The old dog end of "Mac vs PC" floated to the top of another thread - thought I'd open it up a bit.

So what do you think. For me, Mac is like Windows, only about 5 years ahead, with a nice FreeBSD core. Anything you can do on Linux you can do on Mac. Anything you can do on Windows you can do on Mac.

Macs are costlier at purchase but the TCO tends to be lower. In the end I think they are all much of a muchness.

Thoughts, comments?

the vast majority of people will be perfectly happy with windows for what they want to use it for.After all the excuse is it's only for the kids.

Problem with Macs is that there is somewhat of a lack of software availability for them.

And I don't mean just that you can't get Mac games.

Most popular software is designed with a PC and Windows in mind after all.

I used to have XP but swithed to Windows 2000, to be honest I find this more reliable :)

There isn't a one size fits all OS, it all depends what you're doing to a certain extent.

And don't put XP\2000 together, they're totally different OS's. 2000 works as well as it ever will, XP doesn't really.

I voted for Other... I think Windows 3.11 is the best OS of them all, its the only operating system that I've used that has lasted more than 5 years on the same install and never crashed on me! :)

But to be practical (although I am serious about 3.1, it was very good and stable built onto DOS 6.2) I believe there is no clear cut winner out of any of the OS's.

I strongly believe in open source and Linux, and I think it's come leaps and bounds for a free operating system, its certainly a feat on what groups of people can achieve with collective knowledge, and if you've ever read about how Linux came about with Linus Torvold and wanting to get a hold of and use Minix at home you'd understand a lot better...

Anyways, Linux is an AMAZING operating system, provided your technical enough to get the damn thing configured correctly, I'm STILL trying to get it to run perfectly with my wireless USB adapter... maybe I'll have another bash at it soon ;) but I do think Windows XP is a great improvement over the earlier Windows, although I'm very against Microsoft as a whole because I think for such a powerful and rich company they could do SO much more, and charge a damn site less than they do for their products...

at the end of the day though, I'll always use Windows until games companies realise that OpenGL is a viable option for games... making games in DirectX means your stuck to Windows :(

Originally posted by Lurch
There isn't a one size fits all OS, it all depends what you're doing to a certain extent.

And don't put XP\2000 together, they're totally different OS's. 2000 works as well as it ever will, XP doesn't really.

In what way doesn't XP work? It works fine for me and over the years I've had most of the Windows versions from 3.1. The only one I've not had is ME. I prefer XP.

Originally posted by t020
In what way doesn't XP work? It works fine for me and over the years I've had most of the Windows versions from 3.1. The only one I've not had is ME. I prefer XP.

Happy birthday to t020, Happy birthday to T020, Even though you got me ban - hand, for calling you a facist!
Hip Hip Hooray, Hip Hip Hooray, Hip Hip Hooray:clap:

Originally posted by t020
In what way doesn't XP work?

It's the only version of windows I've had that thinks it's cleverer than me, (I've had\used all the Windows ver's since 3.1 except ME), you try to do something, it "corrects" you. I personally can't stand it and stick with 2000, especially when I'm selling it to a customer. I wouldn't sell something I wouldn't use myself. YMMV.

I still use (fully patched) Windows '98 (lots of other security enhancements;) on our LAN server). RedHat Linux is used on one of our remote servers, FreeBSD on the other one. I also run Knoppix and Windows 98 (fully patched) on this client PC.

What is the best OS of the ones listed??

Lets see......


MAC = BSD Core (as mentioned in original post) = Unix variant
FreeBSD = BSD derivative = Unix variant
Solaris = Unix variant
Linux = Unix variant.

Windows 2000/HexPee - Proprietry, monetary based, bloated poorly coded (Win '98 is bad enough)............

The others listed are not really used on PCs (maybe on the old DECs etc, but not on PCs)!



Where's Einstien when you need him.... Oh yeah. He's dead.

Oh well.

Logic will have to do...


