OS on your computer/s - Page 3

programmer · #41 15-05-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davros

OS-X on the macbook, it replaced a desktop running ubuntu linux. The wife uses vista home deluxe and it is the slowest, heaviest OS i have ever seen. Her computer freezes probably once every two days Her desktop runs 4 gig ram as does my macbook. The macbook walks all over the desktop for speed.

Haven't heard of that version of Vista Davros. If it's that slow somebody must've rebadged OSX and sold her that. Ugliest, most bloated pig of an OS I've ever seen, and I've seen a few.

Gargoyle_Steve (Steve) · #42 16-05-2008, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexN

my desktop pc is a quad core 3ghz, 8gb of ram and has 2x 1gb video cards + 3Tb of hdd space. and at present, the system has been up for 87 days...

Alex I used to run Win 98 SE on a PIII-550 system with 512Mb RAM and 27Gb HDD space, and I would be as disapointed as hell if it had a restart / application lock up / system bog down in anything under 120, 150, maybe 200 days. This was used ALL the time for business and gaming, it was also my complete communications centre, handling faxes and all my voice calls / answering / paging via 2 physical landlines / 3 distinct phone numbers. Usually the only time it had a restart was due to me either installing new software or changing hardware configuration around.
(Just realised I SO miss that old machine!!!)

So you'll understand that I don't necessarily consider 87 days to be a glowing recommendation of an OS stability, not yet anyway, especially considering Vista is 4 generations down the track and should be 4 generations MORE stable.

What do I run these days?
My old laptop still runs the Win 98 it came with, my main desktop runs XP Home SP2, and I have a machine somewhere around with an older distribution version of Red Hat Linux on it.

Lee · #43 16-05-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by programmer

Ugliest, most bloated pig of an OS I've ever seen, and I've seen a few.

Interesting to hear it called bloated - each version of OSX seems to be lighter and more stable than preceeding.... when is the last time you could run a new version of windows on a 6yr old machine (effectively)??

fringe_dweller · #44 16-05-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by programmer

Haven't heard of that version of Vista Davros. If it's that slow somebody must've rebadged OSX and sold her that. Ugliest, most bloated pig of an OS I've ever seen, and I've seen a few.

*sigh* how inevitable in such a thread lol bully boy M$ evangelists, dont ya like choice in life?

fringe_dweller · #45 16-05-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

Interesting to hear it called bloated - each version of OSX seems to be lighter and more stable than preceeding.... when is the last time you could run a new version of windows on a 6yr old machine (effectively)??

exactly

fringe_dweller · #46 16-05-2008, 11:07 AM

imagine the howls of protest if the car industry was run like computer world, we would all have to drive the same car, a prada

FarmerBen · #47 17-05-2008, 09:22 PM

OS X on a MacBook
Ubuntu Gutsy (soon to be Hardy) on Dell PC.

The only windows in my place are the ones in the walls

FarmerBen · #48 17-05-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tandum

There is nothing better. XP is the most common and most supported software on the planet. It was released in 2002 so 6 years is a really long time for any sort of software to be used these days.

I was a programmer for almost 20 years but have been running a pc consulting business for the last 5 years. I run Vista on the desktop, so I know what doesn't work, XP on the laptop, so I have a machine that does work and Linux on the server. The server has been up for 229 days. That was when I upgraded the hard drives.

Only 229 days?? I've had Netware servers up twice as long... damn those support packs

Linux is a very cool server OS.

Tandum (Robin) · #49 18-05-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

Don't equate most common with best too quickly!

I'm pretty sure I equated most suported with best available.

For a comparison, they sold more copies of Vista in the first week of sales than they have ever sold of apple computers since they started, and no one wants vista. Not dissing apples at all, every system has it's place and apples seems to have found theirs in publishing houses. Remember Bill Gates owns 51% of Apple as well.

Farmerben, I had to stop it to replace the hard drives. We download too many tv shows

Lee · #50 18-05-2008, 06:33 AM

Publishing houses?? OK..... Most supported?- most users yes, most software yes - but how many image viewers do you need, how many newsreaders or browsers do you really need to choose from??
Best of all - how many anti-virus suites do you need???

Fox · #51 18-05-2008, 10:00 PM

Mac OS X all the way on two iMacs. BootCamp on one of them to run Windows XP - for Autostar. Cheers, Fox.

fringe_dweller · #52 18-05-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tandum

For a comparison, they sold more copies of Vista in the first week of sales than they have ever sold of apple computers since they started, and no one wants vista.)

erm thats coz you don't have a choice its bundled with machine?

fringe_dweller · #53 18-05-2008, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

Publishing houses?? OK..... Most supported?- most users yes, most software yes - but how many image viewers do you need, how many newsreaders or browsers do you really need to choose from??
Best of all - how many anti-virus suites do you need???

well said, its only programmmers not writing for them due to obvious financial incentives side thats the problem, not coz they arent good enough to write for eh

yep have a friend who is 14 year veteren highly skilled techie, his last 5k PC laptop came loaded with Vista, he was shocked to say the least, when he soon picked up a nasty virus that required a total rebuild!! so just loaded xp pro instead, and has refused to go back just yet, he seems shaken by the experience

if he's now wary of it atm!, (plus there was a whole bunch of stuff he couldnt do anymore as well at the time as other reasons to be fair), I would be definitely wary

AlexN · #54 19-05-2008, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gargoyle_Steve

So you'll understand that I don't necessarily consider 87 days to be a glowing recommendation of an OS stability,

that was 87 days since the system was built Steve...

