What do you use: Linux / Mac / Win?

i just wonder why there is still peaple who use Microsoft Windows OS till now , although open source products like Linux/Mac/.. r available and even "free" to use !
Moreover , its secure / easy to use and bla bla bla ...

so ,,, lets return to our question ... what do u use ?? .. Linux/Mac/Win/...etc OS ^^

i'll just start by and say ... i use Microsoft Windows -sadly- ..

( i just have no time to install linux OS - ubuntu for me i'd say -)

i'm sick of this bug based product , i hope that one day i use linux for real - i wanna try it :P

so , what about u ?

I have Windows on one hard drive, Ubuntu on the other. I use Windows for my specialized programs--Photoshop and Illustrator, and I use Ubuntu for everything else. With the possibility of Microsoft going subscription, I'll switch entirely to Linux the next time it's time for me to build new computers for me and my wife, maybe in another five years or so.

Lots of underlying issues to the simplistic question.

Issues that typically impact the decision are

which system supports the applications I need?
what system am I most familar with?
how comfortable am I in learning a new system?
what's the impact of not getting the work tasks done while I'm getting it all together?


Personally, I use all three; OS X 10.3.9 (behind the curve now),
WinXP Pro,
Linux RH7 (also behind the curve)
and even have a Win/98se used as a primative backup server.

Unless you have a need to move to a specific environment, avoid the pain
and stay where you are. On the other hand, if your major motivation is to get to a
more stable environment, then just use the list above to guide you in your choice.

(notice: no reference to "xxx is better, cheaper, faster, or easier. Just not germane!)

Currently my system Dual-boots Kubuntu 8.04(Hardy Heron), and Win Xp sp3. I love Kubuntu, but it is very buggy. Just the other day while browsing with Konqueror the system crashed twice. This happened after Iinstalled the flash plugin in konqueror, since then I have installed Firefox 3.0, and all is well.

Ubuntu >*

I have Ubuntu 8.04 installed on a pretty fast machine and I love it.

Dual booting is better and more efficient than just installing one primary OS and sticking with it. For about 3 years I've dual booted WinXP and Ubuntu and never had any problems. I use Ubuntu for general stuff like Firefox and photo editing and XP for gaming.

It's really all about what you're doing, so don't stick with a OS just because it's convenient.

Also, installing Linux on a PSP along with custom firmware is very fun since you can run emulators like Daedalus for NES games.

All three - in fact, the machine I'm posting this from now triple boots Vista Ultimate 32/Leopard 10.5.5/Ubuntu 8.04 x64. I love all three (I'll even through XP SP3 in there) and use them all regularly. I'm not a zealot for any particular platform and think they are all good and necessary.

Just don't imply that OS X is free or open source. All the Mac zealots who complain about Gates just make me laugh.. and sick at the same time. Jobs is every bit as bad as Gates ever was.

actually i like the idea of having all the three Operating Systems on my machine ,, currently i have win xp w/ win/98 as a backup-system lol , u know Microsoft Buggy Windows crashes almost every week with me ..

i'm gonna try to use mac and linux also -- why not give it a try ;) ?

Its all very debatable, what one person likes may not suit the next, I have tried OS X both Leopard and Tiger, Ubuntu and Kubuntu, XP and Vista and found that each has its good and bad points. Personally, I am on Vista, just because some important programs I need only support Vista and for games, dual.triple boot is pretty pointless for me, Vista does everything I need.
Cheers
Hynesy

I use Vista, XP64 (sort of), Win 2000, and my laptop is Leopard. I run a lot of different, just not Linux, other than the cost, it doesn't do anything I need to get done any better than what I already use, and often times it does it worse.

I run Vista on my desktop and OS X on my MacBook with Vm's of XP and Ubuntu (hardy heron).

Linux only (Gentoo)

I do have a Windows gaming box that I fire up whenever I can't get something to work through Wine.

Yes thats nice all that...

But .exe file does not open but how do you make to play a game on it or even program that is only .exe format for the users of Linux and MAC???

Also I would like to know where to get a MAC OS as etchhh ask that it is free?

