What do you guys use as a main Operating System?
and why?
Printable View
What do you guys use as a main Operating System?
and why?
Windows. A lot of people will tell you that a unix-like OS is good, and/or you should use a Linux, BSD, etc., but don't listen to them. Windows is the most stable, innovative, user-friendly, and capable operating system.
Linux, for example, is deliberately difficult, in a desperate attempt to make the people who have no life, look like they know what they're doing.
And, BSD was originally made by a teenager, who (for what ever reason, I don't know the details) was jealous that _he_ wasn't the one who invented Windows; the project then grew by more people who felt the same way.
The stories are mostly the same across the board.
Think about it, Windows doesn't have 99.9% of the OS market share for no reason.
And with 8 being released soon, MS is upping the ante even more. Save yourself some headache, don't learn the hard way. Stick with the OS that's been proven. :)
I am definitely not one of those people who think that everyone should use linux but it is somewhat disgusting that the only thing people know about it boils down to useless anecdotes and lies about how obtuse it is a huge majority of the time. A lot of weird OSes like BSD and linux run the internet thanks to apache web server software. It shouldn't be totally ignored by anyone IMO. We will probably have the same stupid discussion anyway, but most of the people who ask about linux don't even ask google first.
At work, I use Ubuntu Linux, because that is what is running on our servers so it is better for me to have a ready test environment along similiar lines. I do not know first hand why a Linux distro was chosen for the servers, but my guess is that although the tools that we use are cross platform, the support for them on Linux is simply better (e.g., we use Python, and at least at the time when the servers were being setup, virtualenv and virtualenvwrapper installation, configuration and usage was more straightforward on Linux than Windows).Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMiguel
At home, I dual boot Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.04, but primarily use Windows. One reason is games: I'm not really a gamer, but the PC games I do play run on Windows, and while I might be able to get them to run on Linux, it is not worth the trouble. Another reason is that staying familiar with Windows helps when I need to provide tech support to family and friends, many of whom use Windows. Oh, and having variety from what I use at work is a Good Thing :)
On the move, I use BlackBerry OS, because my phone is a BB. I chose my BB Bold because I liked the keyboard, and overall I found it the most similiar to my previous Nokia phone when that one went down. There is a reasonably high chance I might switch to a Samsung Galaxy S3 later this year, but we'll see. If I do, then obviously my phone OS would change to Android (which is based on Linux).
I note that the version of BSD that Yarin is talking about predates Windows. Feel free to draw your own conclusions concerning the flamebait that Yarin posted in post #2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarin
I use Windows because it fits my style. I favor graphical UIs before text file editing, and Windows is what I am familiar. It helps that I get it for free, too.
I dislike Unix because the overall community focuses on programming with C and editing files. Many every day tasks become mundane and difficult, partly because there is no UI for it or because whatever help you find involves CLI. A lot of programs are distributed only as source code, and many have problems compiling due to compiler versions and different dependencies.
Contrast Windows where mostly everything has a GUI, there are 3rd party program GUIs to fill in the blanks and everything comes with installers. Hassle free.
Add to that that I cannot be bothered to research and find the most suitable distro among all of them to fit my style of working with multi-tasking, everyday tasks, etc.
That is not to say Unix/Linux is bad. My favorite missing tool from Windows is the Linux fdisk. Being able to create a filesystem in an bin file (essentially a raw hard disk file) and mount it in order to work with it is pretty handy I must admit. I have yet to find a program that lets one work with image files instead of partitions.
I probably should support my opinion:
Many jobs focus on editing files, but glibs aside... If a Lunix program has a GUI, you don't really need to do this. GUI option screens are not hard to program and many times, functional. A lot of times I see a screen that may as well be a file, but isn't, which usually isn't a detriment to anyone.Quote:
I dislike Unix because the overall community focuses on programming with C and editing files.
Do you know what you are looking for? I'd be willing to bet unless you were using someone's pet project (but in fairness it depends on who that someone is) that there is a binary package. Linux and unix are not strangers to binary packages as you seem to claim but they do use specific package formats. Many package managers have GUI front-ends too.Quote:
Many every day tasks become mundane and difficult, partly because there is no UI for it or because whatever help you find involves CLI. A lot of programs are distributed only as source code, and many have problems compiling due to compiler versions and different dependencies.
