• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Primary Operating System?

Primary Operating System?

  • Windows XP

    Votes: 18 24.3%
  • Windows Vista

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Windows 7

    Votes: 28 37.8%
  • Windows 8

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • Mac OS X 10.8

    Votes: 5 6.8%
  • Mac OS X 10.7 or earlier

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Red Hat, Fedora Core, or CentOS Linux

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Novell SUSE Linux

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ubuntu Linux

    Votes: 3 4.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 12 16.2%

  • Total voters
    74
Although I keep systems with Windows around, for everyday use it's Ubuntu. On older machines, it's Debian or NetBSD.

I no longer need to write Windows code (thank heavens) and about the only thing I do on the web is browse and email. Almost all EDA tools are available in *nix versions and the security is better than Windows. I've been on and off of Unix since about 1978, so it's not as if it's strange territory.

I think that's the main reason that many people are still running Windows - they need it for work compatibility. I've never had to deal with computers in a work situation (other than as a user) so it's been irrelevant to me and I've had the luxury of making my own choices. I know I'm lucky in that regard.

As I said above, my choice now is FreeBSD. I still have a couple of Linux machines, and actually just put Ubuntu Server on a new box and added Fluxbox for a GUI since it will be used for some browsing as well as home server. Ubuntu Server is just so damnd quick and painless to install. I also put Linux Mint on my wife's new (to us) laptop a month ago because Mint is really good at running codecs right out of the box - which is good if you're not too critical about the purity of your system. Still, I'm moving away from Linux specifically because distributions are generally continuing in the MS-Windows wannabee path which doesn't suit me well. BSD seems to be holding it's own and not giving in to fashion quite as much and is built with user choices and not defaults. It's also got (most recent count) 24011 programs to grab with a click (or "make install clean") and can run all Linux programs too. So - HUGE freedom. :) /salespitch
 
I think that's the main reason that many people are still running Windows - they need it for work compatibility. I've never had to deal with computers in a work situation (other than as a user) so it's been irrelevant to me and I've had the luxury of making my own choices. I know I'm lucky in that regard.

As I said above, my choice now is FreeBSD. I still have a couple of Linux machines, and actually just put Ubuntu Server on a new box and added Fluxbox for a GUI since it will be used for some browsing as well as home server. Ubuntu Server is just so damnd quick and painless to install. I also put Linux Mint on my wife's new (to us) laptop a month ago because Mint is really good at running codecs right out of the box - which is good if you're not too critical about the purity of your system. Still, I'm moving away from Linux specifically because distributions are generally continuing in the MS-Windows wannabee path which doesn't suit me well. BSD seems to be holding it's own and not giving in to fashion quite as much and is built with user choices and not defaults. It's also got (most recent count) 24011 programs to grab with a click (or "make install clean") and can run all Linux programs too. So - HUGE freedom. :) /salespitch

Well, with tablets and other small gizmos shifting the market, I can well imagine that the market will shift toward *nix. (i.e. I don't think that the Surface stands a chance of becoming the predominant platform).
 
As long as I am programming on the Microsoft stack, I will be using an MS operating system. I don't see anything objectionable with Win8 but I have no compelling reason to upgrade from Win7. If some great program needs Win8, I will reevaluate then.

I have lots of different Virtual Machines and some installs on real hardware for testing, none of which qualify as my main system.
 
I use just about all of them save for Mac and Win8. Mac's alright but I tried 8 and what I saw I didn't like. My most-used system runs a "modified" XP SP3. It's smooth, uses few resources, and is easy to use and maintain.
 
In my netbook I use win 7 in my other computers win xp.

My laptop and work desktop use Windows 7. My general-use computer is WinXP. I'll be purchasing Win8 just because it's cheap, but having using the RTM in a VM at work, I can tell you that I hate it, and from a tech support standpoint, it's going to be a nightmare. Apps ran in Metro aren't the same as program ran from within the desktop. Things are rearranged, etc. Getting computer-illiterate senior citizens to give forth the information needed for my guys to figure out where they're at in their operating system in order to help them will be a NIGHTMARE.

Personal opinion - metro sucks for computers without a touchscreen, and are great for those that have them. My solution? Start-8. It's $5, and it brings back the Windows "Start" button, automatically booting to the desktop. If and when I go with Windows 8 as a primary OS, this will be a necessity. IMO, an operating system shouldn't get in the way of the user's ability to use and be productive with that operating system. Metro, IMO, gets in the way if one doesn't have a touchscreen. So I will be using Start-8.

I agree 100% with Maverick.If I'll decide to use win 8 it will be only with start-8...
 
