PDA

View Full Version : Guide to Operating Systems.



1430N3
28-08-2006, 09:51 AM
What do you want out of your system? are you good at computing?

There is three main choices of OS. These being:

Windows
Macintosh
Linux

Windows:
Windows is useful for a poweruser who wants good looks, gaming ability and tons of software avaliable.

Ease of Use: 9/10
Avaliable Software 9/10
Reliability: 6/10
Speed: 6/10

Macintosh:
Macintosh is useful for Artists or musicians who want (good looks), alot of musical and image creation software.

Ease of Use: 8/10
Avaliable Software: 6/10
Reliability: 10/10
Speed: 9/10

Linux:
Linux is good for the intermediate computer user and above. It can look good if you tell it to, it can run alot of programs if you tell it to, it can even run some ported games like Quake 3/4 and Doom 3... Some windows applications run in it with Wine or Cross-over-office. You can even edit the kernel to say hello to you in 27 languages when you turn it on. XD

Ease of Use: 4/10
Avaliable Software: 8/10
Reliability: 9/10 (It's easy to mess around with and screw up vital settings without it stopping you, like windows.)
Speed: 9/10

All in all, make your own decision based on what you want out of a system and your own personal experience.

Shipoftheline
28-08-2006, 10:05 AM
Can't agree with the Mac review because it was the Macs architecture which allowed for that. The thing now is Windows XP will also run on this architecture and benchmarks have shown XP runs better & faster then the macs own OS

1430N3
28-08-2006, 10:51 AM
Actually the Macs have changed their architecture to match the one used by windows and linux.
All this said. The old (non-intel) arcitecture runs better than the newer one.
Macintosh don't have much experience using the intel architecture. But overall through time Mac's have always been faster than windows until they started using the intel architecture.

Macintosh are actually using a FreeBSD kernel to load their new OS... So Linux & Macintosh are not that disimilar.

m11vny
28-08-2006, 12:06 PM
oooohhh I well I've never used Mac But Windows!!! arrghhhh it always crashes!!

I'm a Linux fan running Fedora Core 5 at the moment, but I think it is getting easier and easier to install and use.

Ubuntu's latest release takes much under an hour to fully install and is soooo easy to use, I installed it at home for my parents and they've had no problems!

No more phone calls whilst at work telling me about numerous problems, well ok much less calls then windows.

Shipoftheline
28-08-2006, 12:38 PM
oooohhh I well I've never used Mac But Windows!!! arrghhhh it always crashes!!
.

All I can say is you must have had an extremely bad setup, I've found it very hard to crash a stable NT5.x setup

1430N3
28-08-2006, 02:56 PM
All I can say is you must have had an extremely bad setup, I've found it very hard to crash a stable NT5.x setup

I disagree. Windows has been unstable since windows 98SE. I find Linux *(I use breezy badger - AMD64 Ubuntu, SimplyMepis 6.0 and Fedora Core 5 on my webserver)* not just very hard to crash. But almost impossible. All the time when it locks up is due to my mouse running out of batteries. :wink:

Macintosh is the same - I've never had one but I have loads of friends with the non-intel versions. They have never known it to crash or have the equivilent "bluescreen".

Shipoftheline
28-08-2006, 03:41 PM
I disagree. Windows has been unstable since windows 98SE. I find Linux *(I use breezy badger - AMD64 Ubuntu, SimplyMepis 6.0 and Fedora Core 5 on my webserver)* not just very hard to crash. But almost impossible. All the time when it locks up is due to my mouse running out of batteries. :wink:
Macintosh is the same - I've never had one but I have loads of friends with the non-intel versions. They have never known it to crash or have the equivilent "bluescreen".


The Windows 9x kernel (windows 95, 98, SE & ME) was unstable I agree it couldn't handle virtual memory very well but note I said NT5.x. I'll also add I've never come across a linux bod who hasn't tried slating Windows because (in my opinion) it all comes down to jealousy

1430N3
28-08-2006, 04:39 PM
Jealous of what? Windows? ... You've got to be kidding.

I use windows for one simple fact: I can run games and most software with it.

I must admit, with my latest homebrew pc I haven't had any problems with it (except for the value RAM which I sent back). It runs Windows XP... All my other windows pc's have either locked up or no longer want to boot. I guess windows IS stable when you give it 2GB Ram to feed off, or a stable hardware set.

callisto11
28-08-2006, 05:08 PM
Windows 9x is NOT the same as Windows NT/2000/2003.. They are different architectures and run different kernels.
Windows 9x was made to be backwardly compatible with DOS, and so allow low level access to hardware, so it could run games etc. NT etc could not do this, so it was (is) much more stable.
XP tries to do a bit of both, and (unfortunately) allows 3rd party drivers to be loaded at a very low level. This is allowed for speed purposes, but can be prevented when the "this is an unsigned driver, you should not really be loading it, wanna go ahead anyway". People usually just click this, and then hey, we have a crash. MS could have forced all drivers to be signed, but then this slows down 3rd party outputs of its products, and costs more money. I really hope MS tights this up with Vista.
Flexibility (v) convenience.

But hey, you dont have these problems on Linux do you, as there's no games for it anyway..

Just for the record I have had Windows boxes running for 2 years without a reboot. And these are nothing simple either, they are Usenet servers and Usenet router servers. Just need to be setup properly and left alone to do their job.

1430N3
28-08-2006, 05:36 PM
Windows 9x is NOT the same as Windows NT/2000/2003.. They are different architectures and run different kernels.
Windows 9x was made to be backwardly compatible with DOS, and so allow low level access to hardware, so it could run games etc. NT etc could not do this, so it was (is) much more stable.
XP tries to do a bit of both, and (unfortunately) allows 3rd party drivers to be loaded at a very low level. This is allowed for speed purposes, but can be prevented when the "this is an unsigned driver, you should not really be loading it, wanna go ahead anyway". People usually just click this, and then hey, we have a crash. MS could have forced all drivers to be signed, but then this slows down 3rd party outputs of its products, and costs more money. I really hope MS tights this up with Vista.
Flexibility (v) convenience.

But hey, you dont have these problems on Linux do you, as there's no games for it anyway..

Just for the record I have had Windows boxes running for 2 years without a reboot. And these are nothing simple either, they are Usenet servers and Usenet router servers. Just need to be setup properly and left alone to do their job.

I really hope MS tights this up with Vista. >>> They need to be quicker at driver signing then. Apart from that it's a very accurate picture of windows.

Shipoftheline
28-08-2006, 06:06 PM
Windows 9x is NOT the same as Windows NT/2000/2003.. They are different architectures and run different kernels.

Thats what I said NT5.x :)

1430N3
28-08-2006, 08:14 PM
I'm glad that's cleared up. :)