Windows isn't a stranger either. You've got InstallShield and MSI as examples of binary package management. In fact does MSI even work with Windows 95? That's an example too, perhaps not a good one... you need different binaries for the same program, just like Linux does. If you want to know what it's like to compile windows from source, there are bound to be visual studio projects around.
Mac has StuffIt things and DMG files.
The OS doesn't matter when it comes to many user complaints because the examples are so ubiquitous.
The linux distros that do the things you actually list will be returned shortly from my imaginary database:Quote:
Add to that that I cannot be bothered to research and find the most suitable distro among all of them to fit my style of working with multi-tasking, everyday tasks, etc.
SELECT ANY FROM LinuxDistroTable, BSDTable
*anecdotes despite no personal experience*
*stupid flaming*
*obvious trolling*
*comparisons between favored new and outdated alternatives*
*confusing cause and effect of popularity*
*discounting familiarity as having a strong effect on preference*
I've almost filled my "Stupid Thread" bingo card!
We need to bring "OS2" and "AmigaOS" into this thread.
Soma
Small bingo card huh?
O_o
Sorry, but "Stupid Thread Bingo" brand bingo cards employ United States rules.
It is a standard issue 5x5 card with 24 "values" drawn from hundreds of possibilities and "free space"; you only have to get a specific patterns of "hits" not "hit" every possible "value" or all 25 spaces.
Soma
Anyway, I use Windows because of college. If I were in an art degree I would probably use a Mac.
My phone probably uses Symbian - I don't actually know because it's a nonissue.
At work I'd use whatever they tell me to use.
I also heavily dislike bingo and if I get INCREDIBLY OLD I will avoid it as much as possible.
I'm mystified why anyone would register a "Like" for obvious flame bait.
Personally, I would have used a "Dislike" button if such a thing existed.
I'll leave the original question unanswered.
O_o
Well, I figured the thread itself was flame bait from the originating post; I can't help but think Yarin gave SuperMiguel exactly what he wanted.
Really, who could ask this question these days and expect anything more (less?) than trolling and flaming?
Soma
Yes, I mean, yes, you are right. But there are far more programs in Unix that require you to edit files than use a pretty GUI than in Windows. Some of this is because some of the people in the Unix community dislike GUI, or stamp is as annoying, horrible or just resource sucking. Some people don't even use X. And they can get away with it, because Unix/Linux really hasn't been that newbie friendly.
But on Windows it's another matter. Everything is based around GUI there.
That was kind of my point why I dislike Unix. Sometimes I am forced to work with editing files and working with CLI a lot more than Windows.
Oh, I've checked a few tools. To be fair, a lot of software exists in the distros software collection list thingy, or whatever it's called.Quote:
Do you know what you are looking for? I'd be willing to bet unless you were using someone's pet project (but in fairness it depends on who that someone is) that there is a binary package. Linux and unix are not strangers to binary packages as you seem to claim but they do use specific package formats. Many package managers have GUI front-ends too.
Sometimes it's as simple as yum install gcc. Sometimes it just won't work, such as installing grub legacy.
And don't get me started on the GUI. Usually it's ugly and flimsy. That depends on the distro, obviously, but that brings me back to the point on finding the right distro.
I worked my ass off trying to find a binary for grub legacy, but couldn't find one. And because no one maintained that anymore, I couldn't compile it, either. And hey, I needed it, because grub 2 didn't work for what I needed (aside from being a lot more complex).
And because of the hundreds of different distros, simply shipping binaries is difficult, unlike Windows.
Usually it's just to double-click the file and away you go. It's no more difficult than that. For pretty much all programs out there. If there is no installer, than it's usually just to extract the files somewhere.Quote:
Windows isn't a stranger either. You've got InstallShield and MSI as examples of binary package management. In fact does MSI even work with Windows 95? That's an example too, perhaps not a good one... you need different binaries for the same program, just like Linux does. If you want to know what it's like to compile windows from source, there are bound to be visual studio projects around.
(Who uses Windows 95 anyway these days?)
True, it's a one double-click for lots of things for Linux, too, but some things aren't so easy. It requires more know-how for some stuff.
