# Advice on Operating Systems?



## AlexInsane (Jan 8, 2009)

I have Win XP. Not exactly brilliant, but at least somewhat dependable. And I'm not asking a whole lot. I'd like something user friendly and stable. I don't want to have to download a dozen types of specific anti-viral software just to make sure I'm in the clear. 

I've heard people talking about Linux and OSX, and while a Mac would be nice to have, it's just cheaper to buy Microsoft's latest BS and hopefully tinker with it so that it can have the same kind of faint dependability of XP. 

Everyone says Vista is bollocks and that you'd have to be a complete twit to buy it and put it on an older computer, so I can't do that, but I can't keep buying new computers just to keep up with the operating systems either. 

I'm very confused and conflicted. I don't really know what to do. My computer is a 2006 Dell Inspiron 710m laptop with, as stated before, XP on it. What would you suggest if I need to change the Operating System on it?


----------



## net-cat (Jan 8, 2009)

1. Do you want commercial games? 
If no: Goto 3. 
If yes, next.

2. Are they Vista-specific?
If no: Keep XP.
If yes, buy Vista and upgrade your RAM if you have less than 2GB.

3. Are you tied to Internet Explorer? 
If no, next.
If yes: Keep XP.

4. Are you tied to Microsoft Office? 
If no, Ubuntu Linux.
If yes: Keep XP, or buy a Mac. (The latter option costing many dollars.)

As for the actual move, make sure you have two things:
a. Your original software. Not one of those stupid recovery partitions, either. Alternate OS's almost always breaks recovery partitions.
b. A backup of all your files and any programs you may have trouble "reacquiring."

Win Vista will offer to upgrade your XP. Don't do this. You can try, but Windows upgrades are a bit like digging your own eyeballs out with forks. (Any problems your XP has now will be in Vista, and probably worse.) Install it from scratch. You can do this by booting from the DVD. (Yes, DVD.)

Ubuntu has a couple options available, all of them slightly less painful than a Win Vista upgrade. There's the "wipe everything and go Linux only" option. There's the "split the drive between Windows and Linux and give you a choice on boot." There's the WUBI option, which will actually install Linux into a file on your Windows partition and let you boot from that. The other thing you have to watch out for, since it's a laptop, is how well things like standby and hibernate are supported. (In the case of my laptop, they weren't at all. Along with several other critical things.)

Mac is the easiest.
1. Go to the Apple Store.
2. Plunk down 10-20 Franklins.
3. ???
4. Profit


----------



## PeppermintRoo (Jan 8, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> I'd like something user friendly and stable.


Honestly, that sounds like a mac to me.    



AlexInsane said:


> I don't want to have to download a dozen types of specific anti-viral software just to make sure I'm in the clear.


You really only need anti-virus/anti-spyware programs in Windows.    



AlexInsane said:


> Everyone says Vista is bollocks and that you'd have to be a complete twit to buy it and put it on an older computer


I've not really used Vista yet, but it's my general understanding that its flaws are drastically over-hyped.  I do have a few friends that have been using it since release and have had no complaints.  As Alex pointed out, it should be possible to install it with a RAM upgrade, but I feel it might still run a bit slow on a 2006 laptop.



AlexInsane said:


> I'm very confused and conflicted. I don't really know what to do. My computer is a 2006 Dell Inspiron 710m laptop with, as stated before, XP on it. What would you suggest if I need to change the Operating System on it?


I guess the first question is: why do you feel you need a new OS?  What do you feel is lacking in your XP installation?  You should ultimately determine what your needs are, then choose your operating system accordingly.  We really can't help you until we know what you want.

However...

Compelling reasons to stay with Windows:
- Laziness.
- Video Games.
- Continue using the software you already know.
- The world assumes you run Windows, and writes software accordingly.  (Example: On my laptop there is a well known BIOS issue that is easily fixed with a BIOS update.  All BIOS updates for it are only offered as Windows Executables, which is infuriating in more ways than I can explain.)

Compelling reasons to go with OSX:
- You have no objection to selling your soul to Apple.
- It's fast, stable, and requires no anti-virus software (to my best of knowledge.)
- It has very nice software suits available for art, animation, and video.
- Many Microsoft programs are avaiable such as Word, IE, and I think Exchange too?
- Blizzard at least acknowledges its existence.

Compelling reasons to go with a _free _Unix-derived or Unix-like OS:
- You have sexual fantasies involving Linus Torvalds with Richard Stallman. 
- Freedom of software and the ability to choose.
- It is the source of Apple's "claim to fame" for stability and security.  (OSX is just a front end to a FreeBSD clone named Darwin.) 
-  Exceptional support for scripting any action.  
- If you're not satisfied with a program, you can modify its source until you are.


----------



## net-cat (Jan 8, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:


> I've not really used Vista yet, but it's my general understanding that its flaws are drastically over-hyped.  I do have a few friends that have been using it since release and have had no complaints.  As Alex pointed out, it should be possible to install it with a RAM upgrade, but I feel it might still run a bit slow on a 2006 laptop.


They are over-hyped, but they are definitely there. Plus, there's no real advantage to going from XP to Vista at this point in time unless you want to use software that requires it.

As I said, though. 2GB RAM.

If you want Aero, make sure you have nVidia GeForce 5200FX or better, ATI Radeon 9550 or better, or Intel GMA 950 (945 chipset, if memory serves.)




PeppermintRoo said:


> (Example: On my laptop there is a well known BIOS issue that is easily fixed with a BIOS update.  All BIOS updates for it are only offered as Windows Executables, which is infuriating in more ways than I can explain.)


