Project Archive 1TB, )
3. Ubuntu / Fedora - (Driving my 13"x19" inkjet with Ghostscript & Apache Server )
4. Window ME - Legacy software and game machine. (Chrimson Skys)
5. C64 - (I have to add this.....!!! ) I still have a functional c64, and 2 c-128's. (Neuromancer anyone.)
6. OS X ( I manage a lab full of them, nice, but not my personal preference. I do love Applescript. )
7. OS 9 - QuarkXpress 4 ( For those pesky Mac clients hanging on with a death grip and Macromedia - Typographer 4.1 which I can't get to work under windows with 2 gig installed.)

Moving over to Vista when I build my new workstation, in 3 or 4 months, if they release the service pack by then.

I'm also thinking on moving my photography and project archive's to Ubuntu, but I'm not conferable enough with my ability's for maintaining hardware/software under Linux. And I've yet to get samba to work to my satisfaction on my Ubuntu install.

J. Stuart J.

(Edited by jstuartj on 12-14-2007 03:03)

Hrmm, I thought software maintenance/updating was something everyone agreed was easier with a free Unix.

I don't know why that would be the case.

My, gotta count those when the thread cools down, and make a real statistic.

I'll do it with "weighting" : top choice would get a weight of 3, 2nd would get a weight of 2, 3rd - weight 1.
With these, I should be able to make a fairly good estimate of the popularity of each one around these parts.

(so keep casting your votes).

quote:

---

reisio said:

Hrmm, I thought software maintenance/updating was something everyone agreed was easier with a free Unix.

---

I think so. No matter what software I have installed on my "Unix" box, it tells me if there's an update. Unlike Windows. FF, Thunderbird and a few other apps "phone home" to see if there's an update but not like *.nix does.

Later,

C:\

Ok, the score table so far looks like :

Mac OS X	| 3+2+3+ = 8 (/11) = 0.72
Ubuntu    	| 2+3+1+ = 6 (/11) = 0.54
Unix		| 1+3+ = 4 (/11) = 0.36
Windows Vista	| 3+2+ = 5 (/11) = 0.45
Windows XP	| 2+2+1+3+2+2+2+3+3+ = 20 (/11) = 1.81
Windows 2000	| 3+2+2+ = 7 (/11) = 0.63
Windows 98	| 1+ = 1 (/11) = 0.09
VMS		| 3+ = 3 (/11) = 0.27
Debian		| 2+3+ = 5 (/11) = 0.45
Red Hat		| 3+ = 3 (/11) = 0.27
Linux other	| 1+ = 1 (/11) = 0.09

I took Liorean's vote in account as "2+ for Mac OSX" and "3+" for VMS, 1+ for the last (for example, in order to translate
more abstract expressions of interest into usable numbers). I only considered three entries per list, and divided each weight by the total
number of OS's considered.

XP is ahead of the pack.
Mac OSX is rising. Our third contender is, oddly enough, Windows 2000, and the fourth is Ubuntu. Vista and Debian are on par.

For now... out of some 15 votes.

(so cast some more)

I'm not sure it's statistically correct to split the Linuxen into various distributions. Try putting all the Linux distributions into one category and see how that ranks. In fact, having used UNIX since, 1983, I would tend to put all UNIX OSs into one category. Of course, if you do that, it could then be argued that all Windows releases should be placed in one category. And that will lead to asking if Mac OS-X belongs amoung the UNIXen. Also, haven't I heard rumors that MircoSoft will be releasing a new version of Windows based on Linux? If so, does Windows then belong in the UNIX category?

So, We're all fans of UNIX

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

Will try that, but I have an answer to your question, a long and precious one.
Quintessentially, and to echo my "philoso" bit above (long long rant ahead, and a worthy read at that) :

Unix, as the name says, IS and has always been a milestone in the development of OS's, and IS
the core of the future of OS's. Wether you and I like it or not, and at least for the couple of centuries to come.

Why so?