Yes! I agree. But when growing up and becoming familiar with one OS, stuff becomes easy in it.Quote:
The OS doesn't matter when it comes to many user complaints because the examples are so ubiquitous.
Then switching to another is a bloody pain because you're going to have to re-learn everything because it does in different (not necessarily more difficult, though).
Just suffice to say that I've had my share of nightmares in Linux some months ago, and I'm not exactly thrilled about it!
I have used both Windows and Linux exclusively for many years, so I'm fairly proficient in both.
Right now I'm using Windows mostly because I started playing games again, and don't really feel like dual-booting. Besides, all I do on my home computer nowadays is web browsing, checking email, and gaming, so there's really no "need" for Linux, even though I much prefer it from a usability standpoint (small things like Windows automatically restarting to install updates, UAC, and bigger things like lack of package management system that makes installing things much more work than on Linux).
When I become unlazy again, I'll probably switch back to Linux and use Windows as a gaming console only, especially if I get into software development again. Software development on Linux is so much more straight forward and "natural" than on Windows IMNSHO.
Command line does have a steeper learning curve, but if you can stick with it, after you get proficient, you can do a lot of things much faster than with a GUI. Of course, this doesn't apply to everything. I would never edit a photo on command line, or browse the web. But for things like file management, a proficient command line user can do most things WAY faster than anyone can with a GUI. I don't think I've ever used a GUI to do file management on Linux even though it does have file managers at least comparable in quality to explorer.exe, because I can do things much faster on CLI. For example, to go into a few layers of directory when you know the directory names more or less (very common scenario), is much faster on the command line - "cd [first 2 letters]\tab[first 2 letters]\tab[first 2 letters]\tab", and less stressful because the eyes don't have to search the screen for the name on every layer.
Command line and GUI both have advantages and disadvantages. Some tasks naturally suit CLI and some GUI. On Linux, we get to pick which one to use. Almost no one uses CLI on Windows because "cmd" feels like it's taken straight from the 70s, and lacks many important modern command line features, so in a way, Windows takes away the choice from you.
mac and art (music, graphics, video) are no better matched than windows and art. the advantages of mac in this category have entirely disappeared since the release of windows XP. it's true that mac makes higher quality (generally) hardware, but a good high-end hp or dell workstation will do just as well, and for about the same money.
People will use whatever OS they feel comfortable with. For them, that is the best OS, and rightly so.
Both of my home systems have Windows operating systems. My wife uses Vista since I gladly handed it down to her and I use Windows 7 x64. All of my PCs within the last 20 years have used Microsoft operating systems because I play a lot of games and that is the platform that supports all of them. All of my software positions have used a Windows OS or an embedded Windows OS so nearly all of my experience is based on Microsoft technologies.
At work I use Windows 7. At home my primary OS is KUbuntu (Ubuntu with KDE), I used Windows 7 for a long time at home (mostly because of nvidia optimus) but once I got a good working copy of linux running I got stuck with it again.
I used Linux for many, many years and hated Windows with a passion. Four years ago I was forced to use Windows for work, ended up not hating it, and eventually switched my home machine to Windows 7. I now look on most Linux fanatics as interesting and quaint people who, one day and with a lot of luck, might end up doing something that matters to somebody.
The work I do is computational linguistics. I used to use Windows and then switched to Linux (Ubuntu) on my laptop first, then on my desktop too, and I haven't looked back. My impression is that it has very clean memory management, and is very stable under full load and full memory usage. You can easily kill a process or two that is using most of your CPU / memory and restart it, and it is very snappy. One of the frustrations I had when using Windows (I had used Windows from 3.1 to Vista) was that I could not do this. In addition, for software development, I find little things like grep very handy. I used to game when I first joined this board as a teen, and I don't anymore so that's not an issue. Anyway, the point is that I am happy with linux and see no reason to go back. Try it out! Maybe you'll be happy with it too! :)
My notebook runs MacOS X, because it's a Mac and I can't be bothered to install something else and risk the hardware not being properly configured. I've grown lazy that way.
My desktop dual-boots Windows 7 (for games and Windows development) and Sabayon Linux (for POSIX development).
My gaming PC runs Windows 7, my netbook runs a linux flavor, my webserver in the closet was on some kind of outdated freebsd when I switched it on last time and my mobile is running iOS. Only God knows what my TV sets and DVD players run, that allows them to update themselves using my wlan router, running openwrt. My main system? I would be ........ed without any of them.
this couldn't be further from the truth.
