Operating systeme Sondage

Be honnest

7. Still has good features from XP, is compatibile with most of the programms, doesn't have stupid modern UI and is stable. I like it.

XP-SP3 is still my favorite lol. Runs faster on new hardware than the 64-bit operating systems that are supposed to replace it. Windows 8 is pretty fast too, but that is because they hibernate everything in prefetch so it boots up faster. If you did that in XP instead of a cold boot it would be fast too.

But I can get comfortable quickly with anything as long as it works and doesn't require the command line to do everything.

I have a question for you. I never had a vista. Some says that vista has a lot of bugs and problems. I wanna buy a new pc, and I could have it for less money if I take vista. Is it a good operating system, or I should pay more to have 7 ?

Personnaly, I like more 7, but if vista is as good as 7, I will take this option. Thanks

Linux all the way.

It's crazy to pay for an operating system for your computer.
When I use Windows at work it feels like that computer can't do anything until you start buying extra software.
Hundreds of $$ later you have a computer that is still lightyears away from what Linux does for free.

I should say that most everything you would do on Windows can be done on Linux.
The problem you would have is if you want something specific that is Windows only and it won't run with WINE.

If you have to have Windows, stay away from Vista.
Win 7 or 8 are much better choices.

thanks !

I forgot windows 8 !!!

The best choice is to have Linux for "serious stuff" and Windows as a virtual machine for any of the entertainment stuff. I do realize that. I just don't have that much RAM to cover two systems so good as I need them to be covered. I have 3 GB of RAM and I can't have more than 4 GB b/c my motherboard doesn't let for more. It's just this old. If I had a better motherboard, I would buy more RAM, and I would run Linux Mint as my basic OS and I would use 3-4 GB RAM for virtual Windows 7. I just can't do it right now.

Win7 superduper uberdonkenpro version is pretty good

I added Windows 8 as an option.

On my personal laptop I am currently running Windows Server 2008 R2. (It is 64-bit OS only, no 32-bit version.)

I keep this OS as lean as possible, no antivirus, no actual server components installed (no Active Directory or DHCP or mail processes installed). This way I have more resources freed up for gaming and running virtual machines.

Using this particular operating system (Win 2008 server) allows me to have an extremely lean 64-bit operating system without a bunch of consumer-oriented desktop features installed.

On this OS I have my graphics card software (ATI Catalyst) installed. ATI catalyst doesn't work with linux so this is also part of why I am using a windows OS.

I also have Wolf ET and my Steam games installed on this OS. Steam updates a lot but it doesn't make Windows Server 2008 lag.

When I boot up the system and Steam is downloading and the server is running all the start-up scripts the RAM usage goes up to about 900 MB, after a couple minutes it settles down around 400 MB. I have 8GB of RAM on the system so this leaves me 7GB for virtual machines.

I have virtualbox running with a bunch of instances of Windows XP. I have a master copy with just the basics installed that I do not actually use except to replace the other copies as they get corrupted or I get tired of whatever I am using them for. I use these cloned virtual machines for internet usage and downloading files. If they get hacked or get registry errors it doesn't matter since they are easily deleted and replaced with a fresh clone of the XP master copy.

I also have various linux distros running as virtual machines too. Usually a copy of ubuntu (12.04 with the 32-bit version since it requires less RAM).

Also I have some of the tiny distros in virtual machines too (tiny core, puppy, damn small linux) but I don't really like them because you have to find and install dependencies every time you want to do anything more complicated than open a text file or check the news.

You can have as many virtual machines as you want, if they are not actually running they don't use up your RAM or CPU. I usually just use my XP virtual machines for everyday stuff so the linux virtual machines just sit there doing nothing but taking up space.

I was setting up a massive ubuntu-12.04 server with 20 separate user accounts each for 20 separate ET servers that I was going to run server facade on each one. Big ugly headache lol. And of course everything has to be done in command line in the terminal. And if I was in windows server (or even plain old XP) I would have gotten everything done in like an hour with a GUI.

But with linux everything is free (but of course half of it doesn't work right because it is free and no one wants to spend six months making it work for everyone).

So to sum it up you want a very lean 64-bit host, so you can access more than 4GB of RAM. Then use virtual box or VMWare (both are free but I prefer virtualbox) to create a platform where you can run all the other operating systems you want.

These guest operating systems should be 32-bit versions since they will use less of your RAM and CPU. A light version of linux is best, or an old version of Windows you are familiar with.