Any Unix variant is a better OS than Windows.

However, Windows is popular because of the software that is available for it, and ease of configuration.

This is changing, however.

With the introduction of WINE (Wine Is Not an Emulator) you can run the majority of Windows software from within most Unux (FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris) environments!

Originally posted by Lurch
It's the only version of windows I've had that thinks it's cleverer than me, (I've had\used all the Windows ver's since 3.1 except ME), you try to do something, it "corrects" you. I personally can't stand it and stick with 2000, especially when I'm selling it to a customer. I wouldn't sell something I wouldn't use myself. YMMV.

I still don't know how you mean - could you give an example of when it corrects the user?

Did anyone actually bother with ME?!

I think windows XP is very good and stable until you connect it to a phone line. My computer at home has had the same OS for the last two years and not crashed once. But the one at my gf on broadband crashes constantly. Even mine crashed when I used it at her house on broadband.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by sccsux

However, Windows is popular because of the software that is available for it, and ease of configuration.


Yes, but..... chicken/egg? Windows must've done something else to get so popular to begin with.

Most of the anti-Windows stuff seems to be a combination of anti-capitalist politics and geeky-elitism.

Having used all of the above alot (bar VAX/VMS & AS400) Id have to say a fully updated copy of Windows 2000 is very difficult to beat.

Any Unix variant is a better OS than Windows

Thats quite a bold statement, and very untrue when you look at the original question.

Originally posted by t020
Yes, but..... chicken/egg? Windows must've done something else to get so popular to begin with.

They (MS) got a contract (and an advance) from IBM to supply them (IBM) with an OS (based solely on a simple version of the BASIC programming language for IBM) that they had not written. MS then went and knicked a few thousand lines of code from an olde operating system (CPM - Control Program Monitor - later to become MPM - Multi Program Monitor) edited it a bit, re-compiled it, then liscenced it to IBM as IBM DOS, who then pre-installed it on then new IBM PCs (8086 based)!

When clones were produced in their droves, Amstrad et al liscenced MS DOS from MS (MS DOS was an exact clone of IBM DOS down to a few messages being changed) which gave MS a massive foothold in the OS market.

Prior to the IBM deal, MS made crap compilers, programming languages (GW-BASIC anyone)!


What Windows did, was to bring a GUI to the public on a massive scale (unlike Apple). Read this as nicked Apples (and, to a lesser extent) Xerox's GUI ideas!



I'm not actually having a go @ windows. It is an OK OS. But, it's main failing is in that it tries to be "all things to all men (and women)" which will always result in inflated code (bloat)!

Originally posted by t020
I still don't know how you mean - could you give an example of when it corrects the user?
I have to say I have only really seen it when trying to get it to play properly on a domain but when we started changing various settings and rebooting it would keep deciding to revert back to "safe" settings, i.e. the ones we didn't want. I've come across this on different sites, it may not do it anymore but I still prefer 2000. I also know 2000 better so am still quite happy to support it. I've only ever had anything to do with XP in a couple of home situations so don't know whether it works better if you don't ask it to do anything too complicated as most home users don't.

As I say, it's my impressions of XP, others may have different views but I'm not too keen on it. On the occasions I have installed it I've spent the first 1/2 hour making it look like 2000 so I might as well stick with that.
Originally posted by t020
Did anyone actually bother with ME?!
With a bit of luck, no.

horses for courses.

In order to judge best we'd need some criteria, I doubt we all have the same criteria.
Personally I like XP once i've turned off the cartoon graphics and disabled all the nonsence about signed drivers and the like.
I keep planning to get a dual install of some dist of linux, i have a few live disks which boot straight into it.

I run a dual install at home (windows XP and Mandrake linux) though if I remember correctly win XP is based on a linuxish core anyways. At work I run purely linux though I also use Solaris (a fairly nasty version of unix if you ask me!). Though the worst OS I have used is VAX/VMS which I'm sure was written by a bunch of BDSM fans!