Fundamentally, other systems do not rely upon the filename extension to determine
what the file is or how to open it. Windows uses the .com .exe .scr to 'run' the code.
Linux has a 'magic number' in the first four bytes of the program file or a line that reads
#!path_to_interpreter
which is launched and handed the file to work on.

Mac WAS like Linux, but now (10.4 and above) has Intel processors and the .exe
can be launched with the right emulation or configuration. This is very problematic
and NOT advisable for gamers.

So if I understand well the new versions of MAC can open .exe file without any problem?

But how do linux users do to get a program that is only .exe format?

Run an emulation program (see wine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)))

Wine sucks! I've tried using it a few times to run windows based programs, but to no avail. Apparently it works for others.

Likely true, but imo, it's a faux pas to move windows programs ANYWHERE :)

Gamers have major conflict of interest in Keeping their games AND moving to any other platform.

Currently my system Dual-boots Kubuntu 8.04(Hardy Heron), and Win Xp sp3. I love Kubuntu, but it is very buggy. Just the other day while browsing with Konqueror the system crashed twice. This happened after Iinstalled the flash plugin in konqueror, since then I have installed Firefox 3.0, and all is well.

The subject of "Kubuntu" being buggy has been tackled before. The "Ubuntu" version has a much better reputation. But, if your choice of Kubuntu was motivated by the KDE desktop, it might be worth it for you give "Open SUSE" a shot.

The "wine" is always so far behind current program versions that I certainly feel your pain there, That said, Windows isn't going away anytime soon for many apps.

I don't really know what to choose as Vista is very slow on my PC so I was wondering to put MAC on it but did not know what MAC and where to get it...

Currently the only legit place to get OS X is from apple with their hardware. There is an illegial copy that has been hacked to run on non-apple hardware but this will pretty much be rendered useless if you try to do a major update, and anyway its illegial.
Cheers
Allan

I don't really know what to choose as Vista is very slow on my PC so I was wondering to put MAC on it but did not know what MAC and where to get it... This may be your only 1GB of memory issue. I always suggest "downgrading" to XP. But as this always results in an argument, I won't this time. I will say that PCWorld tested Vista SP1 versus XP and they said XP was much faster.

Yes XP is much faster thats true but when i'm thinking that Microsoft will stop making updates for XP mainstream as from April 2009 so i'm wondering to go to another one to adapt myself. Vista i'm already adapt but the only problem is that it take too much RAM for me now as I have on 1GB but it run pretty ok but just the problem of the RAM that is annoying me.

Its Mac, as in short for Macintosh. Not MAC as in Media Access Control (for ethernet cards).

You can't run a Mac OS on a regular PC without violating the OS X TOS. There are ways to do it, certain hardware produces better results than others. Even a company with a plug in workaround.

But to run all 3 on 1 set of hardware legally you'd need to buy an Apple branded computer with an Intel processor, then use Bootcamp to install/run Windows XP/Vista or some variety of Linux.

At one time recently I ran OS X 10.3.9, 10.4.10, 10.5.x, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Ubuntu 8. I've slimmed that down to 10.5.5, Windows Vista, and Windows 2000.

As far as speed of the OS, I think that is made a much bigger deal than it really is. Unless you are gaming or doing some serious video/photo editing a slower computer doesn't hurt you much. I'm running Leopard (10.5.5) on a G4 450 (had to modify some files to get it to install on that slow of hardware) and yes its a bit slow, but I could do word processing, spreadsheets, IM, and browsing on it just fine if I had to.

Ok...

But Now I find that Vista is a good OS and i'm actually searching for a RAM and I think I will remain to Vista as I don't want to make something illegal on my PC and one OS is largely enough for me, maybe two in a major case but one is good for a gamer and everyday PC user.

I run Debian Etch and Windows XP (dual boot).

I run Debian Etch and Windows XP (dual boot).

cool caravel , u never tried to upgrade to vista , and havent u tried linux ubuntu ?

ok SNGX , just to answer amagnien problem , does ubuntu use somewhat low memory ? in compare to vista i mean ?

if so , amagnien could just use a free copy of ubuntu , a linux OS - it perfect i guess , and just get used to it ...

i heared someone can run the .exe applications on linux , using some sort of programs , is that true ? what is the name of such program then ?

ok SNGX , just to answer amagnien problem , does ubuntu use somewhat low memory ? in compare to vista i mean ?

if so , amagnien could just use a free copy of ubuntu , a linux OS - it perfect i guess , and just get used to it ...

i heared someone can run the .exe applications on linux , using some sort of programs , is that true ? what is the name of such program then ?

