Greatest Operating System ever?
I've had experience only with the Windows OSes from 95 (limited) all the way up through Vista. I have tried Mac OS X for extremely limited amounts of time. In my opinion, either 98 or XP was the greatest OS. Vista has flaws but with 2+ GB memory it can be nice. What say you? Details if possible to, thanks.
In all respect, damnyankeega, the progression of OSes has always brought about higher required specs. While Vista required a disproportionate leap in minimum specs, every OS since the first has needed ever increasing speed and processor power to run efficiently.
For instance, people complained when Windows 95 was released and said it required too much RAM at what? 28 MBs? To say that 2 GB of memory is excess of what should be needed is like saying that a sports car should run on a Model-Ts engine.
PS: I'm not defending Vista, I'm defending MS.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I started out with an Altair back in the late '70's -- before IBM ever thought about making a PC. Used MS-DOS from v1.0 through 5.0. Never liked windows in the early DOS days, OS/2 version 2 had promise but no apps. I ran USL System V r4.2 for ages and really liked it, played with Linux off and on since the days when it would fit on a single floppy. Currently my 3 computers have XP Pro, CentOS 5, and Vista
In my opinion, for a desktop OS, 64-bit Vista Ultimate kicks everything else's butt.
XP is OK, (I support hundreds of XP boxes) but you have to make the user a local administrator for them to get anything done, and at that point XP doesn't do anything to prevent programs from whacking the registry or scribbling all over the system files. I keep a thumb-drive on a string around my neck that just has programs to fix broken registry entries, re-register the default DLLs, and set the permissions on the registry and OS folders back to what they should be. None of those things should ever have to be done, but I use it 3-5 times a week. Programs misbehave, and XP lets them. You don't have to give a Vista user admin rights, and even if you do, it'll still whack a misbehaving program.
I hear two types of people criticizing Vista. Most of them are people who never ran it and just like to repeat the vague warnings they heard from other people who've never run it. The few others are people who complain about it not running their favorite program -- "It ran on XP!" -- well, I've looked at about a dozen of those, and so far it's always been XP's bad. every one of those programs was doing something it shouldn't (retarded stuff like installing user data files data files into system directories) XP was too dumb to catch it; Vista wasn't
I used to like Linux years ago, but the distributions have all gotten flakey. They install apps all over the place with no rhyme or reason and you've got to go on a scavenger hunt and get bits and pieces of junk from all over the web to get anything to run. I have it running here at home just to mess with because I have to support it at work. They've all got their little 'magic' updaters like 'yum' or 'apt-get' that are supposed to do all the hunting and fetching for you, but they just give developers an excuse for being even more sloppy. It's lame.
If you don't have any commercial apps you need to run, Solaris is a pretty good free Unix. FreeBSD runs on smaller boxes, but I've always preferred System V -- maybe just prejudice. Solaris has a better-optimized compilation system and more sophisticated development tools than FreeBSD. My favorite server OS of all time was OSF/1. It was slick and fast and the compiler would switch from BSD mode or SysV mode with a single command line switch. I liked AIX's too It's CSet2's linker would do stuff with shared objects nothing else could do.
Paying money for Unix is a thing of the past though . . . .
I don't have much experience with Macs. My boss has one. I've played with it and a few others. They seem to work OK, but I don't see what the big deal is -- I suspect it's mostly a fashion statement, but I really don't know. The ability to use mainstream commercial apps and build Unix/X11 apps on the same box has some appeal. I guess if you could get used to the Mac's oddball GUI it might be OK. I don't see myself ever spending my money on one, though.
At some point you've gotta stop dinking with the tools and start using them to do some work, right?Source(s):
- Frank NLv 51 decade ago
IMO - XP is the best. Linux is okay and getting better as time moves along, but will likely never have the support that Microsoft OS do.
I to have used computers before Windows was even on the drawing board.
The Windows programs I have used are versions 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 Professional, Server 2000, XP Home and Professional, and Vista Home Premium.