Running a big bloated operating system (like Vista or Kubuntu (ubuntu with the bloated KDE desktop instead of unity)) as a guest OS inside a virtual machine will make everything lag.

I liked Mint more than Ubuntu initially just for the aesthetics, but when I learned that I could interchange all the desktops through the command line I just kept Ubuntu going forward since I had driver issues with Mint. I know Mint is supposed to have access to the same repository as Ubuntu but I experienced less bugs with my hardware with Ubuntu.

Learning to interchange linux desktops was like opening a doorway.

I think I like GNOME 3 the best (I know many people hate the newer versions of GNOME).

I actually discovered GNOME 3 because it was the default desktop on Linux Mint 12. Then I figured out I could just run it on Ubuntu instead of Unity and that worked for me.

Here are the latest Ubuntu family (GNOME, KDE, LXDE, Xfce) distros:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/04/ubuntu-siblings

Im using 7 right now, but I surely would like to try win8 someday lol.

obituary wrote:Here are the latest Ubuntu family (GNOME, KDE, LXDE, Xfce) distros:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/04/ubuntu-siblings

 Is it a trial version, and you have to pay to get the full one, or it's a «free forever» operation system ?

The-Dwarf wrote:

obituary wrote:Here are the latest Ubuntu family (GNOME, KDE, LXDE, Xfce) distros:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/04/ubuntu-siblings

 Is it a trial version, and you have to pay to get the full one, or it's a «free forever» operation system ?

They are free forever. No activation required either. And much safer than Windows. If you want a single OS go with Ubuntu or Mint. You can play ET on them too.

Many Steam games will play on linux now too. A lot of other games won't work on linux though.

If you have an nVIDEA graphics card you are more likely to have proper driver support in linux. ATI cards are not as supported on linux. So this is a common issue for many linux users.

On Ubuntu I can get 200 fps playing ET, but only 110 fps in Windows XP. But my mouse works better in XP lol.

Dwarf you could buy that Vista computer. Be sure to haggle the price down and tell them that everyone says Vista is crap and you are doing them a favor by buying it. Then install linux on a separate partition and have a dual-boot system. Keep the Vista partition intact just in case you ever need to do something in Windows. Be sure to get the recovery CDs for the computer too.

Hey, how about windows 3.1?

I so miss my ZX-80.. was awesome!!    

undefined wrote:They are free forever. No activation required either. And much safer than Windows. If you want a single OS go with Ubuntu or Mint. You can play ET on them too.

Many Steam games will play on linux now too. A lot of other games won't work on linux though.

If you have an nVIDEA graphics card you are more likely to have proper driver support in linux. ATI cards are not as supported on linux. So this is a common issue for many linux users.

On Ubuntu I can get 200 fps playing ET, but only 110 fps in Windows XP. But my mouse works better in XP lol.

Dwarf you could buy that Vista computer. Be sure to haggle the price down and tell them that everyone says Vista is crap and you are doing them a favor by buying it. Then install linux on a separate partition and have a dual-boot system. Keep the Vista partition intact just in case you ever need to do something in Windows. Be sure to get the recovery CDs for the computer too.

Thank you a lot for your help, but I have 2 more questions. Does a computer could work ONLY with Ubuntu (I have an old pc, and I wanted to reintall windows on it, but the cd has a bug... so I would like to install only Ubuntu on it. Is it possible ?

And my other question : I know that new pcs (since 2010-2011) have partition to reinstall windows from the hard drive. But someone said to me that with this partition, we don't need the restauration disks anymore (for ALL the laptop) ! Is it true ? 

Thanks a lot !

OneOldMan wrote:Hey, how about windows 3.1?

 You're too old (or I'm too young  ) I never heard about 3.1 version of windows

Hey Tandy Radio Shack TRS-80 model III with the infamous z-80 cpu.  Aaahh, brings back memories, 2 MHz cpu, woooo,  upgraded to 16k memory, TRSDOS operating system and don't forget BASIC, 8" floppy drive, mag tape units, smokin!   I get shivers.

The-Dwarf wrote:Thank you a lot for your help, but I have 2 more questions. Does a computer could work ONLY with Ubuntu (I have an old pc, and I wanted to reintall windows on it, but the cd has a bug... so I would like to install only Ubuntu on it. Is it possible ?

And my other question : I know that new pcs (since 2010-2011) have partition to reinstall windows from the hard drive. But someone said to me that with this partition, we don't need the restauration disks anymore (for ALL the laptop) ! Is it true ? 

