Poll: Which operating system is best?

[VogonJeltz]

Not trying to start a flame-war or anything like that, but I'd like to hear some people's thoughts about the different operating systems out there. (I included Windows 3.x, which isn't really an OS, because some Windows-heads would complain if I left it out.)

 

[robo555]

Win2000 is the best OS for me. Everything from 9x worked, don't even get me started on WinMe, formatted my HD two days after I installed it. Win2000 just doesn't crash, like sometimes crappy software crashes, but Win2000 still stands. And most of the script kiddie Windows security holes doesn't apply to Win2000, things like that C:\con\con, etc.

Mind you, haven't tried Linux yet, I probably won't be using it as my main OS, more like a toy server.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< (I included Windows 3.x, which isn't really an OS, because some Windows-heads would complain if I left it out.) >>


You're right, Windows 3.1 really isn't an OS. Then again neither is 95, 98, and ME. All are GUI's thrown on top of DOS.

 

[shawne]

I would have to say that W2K has been amazing for me. Hell, I am a gamer, and although I know I am losing framerates I just love the fact that even if a game crashes the system usually recovers. I have had far better luck with W2K than the other Microsoft OSs.
I'll just go out on a limb and say that W2K is the best product that Microsoft has ever released. The thing is stable and it is fairly secure (no system is fulproof).
Disagree if you must, but I have had nothing but luck on my 4 machines (1 PII, 1 PIII, 1 Athlon 200 MHz, and 1 Athlon 266 MHz).
Sure Linux and UNIX may be very stable, but who uses the things and accomplishes anything meaningful (Games!)?

-busspeed

 

[HansXP]

LOL! You actually have CP/M on your list. Damn, that's old. Anyone going to vote for it?

 

[HansXP]

Oh yeah, and I totally agree with shawne. W2K rocks!

 

[ProviaFan]

Not trying to start a flame-war or anything like that...

lol; yeah, right

Anyway, I voted Windows 2000. It's not as stable as Linux, but is sure is a whole lot easier to use.

 

[Blayze]

I voted Windows 2000. I have yet to use XP so I didn't vote for it.
Also in my opinion Linux is right up there with 2000. Just keeps getting better

 

[chuckieland]

win2000

 

[bjc112]

2k!

i love it...

only lost 5 FPS, which isnt too devastating~!

Bryan

 

[Chaotic42]

<< (I included Windows 3.x, which isn't really an OS, because some Windows-heads would complain if I left it out.) >>



Neither is Linux.

 

[AthlonMan]

It all depands on your needs, if you want to play games well then Windows 98 SE, if you want a stable system and still want some gaming support then win2k. Servers in most cases Linux\BSD. It all depands.

 

[Priit]

Why linux isn't OS ? I know that by M$ definiton OS is GUI with resizable window and mouse driver built into kernel but I never thougt that anyone would take that seriously...

IMHO there isn't OS that would be good for everything: Win9x is the best gaming OS, Linux is the best for programming&amp;everyday usage, xxxBSD is the ultimate server OS etc...

 

[Chaotic42]

<< Why linux isn't OS ? I know that by M$ definiton OS is GUI with resizable window and mouse driver built into kernel but I never thougt that anyone would take that seriously...

IMHO there isn't OS that would be good for everything: Win9x is the best gaming OS, Linux is the best for programming&amp;everyday usage, xxxBSD is the ultimate server OS etc... >>



Linux is a kernel. It's a layer of abstraction between the hardware and the OS.
The OS in this case would be Debian, Slackware, etc. The distros.

 

[Chaotic42]

<<

Linux is a kernel. It's a layer of abstraction between the hardware and the OS.
The OS in this case would be Debian, Slackware, etc. The distros. >>




Well, it would appear that dictionary.com disagrees with me

Operating System Definition according to Dictionary.com

Hmm, well, the definition I gave is the one I've always heard. It was my understanding
that an OS was the suite of software that ran over the kernel.

Oh, well. Sorry for the misinformation.

 

[Priit]

Yep, my mistake, technically you're right, Chaotic42. Just everyone are used to call all linux kernel-based OSes &quot;linuxes&quot;...

 

[Davion28]

<< Not trying to start a flame-war or anything like that, but I'd like to hear some people's thoughts about the different operating systems out there. (I included Windows 3.x, which isn't really an OS, because some Windows-heads would complain if I left it out.) >>



I think Win2k gets my vote, I like Linux but something are a little confusing. I know RTFM but for simple thing you shouldn't have too.

 

[ukDave]

i've just bought the student edition of Win2kPRo which cost £37 inc vat from gb.buy.com (now owned by John Lewis Partnership in the UK) and it looks like a good investment, seeing as all you guys have praise about it. Cool.

I'm going to dual boot it with Win98 SE.

dave

 

[phillyTIM]

I think of Windows (practically any flavor of it) as an &quot;Operating Environment&quot;; rather than a traditional &quot;Operating System&quot;.

The purpose of an Operating System, in my belief of commonly-held theory, is that it is the basic services that interact with the hardware and allow software (applications, be it from the manufacuter or third-party) to run on a computer. Is this correct?

Talking about Windows (lets take XP for example): the OS allows one to write to a hard or floppy disk, manipulate files, or various aspects of displaying things. Windows as an OS, is lacking in support for CD-RW standards; we should fault Microsoft for not providing inherent services for using the CD-RW as common as using a Hard Disk or Floppy Disk. Windows as an OS really has no need for including such things like Instant Messaging, which is a software application--thus creating an Operating Environment.

It can be argued that an OS's job is to display and execute files. Going with this assumption, perhaps an OS of today has the responsibility of providing playback of MP3 or music files or displaying images. I can possibly go along with this.

But in the case of Linux, we all just know that all this GUI and X stuff is above and beyond the traditional OS. The kernel, if I'm not mistaken, is the actual OS; the little extra programs and GUI stuff creates the operating environment of a Mandrake, or Red Hat, etc.

Hence: DOS or the text-based Linux kernel is as core OS as one can get. Windows 3.1 brought about the operating environment which continues right through to XP. The typical Linux distributions we purchase/acquire today is equivalent to a GUI on top of DOS (just as Windows 3.1 started). Purchasing basic operating services has practically gone the way of the dinosaurs; would you go purchase DOS (version whatever) today?

Is this a true, clear picture of what a traditional OS is, and what we have come to expect in our purchases is actually an Operating Environment???

Tim

And yes for those wondering, I confirm that I do not condone alot of the current Microsoft practices. However my contribution to the topic and related discussion is meant to be clear and objective.

 

[kelesh3]

ok that last post was way too big.. i stopped reading after the second paragraph. welp, back to mindless browsing.

vote for win2k: no new taxes.

 

[userpete]

windows 2000 pro for me....and i've tried them all including the old days of w3x.

Pete