I've used just about every OS ever invented and for home use I think XP is best, I really haven't got the time or will to fanny about at home fixing things like I do at work, I just want to switch on and go, and XP does that perfectly.

I would recommend using Firefox though rather than IE, thats were most of the problems I have heard about with XP have come from, stuff sneaking in via the flakey IE code.

Originally posted by nick2
I would recommend using Firefox though rather than IE, thats were most of the problems I have heard about with XP have come from, stuff sneaking in via the flakey IE code.
To be fair, it's not just the flakey IE code, it's the flakey XP code that provides an environment for it to run in.

Use Firefox instead of IE and Thunderbird instead of OE. Mozilla downloads (http://mozilla.org).

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Thoughts, comments?

Well to paraphrase a newsgroup far far away:

All operating systems suck, but some suck less than others.

To quote from the FAQ:

"Just HOW MUCH does this system suck?

The standard unit of suckiness is the Lovelace (Ll). This is defined as: One Lovelace is the amount of force (measured in dynes) it takes to draw a round ball weighing e Troy Ounces down a tube it fits exactly (in air) at a speed of pi attoparsecs/microfortnight. Like Farads, this is a rather large measurement. Thus, Plan 9 sucks a few mLl, for instance, while your average Microsoft product achieves many Ll."

Nomme

i have only ever used windows so don't really have an opinion.

I have heard alot of people say how good linux is but never had a go.

Moon

I run XP on a PC and OS 10.3 on my Macs and generally I prefer OS X. I'm not going to say it's better and such but I enjoy the user experience more on OS X as well as the power it provides with a Unix core. Each to their own though :)

I voted other: BBC Microcomputer OS 32K

or later: 128K (Master.. mmmmm)


Best OS ever.

I currently use Slackware Linux a lot on my dodgy hardware which FreeBSD doesn't like, and FreeBSD 5.2 on my dodgy hardware that FreeBSD does like. I don't own any Mac hardware.

Originally posted by t020
Yes, but..... chicken/egg? Windows must've done something else to get so popular to begin with.


What Windows did to be popular to start with was to be first. It had marketshare when the others were just starting out. The reason a monopoly is around is because in the early IBM-PC market (OS/2 not counted; that was a beautiful dream) there was no competition.

Now there is competition (in certain arenas, e.g. power users, geeks, etc). Problems with Windows which were ignored from the off (e.g. COM - I mean, ick! Unsecurity on a stick!) are now under fire because folk have wised up to the fact that they aren't a necessary evil, just an evil.

In the beginning was the dinosaur (Windows 3), but he soon became exstinct because he got too fat (Windows XP) and the mammals and birds (Unixes and MacOS) were smaller and leaner due to not being stuck with a gigantic, self-inflicted bulk (backward compatibility with bad ideas).

(/me dons fireproof underpants, as I'm sure to be seen as some type of zealot!)

Originally posted by evildrneil
emember correctly win XP is based on a linuxish core anyways

You're thinking of OS-X, which uses a FreeBSD core. XP is based on NT, which is nothing like Unix. However, it supports enough fundamental calls to be classified as a type of unix under some bizarre standard or other. The fact that it doesn't support 'fork' hints that the standard is a little lax, though.

Originally posted by spiffymonkey
What Windows did to be popular to start with was to be first. It had marketshare when the others were just starting out. The reason a monopoly is around is because in the early IBM-PC market (OS/2 not counted; that was a beautiful dream) there was no competition.

But the idea of windows as a file managment system was around on the amiga before win3 came along.

and indeed was invented by xerox with a system called, gem or something along those lines. They also invented the mouse to go along with it.
Mac then popularised the idea before gates came along, nicked it and happened to have bet on the correct hardware horse.

The monopoly is mainly down to IBM PC compatability (which in itself was against the wishes of IBM), if there'd been another GUI OS that ran on all IBM PC's we'd probably not all be typing this on a windoze box.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
But the idea of windows as a file managment system was around on the amiga before win3 came along.