Yeah that could be right if I got Linux and that I can use .exe files on it too that will make me throw windows Vista out. But yeah can someone give the name of the program that enable us to use .exe files on linux?

But yeah can someone give the name of the program that enable us to use .exe files on linux?
WINE (http://www.winehq.org/)

cool caravel , u never tried to upgrade to vista , and havent u tried linux ubuntu ?

This is the version of Debian I run http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/

Basically Ubuntu is based on Debian anyway but has much more bloat and is less stable. I used to run Ubuntu since 6.06 Dapper Drake to the current version but since moving to Debian I don't think I'll be going back.

Vista doesn't appeal. I'll be interested to see the next "great" MS OS. I only use XP for running a few games anyway.

ok SNGX , just to answer amagnien problem , does ubuntu use somewhat low memory ? in compare to vista i mean ?

Last time I checked Ubuntu was asking for 384MB minimum for install. With that in mind 1GB seems like it would be plenty. Linux is not as resource intensive as XP, and nowhere near as big a hog as Vista.

One thing that this thread hasn't addressed is that Linux really is productivity based.
It's fine to be up in arms about M$ and their monopoly, quite another to be able to use Linux to be able to combat it. So, for the people running Linux servers and using Open Office, the OS is a godsend, for young people hell bent on achieving gaming godhood, it's a disaster. Actually the thread has addressed this, but it almost seems to have been ignored.

So, the security is better, and maybe you should be doing all your web browsing with the OS but, you're still going to need Windows for getting your game on. Dual boot means having a system that can run Windows well, there's no much way around that. But, if you're looking to do term papers, you sure can get away with Linux.

Yeah that could be right if I got Linux and that I can use .exe files on it too that will make me throw windows Vista out. But yeah can someone give the name of the program that enable us to use .exe files on linux?

cool amagien ,, i guess u can safely use linux as ur main OS now , as SNGX has mentioned , http://www.winehq.org/ is used for .exe files on linux OSes .. :)

Yeah I think now i'm ready for it... but did WINE work also on Mac? AS I use a lot of graphic program and I heard that Mac was best for that...

WINE is supposed to work on a Mac, but assuming you are thinking of putting OS X on a regular PC, you might as well just obtain Parallels and run real Windows at the same time.

As far as a Mac being better for graphic programs, that is only marginally true, there are some color calibration matching stuff that is built into OS X that I don't think is in Windows. But overall you can make Windows do whatever OS X does for graphic programs. Now the apps for OS X may be a little nicer to look at an use, but that is probably more of a personal preference type thing than a fact.

Ok...

So you recommend me to put OS X and a Windows with at the same time in case I need thing that there is not or that can't work on a Mac?

Also what is the requirements for the Mac OS X Leopard?

As far as a Mac being better for graphic programs, that is only marginally true, there are some color calibration matching stuff that is built into OS X that I don't think is in Windows. But overall you can make Windows do whatever OS X does for graphic programs. Now the apps for OS X may be a little nicer to look at an use, but that is probably more of a personal preference type thing than a fact.

I believe at a former time, Apple's "Color Sync" was considered a far superior system of color management than was possible with Windows. Adobe's "RGB "1998 is very, very, good, and since Adobe has a respectable market share of Software in the photographic and graphics arts arena, there should be very little difference in the results obtainable with either system. Here is where, I believe that habit may be causing the reverse of Windows dominance. I seems to me, many in the graphics trade are used to Mac, thus continuing to use them. This makes sense in the fact that it seems no one wants to have a new OS summarily inflicted on them. Resistance to XP and now resistance to Vista seems to make my point. But, all imaging hardware such as printers, tablets, and scanners seem to be available for the Windows platform, if not especially for the Windows platform. Many FX houses have written custom software in the course of their business, and so leaving Apple for the PC would be a major shock to their "system", if you'll pardon the pun

Once a particular system is in place, I think it's much easier to call the same supplier when it's time to upgrade, than to think about "changing horses in midstream". So Apple installations stay Apple and so forth.

