Favorite OS?

[wmorri]

Well, for emulators, I don't use any. I use a program called WINE. This is a program that takes windows dll files and uses them to play windows games in linux and unix. Besides that I do have a vista machine, but I don't use it that often. It here there for Oblivion and FarCry 2 that is about it.

Cheers!

 

[eyeCpc]

I'm afraid Linux and any 64bit OS is out of the question here due to the limited driver support for the older dsl connection. 32bit Windows only for getting online at least. But I still keep a few live distros onhand.

 

[Rmp5s]

I'd have to say mine is WinXP...isn't that horrible? lol

I have a Dell Inspiron with Vista on it now and my old skool Compaq running XP smokes it like a cheap cigar any day...too bad the old bastard's hard drive died...

The thing I don't like about Vista is how resource hungry it is...it takes a gig of ram just to run it and, when Vista started being forced apon us, that was fairly greedy. Even now it strikes me as a waste. If I had a gig of ram on my XP Compaq, it'd be sick!

However, I do give Vista VERY high marks in the stability department.

I've read that Win7 is going to still require 1 gig or ram but it is supposed to be faster and make better use of the memory which keeps my hopes high.

I also plan on building a desktop to run Ubuntu (or possibly putting it on the good ol' Compaq after replacing the hard drive and building the desktop for xp or Win7) just because I really like the idea of open source software and the freedom it affords. (Speaking of which, I'm posting this on my open source, Android powered T-Mobile G1 which I LOVE!!!!)

So my vote has to be XP and Android (does that count? lol)/Linux.

 

[eyeCpc]

You can easily dual boot ubuntu along with Windows on the same or separate drive easily. Depending on version like either XP or Vista/7 the boot loader used will be decided on.

For XP with Linux that would be Grub, wubi, Lilo for the Linux boot loaders. Some time back ubuntu had a 3.5" boot floppy where you simply selected a partition and the OS on it would load right up!

There was no need to edit this or copy that over from ... there. WinGrub and SuperGrub are two cds seen now.

Vista isn't is all bad and resource hungry as it is made out to be if you simply follow a few performance tips and run a more upto date system. That's what catches everyone at first running the old 512mb-1gb 2003-4 deals while the 2007 OS is based around 2006-7 1-2gb systems with faster cpus and larger hard drives.

Stable yes! Far better then all the crashes typically seen in XP until finally seeing SP3 and some 1,000+ fixes in that. But so far 7 blows right past the two previous versions there! You won't need any 4-8gb dimmed up pc to run this one! XP, Vista see yaa...

 

[Rmp5s]

You can easily dual boot ubuntu along with Windows on the same or separate drive easily. Depending on version like either XP or Vista/7 the boot loader used will be decided on.

For XP with Linux that would be Grub, wubi, Lilo for the Linux boot loaders. Some time back ubuntu had a 3.5" boot floppy where you simply selected a partition and the OS on it would load right up!

There was no need to edit this or copy that over from ... there. WinGrub and SuperGrub are two cds seen now.

Vista isn't is all bad and resource hungry as it is made out to be if you simply follow a few performance tips and run a more upto date system. That's what catches everyone at first running the old 512mb-1gb 2003-4 deals while the 2007 OS is based around 2006-7 1-2gb systems with faster cpus and larger hard drives.

Stable yes! Far better then all the crashes typically seen in XP until finally seeing SP3 and some 1,000+ fixes in that. But so far 7 blows right past the two previous versions there! You won't need any 4-8gb dimmed up pc to run this one! XP, Vista see yaa...

I thought about dual booting xp and Ubuntu on the desktop when I build it but...I dunno...meh. I guess I'd just rather have a linux machine and a xp machine.

I'm not basing my resource hungry allegations on what I've read or something...I'm saying these things based on more than a little experience with both OS's and, from my experience, Vista KILLS the same computer that XP would thrive on. Does this make it bad? No...not at all...if I hadn't have gotten a new pc early on as you spoke of, that had 512mb and was running Vista, the whole thing would have made more sense to me.

No matter what, my XP equipped Compaq has 256mb ram (it might have the 512mb the Vista equipped Dell struggled with...I don't remember off hand) and it still slaughtered the newer, fancier, possibly more powerful (I don't remember) Dell like a 1 legged deer on the call of open season...all this after bypassing the "immenent hard drive failure" screen at boot...lol Sure made me think of Vista as quite a greedy OS.

But!...Vista is VERY stable in my experience...much more so than XP for sure. XP isn't bad but it sure tries to be sometimes...lol.

I have high hopes for Win7...it could afford to be more ram intensive now and, if it really makes better use of what it does use, it should be good stuff!

 

[eyeCpc]

Well you'll be surprized to learn that the 7 beta uses less resources overall when placed next to both XP and Vista. It has the stability of Vista while passing XP as well as Vista performance wise. ......zzzzzzzzzoom

One thing found with XP was when going from 1gb upto 2gb of memory and suddenly seeing XP run smoother overall. That also saw a performance boost of it's own to some degree.

I ran one of the betas for Vista in a dual boot then and simply removed that fast waiting for the 1/31/2007 release instead. The 7 beta here will be on until the activation runs out in August showing a large improvement.

 

[Rmp5s]

Well you'll be surprized to learn that the 7 beta uses less resources overall when placed next to both XP and Vista. It has the stability of Vista while passing XP as well as Vista performance wise. ......zzzzzzzzzoom

One thing found with XP was when going from 1gb upto 2gb of memory and suddenly seeing XP run smoother overall. That also saw a performance boost of it's own to some degree.

I ran one of the betas for Vista in a dual boot then and simply removed that fast waiting for the 1/31/2007 release instead. The 7 beta here will be on until the activation runs out in August showing a large improvement.

Alright...I'm sold...I'm just gunna have to dual boot Win7 and check it out! Can I use a live cd or does it have to be installed?

 

[AzNVi3t2007]

I like xp corporate edition. Also love linux distros.

 

[eyeCpc]

Alright...I'm sold...I'm just gunna have to dual boot Win7 and check it out! Can I use a live cd or does it have to be installed?

The downloads for both the 32bit and 64bit beta releases are dvd iso images you burn to disk and boot from like any other Windows disk. Like Vista before it you have the partitioning tool seen with a new style selector.

It's better to have a 3rd party tool like GParted and have a primary waiting for it since I haven't worked with that part of it quite yet. I simply slapped it on as a secondary OS here for installing and running various programs to see what will or won't go on and run as well as comparing differences.

So far other then some 3rd party freewares coming up with the not compatible with newer version error and seeing the installer simply quit other programs and games go on and seem to run smoother. It appears 7 will be an excellent replacement for both XP and Vista.

 

[Rmp5s]

Funny you mention G parted. I just used that for the first time a couple days ago and ran into a bit of a prob. Check out my other thread:

http://www.computerforums.org/showthread.php?p=890307#post890307