I hate Windows-based flashers sooo much. They're great in theory, but if the system crashes during the update, you're dead in the water. (Unless you have an emergency BIOS on your motherboard, which is unlikely. Especially on a laptop.) I've seen many boards die of a bad flash from using Windows-based flashers.

If you have access to a Windows system and a Windows XP or Server 2003 disc, I suggest BartPE or UBCD4WIN. Either project will give you a bootable, Windows-based Live CD environment.



PeppermintRoo said:


> Many Microsoft programs are avaiable such as Word, IE, and I think Exchange too?


Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Entourage. (Entourage is Outlook for Mac.) Internet Explorer is technically also available, but hasn't been updated in five years. (If you thought browsing with IE was bad on Windows...)


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 10, 2009)

Hmm... well, there's a few options, and some good points already made.  For one, as mentioned above, if you do any sort of DirectX-based gaming, you have to stick to Windows.  XP Professional should be the one and only choice there.  Vista is purely idiotic.

One thing you can try though are the LiveCD OS's, which is an awesome way to test and see if your system can run another OS properly.  Most LiveCD operating systems are Linux, but some are also BSD Unix.  You'll want to see if all your hardware is supported (IE, you won't get far if it can't see your NIC), if there's any odd behaviour, and if it can support things like the various forms of power management (important on a laptop).  

Most of the LiveCD OS's also allow the option to resize drive partitions without removing your current OS.  That way you can install it, try it out and not have to blow away your prior system to do it.

For Linux, I would recommend Linux Mint (which is based on Ubuntu Linux) because it is 100% compatible with all Ubuntu updates, and comes out of the box with all the extra restricted modules installed (Java, Flash, DVD player abilities, etc.).  Ubunutu itself is also pretty simple to setup and use.  For a slightly older system (say, under 2GHz and/or with less than 1.5G of RAM), you might consider a lighter-weight version of the Ubuntu family.  There is a Mint Linux Lite for example, or Xbuntu, or PC/OS.

Linux also has some very impressive mini-distrobutions.  They're not quite a full distrobtion in that you don't get the ability to compile code with them, but they can still run just about any Linux binary.  These are best on much older PCs, and my favourite of them, by a landslide, is Puppy Linux.  Puppy can run on a Pentium class machine with as little as 64M of RAM.  On a 1GHz box with, say, 512M of RAM, it screams.  In fact, professionally speaking, I use Puppy all the time in my job to test machines and boot servers and systems from ancient to cutting edge.  It's one of the most impressive and efficient little versions of Linux I've ever seen.

In the BSD Unix world, there's a few nifty choices to try too.  DesktopBSD and BSDAnywhere have LiveCD versions.  DesktopBSD is based on FreeBSD, and BSDAnywhere is based on OpenBSD (argueably the most secure OS around).  There is another called PC-BSD, also based on FreeBSD, but it doesn't have a LiveCD.  PC-BSD is extremely easy and friendly to use though.  My one complaint however is that it uses the latest KDE environment, which is about as resource hungry as Vista's Aero interface.  BSD is very efficient and fast, and boasts a stability that is legendary.  Driver and program support tends to lag a bit behind the major Linux distros now, but not terribly so.

Links:

http://www.linuxmint.com/
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://www.xubuntu.com/
http://pcosopensystem.blogspot.com/
http://www.puppylinux.com/
http://bsdanywhere.org/
http://www.pcbsd.org/
http://www.desktopbsd.net/

Another handy link to check out all sorts of Distos:

http://distrowatch.com/


----------



## Biles (Jan 10, 2009)

net-cat said:


> ...Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Entourage. (Entourage is Outlook for Mac.) Internet Explorer is technically also available, but hasn't been updated in five years. (If you thought browsing with IE was bad on Windows...)



Actually, Microsoft has stopped making IE for Macs a long time ever since Safari came out, but there's always FireFox for Macs too.


----------



## pitchblack (Jan 10, 2009)

And Firefox is already much better than IE7 anyway, but I can't attest to IE8 here, seeing as I haven't tried the beta. Safari is pretty close to Firefox, but I'd take Firefox anyway seeing as you can mod it with little trouble. (I'm running about 20 different mods for Firefox).

So, really, you choice of operating system really just depends on 2 things: What you want to run, and how good the computer is. If you just want to use it for everyday things, i.e., word processing, surfing, etc., then stick with XP for not, or use OSX. If you like to run games, and you have a _really_ good computer, and some patience, then switch over to Vista for DX10, if any of your games can use it. It is quite pretty. Otherwise, just stick with XP. 

If you want to run any heavy applications, like 3D design, movie making, digital art, sound synth, etc., then go with OSX, because it has some of the best app software out there and runs them beautifully. However, be preapred to plonk down a lot of cash for a decent compy (Mac Pros are about $2000 for the basic one, but they are designed for these sort of heavy applications.) 

Finally, if you're really desperate for a new operating system and want a very secure, really cheap, OS that can do most everyday things, and are looking for one of the most veratile OSs out there if you know what you are doing, then look at Linux or another UNIX-derived OS.

EDIT: Or, if you are feeling patient, then you can just wait for Windows 7 to come out sometime in the next year or two and just get a new compy with it when it comes out. From what I've read, most people are quite impressed with the beta so far. Just a thought.

Basically summed up what everyone about me said.


