[ruddin]

i am using windows XP and i stand by its user friendly interface but linux especially ubuntu is an awsmm experience..its open source and the software is available freely..u dnt hav to call technicians to debug a software problem..all help is available online through millions of communities...havent yet tried mac osx..so cant say much abt it only tht it costs hell!!
and vista..its better i dnt say anything..microsoft shud accept tht it was a failed launch of their worst operating system..its just stupid effects..nuthin else..
stick with XP or move over to linux!!

[zeth006]

I don't think I'm going to join any "OS Smackdown teams" anytime soon. This is probably because I'm no technie. But what I CAN say is this: I choose the laptop/desktop that offers the most value and performance per dollar. Simple as that. My story? Short and simple: I was in the market for a laptop I could take with me anywhere that would have decent gaming specs. I looked and I looked. Sure enough, I ran into a Dell Vostro deal that was going on. I looked and looked for alternatives. This was months back. For a price tag of $850, I could get an Intel T7500 and an Nvidia 8600M GT. My OS options were of course, Windows XP Home/Pro or Vista Home Basic/Home Premium/Business/Ultimate and so on. The $0 options were home basic and XP Home. I chose Vista and I customized the hard drive. Even before pressing checkout, I tried comparing my specs and prices against a Mac with a slightly bigger hard drive. It was a $950 Dell (Screen hard drive upgrade) vs $1600 Mac.

[zeth006]

I'm sure you guys can guess which one I chose. Michael Dell's global supply management system is simply the best. Also, Vista works fine no problems. I have had about 7-8 crashes while playing Guild Wars, but I've gotten enough anecdotal accounts from many other fellow GWmates saying the same.

[TheDoctor]

Wow !!! What a thread, some posts passionate, some even keeled, some uninformed, some seemly well informed.

A common theme seems to be, nothing is perfect (save a few posts - for which, I find incredulous, if they are really talking about an operating system whose computer has ever been turned on, attached to a bevy of peripherals from different vendors and different eras).

When the perfect OS gets there, please post it immediately. I have been waiting since I loaded the OS from a floppy disk.

Cheers, all.

For the authors:
Did this article and resulting thread have a Fire Hazard Rating ?

[zeth006]

LOL @ TheDoctor. Gave me a chuckle.
Yep...once again, I am NOT informed enough to have an authoritative opinion on this. But sticking to the reality...IS there a perfect OS? If there is, I'll pay the money to buy it so that I can have absolute and unfettered peace of mind. 100%! Really, I'll do it!

[ESUNintel]

I really do not dislike Microsoft's Vista, as an IT person, it is even fun to use due to it being "new" and still have a few challenges. The ease of using it, it's aero interface, great sharing ability and a few other things make it better than XP. I do; however, prefer Mac OS X over any other OS, and that was a recent change. At first I hated Mac;s, can't run Visio, SQL Server, etc... but they can virtualize, and after trying one I had to get the MacBook Air, and I virtualized XP. The AIr was so much fun, I ended up buying a Mini too, I do still depend on my Quad Core Vista PC though, and my XP Samsung UMPC. Anyways, the point is that being in the industry it is hard to survive without either Mac OS X (Adobe CS3 runs better, FileMaker rocks, iWork crushes Office in creativity) or Windows XP/VIsta (Visio, SQL, VIsualStudio). I have nothing against any of the OS's, the winner is OS X though. Thanks VM Ware, love you guys!!!

[sdlmd]

Clearly the choice of OS subjective that there will never be a definitive winner of this argument. But David Ramel wins the debate, hands down. The other arguments are full of more half-truths, hype, distortions and spin than a presidential campaign press release.
I've got computers running Mac OS X 10.4 (like Vista, 10.5 won't run on older computers), XP SP2 and Vista SP1, and there are things I like and dislike about all three. I've played with Linux, and I agree, it's too geek-oriented for someone who just wants to get stuff done, as opposed to playing with cool computer stuff. My next desktop computer will probably be a new iMac that I can boot into OS X or Vista, depending on what I want to do at the moment.

[Aaron11]

I think Vista is a great OS. It runs pretty stable. I am running XP, Vista, and Ubuntu. I can tell you the best out of all those hands down is Vista. There's not nearly as much driver problems as there used to be. Viruses are always avoidable with decent virus protection (which Vista has built in). Viruses are always avoidabled and shouldn't be an issue. There's not nearly as much driver problems as there used to be. As for Mac OSX, playing with Linux has got me annoyed with the lack of software and I think that would be the same with Macs as well. Like sdlmd said, just like Vista, Mac 10.5 won't run on older computers either.
Vista is the best hands down!

