OS chart dealie
Forum: water cooler
Topic: OS chart dealie
started by: Nebetsu
Posted by Nebetsu on Feb. 11 2005,23:59
This is something I came up with while I was argueing about how Macs are horrible and should only be used as boat anchors. He was trying to say how me and my friend were closed minded because we dont like Mac's... even though I grew up on a Mac when I was little and I used to use my friend's at least once a week a few years back. Anyways he was trying to say it went Windows - Mac - Linux, going from worst to best. Then I drew up a chart on how I thought it worked (going from worst to best):Mac - Windows ME - Windows 98 - DOS - Windows 95 - Windows XP - Linux
I then noticed how it's almost a steady decline of the OS's. I would have Windows 95 just under Linux if most programs still supported it. Now the lowest they'll support is Windows 98 and it's completely awful. I dunno. It's just something I noticed. It's a decline up to XP and still that isnt even that great.
Posted by mikshaw on Feb. 12 2005,04:30
1) You left out the best operating system microsoft "created": Windows2000.2) You left out Windows NT4, which until Windows2000 was the most stable of the Windows line.
3) Have you tried OSX? Mac is now a much better OS than Windows, in my opinion.
My "worst to best" list, of the OSs I've used...
Windows ME
Menuet
Mac OS 8
DOS
Mac OS 9
Windows98
Windows95
Windows98SE
Windows NT4
Windows XP
Windows 2000
Mac OS X
Linux
Posted by RoGuE_StreaK on Feb. 12 2005,05:07
So why does everyone always reckon ME was worse than 98SE, 98, or 95? On my 233 laptop and 450 desktop, both of which obviously couldn't handle XP, ME was by far better and more stable than the previous incarnations. Maybe it depends on the harware, release build, etc. But I always had much better luck with ME than 95, 98, or 98SE (never used NT4 or 2000). Or maybe it's 'cause I always completely tweak any install of windows to cut down on the crap and set it up how I like it (well, near enough) before I even contemplate starting to use it...Like XP Pro, I spend about half a day tweaking an install, then ghosting it, before I actually DO anything with it. Quite a lot of bloat you can get rid of.
Don't know why macs never brought in a right mouse button!? I need to get more experience on macs (especially as they're by far more popular than pcs in the print / advertising industry)
Posted by Nebetsu on Feb. 12 2005,07:31
Some people like ME. Most people find that it crashes WAY too much.
Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Feb. 12 2005,07:59
ME was just a very gentle lady.You have to nugde her into doing what you want, but after you get her set up, she's great.
Posted by tronik on Feb. 12 2005,13:54
BSD > *flamebait, i know.
Posted by Nebetsu on Feb. 12 2005,18:37
| Quote (tronik @ Feb. 12 2005,08:54) |
| BSD > * flamebait, i know. |
Whats BSD?
Posted by mikshaw on Feb. 12 2005,23:50
I've never used BSD, but from what I've heard it is true Unix, legally licensed for free distribution and modification.
Posted by noclobber on Feb. 13 2005,03:24
| Quote (mikshaw @ Feb. 11 2005,23:30) |
| My "worst to best" list, of the OSs I've used... Windows ME Menuet Mac OS 8 DOS Mac OS 9 Windows98 Windows95 Windows98SE Windows NT4 Windows XP Windows 2000 Mac OS X Linux |
Don't forget Windows 3.1 and NT 3.51 *cough*, *cough*.
Seriously, though, NT 3.51 is supposedly more stable than any other version of Windows. Less in it to break, I presume.
and I'm not sure I'd even bother putting MenuetOS on this list yet.
Posted by tronik on Feb. 13 2005,04:13
Interesting... Yes... BSD is Berkeley Software Distribution, currently there are several implementation of 4.4BSD Lite (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD)...There are others, bsd/os/bsdi...but they're not too mainstream anymore.BSD is a powerful operating system, it is very stable, runs on a wide variety of machine architecture (even your toaster might be able to run NetBSD) and has the capability of being just as robust (if not more than, ahem, but thats neither here nor there) than Linux.
There is a large rift in the 'unix' community about BSD and Linux...but I can only say I use them both, now. A few years ago you wouldn't have caught me dead using Linux. I hadn't used it since 1996.
Anyway...BSD is great...Check it out if you get a chance. Any of the distributions are grand...I'd suggest FreeBSD though.
< FreeBSD Homepage >
Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Feb. 13 2005,04:49
Indeed, BSD is /very/ nice, although a bit slow to support new chipsets and other hardware.But when those new stuff become supported, they work ROCK SOLID. Very little of the half-working driver situations like you see with Linux.
Although, sometimes fast, 1/2 working support is better than nothing/waiting.
-J.P.