At any given moment it may be Windows 7, Fedora 15, Windows Vista, XP or XP Media Center, W2008 Server depending on which machine I'm sitting at.

I got a couple real cheap ( < 300 ) rack mount dual xeon w/ 16gb off ebay that I use as virtual machine hosts. I use Fedora with kvm/qemu for the many vm's.

Windows 7 xp mode is a nice tightly-integrated vm, and besides being a fully licensed xp it manages to nicely share host resources with the xp vm.

I must say, my preferred system for normal work is my windows 7 machine, it seems to have the most comfortable desktop for me. I haven't fired up Windows 8 yet, from what I've read W8 may not be as usable for a desktop non-touchscreen user like myself. I couldn't use Gnome3 when Fedora released it, it seemed to take many more steps to get any program started. Luckly in linuxville there are alternative window managers available.
 
Well, with tablets and other small gizmos shifting the market, I can well imagine that the market will shift toward *nix. (i.e. I don't think that the Surface stands a chance of becoming the predominant platform).

I think you're right. Most people, at least non-technical ones, don't really encounter the actual operating system, and don't really care. In fact they can't tell the difference between an MS-Windows machine and a (your choice OS) machine with KDE configured to look and act like some version of MS-Windows. They never open a terminal, so it doesn't make a difference. I do think that *nix will become more dominant as MS declines (very, very, slowly) but the "tablets and other small gizmos" will accelerate the shift. Only technical people care what they're running.
 
Android. Used on my phone the most and tablet. Linux Mint KDE right now is used the most at home and work, Windows 7 for my video editing and ripping software, with FreeBSD coming to replace my Windows Home Server and XBMC replacing Media Center. I do not like the way MS is going as I am no fan of the closed ecosystem that only opens to the cloud, removing functionality, while adding little. All where openness goes out the "window" in computing. I am building out a monster of a machine right now using a Thermaltake GT Level 10 case that will last me for many years as I move my XPS 700 and 720's into server modes. It will dual boot windows 8 as I have to keep up with this for my job. Not a metro hater really, I think their tile interface on phones was very unique and innovative. I still enjoy Linux and like that CLI when I want it, while still having 3d multi screen eyecandy. Yet I still see the incredible beauty and nostalgia of the IBM PS1 Expert running dos and 3.1.
 
Out of all those, I'd say Windows 7 64-bit and Android almost equally, though I do plan to move to 8 on my convertible laptop (I've run the CP on it and it works really good). On a convertible I see 8 like having 2 devices in one - one that'a tablet (albeit a heavy and thick tablet), and the other is a classic laptop.

I'm only moving to 8 on the home desktop if I can find an affordable tablet/touch interface for my home desktop (which I'm also looking at so I can do artwork on the computer rather than paper). I'm looking at the Wacom Cintiq 12ux for this, but it is a tad on the pricey side for what I spend on hardware (I'd rather use a stylus than my finger....less fingerprints). I don't want to grab the new technology without being able to have my old-standbys to cling onto, and unless it adds something useful.

I also still use XP a LOT! My Fiancee has a 10 year old Dell Dimension that just won't die, so we both keep using it (Even if she has a 7 laptop), works great as a Netflix/Hulu box when she's not using it to play music and surf the web (and do the 9000 things for our wedding).

Then behind all that I have 4 DOS machines, one runs WFWG 3.11 (the 486), and a ton of VMs on my main computer that I tinker around with ranging from OS/2, to DOS/Win, Win 9x, Win NT, Server, and Open BSD 3.4.
 
We did that in dos with the likes of Magic Desk and Quikmenu. Hardly innovative. Hell, thats what I use Window Maker for.

You can also do that in Xp and Windows 7 by just "pinning" the program (or the shortcut to it) to the taskbar. All your important programs just one click away.

Tez
 
I have XP. The computer is a Dell Dimension E-520. In all likelihood I'll buy a new PC (if I can afford one) to run Hero Engine when they upgrade. I barely ever use it but I'm doing a little help with a game that utilizes it as an game engine.
 
At home, I have a desktop Pentium 4 with Windows 2000 Server, which is my main workstation.

Also at home, I have a Dell Latitude D600 laptop, which I double boot between Windows XP Professional and Debian.

My computer at work is an HP laptop, which runs with Windows XP Professional.

I refuse to upgrade any of my hardware or operating systems. They work fine.
 
Well, in effect, yes, as many Linux distros are built from the Debian base. I do use Debian on some of my slower systems. Generally, it's proven to be very stable.