My home server pc runs gentoo linux, i cant remember the last time that was turned off... gotta be coming on a year now.

I wasnt trying to say that vista is the be all and end all of OS's, Far FAAAR from it... but it doesn't deserve the bad name that it gets..

sejanus (Gavin) · #55 19-05-2008, 02:20 PM

I'm not going to get into an OS war but I will say that I've been a systems guy for near 10 years with unix & windows, and I'm very comfy with my choice these days of OS X

PeteMo (Pete) · #56 24-05-2008, 02:07 AM

Mac OS X Panther 10.3.9 on G4 1.467GHz
Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.11 on Intel Imac 2.167GHz
Windows 2000 SP4/PC-BSD/Slackware on Celeron D330 PC

Mac OSX is a member of the BSD Unix family and very stable. Yes Apples more expensive than their PC counterparts, but they have a unique design that sets them apart from PC's. I'm still running my old G4 533 Digital Audio Tower, with a faster G4 Daughter board upgrade and am more than happy with it's performance. Apples have been pretty good to upgrade, even a G3 can be upgraded to run a fast G4 processor, the equivalent of putting a Pentium 4 chip in an old Pentium 2/3 PC.

It's horses for courses in the end

Starkler (Geoff) · #57 24-05-2008, 10:36 AM

I run XP home as a main OS and have ubuntu linux 7.04 on another few partitions.

I really cant understand the one-eyed linux evangelists. I have invested a LOT of time into ubuntu getting everything working, the desktop tweaked with compiz enhancements, finding apps to do all the things I do in windows, and not to mention the backflipping required to find, compile and install drivers for common hardware,..ie nvidia, nic etc.

IMO in general linux apps look and feel agricultural in comparison to the windows counterparts. The sound mixer is horrible, sound quality is bad, there is very poor webcam support and well.... it apparently makes a great server OS, but as a desktop replacement for windows it still has a long way to go.
Just my humble opinion of course

David Tangye · #58 28-05-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starkler

... have ubuntu linux 7.04 on another few partitions.

... I have invested a LOT of time into ubuntu getting everything working, the desktop tweaked with compiz enhancements, finding apps to do all the things I do in windows, and not to mention the backflipping required to find, compile and install drivers for common hardware,..ie nvidia, nic etc.

IMO in general linux apps look and feel agricultural in comparison to the windows counterparts. The sound mixer is horrible, sound quality is bad, there is very poor webcam support and well.... it apparently makes a great server OS, but as a desktop replacement for windows it still has a long way to go.
...

You might like to install an up to date version. A major new version of Ubuntu comes out each 6 months. So you could be on Ubuntu 7.10 (October 07) or 8.04 (April 08) now. Each of these has significant improvements over 7.04, as will any Linux distro as we continue into the future; generally far more so than any commercial product can hope to achieve. Upgrading the Ubuntu distro is simple and as with all open-source software, it remains free.

Plus Ubuntu and many linux distros can be set to semi-automatically update regularly, eg daily, all the software packages that you allow its package manager to control. In my case that has been 99.9% for the past several years.

As a cost-effective, efficient desktop replacement for Windows, I have found that several Linux-based distros surpassed Windows in most ways some time ago, at least for anything I have wanted to do.

David Tangye · #59 28-05-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Robinson

More ram is the bee's knees in speeding up a computer

Perhaps, but this is lately an issue again because Micro$oft Windoze Vista needs a ridiculous amount of memory to work properly, eg 2 gB and up. Its a sad bad joke. XP, and most old and current Macs and Linux systems run happily on a fraction of that, eg .5gB.

marki · #60 28-05-2008, 09:07 PM

G'day all

I dont know why Vista is recieving such bad reviews. I have it on my PC (64 bit ultimate, home built hotrod) and laptop (32 bit home premium, Toshiba A300) and have found it to be a significant step forward over XP Pro with either service pack 2 and 3. I have found no issues with speed in either format, you just have to run machines with a bit of grunt (ie lots of ram, good cpu etc) thats all (64 bit version flys with all applications tried so far). All my camera's etc work perfectly on the 32 bit version and I am yet to encounter a crash during imaging which was a regular feature on my old laptop running XP Pro SP2 (Toshiba P30). The only problem has been getting some canon 400D drivers for the 64 bit version to run in MaximDL and that is why I will use both versions until the software people catch up as they have promised to do in the very near future. When this happens I will go to the 64 bit ultimate on both machines. By the way, Toshiba make great laptops.

Mark