There isn't much doubt that either platform has the computing power to accomplish the task at hand.

As far as WINE goes, I haven't check recently but it was never on the same software "page" with respect to current versions.

Since Adobe software is mostly available in both platforms, that doesn't provide much incentive to move away from the MAC either.

Yeah I agree with you about the thing Adobe. Adobe is a great image software but Apple haven't made any image and color management software for the Mac?

Yes, they have, and always have, hence their initial superiority, the ColorSync as CC pointed out.

What is it you are actually trying to accomplish here? I'm sure you are better off picking 1 system and just going for it than trying to emulate 2 of the 3 on the 3rd system.

Yeah I agree with you about the thing Adobe. Adobe is a great image software but Apple haven't made any image and color management software for the Mac?
http://www.apple.com/aperture/ "Aperture" is Apple's latest entry into the still image editing software field. To the best of my knowledge, it's not intended to compete with "Photoshop" directly, but rather to be the Apple version of "Adobe Lightroom". Or vice-versa, since I've forgotten which was released first.

Yeah normally I prefer to remain on only one Operating System because one is largely enough but I heard a lot of good thing about Mac OS X and that make me wanted to test it but if you ask me that Mac uses Adobe for there image and color management system then I think remaining on only Vista is ok for me as it works fine for me even that i'm on a 1GB RAM, but will upgrade it after.

Have you already used Mac OS X?

http://www.apple.com/aperture/ "Aperture" is Apple's latest entry into the still image editing software field. To the best of my knowledge, it's not intended to compete with "Photoshop" directly, but rather to be the Apple version of "Adobe Lightroom". Or vice-versa, since I've forgotten which was released first.

Ok I see... So it will not make a big difference if I remain to Vista.

I think trying to avoid a RAM upgrade via a change of OS, is simply not a good, sound idea. Even in your location you should be able find suitable RAM at a reasonable price. The money you spend will be compensated for by less confusion and aggravation in your daily computing activities. I always recommend "Adobe Photoshop Elements" for even fairly advanced photo editing. It's $100.00 @ full retail, and the best buy in the industry. It's actually a slightly crippled version of Photoshop which can be made even more functional by way of free plug-ins available around the web.

Yeah after reflection now I found that it is better to upgrade my RAM than changing OS.

What OS do you use?

Yeah after reflection now I found that it is better to upgrade my RAM than changing OS.

What OS do you use? I have XP in all my machines, 2 purchased, and 1 homebuilt.
I've had Ubuntu 7.0 installed, but I sort of lost interest in it, since all my heavy use programs are Windows only. Running the Linux seemed like just a novelty to me, I'm sure that others feel differently

Nice one... Xp is very nice and well appreciated

All that depends on people and what they think and like. Me I like XP very much for the style and mainly for it superb performance but also Vista due to its beautiful style and for some programs too(I know I can also have them on XP with some tweaking "but it will not be the same). After making some tweaking from a blog site I found that Vista is very fluid and rapid and I have only done 85% of the guide, some I prefer to do it after.

Hoping that Windows 7 will be more superb in terms of performance as lot of people can't use Vista.

When I found people asking bad thing about Vista I found that very bad as everyone want to have more modern thing and everyone know that more modern we go more power is needed as for example if the take a 21" Normal TV it will take less power but it will not all the options and beauty of a Full HD Flat TV. So it is the same for Computer and OS so I think that we don't need to blame Microsoft and Windows Vista for that as they are making it better for people. Also look a Win 98 and now with XP & Vista even a blind or semi blind person will be able to use the PC now whereas with Win 98 it wasn't possible so stop blaming for all that.

As for What do you use: Linux / Mac / Win?
My answer is Win on one computer and the other 2 experimental computers One has Win Me the other has fedora 8. (Linux)

I was thinking to put linux on one of my old PC to test how it is, but I don't know which Linux should I choose.

Can someone help about that plz?

Ama, since it is an old PC, I would use Xubuntu, which is a leaner version of Ubuntu and works well on systems that don't have as much power, memory, or are older systems. Xubuntu is a fun Linux OS and I think you'll enjoy it.