Absolutely. I also think that RiscOS is one of the best GUI concept OSs there have been and that predated Windows 3. MacOS and the Xerox one, too. Even my BBC B had a WIMP (Windows,Icons,Mouse,Pointer) interface courtesy of AMX.

That's why I was careful to say the 'IBM-PC market' as opposed to the 'home computer' market.

Originally posted by Cyclone
and indeed was invented by xerox with a system called, gem or something along those lines. They also invented the mouse to go along with it.
Mac then popularised the idea before gates came along, nicked it and happened to have bet on the correct hardware horse.

The monopoly is mainly down to IBM PC compatability (which in itself was against the wishes of IBM), if there'd been another GUI OS that ran on all IBM PC's we'd probably not all be typing this on a windoze box.


I refer the poster to my earlier post here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26349&perpage=15&pagenumber=1#post261420). ;)

Originally posted by spiffymonkey
I voted other: BBC Microcomputer OS 32K

or later: 128K (Master.. mmmmm)


Best OS ever.

Funny you should bring that up, I was just reminded of my BBC days and am on the hunt for one!

I've been a mac user for years, and would never use anything else - I can do everything I need to do on a mac, without the worry of viruses, security patches, worms etc. Its also got one of the best suites of software for dealing with digital media (iLife). BUT, I would agree with all the posters who've said it's horses for courses. What OS is best for you depends what you want to do. I would never try and persuade anyone to move to OSX unless I felt it woud meet their needs better.

i, through the years since the times of uncle sinclairs spectrum and zx80, have used all windows systems of these xp professional sp1 is the most stable and predictable, but my all time favourite was workbench the amiga o/s way ahead of its time and multitasked better than windows can even think about, it was all layed out in a very logical way.

come back workbench. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by t020
only one I've not had is ME. I prefer XP.

Aah, yes - I didn't have the joys of using Me - awful mish-mash of 98 and 2000 - IIRC.

I find 2k is more reliable than XP. But, in the main, I use XP Professional.

Alex

Some strange choices on this poll. I doubt many people could event afford to run Solaris on a PC. AS400 is a peice of hardware not an operating system.

But to answer the question Windows has to win hands down, without it PCs as we know them might not exist as they do today. Mo matter what you say about Bill Gates or Microsoft software he and it has brought computing to the masses.

I wouldn't say that microsoft brought pc's to the masses, surely it's been the hardware manufacturers that have done that?
If it wasn't microsoft, then it would have been some other company with the monopoly, maybe with an even better OS than windows! Or worse...
I've used a few OS's and I think:
Amiga - Wow a computer with more than 3 colours! (post C'dore Vic 20!)
Win3.1 - Where do you want to go today? Where am I? What's going on?
Win95 - Ah that's why it's called windows! Bit clunky tho..
Win98 - Less clunky than 95, but massively unstable, BSOD's etc..
Win NT - Pure evil
Win2K - I miss the crashes (not) but do like the mouse shadow
WinME - who? What?
WinXP - Fisher Price OS, patronising, but smooth..
Various Linux's - Very nice, but a pain with all the command line stuff.
MacOS?? - Same time as win3.1 and 95, thought mac os was leagues ahead
MacOSX - Bring me a bib, I'm drooling! Just how much better does it get?

Yeah, my vote's with MacOSx (tiger, grrr!)

I don't think you can say there is a "best OS" as they are all suited to different uses/environments.

MAC OS might be good, but your wouldn't run a web server with it

Linux might run a web server realy well but is not easy for the average user to fix/install

Unix might be stable and fast but it's not very user friendly

XP might be user friendly but it can hog too many resources

Pros and cons.

Originally posted by nick2
I don't think you can say there is a "best OS" as they are all suited to different uses/environments.

MAC OS might be good, but your wouldn't run a web server with it


Why on earth not?