Linux is deliberately flexible. with that flexibility comes some difficulty, but the difficulty itself is not deliberate. Linux allows its users to modify parameters of its operation that windows doesn't even expose in a read-only context. if you want a user friendly solution in the box ready to go, sure, go ahead and use windows. on the other hand, if you have the knowledge and desire to customize your system at the lowest levels, then an open source operating system like Linux is the only choice.
I use windows mainly for gaming. But I recently installed Ubuntu as a dual boot.
At uni, we program on a unix system (I think it's red hat), so I thought I may as well program on linux.
Windows, because of graphics drivers and the need for true M$ Office. OpenOffice/LibreOffice is garbage. I am quite fond of Lubuntu though, very lightweight. Only a few extra packages to install and a few settings to change from a fresh install.
I take windows, with a healthy pinch of salt, for standard work, As was posted 9 out of 10 cats cant be wrong, but unfortunately my company has clients on unix services, and hosted variants too, and some of tasks, adding patches etc = mucho fear, it is just so unforgiving with the unix stuff, a wrong keystroke = ten client sites down..possibly, restore to previous nite backup, lose a days work for all the workers across all those clients, but thats not the OS's fault its the pony implementation. Heres a good 'nix nightmare... nearly nuked toy story 2
Windows 8 - because it rocks.
Prior to that several linux distros for as long as I can recall.
Windows 8 is broken because due to forcing UAC on you. It will remain broken until I have found a way to get rid of that problem.
so you're saying that in windows 8, there's no way to disable UAC? I guess I'll be sticking with 7 for a couple more years then.
I dual-boot Vista and Ubuntu 12.04( awaiting for the 12.10 ).
I use Vista because it was installed in my laptop in the first place but also because it's much more efficient with videos and games. The majority of PC games are written for Windows only for this reason.
Ubuntu I use for fast boot/reboot, convenient update mechanism, reliability and security( if you're no n00b ), and also because it contains all the necessary tools for developing my OS.
It does contain a way to disable UAC. But if you do that, then Metro apps will stop working, which almost defeats the point of having Windows 8 in the first place.
Maybe you could use the built-in account, but I have never tried it. Still, if you do that, you lose the benefits of a Microsoft account (ie syncing and stuff).
But I'm sure people will find a way to get around all of this crap in time.
From all I've heard, it is a step backwards in almost every way from user (more "hoop jumpery" to get to familiar operations) and developer (problematic API and some ridiculous requirement on "metro") perspectives.Quote:
While I'm a Linux guy at heart Microsoft deserves praise on W8.
I'm not sure that doing what they've done before only not as well deserves praise.
That said, I consider mandatory access control a solid win when implemented correctly. Of course, having no experience with "Windows 8" I can't speculate on its implementation.
And I'm a "BSD" guy despite having no form of "BSD" installed on any of my machines.
Soma
I've always liked the minimalist approach that the unix-derived operating systems take. the OS doesn't need to provide all the services. many of them can be added as applications, and keeping the operating system modular helps to give people a better user experience by not installing a bunch of extra crap that you don't need.
How is an operating system not broken if a programmer and even a computer enthusiast cannot operate it?
And how is Vista and 7 forcing UAC on you, while 8 is not? You could disable it in those OSes without any side effects that I am aware of. Yet, this cannot be done in 8.
Yes, Microsoft did some good things in 8, or least put in the foundation work for it. Metro is an absolutely necessary development, and restricted as it is, they should be applauded for putting effort into creating it. Though, as it is now, it seems pretty bad, and Microsoft has a lot of work to do to fix it for the next version of Windows.
I have always believed the only company that can beat Microsoft is itself. There have been some really oddball decisions made at MS in the past few years...more oddball than usual that could make my first statement a reality. Essentially they built a very good OS and threw a crappy tablet type UI on top off it and then force fed it to PC users. Why they would build a GUI to target a market they do not own and in the same process abandon the one they do is beyond me.
After 20 years I am a little tired of having to put up with the crap first to get to the diamond in the rough.Quote:
Though, as it is now, it seems pretty bad, and Microsoft has a lot of work to do to fix it for the next version of Windows.