----------



## SuperFurryBonzai (Jan 11, 2009)

I've been using vista the past year and I've never had problems with it. It takes a bit getting used to after XP but i think it' worth it


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 11, 2009)

You can buy the Mac OSX startup disks separate for around $130, and not need to run on an Apple brand unit.


----------



## AlexInsane (Jan 11, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:


> I guess the first question is: why do you feel you need a new OS?  What do you feel is lacking in your XP installation?  You should ultimately determine what your needs are, then choose your operating system accordingly.  We really can't help you until we know what you want.



Because sooner or later XP isn't going to cut it and Windows will stop making updates for it. I don't know when that'll be, but seeing as how they're getting ready for Vista 2.0, aka Windows 7, I'm guessing the days of XP are numbered. 

It's a huge pain in the ass to have to go in, transfer everything onto a external HD, which has to be fucking huge due to the amount of shit I have, download the new OS, spend a couple hours configuring it to my needs, and then putting all my stuff back on the computer, if that's what I need to do. In fact, I should probably buy a 1TB External HD and put everything on there, just in case I need to switch shit over.

I don't mind using XP, but I can't use it forever, so I can either keep my computer and change the OS or drag it out, which I'd rather not do. It just seems to me that a new OS would be preferable to an older one, that's all.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 11, 2009)

SuperFurryBonzai said:


> I've been using vista the past year and I've never had problems with it. It takes a bit getting used to after XP but i think it' worth it



From the point of view of the user, I could see how once becoming used to it, you might think it's "worth it", but from a technical point of view, Vista is a horrible failure for a long list of reasons.  It's dramatically higher hardware requirements, increased "nag" habits to the user, and DRM laden nature are a few of the things that make it a nightmare for PCs.

[rant]One of the primary reasons I refuse to touch it is actually the DRM/copyright stuff, and that's a matter of personal ethics to me.  The Operating System's sole job is to be the interface between you the user and the hardware of the computer.  It has no business being a police officer during that process.  Even though it's something that would rarely, if ever, get in my way, I refuse to use it solely because it's something evil that's there and has no right to be there.

What burned me about it (and still does) is how so many people just shrug and accept it like it's okay to let a corporation tell you what you can and can't do with YOUR PC.  I will NOT let a corporation start to define what I can and can't do with stuff.[/rant]

Now, that said, AlexInsane has a good point - XP *is* going away eventually, whether people like it or not.  XP is old, very old, as far as operating systems go.  It is no longer sold to the public (only to OEMs) and will be supported until 2012.  That's the date that Microsoft has on the books for continuing Security updates for XP.  Content updates for XP are also grinding to a hault.  So basically, we have until 2012 to find something else, or continue using a dead OS, which means getting hacked to pieces since there's a new exploit for Windows on a nearly weekly basis.

Windows 7 is likely to be the OS that most people shift to when MS releases it.  Having learned some lessons from the dramatic failure of Vista in the personal and workplace markets, MS has toned down a lot of the annoying features that Vista had, even the DRM, though that's still present.  Currently though, Windows 7 is just as much of a resource hog as Vista, but since it's only in Alpha at the moment, that could technically improve... or worsen; too early to say at this point.

So at least for a few years, XP still works if you _have_ to stick with Windows.  And XP will certainlly give you much better performance than Vista.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 11, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:
			
		

> - It's fast, stable, and requires no anti-virus software (to my best of knowledge.)


You'd still want one, though.



			
				PeppermintRoo said:
			
		

> Compelling reasons to go with a Unix-derived or Unix-like OS:


Mac and Linux are both derived from Unix.



honestly, Windows 7 Beta 1 is out, get that. It's better than xp, and lighter than Vista, And it's free.
When Windows 7 does actually come out, it will be better than Vista, but right now Vista is better than any other windows *IF* you meet recommended specs, if not it's best to just stick with Windows XP.

Mac, well I honestly don't suggest it. At all.
Linux is amazing; go with that if you're not doing any gaming.


----------



## PaperJack (Jan 11, 2009)

Windows 7 rocks. I got the leaked beta.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 11, 2009)

PaperJack said:


> Windows 7 rocks. I got the leaked beta.



The public beta is out... good job cracking something free! <..<


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 11, 2009)

*stares at Newf's avatar* Purdy... ahem...



NewfDraggie said:


> Mac and Linux are both derived from Unix.



Correctamongo!  The Mac OS, _is_ in fact Unix.  It's based on the NetBSD core, with a custom X shell very similar to the one called Berryl.  That's one of the big reasons the MAC OS is so much more stable and efficient.



NewfDraggie said:


> honestly, Windows 7 Beta 1 is out, get that. It's better than xp, and lighter than Vista, And it's free.
> When Windows 7 does actually come out, it will be better than Vista, but right now Vista is better than any other windows *IF* you meet recommended specs, if not it's best to just stick with Windows XP.



Well... not quite - remember that Vista is guaranteed to be slower than XP in every benchmark, sometimes by as much as 40%.  Vista has a lot of extra, bloated code in the way.  Though it has less _known_ security issues than XP, the performance hit as well as the user rights hit you take to use it is pretty harsh.  I can't ethically bring myself to use an OS that stomps all over my rights as much as that (which sadly will not really improve with Windows 7).

From a professional point of view, we _hate_ Vista with a passion at my work because it also tries to think a little too much on its own.  If it were programmed by a company with intelligence, that might not be so bad, but it was made by Microsoft, who haven't a clue what they're doing, so there have been many instances of grief that Vista has caused on the Network.  We don't use it in Network Operations, not even on a test box, and never will. 