Thanks a lot !

No, you don't need a second OS to run with Ubuntu. It's just better to have two systems, as you can do different things on both of them.

And you should make a rescue DVD on your own. Windows 7 has a backup application built in the system, or you can use one of the many programs made for this purpose.

http://www.paragon-software.com/home/br-free/download.html

Thanks !

Here is an interesting review of Linux Mint 15. The writer had many installation bugs and hardware problems which were not in Mint 14 or 13. Every computer reacts differently to Linux, because they cannot force manufacturers to adhere to standards (this is what Microsoft does) or just make their own hardware (what Apple does).

Also Linux is free for everyone, so they don't have $100 million to pay armies of developers to fix every possible problem. And even with that kind of $$ and effort being applied, Microsoft and Apple still miss many bugs.

So you can get huge differences in how well various versions of Linux will work depending on your hardware. Also a previously-working version of a Linux distro may become incompatible when the developers decide to "fix" things that were not broken.

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/78441.html

Although I have been an OpenSuSE user for many years (and Red Hat / Mandrake before that) I'm thinking about making the switch to Ubuntu.

The reason for that is just better support and more people developing for Ubuntu.

I am interested in running a PlayStation 2 emulator that I would need to fix and build from sources on OpenSuSE but is ready to go on Ubuntu.

Driver support seems better on Ubuntu and that was SuSE's strong point in the past.

Admin tasks on Ubuntu have become smoother and the option for paid and free software give ubuntu a very large collection of 1 click install software.

OpenSuSE just doesn't seem to be keeping up with the latest software or updating older programs to the latest versions.

The-Dwarf wrote:

Thank you a lot for your help, but I have 2 more questions. Does a computer could work ONLY with Ubuntu (I have an old pc, and I wanted to reintall windows on it, but the cd has a bug... so I would like to install only Ubuntu on it. Is it possible ?

And my other question : I know that new pcs (since 2010-2011) have partition to reinstall windows from the hard drive. But someone said to me that with this partition, we don't need the restauration disks anymore (for ALL the laptop) ! Is it true ? 

Thanks a lot !

Your old PC "should" work fine with most distros of Linux. Try Ubuntu first (google ubuntu download). Ubuntu has the most users and the most developers, so you should have the best hardware support from them. That is the only reason I prefer Ubuntu.

I don't like the default "Unity" desktop much, so I switched to GNOME 3 so things look better to me. I don't like orange much and I like my minimize/maximize/exit buttons to be on the top right side where they should be. Unity puts them on the top left so it looks like Mac OS-X.

You can change the cosmetic look of Ubuntu by changing desktops. This is easily done with a command in the command line. There are four main Linux desktops out there: Xfce, LXDE, GNOME, KDE. There are probably hundreds of less-popular ones.

Ubuntu has its own special one called "Unity". Mint has its own special one called "Cinnamon".

2nd Question - yes many PCs have a built-in recovery partition. It is usually a hidden partition set to be invisible so you don't mess it up. You should be able to activate the recovery by holding down a key when you start the computer. On my laptop the recovery key is F9 for example. Google your computer model number for the exact key you need to hold down to activate the recovery partition.

Also if you install Linux (or boot your computer from a Linux live CD) you can see the hidden recovery partition on your computer's hard drive. So don't overwrite it or install linux on it or you won't be able to use it anymore.

I want to know ... if I have an hidden partition, do I need the windows 7 cd the reset my computer as default . (I wanna buy a very good used pc, but without de cd of windows) I wanna know if I could buy it and reset it without the cd! Thanks a lot, it's really important for me to know the answer of this question !

Recovery partitions are different depending on the PC manufacturer.

Some can completely recover a Windows install from just the partiton and booting the PC using a hot key such as F9 and commonly F11.

Some PC's (like certain e-machines) still require a CD with the recovery partition.

I've never been a fan of recovery partitions because hard drives are often the failure point of a PC and other times it's one of the first things people replace for a bigger upgrade.

Most of these partitions allow you to make a set of CD's or DVD's so you can recover Windows with out future need for the recovery partition.

In some cases, you can contact the manufacturer of your PC and ask them to send you installation media.
There was a class action lawsuit here in the USA a few years back that forced manufacturers to make these CD's/DVD's/other media available in case a hard drive was corrupted and recovery could not be done from the hidden partition.

Thanks for you help guys !