The standard desktop model is horrible because:
- The WinAPI is a mess. It is difficult to use, has a lot of gotchas, and requires extreme amount of code to accomplish something.
- Desktop is intrusive. It is difficult to use, and comes with a lot of freedom. Therefore you see lots of people writing bad, inefficient or intrusive code (seen any applications that suddenly pops up dialogs or browser windows out of nowhere lately?).
- It's UGLY. It takes a lot of code, time and experience to write any kind of good GUI.
- It's based on a synchronous model. Ever wondered why the hell the program suddenly freezes when opening a file open dialog (hint: Windows may need to read from floppies, spin up DVD drives, waiting for network locations, etc)?
- Files are stored all over the place. Some applications spit out files to C:\. Some applications store configuration in the program files directory. Some store files in your local user (%appdata%) directory (where they should be!).
- Every application must use their own installer/uninstaller. This puts a lot of work into getting those right and making them clean up after themselves.
- Because applications store stuff all over the place (even in the registry!), it is difficult to know which files to backup or sync if you want your settings to remain constant on all your computers and recover them after a crash, etc.
- Each program sits in the background, sucking up cpu power, memory and other resources, even when they don't need them (ever seen applications that love increasing the resolution of the timers in Windows?).
- They all look different because there is no standardized way of doing things.
- Applications are not sandboxed. They can modify your system settings like crazy (and likely they do!).
Oh, I could go on, and on, and on.
Microsoft is finally taking a step in the right direction to get rid of all legacy crap and making a new modern platform on which to develop applications. I also applaud Microsoft for their App Store, where they properly review applications do they don't do stupid things like desktop apps very often do.
I seriously criticize Microsoft for only allowing installations of Metro Apps from the store, and from taking huge fines from developers.
I can agree with that, though.
Windows is Windows today because it allowed freedom for developers to do pretty much anything they wanted. While a more restrictive OS is a good move for MS as a company it is terrible for their developer and consumers.
But with power comes responsibility. It's fine for them to do what they want, as long as they do it right, and that's why I say Metro is a step in the right direction.
No one wants a horrible mess where the OS ends up unusable becomes of crapware. As I see it, if customers are happy, the companies get fewer complains and more praise, and perhaps as a consequence, more sales.
Only time will tell. Rather than make this a debate about the direction of Microsoft I will finish my thoughts by going on record as saying I think this is a move in the wrong direction. Since MS did not consult me about it in the end it really does not matter one way or the other.
Because of these points I can only picture an ugly GUI that everyone copied and made a de facto standard, because it was some geniuses idea of "perfect". The standard look really has no artistic value to me and I get bored of looking at the same thing, no matter how functional it is. I rather expect software to stay consistent from version to version. If instead every application was laid out the same way, that would be silly. Yeah, so in example, winAMP can be as different as it wants from windows and it still makes sense. But move information or features around constantly (firefox), and I'll need a cigarette to get over it, and get used to the "new" thing.Quote:
- It's UGLY. It takes a lot of code, time and experience to write any kind of good GUI.
- They all look different because there is no standardized way of doing things.
It's funny that something with no organization is still part of the model or even a model at all.Quote:
- Files are stored all over the place. Some applications spit out files to C:\. Some applications store configuration in the program files directory. Some store files in your local user (%appdata%) directory (where they should be!).
- Every application must use their own installer/uninstaller. This puts a lot of work into getting those right and making them clean up after themselves.
- Because applications store stuff all over the place (even in the registry!), it is difficult to know which files to backup or sync if you want your settings to remain constant on all your computers and recover them after a crash, etc.
Portable installation has mitigated these problems on the windows platform, as you've probably figured out. (I'm talking about programs being compressed and being usable after decompression, instead of needing tons of regkeys just to work.) I don't remember when this started showing up, but that was one development I liked in the world. In my opinion, it can be a better choice than your typical desktop installations and upgrades. Of course, with corporate software, you use what they put out and there are reasons behind that.
I enjoyed having the responsibility, personally. I never thought of it as Microsoft's. I don't think anyone can stop what's happening though. Progress be damned! Koyaanisqatsi....Quote:
But with power comes responsibility. It's fine for them to do what they want, as long as they do it right, and that's why I say Metro is a step in the right direction.