NewfDraggie said:


> Mac, well I honestly don't suggest it. At all.
> Linux is amazing; go with that if you're not doing any gaming.



YES!  Newf, you hit the nail on the head with that one.  Basically, there is NO reason to be running Windows (in any flavour) nowadays unless you use it for games, or if you have a piece of hardware that was exceptionally proprietary and doesn't work quite right with anything else (I have a laptop like that).  Linux officially supports more hardware out of the box than any other OS now, is more secure, faster, and easier to maintain.  Like I said in my first post, go try one of the main big distros like Linux Mint on the Live CD and see for yourself.


----------



## PeppermintRoo (Jan 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Mac and Linux are both derived from Unix.


Yes, that is right.  For your sake, I edited my post to put a clarifying 'free' in front of it.  And for further clarification, yes I do mean, "as in free speech not free beer."



NewfDraggie said:


> Mac, well I honestly don't suggest it. At all.
> Linux is amazing; go with that if you're not doing any gaming.


I have a strong passion for Linux, along with a strong distaste for Apple, but I still feel that the original specification of, "user friendly and stable," is far more fitting of OSX.  Even in Ubuntu, things can get messy.  

Examples:
- Setting up the dimensions of a wacom tablet has required modifying my xorg.conf.
- I had a scanner that required proprietary firmware that would be illegal to package with any Linux distro.  On top of extracting the firmware off the cd, it required installing an addon to xsane, additional shared libraries, and modifying the xsane configuration file to point to the new firmware.
- An Ubuntu update once rendered my desktop's installation unbootable, because it would have a kernel panic caused by an APIC timeout.  Fixing it required booting with the kernel option noapic.  

These things are laughably trivial for any Linux user to do, but they would be foreign and possibly frightening to the average person.  Anyone who seriously uses *nix OS'es on a day-to-day basis across multiple computers knows that things like this can and will come up, even on Ubuntu.  Every problem is just a google search or IRC chat away from fixing, but most people aren't willing to go to that length. I do not yet believe that an average user can do everything inside of Linux by only using a GUI.  Sooner or later, the command line is going to be needed to get something done, and for that reason I can't label Linux as "user friendly."  

If someone is a computer enthusiast who's not afraid to get their hands dirty, I will annoy them into submission until they give Linux a try.  For the average user though, I still say stick with Windows or OSX, especially if user-friendliness is a top priority.



AlexInsane said:


> Because sooner or later XP isn't going to cut it and Windows will stop making updates for it. I don't know when that'll be, but seeing as how they're getting ready for Vista 2.0, aka Windows 7, I'm guessing the days of XP are numbered.


If that's the problem, I'd honestly say don't worry about it.  By the time Microsoft stops supporting XP, your laptop will be ancient in computer years.  (There's a decent enough chance that before then some piece of hardware on your laptop will go out that won't be worth replacing anyway.)  If you like the way things are, don't change it.  When you get a new laptop or desktop, you'll have a new OS anyway.  

If you're frustrated with the speed of things, lack of customizability, or any present and consistent instabilities, then I'd suggest looking to alternative OS's.  If you're not, then don't.


----------



## net-cat (Jan 12, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:


> Examples:
> - Setting up the dimensions of a wacom tablet has required modifying my xorg.conf.
> - I had a scanner that required proprietary firmware that would be illegal to package with any Linux distro.  On top of extracting the firmware off the cd, it required installing an addon to xsane, additional shared libraries, and modifying the xsane configuration file to point to the new firmware.
> - An Ubuntu update once rendered my desktop's installation unbootable, because it would have a kernel panic caused by an APIC timeout.  Fixing it required booting with the kernel option noapic.
> ...


I'd like to point out that Windows spits out error messages that are just as cryptic. The average user isn't going to know what a STOP 0x00000000 error is anymore than they're going to be able to interpret a kernel panic in Linux. Again, in either case, the troubleshooting is just a Google search away. Things will always go wrong and stump the average user. 

OS X mitigates this somewhat by tightly controlling the hardware that their software runs on, but really that will only hold them for so long. Platform openness* is what made Windows popular in the first place, and is what keeps it popular today, after all.

* And no, I don't mean the open-source type open. I mean you get a copy of the OS and the cheap/free SDK and that's all you need.

As for needing the command line for some things, that's might be true. But the examples you outlined are hardly typical cases. Most users don't own a scanner and wouldn't even know what a Wacom is. And there are certain cases in which the command line is required in Windows, too. (Try getting the Network Bridge working with a wireless network adapter without netsh.) There are probably cases in Mac OS X, too. But I don't use Mac OS X enough to know about them.

I guess my point is that there are always special cases that break things. But if it works for most people, then it's viable. I think any of the major OS's these days, Windows, Mac OS X and Ubuntu, fit that bill.


----------



## Oskenso (Jan 12, 2009)

I did a bit of this since I loved ubuntu and still needed some xp stuffles http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=433359


----------



## .Ein. (Jan 12, 2009)

I like Mac and Linux best; Ubuntu makes me randy.


----------



## Nakhi (Jan 12, 2009)

I prefer Windows. I have Vista now with no problems. Well, not anymore since I turned off the User Account Control.


----------



## Biles (Jan 12, 2009)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> You can buy the Mac OSX startup disks separate for around $130, and not need to run on an Apple brand unit.