I have W7, but XP is better, I heard some bad news few days ago, the XP will be "closed", guy that have xp don't have updates, the hackers will play with XP:)...

XP will be no longer supported, but you can still use it. It will not be updated anymore.

I vote for win. 8(pro version). Once you get around all the touchscreen bull crap it's actually ok. I can see why Vista received 0 votes at the time of this post. Vista absolutely requires 2 gigs of ram just to function as a web/e-mail pc and 4 gigs or more to run games(Ram hog) But that being said it's also the reason Ram capacities on pcs jumped from 1gig max to 4 gigs standard in less than 2 years, thus requiring ram prices to drop so they could still sell them.

I hope win 9 will require 20 gig RAM, so I can buy cheap RAM for my 7

Back in the 80's 1 64 kilo bit chip of ram was around 800 dollars thus  making 1 gig(if it were available at the time) around 2 million dollars!! That's exactly why I loath Apple, at the time the only difference between Models of the Apple 2c was installed ram and Apple was charging 1500 dollars per chip. So Pc savvy users would just buy the base model and add their own ram. Apple countered this by having the extra ram sockets in the motherboard punched out at the factory, thus rendering them un-upgradable. This is when ram "piggybacking"(soldering ram chips in parallel on top of each other) came to be.....

I installed W.8 pro (I received as a gift), and I really like it. I separated my hard disk in two different ones, and I'm running 7 fpr school, and 8 for personnal use. Its pretty useful, I just love it.

I think you will be fine with win8 Dwarf, you are young and younger people adapt to change faster.

Older people who grew up on early versions of windows often find it difficult to change their way of thinking.

obituary wrote:Older people who grew up on early versions of windows often find it difficult to change their way of thinking.

Hell, I should still be struggling with MS-DOS then.. LOL

Qbe wrote:

obituary wrote:Older people who grew up on early versions of windows often find it difficult to change their way of thinking.

Hell, I should still be struggling with MS-DOS then.. LOL

I'm not slamming old people, I'm old too. I hated Windows 8 the first time I saw it. I downloaded the test beta and installed it as a virtual machine to see if I liked it.

My brain was like "$%$%^$^&%^& wtf is this? touchscreen? no start menu? metro crap"

First time I seen Windows 8 I hated it as well. I still do. It's simple enough once you get used to it. But why change that much. If its not broke, don't fix it. Why is never "good" enough?

Same as Lone, I didn't like W8 before. (People don't like when we change stuff that already works before) But, more I use 8, more I like it !

For the one who has a legal version of W8, you can now upgrade freely to windows 8.1.

But, sincerely, I upgraded and unstead of putting a start button that I use no more, it didn't change anything else.

I like windows XP better than 7 but since I don't have a XP disc I'll have to stick with 7. Although, I had to use Linux for about 2 years when I accidentally deleted windows xp off of my hard drive.. I learn some new things those 2 years, I might just go back.

I've read that there is a significant decrease at power managent between Windows 8 and 8.1. Is this true?

I'm sticking with 7 for awhile now. I have no problem running any application on it, including our good old ET. For now I don't see a reason to go back to XP. Unless it's a virtual machine, since it uses very little resources, and I can test stuff on it before I install it on my real OS.

Seriously, 8.1 goes well, I'm just checking to have a better software than virtual box (dont know why, but I dont like it, too complicated) to reinstall xp and 7 on a virtual system to run older games. I want to play the oldest unreal tournement, and its not working on 7 or on 8, so, if you have any suggestion for a good virtual machine software, go ahead !

Thanks, 
Dwarf

I'm using VirtualBox from Oracle.
https://www.virtualbox.org/

I know 7 has something like "XP mode" that immitates Windows XP, maybe 8 has the same, I'm not sure.
However I can run original UT (not 2004) on my 7.

Virtualbox is the "easiest" vm software. It will take significant practice to get good at it, and there are lots of little tricks to discover. But it's free and there are many tutorials to guide you.

There is also VMWare, Zen, and Hyper-V. VMWare costs money. Hyper-V is dreadful in my opinion. Zen is a work of art and worth the time to learn.

Our win2008 server is running as a vm on Zen. That is what nfo uses to create the servers they rent to us.

Zen > VMWare > VirtualBox > Hyper-V

I looked at each one you said, and you're right, virtual box looks the easiest one

xp was better but the job done  

excusme xp he did great

MS-DOS 5.0 is not on the list ???