Wow. A "Windows" flavored Apple fanboy. ^_^Quote:
Metro is an absolutely necessary development, and restricted as it is, they should be applauded for putting effort into creating it.
Some of those things are the only reason "Windows" is such a beast.Quote:
The standard desktop model is horrible because:
Nope. I'm not joking.
The popularity of "Windows" has always been because a lot of programmers and hardware vendors flocked to it; they went for it because of those "problems". I'll give you a couple of examples.
Keeping the terrible API showed programmers that a serious effort was made to keep programs and drivers working.
The freedom to do "whatever" gave Microsoft innovations from others that they would later copy into the core.
I honestly can't tell if you are dreaming or just going fanboy; I'll start with this: it will always take a lot of code, time, and experience to make something useful (or fun), efficient, and secure.Quote:
It takes a lot of code, time and experience to write any kind of good GUI.
Microsoft can't change that.
"Metro" can't change that.
Some of the things that you are complaining about are only complaints because lazy or inexperienced programmers didn't want to follow industrial guidelines. If programmers aren't willing to put in the effort, "Metro" will only mask such problems and only for a time.
Soma
If I were handed a program written in C from someone regular on this board, I'd probably feel safe enough to use it. But if it were from Average Joe, then I wouldn't touch it with anything else than a 10 meter long pole.
Thankfully everyone is this world is as seasoned and good at programming C as the regular members of this board... wait, no, that's not right. It's the inverse!
Point being: while you like the responsibility (nothing wrong with that), I, as an end user, wouldn't want Average Joe to have that responsibility because you can be sure they'd screw it up.
I don't expect everything to work with a snap of the fingers, but I do expect it will be easier than before. If it's easier to achieve something than before without sacrificing critical functionality, then it's a win situation.
How many programmers these days follow guidelines, or even know guidelines or can put implement them correctly? Answer: only a handful. Even professional software with tons of users have glaring problems, such as popping up dialog boxes just suddenly from everywhere, and this is precisely the problem. People are not going to change. The only way to change this nonsensical behavior is to smack them in the ass, or force them to do it the right way by taking away the ability to do it the wrong way.
But then again, why do they pop up a dialog box instead of a notification? Perhaps because it's so damn convulted and difficult to make a notification instead of dialog box? Yes, there might be something in that... among other things.
Home: Ubuntu on my desktop & laptop. I also have a Mac. Virtual machine of XP when needed
Work: Windows Vista (need windows for the applications we use). I also control the servers (2 Linux, 1 Windows 2003)
Phone: Android
I wont comment as to why I think one is better than another, only use my stock reply in such discussions:
"My choice of (OS | Programming Language | God | Sexiest Catwalk Model | Political Party | M&M Colour| Sports Team) is so much better than yours that I dont even need to justify why!"
(delete as applicable)
You responded from a developer's perspective, and I understand why, but I was speaking from a user's perspective, although I'll admit I wasn't clear about that.
Users are familiar with the standard desktop, and I see the move to metro as microsoft's attempt to make every desktop PC into a tablet, because "tablets are the future of computing," or whatever nonsense is the story of the day. I think that most long-time windows users will resist metro, regardless of the "improvement" that it represents, because in their eyes, it will really simply be an unnecessary change from the systems with which they are already familiar. people resisted the taskbar/desktop concept when windows 95 was released, but it actually turned out to be a very good change. I don't know anyone who would want to go back to the program manager of windows 3.1/NT 3.51, having used the windows 95 or newer desktop.
O_oQuote:
"My choice of (...) is so much better than yours that I dont even need to justify why!"
You forgot the most important consideration: single malt scotch region?
Soma
I agree with you there. Metro is confusing, even for seasoned computer users because it's a separate world from the desktop. You might say that metro apps run in their own desktop, so you must switch between desktops to switch between apps.
Anyway, I disagree with a lot of the simplification and the ugliness of Metro. I am extremely critical of it. Yet, from a developer perspective, they are taking a step in the right direction.
So no, it isn't perfect, but it isn't a total mess. They did something right at least. I do, after all, as a user want high quality applications (or as much high quality as possible).
O_oQuote:
Islay. No discussion on that one either
I have to go find a new Decepticon. ;_;
Soma