Not sure if getting a Hackintosh is even a good idea. I've known people who got continuous kernel panics as a result. Not to mention, Apple is likely to make an example out of Psystar once they're threw with them.



net-cat said:


> OS X mitigates this somewhat by tightly controlling the hardware that their software runs on, but really that will only hold them for so long. Platform openness* is what made Windows popular in the first place, and is what keeps it popular today, after all.


It's the reason why Macs are the most stable and why they have not only the highest rate of customer service, but also the highest rate of better tech support than any other PC OEMs out in the market. And while I agree that "Platform openness" is what made Windows popular, unfortunatley, it had to come with great sacrifice in stability and performance hand in hand. Remember, quality>quantity. I doubt Apple plans to volume license their OS, back in the Scully era of Apple, they did that and it nearly killed them.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 12, 2009)

ToeClaws said:
			
		

> *stares at Newf's avatar* Purdy... ahem...


;3


			
				ToeClaws said:
			
		

> Well... not quite - remember that Vista is guaranteed to be slower than XP in every benchmark, sometimes by as much as 40%.


Well, actually I get an average of 30 FPS more with Vista 32-bit over XP 32-bit in almost -everything- in certain games I get up to 50 FPS more, and with 64-bit Vista I'm getting 5-10 more than 32-bit Vista.


			
				ToeClaws said:
			
		

> (which sadly will not really improve with Windows 7).


Windows 7 is a lot, lot lighter than Vista, it's basically the proper step up from XP, just like 98 to XP there's a jump in required hardware, but it's not as much as Vista.


			
				ToeClaws said:
			
		

> From a professional point of view, we _hate_ Vista with a passion at my work because it also tries to think a little too much on its own.


Most people that work at computer stores I know actually like Vista, a lot.


----------



## Kesteh (Jan 12, 2009)

I'm getting windows Server 2008. According to someone it's "Vista done right".
Once I test it I'll find out.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 13, 2009)

I wouldn't really rely on Server 2008 to be too great, though 2k Server and Server 2003 were great. One thing you're going to find is that a lot of normal consumer antivirus products will fail to function (asking you instead to buy the server editions) and in some rare cases you'll run across some poorly-coded applications that aren't expecting the server portion of the OS version. Should be few and far between - Server 2003 was about as compatible as XP was for me when I was running it, and I had only a small number of such cases.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> ;3



Your posts are always such nice eye-candy. ^_^



NewfDraggie said:


> Well, actually I get an average of 30 FPS more with Vista 32-bit over XP 32-bit in almost -everything- in certain games I get up to 50 FPS more, and with 64-bit Vista I'm getting 5-10 more than 32-bit Vista.



That's probably comes down to the graphics drivers - specifically the DirectX 10 stuff.  As MS has done in the past, they decided one way to try and push people to Vista was to not offer DirectX 10 to any of their older OS's, only Vista.  Even if the game specifically doesn't use a DirectX 10 compliant function (DX10 shaders, for example) the engine as a whole is optimized from DX9, which is actually quite old now.  



NewfDraggie said:


> Windows 7 is a lot, lot lighter than Vista, it's basically the proper step up from XP, just like 98 to XP there's a jump in required hardware, but it's not as much as Vista.



Agreed - by the time Windows 7 is released, it should be lighter in requirements than Vista, and also boast a notable performance gain.  So long as they don't decide to stuff it full of a bunch of other stuff before release, that is.



NewfDraggie said:


> Most people that work at computer stores I know actually like Vista, a lot.



Heh, working at a computer store and running a Network of over 11,000 devices and 44,000 users is a wee bit different.  Computer store people don't have to deal with OS's on networking scale, just sell them to the public.  Most of Vista's issues on a network come from something that's not new when it comes to Microsoft - when they ship an OS, they turn on just about every feature they can instead of turning on only the bare minimum and letting the user choose later.  For most users, this means the OS magically does everything on its own, but for the Network admins, it means that Vista can often be doing a lot more than just asking for an IP from a DHCP server.  The same was true back in 2001 when MS was testing XP with Boeing; XP's SSDP and "Network Location Awareness" service ended up bringing down a big chunk of Boeing's network because of unforeseen issues in how SSDP affected some older Cisco Catalyst switches.

With Vista, a good example of a problem that constantly causes issues is that IPv6 is turned on by default, and worst yet, it prefers IPv6 over IPv4.  99% of the Internet is IPv4, and IPv6 is supposed to be what it will evolve to eventually, only the standard was written by complete idiots, and migrating to it will take years (if not decades) and cost North America as a whole trillions of dollars.  So... when Vista blabbers away on IPv6 on IPv4 networks, problems can start cropping up.  There is no way to filter or block this on most network gear, so it comes down to Vista having to be specically configured _not_ to use IPv6 at all, and unfortunately since we're not allowed to beat and pepper spray the users, not all are set properly.

That's just one example of many.  As I said earlier though, my biggest reason to not like Vista (or Windows 7), and what _should_ be yours and everyone elses reason to not like it is the copyright and DRM issues.  Whether you like it on the computer or not, they are forcing a legal policy on the user and the system.  They can prevent content from playing or sometimes hardware from being used, and that's not only unethical, it's downright evil.  The ONLY person who should be able to tell you what you can and can't run/do with your PC is YOU.  No OS, or any corporation has the rights to enforce their interpretation of the law on you.  So even though I might never be affected by it, I refuse to run then simply because they have the ability to get in my way.

When they brought out Vista with that Big-brother like copyright policy, people should have been rioting in the streets around Microsoft, holding protests around the world and boycotting everything made by MS.  Instead, no one seems to even understand how incredibly intrusive and evil that measure is.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 13, 2009)

I haven't paid for my copy of Windows Vista, and I've never had it not let me run/use a device or program yet. 