They should do this with Firefox 3, Opera 9.5, and IE 6 and 7

[rkinne01]

Vista works for me. I've never run into any media files being blocked by DRM, I've had one crash from bad video drivers released from Nvidia, and my system resources aren't being overly taxed. Support is easy and plentiful for Vista if you need it.

Kubuntu is a different story. Support is so scattered that its often hard finding reliable place to get help if you need it. Working with the OS to find and then get drivers working is the very definition of frustration. The Ubuntu distro installs quickly because they leave out so many of the things that Windows includes by default. I had to manually install DVD and music codecs, something I didn't have to worry about with Vista or even XP. Linux applications are generally made by users, I found some really cool apps (Amarok), but found must programs were terrible (Dragon player) and lacked polish.

I'll make a review of OS X when i can install it on any computer I choose. Looks like that won't happen anytime soon.

[rgreen4]

rkinne01 - you have some very good points. Something to consider - pure numbers. It is widely accepted that 90% of the world's computers use Windows. Now we may argue a few percentage points + or -, but that's been the consensus for years. Apple, increasing it's share by 50% if it did would only change those numbers a few percentage points, which is why Apple is branching out into Entertainment. Linux with various distributions has almost all of the rest, again about 5%.

Last night on the news when they were talking about Bill Gates "retirement", they pointed out that Microsoft has 76,000 employees, now some are in administrative roles, some in marketing of various products, some involved in programming efforts other than Windows, but that is still a lot of people involved in developing software.

Assume for a moment that there are 400 million personal/micro computer users in the world. There may be more or less, but it won't change the relative size much. That means 360 million use Windows, 20 million Mac's and 20 million others (including Linux) but for this discussion throw them all into the Linux camp. If we just grap an approximation and say that there are 36,000 very experienced Windows users (excluding those actually in programming and supporting systems), this is experienced users, not professionals. That is 1 hundredth of 1 percent of the windows users. Even if we double the percentage for Linux that is only 4,000 experienced Linux users (again, not professionals), and divide that by around 25 different versions, and you get around 160 very experienced users per distro.

You may argue about the percentages, but the fact is borne out by help forums including this one that there is a great deal more assistance available to the average Windows users, just by the sheer weight of numbers of total users for the various OS's.

The PC World community is about to celebrate it's second anniversiary as the oldest post I could find in Windows (by Guest) is 7/5/2006 welcoming us to the forums (as it was called then).

In that time in the Windows discussion area there have been 1,918 discussions and 85 documents. In the Linux discussion area there have been 153 discussions and 6 documents. In the Mac discussion area there have been 134 discussions and 0 documents. Now before certain very passionate adherants of the other operating systems jump down my throat, I will point out that MacWorld the sister publication to PC World has their own forum and there are Linux dedicated forums, but it does show that in a highly respected community such as ours with a dedicated and diverse membership the vast numbers are in the Windows arenas, and even the dedicated and passionate adherants of the other OS's generally also use Windows.

All this is not to suggest that Windows is superior by these numbers, just that the numbers are the reason it is so difficult for the average person trying to get assistance in other operating systems. When I was trying to use Linux, I went to a Linux only forum, supposedly the main one, and posted my question and after two weeks got one response. I go more responses than that on the situation after I had given up and mentioned it in a post on another topic in this community!

I will admit that Linux has promise, but as long as the adherants of each flavor are more interested in fighting each other than coming together, they will never get the critical mass of users and adherants to get the OS out of single digit market share.

[eMJay]

rgreen4, you made some valid points but i think the reality is a bit more complex. Let me first delve into the issue of PC user base and current trends. The estimate for PC user numbers (laptops and desktops) stands at 1 billion as of this year. Just over a quarter of that number are in the US. Japan is a distant second with about 8% of the user base. The top 15 countries in terms of PC use make up 75% of the market. However most of the growth in the market over the last few years has been from the four countries that are expected to overtake the US in economic strength in the next few decades - China, India, Russia and Brazil ( they are known by the acronym BRIC in the world of economics). In fact the developed world has already peaked as far as the PC user base is concerned and it's the developing world that's accounting for the majority of the growth. Broadband internet is becoming widespread and cheaper everywhere and, as more in the developing world adopt the internet as a resource, more PCs will be bought in these countries. Then there's the issue of population growth. The developing world is accounting for nearly all the population growth while practically all the developed countries with the exception of the US (growth mostly due to immigration) has practically zero or negative population growth. Plus the average age of the population in the developing world is far younger. This younger population is technology-driven and many are entering and developing the tech sectors in their respective countries. Take India for example. India has one of the fastest growing software development sectors on the planet. It's not inconceivable that a new operating system could arise out of this country to challenge windows for the dominance in the coming years.