OSX + WebSTAR is about the most secure webserver solution around. Check out .mil sites and you will find many of them are running 4D_WebSTAR_S/5.3.3

Seeing as MAC OS is a BSD clone, effectively, you can expect a Mac Webserver to be as secure and swift as a LAMP server, but with the ease of use and configuration you might expect from windows.

Also the benefit of having minority OS and webserver software running your website is that there are far fewer commonly known attacks and exploits, compared to say IIS...

there isnt a best..........they all have good points and bad points, its all about personal choice and taking the rough with the smooth.

I like windows cos its easy to use, most of the universe use it, has the most software available.

downpoints = too unsecure, too expensive, made by micro$oft, too easy, most of the universe use it.

linux ive been dabbling in , pros = getting better and easier to use, install, free or cheap, way more secure.
cons = too hard to use, no fun to use, developers dont take into consideration the layman, not as much software, harder to find stuff for.

others = trouble finding software, support, other users for

by the way thats only a basic generalisation, not the law :P

Originally posted by melthebell
.......has the most software available.


Originally posted by melthebell
cons = ...... not as much software



Stick Linux on a seperate partition to create a dual boot system, then boot into Linux run your Win apps through WINE.

I've had Windows media player 7 playing a Windows AVI in WINE under Linux with no problems. I can also run DW MX, PSP7 and even REGEDIT under WINE, though there are a few new apps that I can't run under WINE & Linux - but that will change with each update;)!

Yes its time for another poll, I haven`t done one for ages, and they are always about sci-fi or tv or music, but not this one.

Its been talked about for ages and ages, but I cannot see a poll about it, so lets have another useless one for this week, maybe I should do one every Thursday.

Which do you use ?, if you dont use any of these then gawd knows what you have. Windows XP here, although I have always wanted to try Linux.

I was gonna do one about a forum member but I would have got banned :o

I have left multiple choice on incase some have 2 on their PC

Peter,

I have a network at home running PCs with Linux, Win95, Win98, WinME, NT and use others in the office.

Because I write software for a number of Windows Platforms, I have to run almost one of each.....

I also have an un-networked Windows 3.11 machine....

Joe

Mod Note: Threads merged. Please search before posting a new thread. Thanks

Originally posted by JoeP
I also have an un-networked Windows 3.11 machine....


How do you tell the difference?

I'm still using XP Professional, and will not be changing to Longhorn.

I remember using Windows 3.11 circa 1995 - the olden days! From that I progressed onto 98 - that was was always BSoDing - uck!

On one machine [this one], I have XP Home - but it's in '2k look', and on the other I have XP Prof [in '2k look']. I did have 2k & XP Prof. dual-booted for a while, but ended up ditching 2k in a recent reformat.

Alex - :)

ME - awful mish mash of absolute cack.

The worst combination: ME, an Intel Celeron in a Packard Hell with Tiscal internet, and accessing an NTL/Virgin e-mail account with a My Web Search toolbar that idiots think is useful - all in 800*600!! Hahaha!

Originally posted by t020
I still don't know how you mean - could you give an example of when it corrects the user?

Did anyone actually bother with ME?!

Windows ME was good IMO, had none of the compatibility issues that blighted early versions of XP.

Please search before posting a new thread.

I did do a search, but we know how bad it can be, plus my poll has completely differrent options to this one, very odd merge. :confused:

To be fair Rich, it was a half-baked DOS-based OS that threw errors and BSODed at every opportunity... goes with the combination that I wrote on on the previous page.

Alex - :)

Originally posted by peter41
I did do a search, but we know how bad it can be, plus my poll has completely differrent options to this one, very odd merge. :confused:


I agree.

I had answered your poll & typed a reply, only to find that when I pressed Submit Reply, I was told the thread didn't exist??


Very strange indeed.

yes very strange, the answers were completely different, maybe I should do the poll again but re-name it to something different.