Also, Windows 7 has a lot of features specifically for networks, it's a -lot- better than Windows Vista in that aspect, like a thousand times better. @..@


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I haven't paid for my copy of Windows Vista, and I've never had it not let me run/use a device or program yet.
> 
> Also, Windows 7 has a lot of features specifically for networks, it's a -lot- better than Windows Vista in that aspect, like a thousand times better. @..@



*chuckles* 1000 times better than Vista isn't saying much.  But yes - I do believe that Windows 7 will be vastly improved, and will be more of what Vista _should_ have been.

My point about the DRM/copyright stuff isn't so much that it's always stopping people from doing stuff - it's that it has the ability to.  It's that ability to get in my way that I don't ethically agree with.

Think of it this way: Let's say you buy a car from Dodge, and for the most part, you can drive around like normal, but the moment you try to turn onto a non-government road (IE, dirt road on your friend's farm or private parking lot, or driveway, etc), the car takes control from you and keeps you on the road.  I don't know about you, but I think I'd be on the phone with my Dodge dealer going "Ugh... what the hell!?"  That's basically what Vista has the ability to do if it doesn't like the authenticity of something you're trying to run.  _THAT_ is why I won't use Vista or Windows 7 - I cannot morally or ethically accept the license agreement because of that.

Oh, and on an OS note, there is now a LiveCD version of NetBSD (the OS that is the core of the MAC OS):

http://www.jibbed.org/

NetBSD is BSD Unix, and this particular one uses the lightweight XFCE shell, which means it should run pretty good on even old hardware.


----------



## protocollie (Jan 13, 2009)

Mac OS X. Huge upfront investment. No regrets.

If you feel like playing games you can boot camp 'em. WoW is a notable exception, it runs natively.

When you get used to it you'll find things you didn't even like all that much before, like word processing, are a little more fun.

Plus you won't be able to stop staring at your computer.

Yeahhhhhhh baby.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 13, 2009)

*laughs* wow, very relevant comic from the other day on XKCD:


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 13, 2009)

LOL, that's a good one (even if it isn't quite the truth). xD
I think it's better to wait for the final release of win7 and the first patches before you even consider installing it.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 13, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> LOL, that's a good one (even if it isn't quite the truth). xD
> I think it's better to wait for the final release of win7 and the first patches before you even consider installing it.



Hehe, yes - a little bit of an exaggeration (though not much when it comes to M$ products).  Agreed though - from going through years and years of betas and trials with MS, you're actually best off to wait not only for the release version, but actually to wait all the way until they put out the first service pack or operational fix.

For the 32-bit OS's, case in point, in order of release:

Windows 95 (A version): garbage

Windows NT 3.51 (pre SP): Oi... fugly, twitchy

Windows 95 (B version, aka OSR2): good (was actually a completely different OS released a year later)

Windows NT 4.0 (Pre SP): Improved over 3.51, but unstable

Windows 95 (C version): very good (quietly released in 1997, contained most enhancements ready for the next release

Windows NT 4.0 (SP1): Better stability, continued issues

Windows 98 (A version): Twitchy

Windows 98 (B version): Best of the 9x generation

Windows 2000 (aka NT 5.0, pre-sp): Vastly improved over NT4, but had twitch issues

Windows Me (thankfully, the only version): Epic fail

Windows NT 4.0 (fastforward to SP4): Finally mostly stable

Windows 2000 (SP1): Much improved best OS to date.

Windows XP (aka NT 5.1, pre SP): Horrid, sluggish, extremely twitchy

and so on...

Windows XP was stabalized with SP1, but it didn't become a better OS/choice than 2000 until SP2.  Windows 2000 was okay after SP1, but reached it's best after SP4.  Same went for Vista - was damn near unusable for some people prior to SP1.  So, for those of you that can accept the EULA of Windows 7 without the urge to vomit and question your ethical reasoning, I would still suggest holding off until SP1.  XP will be supported to 2012, so if you really must have Windows, you still have a few years before you're forced to make a choice.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 13, 2009)

Or choose another OS *glancing at his linux machines* ;-)


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 13, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> LOL, that's a good one (even if it isn't quite the truth). xD
> I think it's better to wait for the final release of win7 and the first patches before you even consider installing it.



i installed win7 and im pretty impressed!
its very stable for a beta and just as fast as my XP installation, maybe even faster but i have to test it a little more to validate that^^
the version you download is the ultimate edition and compared to vista ultimate its so very slick, its amazing.
i have a relativly old PC (ddr1, s939 CPU) and its running very nicely.

b2t:
its hard to say which OS you should buy. in my opinion you should keep XP for now and buy windows 7 later once it released and if its just as good as the beta is right now.
buying vista isnt such a good idea, it looks good but in my opinion its just not worth it, especially because you want a relieable system.
since you dont want to have all sorts of anti-viral software mac or linux would be a good choice. but you wont get as much software for those and linux isnt exactly the most userfriendly system in my opinion. if you want to try ubuntu use "wubi", its an installer tool for ubuntu so that you can install it in a few easy steps over the windows UI.
another problem with linux is that the filesystem isnt really that safe... one crash or one blackout and you might lose some files.

id recommend ubuntu and the win7 beta for now. you can test both for free and you can delete them if you dont like them^^


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 13, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> i have a relativly old PC (ddr1, s939 CPU) and its running very nicely.