Windows has become dominant because it started out with a decent product and used a business model that allowed it to grow with the PC industry into any area it spread to. It didn't get there because it was better; it just had a better fit - it could be used by the average home owner who buys their PC or by those who build their own. It has had a symbiotic relationship with the hardware industry so drivers were plentiful. How do you compete with something that is designed to support random hardware configurations? By doing the same thing for less. Linux has some way to go but it's the only OS that has the potential to remove windows from dominance. The problem with Linux is this - open-source has been its strength and its weakness. Opensource allows more code to be written in a shorter time but it also allows divergence from a common goal. As a result, Linux has developed too many ways of doing the same thing, which just amounts to time-wasting. For instance, having so many different ways to install software on various Linux distros doesn't make the process easier and confuses the newbie. There are just some things that MUST be easy to do if they are commonly required as part of everyday use. You can't expect hardware manufacturers to support so many different installation types when creating drivers, as they would expend more effort creating drivers for a smaller market share. I think some advocates for certain distros are taking heed and some of the steps to correct this have already been taken. The latest Ubuntu version is an example of that new direction. Its installation is the smoothest i've seen for a Linux distro. It's going to take some doing to get it right where driver support is concerned, but it's also going to require cooperation from hardware manufacturers as well, so that drivers will be of the same quality as on windows.

As for the Mac, it's market share is rising in the US but not worldwide. Apple gains most of its users from those who switch from Windows in the US. As long as the Mac can only be built and sold by Apple there's no chance that OSX will be anything other than a niche market. Why? because it can't replace Windows globally. Apple doesn't have the resources to supply the world's PC users with their product. Apple sells from their own stores and that a major limitation. Secondly, Apple can't compete with the freedom that allows third world users to acquire PCs in the first place. The average user in the third world doesn't buy Dells or HPs unless they are buying laptops; they buy desktop PCs from numerous small local companies that use the latest cheaper components to assemple PCs locally. The issue is import costs. They are greater for PCs already pre-assembled so the brands just can't compete. The bottom line is that Windows and Linux can support such an environment but Apple can't. Linux in particular can potentially harness the PC user growth that is being driven by the third world. The emergence of Vista has hurt MS in its attempts to maintain third world adoption because, from all accounts, it's just too expensive. If the same will be true of Windows 7, then Linux distros should take advantage of this windows weakness. With economic times as they are, being free has even more appeal than ever.

[rgreen4]

Very well said. But in addition to a common installation method of programs and drivers, they should also get rid of the cutsey names that are not descriptive. For example what is GRUB and what does it do? What is WINE and what does it do? Why not call it Unified Boot Loader which is far more descriptive? Why not call Wine Windows Compatibility Application which is again more descriptive? Eventually a user understands the acronym, but in the beginning they get in the way of understanding the OS.

In the developing markets Vista is apparently a lot less than in the U.S. or E.U. according to some reports.

If all the disparate groups of Linux would get together, develop a common base, common drivers, common terminology, and most important common reference books with differences being the interface (skins if you would) along with interchangeabiltiy with all NTFS files, Windows would in fact be in trouble. In spite of all it's differences, there are similarites between all the Windows versions from Win95 to Vista, after all the "Start" button/orb works the same, Control panel may have different menus, but is still the Control Panel and even in Vista, clicking on classic view gives a display similar to Win9x.

Sometimes the motto of the Linux developers appears to be "We have met the enemy and they are us".

[rkinne01]

"It didn't get there because it was better; it just had a better fit - it could be used by the average home owner who buys their PC or by those who build their own. It has had a symbiotic relationship with the hardware industry so drivers were plentiful."

Isn't a better fit by definitiona better product? Would you by a pair of jeans that didn't fit simply because of the label? No, you'd buy the jeans because they do fit and you're more comfortable, or at least most of us would. I've often wondered if Apple could maintain the vast compatibility of products that Microsoft has, I don't think they could.

Lets face it, Apple would have a much wider base today if they would have played a little nicer with the rest of the industry. Why not allow others to develope Mac clones but with less software features than a full fledged system? It just seems like Apple has shot itself in the foot in so many ways over the years. I would love to at least try OS-X, but on my terms and not Apple's.

[eMJay]

A product with a better 'fit' implies a choice of product that better satisfies your requirements (i.e. fits your needs), but it doesn't mean that it's materially better. A high quality brand jeans may be better as far as material and craftmanship are concerned, but if it's not comfortable or durable enough for heavy duty work, then the farmer or mechanic shouldn't buy it because it won't fit his needs and may lower his productivity in the long run. It really comes down to how you define a better product. An OS can have better code, a better GUI and still not be the better choice to expand the PC industry. Windows became dominant because it was best able to fit the needs for this expansion to be maintained. Windows releases are geared towards enabling the use of new hardware and creating new hardware requirements, particularly in the areas of Processor speed, memory, storage and graphics, that are then satisfied by the whole industry. OSX releases create the same requirements but these are satisfied only by Apple.