We all live in reality, wether we like it or not.
But what is reality? Only way to tell is by measuring - individual perception is not enough, some mistake their wife for a hat (true story of a curious mental disorder, some guy...).
How do we measure? Perception can be biased, many perceptions together are less biased.

Science is the only REAL tool, and it's a tool, not a placeholder for the ultimate truth, merely a method :
experiment must be applied to validate the theory.

So, sorry for my creationist friends : evolution happens all the time, and elicits the fittest individual
- and this is measured by way too many people in way too many contexts to be considered obsolete.

If the name of "Darwin" makes you itch, go visit the flying spaghetti monster right now - do not read ahead.

Unix, now alive for 40 years, portable on many different hardware platforms, flexible enough to be tailored to very different needs,
and robust and stable enough to support massive applications (like web servers, and many other types of large scale applications),
has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it is the fittest in the world of OS's.

Compare a 40 year lifespan and the wide variety of platforms able to run it, to the Windows lifespan, already reaching a dead end : Windows *was* something
at some point.

But it's best qualities are being emulated and beaten by the competition : OS X based interfaces are a delight (Ipod touch, Leopard, Iphone...).
Beryl graphic hardware compositing beats Aero anytime in performances and quality, requiring less powerful hardware!!!
Server side? Compare Oracle to MS SQL for one. IIS has become better, but still, Unix based web servers are more widely spread.

Everything server is more stable in a Unix environment.

...

Wether you like it or not, evolution of technology is weeding Windows out, while Unix and the derivatives remain.
Windows is said to occupy the "evolutionary niche" of good desktop environments, but look above : XP and Win2k ahead of Vista?
Oops.

BIG TIME Oops from Redmond, they got it wrong.

Even the now famous commercial practices of Bill Gates have been emulated, very cleverly, by the competition - he did bring something :
corporate processes wise, marketting wise, he definitely did.
At the same time, his approach was flawed from the start, because it was based so much on "time to market" and marketting that at some point...

His company forgot to respect reality : they sold something as what it was not (revolutionary Windows? Who mentionned Amiga OS as containing that
YEARS BEFORE Windows?), and it backfired. Took time to backfire, but it did.

Just like a lie will backfire in all possible circumstancies - what goes around ALWAYS comes around in a form or another.

...

We all are fans of computer science, and as much as we respect it, natural trends, dictated by the principles of evolution,
are tending to make information science evolve to absorb the benefits of Windows, and graft them to more robust structures
that where there before : a Unix kind of kernel keeps dominating no matter what, and offering flavors that suit the end user needs.

...

But there is more to it : there is more to "Unix", there is something that is in the name and was there when it has been engineered back in the 60's.

Couple of hints :
- information tends to be free
- how does science define a living being?
- what is happenning in the world today? Which CRUCIAL societal changes can we observe?

Take these from your favorite Alien Life Form ,) I do have a point, but you have to think it to get to believe it.

Slackware and XP at home.
XP, Fedora, and Ubuntu at work.

--

Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.

So...
Lord F, I split your scores into percents, to stick to the measure system in use.

Updated score table, detailed version :

Mac OS X	| 3+2+3+ = 8 (/11) = 0.72
Ubuntu    	| 2+3+1+0.7 = 6.7 (/11) = 0.6
Unix		| 1+3+ = 4 (/11) = 0.36
Windows Vista	| 3+2+ = 5 (/11) = 0.45
Windows XP	| 2+2+1+3+2+2+2+3+3+1.5+0.7 = 22.2 (/11) = 2.02
Windows 2000	| 3+2+2+ = 7 (/11) = 0.63
Windows 98	| 1+ = 1 (/11) = 0.09
VMS		| 3+ = 3 (/11) = 0.27
Debian		| 2+3+ = 5 (/11) = 0.45
Red Hat		| 3+ = 3 (/11) = 0.27
Linux other	| 1+1.5+0.7 = 3.2 (/11) = 0.29

I will make the "less detailed" (I propose Linux / Windows / Unix / OS X as divisions for that, for example), and the "so general" version (Windows / Unix families).