Old?  Psh... that's still relatively modern and powerful.  Socket 939s are usually Athlon64s from 2800 to dual cores at 4200+.  Those are powerful enough to run ANY OS efficiently, even Vista.

Old is something like a Pentium III 1GHz with 1gig of RAM (or less).  Would love to see Microsoft encode Windows 7 so efficiently that it could run on something like that as good or better than XP.

Yeah I know most people do have something more, but it's always a shame to me to see so many machine's tossed out because people think they're not powerful enough anymore when they are.  If someone just browses the web and does e-mail, and old box like that is fine.  Again, this is an area where Linux and Unix often have an edge - Ubuntu, Mint, BSDAnywhere, and so on run really well on old boxes.  They even have lighter-weight varients to squeeze out more performance.  Puppy Linux runs insanely well on even older hardware.


----------



## PeppermintRoo (Jan 13, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> another problem with linux is that the filesystem isnt really that safe... one crash or one blackout and you might lose some files.



Linux does not dictate a file system; you're free to choose one upon formating your drive pre-installation.  Possible file systems include:
ext*, XFS, CDFS, GPFS, NSS, GFS, ReiserFS, ZFS, and more.

The most common file system chosen for Linux right now is ext3 (with a motion in place to migrate to ext4,) which can operate in one of three modes.  In its journaled mode, it explicitly prevents data loss and corruption during a power outage or kernel panic.  So I really have no clue where you're coming from with this statement.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 13, 2009)

Oh man, totally missed that comment on the file system with Linux.  Yes, as PeppermintRoo said, that's not really an issue anymore.  Before ext3, yes it was of some concern, but to be honest, so is NTFS - if you just hard-boot a Windows box, you can screw up the file system as well.  I don't think there's such a thing as an immunity to that given the massive amount of information being constantly written/read from the drives nowadays.  

Most modern Linux and BSD versions will automatically run a file system check after an unexpected power loss (I know because it used to happen to my workstation when we were in our former power-problem-prone old building at work).  By rights, Windows should also execute a file system check after such a thing, but often doesn't.  The Ubuntu family of Linux even executes routine checks of the file system every so many boots, just to ensure things are kept as they should be.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 14, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:


> Linux does not dictate a file system; you're free to choose one upon formating your drive pre-installation.  Possible file systems include:
> ext*, XFS, CDFS, GPFS, NSS, GFS, ReiserFS, ZFS, and more.
> 
> The most common file system chosen for Linux right now is ext3 (with a motion in place to migrate to ext4,) which can operate in one of three modes.  In its journaled mode, it explicitly prevents data loss and corruption during a power outage or kernel panic.  So I really have no clue where you're coming from with this statement.



oi, thats good to hear^^

@toeclaws: i meant old compared to most new systems. everything in my PC is from previous hardware generations and i have problems with a lot of new games and software.
its an ok machine but its getting a little dated now^^


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 14, 2009)

CaptainCool@toeclaws: i meant old compared to most new systems. everything in my PC is from previous hardware generations and i have problems with a lot of new games and software.
its an ok machine but its getting a little dated now^^[/quote said:
			
		

> Heh, the problem I find is that "old" by comparison to current platforms is anything about 6 months old or older.
> 
> I have a socket 939 system with a dual core X2 3800+, running a 512M Radeon 3850 AGP card.  Thus far, I haven't encountered a game or app that gives me any grief, BUT... my days are numbered. :/  The 3850 was the final curtain for the AGP bus, and there's nothing more I can do to dramatically increase it's power the next time I can't run something.  Oh well - should last me another year or so before I have to worry about a complete core change.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 14, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Old?  Psh... that's still relatively modern and powerful.  Socket 939s are usually Athlon64s from 2800 to dual cores at 4200+.  Those are powerful enough to run ANY OS efficiently, even Vista.
> 
> Old is something like a Pentium III 1GHz with 1gig of RAM (or less).  Would love to see Microsoft encode Windows 7 so efficiently that it could run on something like that as good or better than XP.


Well, Win7 is supposed to run on a netbook. Ok, it's 1.6 Ghz and not 1 GHz, but it's as close as you can get these days. 



ToeClaws said:


> Yeah I know most people do have something more, but it's always a shame to me to see so many machine's tossed out because people think they're not powerful enough anymore when they are.  If someone just browses the web and does e-mail, and old box like that is fine.


That's why the PCs of my family have a good and long life. The last one that dies was about ten years old (but still more than fast enough for browsing and writing texts). 



ToeClaws said:


> Puppy Linux runs insanely well on even older hardware.


And it runs even faster on newer machines. That's why it became my distro of choice (after a few *slight* modifications ;-)).


----------



## PeppermintRoo (Jan 14, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> The Ubuntu family of Linux even executes routine checks of the file system every so many boots, just to ensure things are kept as they should be.



Yes, this is absolutely true.   

<rant>
But it's not exactly unique to Ubuntu.  Ubuntu just makes a lot of assumptions, and in this case assumes that everyone wants the auto fschk at boot time.  

This feature is a matter of setting up the last digits in your /etc/fstab entries (known as the pass-num value) to a non-zero number (typically incrementing, starting at 1) and setting the max-mount-counts on each of your ext2/ext3 filesystems (man tune2fs.)   I honestly am not sure how to set it up in non ext* filesystems, or which of the others would even require it.