[1739408]

I Know people do not want to feel like they have paid more for something then they should have, but you have. I have been using Microsoft's Family of products since the mid 80's. I have actually taken a digital picture full of every Microsoft product that I have ever owned placed in a garbage can. I am tired of blue screens,error codes, losing data, forced reboots, product keys, Malware, Spyware, Virus's, privacy issues, and all the other problematic issues that I have had over the years using Microsoft products. I switched my OS two years ago on a mission to defeat the injustice that I was served by Microsoft Corp. Products. I am currently running Ubuntu Linux 8.04 and I love it. Not because I'm a hacker, IT Guru or anything of that nature, it's because it let's me run my business on a day to day basis. Instead of always fixing a problem, I am exploring new Software solutions and getting work done. As for the MAC I think Steve Jobs is a visionary. I love all Apple Products.

[pogson]

If you look at NetApplications web stats you can see the problem: MacOS is tied to the Apple PCs and Apple sells only 3% of the world's PCs. NetApplications reports 8% of web hits are from MacOS. That means NetApplications does not provide a good sample globally. In the global market, PCs are selling like hotcakes at the low end where there are no Macs. GNU/Linux is thriving there and will take over the world in a few years at this rate (70% per annum growth). Vista is not going anywhere fast. They may take the place of XP on a lot of PCs that are being replaced but those PCs only need replacing to use Vista, not compelling motivation. GNU/Linux on the other hand is affordable by billions of first-time computer buyers in emerging markets in Brazil, Russia, India and China. That market is growing several times faster than Vista/MacOS can grow in the congested markets of USA/Europe where everyone already has a couple of PCs and needs no more. The world is selling several PCs in emerging markets for every one sold in established markets and that trend will continue for several years in this economic situation and with Vista offering nothing of value. The next thing out of M$ will take years to develop and years to catch on so there is no way that dinosaur will fly again. Vista will not even run on the small notebooks. MacOS will not either.

[rgreen4]

I am glad that it works for you. It doesn't work for the vast majority of people. I experimented with Ubuntu 7.10, but had problems with the wireless on my laptop and wasn't going to spend money for a new wiress add-in to connect to my network when XP worked perfectly well. I then tried it on my desktop, I was able to connect to the internet through the wired connection, but couldn't access my files on my NAS which quirkily enough uses a Linux OS to operate. When I posted this, there were suggestions that I do this or than, or reformat and do something else. I just dumped Ubuntu and went back to my Vista OS which is working for me running Office 2007.

I haven't seen a BSOD on any of my machines in over 5 years. They were fairly common in Win98, and had one occasionally in W2K, but not in XP or Vista. But, I run very few downloaded programs and then only from very trusted sites.

The reason there are multiple OS's out there is to give people the choice of what to use. What works for you doesn't work for me. What works for me doesn't work for you. Doesn't make either better or either wrong - just different and contented with what we have.

[cb3431]

Very nicely put rgreen4.

Vista has worked out wonderfully for me. I use it on new hardware and older hardware, neither computer causes me to lose any sleep.

[eMJay]

Nicely said, Pogson. I don't think enough people are looking at global trends and how they will impact the PC market in the medium to long term. Linux really does have a brighter future than Windows on the global market. GNU/Linux is actually the only platform capable of replacing Windows on the global market. As more and more of the emerging PC market join the ranks of those using the internet, it's only a matter of time before Linux takes the reigns.

[rgreen4]

That's strange - I seem to recall they said the same thing 10 years ago. They even started selling Red Hat in Sam's, but it disappeared rather quickly. When you have to round your market share up to 1% from .88%, a 70% increase while it sound like a lot only got them to .88% from .52%. If they keep up that growth rate for 2009, they will finally be over 1% to 1.4%. If than can keep that up until 2012 they may actually be able to challenge Mac.

Be very careful when you project increases based on very small (relatively) market shares. I don't believe Linux will ever be able to challenge MS, their fractured base of adherents and lack of central organized planning will doom it.

Linux is the computer worlds version of Anarchy - no organized direction or control. Everyone does their own thing when they want. While that is great for the freedom of expression and use, it won't be able to get them 100's of millions of users on a common platform. It will just take too much full time effort for volunteers to do. Then if you expand the base of volunteers, there comes about a disagreement and a group leaves and comes out with their own distro and more fracturing. It is unfortunately, human nature. That's one reason there are so many now. I would not be surprised to see the number of distros double in the next 5 years.