[kanaloa]

Everyone's got an opinion and this is your chance to share your thoughts on something you probably know a lot about - your Operating System. There is a long standing debate over what Operating System is the greatest and why. So for the first time here on PRO we're going to allow all of our readers to justify their personal arguments. Once all the feedback comes in, we'll compose and separate the entries it into four sections - each arguing for that particular OS. Then, reviewing those arguments you can decide for yourself what is truly the best Operating System out there today.

Remember, you should submit entries that justify your points and provide as much evidence as possible why your OS is better than the competition. Only the best arguments for each OS will be published.

So, lets hear it. What makes your OS the greatest? <b>Email your responses to us at <a href="mailto:greatestOS@pronetworks.org">greatestOS@pronetworks.org</a></b>[/html

Entries must be received by no later than Tuesday, April 15, 2008.


Official News Article: Quest for the greatest OS of 2008

[blodger14]

Personaly my favourite is XP. I like the fact that it installs quickly and easily, everything just works and tbh security isnt really that much of an issue as long as you have a 3rd party firewall and virus protection (i've never had a virus anyway.) It's fast, reliable and simple to use. It also helps that most apps are designed for a windows machine, and work straight away, unlike a linux machine where I would have to use something like wine for a lot of things.

Although i do have a ubuntu cd here, its just a case of getting round to installing it, i may be swayed.

[c0ldfyr3]

well for a while my favorite was Windows 98SE, i hated windows ME and 2000 really wasn't in my era of servers. after XP came out i was delighted to use it, then eventually it became my favorite and i fully switched to XP. however in roughly 2003 i really got into C# and learned that i either had to go out and buy the Microsoft suite to learn it or i could install Linux. well after lots of hard work i got Linux installed and hated it so i pirated the suite to see if i liked it and then bought it eventually ( after about a month of playing ). then i turned to windows 2003 Enterprise Edition in 32 and 64bits for servers. it wasn't till around 2005 that i gave Linux another go, and this time instead of starting with Gentoo i tried Debian Sarge, and liked it. easy installer, lots of FREE applications and programs of practical use for me. i also was dual booting so that i could play games in windows till i learned about Ubuntu and how to install DOOM 3 with out the use if Wine or Cedega, in fact i still have the old 4.10 desktop CDs.


Now today I still use Windows, but only for applications that have not yet been ported into *nix ( Unix, Solaris, or Linux ), mostly Flight Simulators, and to test applications that are made for Vista but can however be run in XP with the proper modifications to the OS.


ultimately, i would have to say the Better OS would be Linux...

Why

[freeagent]

weird, my raptor scoops a 5.9 in vista, no raid. i used to have a pair of wd2500ks, and they scored 5.9 in raid0, but on their own got a 5.3..

edit, and i would point my finger at your controller card..

[xion`silo]

Well personally. Linux is confusing as hell to use or install programs. So you have to be pretty computer savy to understand it. i mean what person off the street is gonna say "oh to install a program on linux you gotta go into kernal and type tar xvz /home/user/desktop/"

now! linux XP desktop looks like the best! it runs XP programs. Fully functional XP and Linux. Its a dream!

[Hendry_Budiman]

XP SP2 is my OS and i use and like this OS..why??
Because i think this OS have support my work and all software which i need to use.
Actually i want try to Vista..but its expensive..

[gries818]

I believe OS X to be the most polished and usable OS of the major named Operating Systems.

I used to be a hardcore Windows fan, but it has become my belief that the thing that used to be Windows' most valuable feature, the ability to install it on virtually any standard computer setup, has become its greatest hindrance. To make their operating system stable on the various platforms, Microsoft basically has to make a deal with the devil. XP and to a much greater extent Vista, feel almost bloated. OS X on the other hand fixes many of the ridiculous problems of its predecessors and changes its former hindrance (the fact only Apple computers could get OS X) into a major plus. With OS X, the user can know that things will always work in the same way because everything is built to the same specifications that the people designing the software use.

The first time I tried to install Linux, I ended up destroying my installation of Windows XP. At that point, I felt that if even technologically savvy people like myself had trouble with the installation, the operating system was doomed to industrial use only (ie servers, etc). I kept that attitude for a couple months, but the promise of some really cool technology bundled in Linux brought me back soon enough. This time, with everything backed up, I had no problems with my installation. This was only like two years, and at that time, the Linux installation software was about on par with XP's installation. Today, most installers far surpass the XP installer and even the Vista installer (I've never used the OS X installer, so I can't really compare).

Linux has come a long ways since I first ventured into this operating system. Its biggest problem is also its biggest strength: Linux isn't the name of one operating system, but the kernel on which "Linux" operating systems are built. Because the Linux kernel is open source, it can be freely (both in cost and in right) in a number of different devices we interact with on a daily basis. Many phones, servers, DVRs, GPS, etc use Linux as their core. The nature of what Linux really is makes it extremely successful.

Except as a Desktop OS. Now don't get me wrong, I fully understand that the kernel is extremely important to the function of an operating system, and while its operation is essential to the task of computing, it isn't the piece of the operating system that users most directly operate with. Users most often interact with the GUI interface of the operating system, and Linux distributions (or "distros") designed for desktop use must utilize their own form of GUI interface. The most popular distros use variations upon two major Desktop Environments (or DEs), the K Desktop Environment (more commonly KDE) and GNOME. I prefer distributions that use GNOME, as I find it to be the better of the two desktop environments, but both DEs lack many features that users of OS X and Windows take for granted.