I've found Debian to be really good on less capable systems like old laptops. I suppose one of the draws for me is that, because of all the Debian based distros out there, I'm familiar with the layout and there's no friction. I install it to the command line, add X11, then fluxbox. Great setup for a user driven OS.

Which brings us to the definition of Operating System. The above is particularly great because of the minimal resource usage. However, there are varying uses for computers and one of the uses which is increasingly taken for granted on non-server systems is a browser. Much desktop usage revolves around this, usually huge and complex, software. In fact, for a modern desktop one can logically consider a capable browser as the operating system - the older definition only referring to the support system that the browser needs to run.
 
Which brings us to the definition of Operating System. The above is particularly great because of the minimal resource usage. However, there are varying uses for computers and one of the uses which is increasingly taken for granted on non-server systems is a browser. Much desktop usage revolves around this, usually huge and complex, software. In fact, for a modern desktop one can logically consider a capable browser as the operating system - the older definition only referring to the support system that the browser needs to run.
OS to me is software that communicates with the hardware and allows other programs to run, if you let the blurring of the browser and OS become one then it can be an OS, but no longer a browser (cause you are not browsing anymore, just being told what to use). Firefox is making an OS that will only use a Firefox Browser. Firefox is now the OS cause it is the only thing communicating with the hardware. As long as I can uninstall the browser or use an alternative in the same hardware, while not removing the software that manages the hardware, it's still just another layer of middleware software and not an OS and the separation is helpful. Defining what manages the hardware is what your OS is. Even if the OS is written in web languages it still is an OS and the browser is going away, not the OS.
 
What, no Debian?

That was my thought too. Debian is the universal operating system. It can be all things to all people. You want a cutting edge dekstop? You want a rock solid server? You want a secure router? You want an HTPC? Debian can do all those things and excell at it. It's all about the packages you install. Start from nothing, just a netinst base install, and craft the system you want.
 
OS to me as software that communicates with the hardware and allows other programs to run, if you let the blurring of the browser and OS become one then it can be an OS, but no longer a browser (cause you are not browsing anymore, just being told what to use). Firefox is making an OS that will only use a Firefox Browser. Firefox is now the OS cause it is the only thing communicating with the hardware. As long as I can uninstall the browser or use an alternative in the same hardware, while not removing the software that manages the hardware, it's still just another layer of middleware software and not an OS and the separation is helpful. Defining what manages the hardware is what your OS is. Even if the OS is written in web languages it still is an OS and the browser is going away, not the OS.

I get your point that there are advantages to defining "the OS" as the part that communicates with the hardware. In DOS, for example, COMMAND.COM is not part of the OS because it is just a shell and can be replaced. However such a strict definition is not very applicable to the average user. Besides, I didn't really intend to take this discussion to those extremes. I suggested the browser as an OS because it becomes the DE for the average user. I often ask people what operating system they are running and it is very common for them to not know. Also when asked what browser they are using, they will commonly say "Google". In other words, the part which is relevant to their computer use is all that concerns them, and anything "below" that is the OS. So, "Google" is the app, and the browser is unknown and just part of the OS to many users. In fact I see somebody around here who does not do a single thing (no e-mail, no documents, etc.) other than Facebook. That is functionally their OS.

I just think that if one is going to accept the desktop environment (which is layers away from "the OS"), as an OS, then why not simply look at it from the common user's point of view? As I explained above, when I install Debian, it is without any GUI of any kind - that's how it comes. Completely separate from that, I then chose some kind of desktop environment if I feel that will be of use - which it will be if I want a graphical browser. And therein lies the problem. I can install a perfectly good Debian with a very functional DE on a low(er) resource machine, but I cannot install a perfectly good browser on top of that. A modern browser with support for movies and what not, is another level, and the defining one - particularly when it comes to hardware requirements. Because, in the life of an average user, it is what they require and all they know, I consider it of practical value to now call that the OS. Even if we, for our individual technical reasons, prefer to not do that.

This is all particularly relevant in this thread. You will note that the OP did not pick the base distributions of Linux, but rather just a couple of random ones - yet detailed every edition of MS-Windows as if it was the DE that was the OS. Note too, the glaring omission of the BSDs, which a number of members here like to use, and which is particularly relevant among serious computer users such as found on a computer related forum. These base type OSs (like Debian, or FreeBSD) are not desktop systems with desktop environments chosen for you ahead of time, but rather operating systems where you can install whatever you want. I know everybody here knows that, but I am pointing it out in the context of this thread to suggest that we are probably talking about desktop environments more than actual operating systems. I don't know if this was the intention of the OP or not, but it looks like it.
 
Back
Top