They all were good in their time, except ME (mistake edition) and now Vista, which I just plain hate. At this time I am running two computers with XP Home and one with Professional, which is a dual boot with Kubuntu (linux based OS).
Linux based OS I have used are Mandrake, Suse, Ubuntu and now Kubuntu.Source(s): Microsoft Certified Build and repair computer systems
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I've experienced Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, NT, XP, and Linux.
I would say either 2000 or XP were the best. 3.1 and 95 are too old to be considered. 98 crashed too much. NT is a server based OS, so it doesn't really count. Linux was more geared towards programmer-types. I've not tried Vista but haven't heard good things.
2000 was reliable and sturdy. XP is like 2000, but with more bells and whistles. So, I guess I like XP the best.
- damnyankeegaLv 61 decade ago
Any variant of Unix. That includes Solaris, BSD, Mac and Linux.
Windows is bloated, buggy and slow. No OS should need 2 GB of ram to run smoothly. Windows lacks the elegance and style of Mac, and cannot touch the reliability, efficiency and speed of Unix/Linux. OpenSUSE 11.0 boots up in about a minute. Vista takes forever to boot. Even the KDE desktop on Linux looks better than the Vista desktop. Most of the Vista improvements are eye candy that hog CPU clock cycles.
Every time I work on a Microsoft computer, I can't help but feel that I am working on a toy. It lacks the tools I need to be effective at my work.
As I programmer, I find the programming environment awful. I feel like I am being treated like a child in a Microsoft environment. Tools that I take for granted in Unix and Linux are usually not available by default. For example, both Mac and Linux are able to burn CD and DVD ISO images out of the box. Windows does not. To do the same in Windows, I have to download another program or buy one. A computer should be able to write an iso image.
The command line DOS shell in Windows is awful. I know most people point and click (or point and drool as a lot of *nix users joke), but there are some things that can't be done in a fancy GUI.
There's also the fact that Unix has been around for over 35 years in one form or another. It has been tweaked, fine tuned and improved over decades. It has an impressive collection of tools included for free by default. Compilers, text editors, page formatters and so on.
Even from a philosophical standpoint, Linux and the free Unixes win. Windows, in designing Vista, seemed more concerned with the RIAA and MPAA's intellectual property than your right to enjoy media on your computer. So Microsoft installed a draconian DRM policy on the computer that not only takes your freedoms away, but makes your computer run even slower.
The only think Microsoft excels at is marketing and business tactics that would make the Corleone family proud.
I think if given the opportunity to use a Mac or Linux for more than a few days, you might find many things you like more than in Windows.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- mdigitaleLv 71 decade ago
IMO it depends what you're trying to do. Vista is no worse than XP if you have enough RAM. I have 4 GB in Vista Enterprise at the office and it works just fine. Personally I like Microsoft OS for desktop interaction (anything that requires me to use a mouse) and I like Linux for running servers. Apple just plain sucks IMO.
- $♥(^-^)♥$Lv 61 decade ago
I like Windows 2000 better. Many features in XP are not necessary, it only slow down the system and the firewall is not good.
When I use Windows 2000 pro with 1 GB RAM. the system run much faster than XP. I also use zone alarm fire wall, which is better than XP.
- FedoraLv 61 decade ago
The greatest windows ever I would have to say is Windows 98SE. It was truly made for the average user. It did not have the media player look, and would work on extremely little hardware.
The greatest Mac OS ever I would have have to say in my opinion is mac 9.2. Most people would never use it now days, but I liked it. It was also very basic like Windows 98.
The best Linux ever... well I can't really say, because I have not used that many different distros to really say. My personal favorite is Xubuntu 7.10, but that is basically because I have used it the most, and like it.
Which is the best overall.. well its tough to say. I still use Windows 98SE occasionally, I use Xubuntu 7.10 everyday, but I have not used Mac 9.2 for over a year now, although I miss it.
- 1 decade ago
Mac OSX Leopard
- Anonymous1 decade ago
i use vista, its so much nicer than xp in every way. i have only 1 gig of ram and it runs fine, i barely have any problems
- carlosdavidLv 51 decade ago
Linux Ubuntu is good.