Another major flaw with Linux is the fact that many popular programs just aren't offered for it (yet). If a software maker is willing to release their source to the public, it can typically be compiled on a Linux machine however this isn't for most users and I will confess that I often have troubles compiling software from source. This software manufactures with just one option: executable files... but Linux executables don't work like Windows and OS X software installation files. Instead of bundling everything, the maker typically only includes the software itself and not every file and library that will be needed to actually allow the user to operate the software. If you have an internet connection, most distros have nice programs that automatically download and install needed files from online repositories but if you don't, then you are forced to search all over for the needed file only to discover that you need another file to install that one... this is called dependency hell. It is especially problematic when a user needs to install special software to get their internet connection setup, but without the internet connection it can literally take hours to track down everything that is needed to install the software. Installations on Linux are further complicated because of the fact that different distros use different executable types. The most common seem to be .deb (for Debian based Linux OS) and .rpm. Because of this mess, many companies don't even bother making Linux versions of popular software and with a few exceptions, the open source replacement programs bundled with most Desktop Linux distros just don't cut it for most users.

Desktop Linux is always improving, and there is a lot of potential for this OS, but for most, it won't suffice for the types of activities people use their computers for, it just isn't ready.

I encourage people tired of Windows and unhappy with/scared of Linux to check out OS X. Most of the programs people need to use (like Office) have Mac versions, and Mac is bundled with loads of software so some people might not even need to install other programs. And for more technical users, OS X, like Linux, is a UNIX-like OS (OS X uses the open source Darwin kernel, built upon FreeBSD) meaning that many of the same cool technical features that are available in Linux are available on your Mac, including the ability to find ports for Linux applications.

[augie]

Nice write up Will. I'm currently running Vista and I love it! I am also running Ubuntu 8.04 in VMWare 1.08 ATM for folding to mop up some idle cycles. I haven't used Linux in a couple years as there was no need for me to learn it, I loaded it easily enough in a triple boot, took a look and said to myself 'This is nice' but never really did anything with it as there was no need ATT.

This time I have a need for *nix and I am quite pleased with it and of course willing to spend the time to learn it. It's quite easy to navigate but besides installing and using apps like OO programs and general maintenance, the learning curve goes way up when one wants to compile a program or otherwise customize ones system. Mind you, I've only been at this for a week. I just think it's similar to using DOS back in the day, which also had a decent learning curve when one wanted to create a batch file/scripts etc.

As to Mac, the only exposure I had was when they released Safari for a PC. Very dissapointing in form and function. I guess the determining factor of what is best for one is a matrix of money/time/ease of use and need. I for one will never get a MAC as I don't need it function wise, besides the extra cost for proprietary hardware. I like to build my own rigs too.

Windows is 'easy', *nix is finally getting there with some sweat equity from the user to get it to do what one wants. I like both now. I will also try out PCLinuxOS which is supposed to be the best *nix clone of Windows with the lowest learning curve of the bunch. We'll see what it does, in VMWare of course.

[NT50]

For an everyday average user of a PC that usually just does emails, surf the net, deal with pictures and videos and write document Mac is the way to go.
I find my Mac a lot user friendly than a PC in some aspects. Some I do not like the way they do things.

[gries818]

Nice write up Will. I'm currently running Vista and I love it! I am also running Ubuntu 8.04 in VMWare 1.08 ATM for folding to mop up some idle cycles. I haven't used Linux in a couple years as there was no need for me to learn it, I loaded it easily enough in a triple boot, took a look and said to myself 'This is nice' but never really did anything with it as there was no need ATT.

This time I have a need for *nix and I am quite pleased with it and of course willing to spend the time to learn it. It's quite easy to navigate but besides installing and using apps like OO programs and general maintenance, the learning curve goes way up when one wants to compile a program or otherwise customize ones system. Mind you, I've only been at this for a week. I just think it's similar to using DOS back in the day, which also had a decent learning curve when one wanted to create a batch file/scripts etc.

As to Mac, the only exposure I had was when they released Safari for a PC. Very dissapointing in form and function. I guess the determining factor of what is best for one is a matrix of money/time/ease of use and need. I for one will never get a MAC as I don't need it function wise, besides the extra cost for proprietary hardware. I like to build my own rigs too.

Windows is 'easy', *nix is finally getting there with some sweat equity from the user to get it to do what one wants. I like both now. I will also try out PCLinuxOS which is supposed to be the best *nix clone of Windows with the lowest learning curve of the bunch. We'll see what it does, in VMWare of course.

You know with cygwin you can remotely connect to a Linux box through Windows. I don't know if it is as fast as having the OS installed Virtually within Windows... but it does save space and is especially useful if you have a Linux server. That's what I am going to use it for once I figure out how do everything exactly the way I want to. I write a guide since I have some time tonight to do it.

And by the way, Safari on Windows isn't anywhere near what it is on Mac. On a Mac, I would go as far to argue that it is better than the Mac version of Firefox. If you are ever near an Apple store, go in and play with one. You might be surprised how much you like it.