Posted by subarus on Feb. 13 2005,04:58
At work we have HPUX and RH Linux compute and file servers for CAD/CAM . XP for office and communacations. At home I have DSL Linux and Windows 98.Linux/ hpux compute and file servers runs mission critical apps. The apps can be ported to usofts but nobody is stupid enough todo that. These systems runs 24/7. Typically up for 6 months or more before a scheduled downtime for maintenance. once in awhile when isolated server crashed its due to board failure. Due to the OS realibitily and accoutability requirements usoft is out of the question.
Windows XP is used for emailing, calendar, netmeeting and office apps (excel, powerpoint, words). Engineering community can live without it (well not entirely true) but business and admins cant. Due to wide apps availibility and wide general users acceptance *nix is out of the question.
At home I have Windows 98 for games, audio apps such as Fruity Loop Midi sequencer, noteworthy composer for music composing, software drivers for musical instruments connectivity, office apps, Cakewalk, Finale, voyetra, sibelius. Due to games and music apps requirement, *nix is out of the question. Why win98 and not XP? becoz I dont need to upgrade and spend the money.
At home I use DSL Linux for browsing, file server, web server, ssh server, vnc, light editing, enjoying dvd,mp3 , cd burning, bit torrenting, icq, irc.
why Linux and not Win 98/XP? I got sick of adware, spyware installing itself, modify my browser homepage location; on my computer when browsing notorious websites ie hackers, warez etc. also I have a long list of ways to hang windows and unfortunately the list keep increasing everyday. XP claimed to be multithread OS, but try ejecting your dvd while viewing it, multithread MY FOOT!! I still am trying to figure out how to hang DSL Linux
Why DSL Linux and not <insert your fav distro here>? becoz its small and I load toram on laptop to reduce chances of hardware failure due to harsh mobility. I only run frugal becoz I dont like leaving traces; I only backup/restore what I want. Mydsl extensions is godsend
OS used: vax vms, ibm 0s/390, cp/m, palmos, usoft ce, ME, * 98, * 95, 311, dos, 2k, nt4, symbian, drdos, * linux, hpux, solaris, aix, sunos.
my os philosophy is simple: " It's stupid to run single thread OS on hardware capable of multi threads." and "It's stupid for apps developers not to develop apps on multi thread OS"
unfortunately a lot of people thought XP, NT4, W2K are multi-thread. To me, a multi-thread OS only crashes the apps NOT the computer. *nix are true multi-thread OS, the computer never hangs despite how poorly written is the apps.
Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Feb. 13 2005,05:39
I think you are misunderstanding the idea behing multithreading.Multithreading allows for efficient use of multiple processors (afaik).
But the reason the whole OS goes down when an app crashes in Win32 based OSes is because they are microkernel bases OSes.
Every "process" that is running "docks" to the kernel, effectively becoming part of the kernel, until it is finished.
Linux (and possibly BSD, not sure about that though) are monolythic kernels. All processes are run independent to the kernel, so it's near impossible to take down the whole OS when Firefox suddenly decides to cry "fubar!". It's a much saner way to handle things.
It's also the old-fashioned way, but, obviously, it is still much more stable than the "new" way. A case of "why did they try to reinvent the wheel?", if you ask me.
-J.P.
Posted by subarus on Feb. 13 2005,06:08
| Quote (SaidinUnleashed @ Feb. 13 2005,00:39) |
| I think you are misunderstanding the idea behing multithreading. Multithreading allows for efficient use of multiple processors (afaik). .. Linux (and possibly BSD, not sure about that though) are monolythic kernels. All processes are run independent to the kernel, so it's near impossible to take down the whole OS when Firefox suddenly decides to cry "fubar!". It's a much saner way to handle things. .. |
I think you are correct. Thanks for the explaination. I hope usoft dont read this forum.
Everytime XP crashed I refused to send the debug info to usoft, I dont see the rational to provide feedback to ppl who 'forced' me to use an OS I dont want to use.
Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Feb. 13 2005,06:49
What every office M$ user ought to do is, every time it crashes, use a knife, and carve a notch on the case of the computer.Tally marks.
Or, rather, an Frag Count for M$ :P
-J.P.
Posted by mikshaw on Feb. 13 2005,14:45
| Quote (noclobber @ Feb. 12 2005,22:24) |
| Don't forget Windows 3.1 and NT 3.51 *cough*, *cough*. Seriously, though, NT 3.51 is supposedly more stable than any other version of Windows. Less in it to break, I presume. and I'm not sure I'd even bother putting MenuetOS on this list yet. |
I was only listing the operating systems I've used...I didn't touch a puter between DOS and Windows 95.
I've used Menuet a little, so I put it in the list =o)
Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Feb. 13 2005,17:38
No, NT 3.xx is more stable because it's 60% Unix.It is what came out of M$ and IBM's agreement to produce OS/2 (which M$ screwed IBM and pulled out of).