The reason this is done for ext*, is because it's impossible to run a fschk on an ext* file system while it is mounted.  This isn't a problem for any media partions, but presents a huge problem when you want to check the partition that your OS is installed on.  So it checks it at boot time, before mounting.  
</rant>


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 14, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Well, Win7 is supposed to run on a netbook. Ok, it's 1.6 Ghz and not 1 GHz, but it's as close as you can get these days.



*laughs* Aye, which is good.  Also, 1.6GHz on a modern CPU is wickedly efficient.  A 1.6GHz dual core today would be about as powerful as 4 1GHz PIIIs, if not more.  And that would be impressive if MS can stay true to that.  More impressive if they removed the DRM stuff (then I might actually be able to stomach agreeing with their EULA).



WarMocK said:


> That's why the PCs of my family have a good and long life. The last one that dies was about ten years old (but still more than fast enough for browsing and writing texts).



*nods* One PC I set up for my ex is an old PII 333 laptop with 256M of RAM.  It's around 11 years old, but she just uses it mainly for playing music and occasionally looking at reference art and pages when sculpting, so it's more than enough.  Runs Puppy Linux 4.1.2 beautifully.

CAThulu's mom uses Puppy on another older laptop as well, a PIII 600 with 192M of ram.  She wanted to know if it was still good, and of course computer stores told her she needed to buy a new one.  Psh.  I put Puppy on it and loaded it up with extra software and stuff, and she just uses that.  Works great, and she finds it easier than Windows.  All she does is just surf the Net and get/send e-mails.



WarMocK said:


> And it runs even faster on newer machines. That's why it became my distro of choice (after a few *slight* modifications ;-)).



Yeah - same with me - but that's the charm of Puppy - it's fully functional off the default install, yet, you can customize and expand the hell out of it.  I'm also impressed at how insanely good it is at hardware detection, and being able to do stuff out of the box that most other large OS's can't always seem to.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 14, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:


> Yes, this is absolutely true.
> 
> <rant>
> But it's not exactly unique to Ubuntu.  Ubuntu just makes a lot of assumptions, and in this case assumes that everyone wants the auto fschk at boot time.
> ...



Heh, yes I - should have really said any *nix type OS can do this.  It's too bad it can't do it while mounted, but then, that's not really all that unique to ext* - Windows can't either with NTFS.  If you execute a 'chkdsk c: /f /r", it has to do it during the next boot as well.  Oh well, minor issues.  The Ubuntu family allows the routine checks to be skipped if need be, other *nix's probably do as well.  PC-BSD did, I recall.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 14, 2009)

^^^ FULL ACK!
The only things that bother me about Puppy is the default GUI and the fact tha t it was primarly designed as a single-user system. But after applying my little XFCE pack and running a few scripts those issues are gone. ^_^
I'm still looking for a good virtual keyboard for my system, but the things you usually get are ugly as hell (gtkeyboard? YUCK!). Any suggestions (despite florence, I'd need to compile it from scratch, but I'm kinda lazy to add the devx package atm )?


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 14, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> ^^^ FULL ACK!
> The only things that bother me about Puppy is the default GUI and the fact tha t it was primarly designed as a single-user system. But after applying my little XFCE pack and running a few scripts those issues are gone. ^_^
> I'm still looking for a good virtual keyboard for my system, but the things you usually get are ugly as hell (gtkeyboard? YUCK!). Any suggestions (despite florence, I'd need to compile it from scratch, but I'm kinda lazy to add the devx package atm )?



Yeah, JWM is pretty basic, but then that was the point for both size and speed.  I used to switch it to Ice in older Puppy versions, but Ice seems to be lacking now by comparison.  Never tried XFCE yet - if you get a chance, PM (best not to derail this thread too much, heh) me on that, would love to give it a whirl on the laptop here. 

As for a virtual keyboard, never tried using one - how come you need that?  Have it on a PDA or something?


----------



## mapdark (Jan 15, 2009)

Mac's are SO overrated ^^;

Sure , windows has its issues , but Mac OS makes you feel like the developpers think you've never used a computer before.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 15, 2009)

mapdark said:


> Mac's are SO overrated ^^;
> 
> Sure , windows has its issues , but Mac OS makes you feel like the developpers think you've never used a computer before.



Agreed but... ah... I would say the exact same about Windows.

Unfortunately, that's by design in both cases.  Companies have opted to try to make the OS do everything easily rather than to try and educate the user.  In both Mac and Windows, the annoying features that cause this can at least be disabled, so no biggie.


----------



## Biles (Jan 15, 2009)

mapdark said:


> Mac's are SO overrated ^^;
> 
> Sure , windows has its issues , but Mac OS makes you feel like the developpers think you've never used a computer before.



Apple has mainly targeted the home-consumer market, so yeah, they have to make it super friendly-user and they have excelled on that. However, it isn't to say they're not capable of handling more intense operations. If they weren't, Macs wouldn't be so dominant in the multi-media world.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 15, 2009)

Biles said:


> Apple has mainly targeted the home-consumer market, so yeah, they have to make it super friendly-user and they have excelled on that. However, it isn't to say they're not capable of handling more intense operations. If they weren't, Macs wouldn't be so dominant in the multi-media world.



They really aren't, though. They're _there_, but most of the high end media systems (HD video processing, 3D rendering, etc) that I've seen are of the non-fruit variety, and they tend to be far more powerful than anything the Apple side of the fence is capable of.

Not to say Macs aren't capable of more intense operations, but... Honestly? I wouldn't. Though they _do_ have a Bash terminal with most common console apps, which is the main method by which I interact with OS X (and completely bewilder the owner of said Mac, generally).


----------