If OS/2, in its intended form had came to be, the current win32 kernel tree would have never been developed, and most likely, neither would Linux have been developed.
Oh what a twisted web M$ weaves...
Posted by noclobber on Feb. 13 2005,22:17
| Quote (SaidinUnleashed @ Feb. 13 2005,12:38) |
| No, NT 3.xx is more stable because it's 60% Unix. It is what came out of M$ and IBM's agreement to produce OS/2 (which M$ screwed IBM and pulled out of). |
Yeah, that sounds about right. I seem to recall now that it was sometime around the early '90s that M$ and IBM parted company over the future of OS/2.
The main reason I brought up NT 3.51 here is that it actually is still a useable OS on old/tiny/slow PCs as long as you don't mind running old software w/o multimedia bells & whistles. It's half the size of Win 95, more stable and secure, and once it's booted up, you don't hear any of the hard drive accessing that you do with Win 95 ad nauseum (hmmm, kinda like DSL, now that I think about it). My dad also used NT 3.51 at work before he retired. They weren't on the 'net back then, but I remember that his most frequent complaint regarded users bringing in virus-infected games on floppies. Quite often the network was down because it had been "stoned" or some such nonsense.
All this talk of BSD got me to cleaning out my pile of old computer catalogs. At the bottom was a Walnut Creek CD-ROM one from early 1996. Mostly FreeBSD software with some OS/2 stuff thrown in. No mention of M$ at all.
I guess Windows 95 was designed to look and feel like "Macintosh '84"
(remember Apple's lawsuit?). When Linus said, "I could write a better operating system than this," back in 1991, I wonder if he had ever used a Mac prior to deciding to create Linux? Back then, PCs were pretty much limited to OS/2, Windows 3.x, and DOS, all of whose UIs left much to be desired.
Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Feb. 13 2005,23:43
If you have read his autobiog (I did a report on it, got an A), Linus says he hated guis during the beginning time of Linux, but now he cant live without it.But yes, early UIs were less functional than the command line.
Posted by tronik on Feb. 28 2005,23:39
cli > *
Posted by cbagger01 on Feb. 28 2005,23:57
Why redirect the output of your cli program to "*" 
Posted by mikshaw on Mar. 01 2005,01:33
no....i think he's saying that cli is greater than a snowflake.
Posted by 1337_|-|@X0R on Mar. 03 2005,07:56
Personally I like 98 Better then XP. It may seem weird but I like 98SE because it tends to be shitty compie friendly. There are many more reasons but the fact is XP home isn't as good as 98 to me dispite how cool it may look. I dunno maybe its just because 98SE has a special place in my heart, right next to Imesh and Limewire. Fact is Linux kicks all there asses so it dosn't really matter.
Posted by noordinaryspider on Mar. 05 2005,19:12
I haven't actually used that many different OSes. I was given my first computer, a 386, in November of 2001 and purchased my first internet capable PC the following month. So far, my opinions:98 was better than XP on hardware that supported it. I don't have a 98 machine at the moment, but I kind of wish I did.
95 is actually my latest little adventure, specifically OSR1, which is so old that even the most die-hard 95 enthusiasts shake their heads, but after a lot of trial and error I found a downloadable Netscape 4.8 that works, Miranda for IM, an old but not that old version of Ad-aware, and I have been advised that no antivirus is necessary since I got rid of IE and OE. I will probably keep the 95 long after I get rid of all my other Windows.
I ran 3.1 on my 386 until it was stricken with a hard drive controller failure in 2003 or 2004. There are still uses for these old machines and loads of downloadable programs still available on the internet, many of which are abandonware but others which are written and given away by aspiring new programmers. A child or a financially disadvantaged adult could still get a lot of benefit from a castoff 386, so please don't send them to the landfill.
I've heard a lot of Win2000 bashing and will admit to my lack of experience; it came preinstalled on my Mandrake machine. I planned on wiping the drive and putting on 98 for a dual boot, but changed my mind as it has everything I actually like about XP and runs fast enough on a 400Mhz PII, originally 128MB RAM upgraded to 256.
I loved Mandrake initially, but it is not the best distro for that PII as it is rather slow and takes up too much space on a too small hard drive partition. It may last a year because I already paid for the update service, but then again it may not. I'd rather run it on a more modern PC.
I use Slax on my Compaq Presario S5000NX and would love a hard drive install of Slackware, but I probably lack the experience and the machine is probably too poorly made for this to be a good idea.
I've been running DSL for less than 24 hours, mostly on my Gateway P5-166, 48 MB RAM, although I tested it out first on the Compaq to make sure it wasn't a coaster and to quickly find out where everything is.
I do not intend to purchase another copy of any windows operating system. I would like to eventually purge my own computers of them as my abilities improve. I am interested in Free BSD as well as Linux but would like to experiment with live CDs for awhile before making any more permanent commitments.