Primary Operating System?

[bezerkus]

Not belabor this too much, but...

I see where you are coming from as the OP just wanted Operating Environments and had to choose the most popular distros, but I disagree that the browser is the defining one no matter how important to do what you do. I use three browsers as a web developer and I hardly remember which one I am in, no matter what hardware I am on or what app I am running. I see hardly any benefit to calling the browser the OS and any difference currently as it is still just middleware and not modern hardware dependent. Some Distros are and can only run certain hardware and software. It is not helpful to say you just drive a GMC, but that it's a 2003 GMC Yukon 1500 with a V8 engine for whether you are getting it fixed, trading it in, or wondering if Sirius XM is available for it, or whether someone is just curious about your mode of transportation. Sorry to be blunt but it is a question of freedom and the more it is consolidated the less free you are as an end user. Apple is a perfect example of making up a chip for the iPhone 5 so that there is no comparison to other chips and other phones they'd rather you forget the specs and just see the beauty of the OE and the case of the phone (yet you wonder why it can't do certain things that Apple just refuses to allow). If only one browser is allowed and integrated into the OS, no choice. It is not just a technical reason. If you let GMC only allow you to put OEM tires on without choice, well you know where I am going. Less freedom, pay more, less competition, less choice for best of breed. I'm betting OP wanted to know Year and Model (Windows commonly defines that with the known versions of Windows), but did not care about what tires were on it no matter how important for it to run. BTW I love Debian base stuff, I want to try Arch Linux here soon, but currently just running Linux Mint (OS) with KDE (DE) using Firefox and Dolphin Browsers. Very helpful to define the individual pieces to it ...even to the average user.

 

[Ole Juul]

Not belabor this too much, but...

Yes, I see that you and I could easily hijack this thread on this one. We're probably not very far apart on personal sensibilities so it's just a matter of a pleasant discussion. I was actually taking a bit of a devil's advocate position above. The reason being that I always associate MS-Windows with people who buy computers ready made in a store and only use the browser, possibly not even e-mail. They seem to be the 90%. I do know that a professional user is capable of even using Vista as a web server - it's not that.

. . . BTW I love Debian base stuff, I want to try Arch Linux here soon, but currently just running Linux Mint (OS) with KDE (DE) using Firefox and Dolphin Browsers. Very helpful to define the individual pieces to it ...even to the average user.

I'm moving away from the Linux world because I'm tired of the featurism which is allowing many developers to drop things which aren't quite finished and generally keeping them from working on what needs to be done. Hence my more recent interest in FreeBSD - the land of the conservative. Actually, as a long time serious DOS user, it feels like home (just waaaay more complicated).

That said, a little while ago I got a new (old) laptop for my wife, and to make the media and browser experience painless for me to install - I took a Linux Mint disk. It would be impossible to accomplish the task any faster or with less effort on my part. That's what I expected from Mint, and I wasn't disappointed.

PS: I also run a variety of browsers simultaneously. It's the only way to go - and particularly handy when writing a web page.

 

[Unknown_K]

I wonder if mac users are prone to ditch their current OS for newer versions faster then PC users do (I expect so).

 

[Ole Juul]

I wonder if mac users are prone to ditch their current OS for newer versions faster then PC users do (I expect so).

I would be curious as well. There are a few Mac users around here, and I'm certain they don't have, or plan to get, the skills (or even interest) to upgrade the OS. At some point they will probably just get a new machine and use that for some years. Yes, PC users tend to do an upgrade (or get a friend to do it) at some point, though it is true that there are still some XP hangers-onners.

You know, I think the Linux crowd is the worst for upgrading incessantly. Ubuntu users tend to follow the 6 month release schedule religiously and of course then Mint follows that. I've gotten tired of it. Particularly because something always breaks.

Mostly the BSDers prefer stability and it is only developers and experimenters who rush to upgrade. AFAIK, FreeBSD 6.4 is still maintained, and version 6 actually goes back to 2005. We just started version 9 this year, but all along it's just been incremental changes - and things don't usually break. I really like that.

PS: Any MS-Windows users who are interested in BSD, I suggest you try PC-BSD as it is targeted specifically at Windows users and works a lot like it. KDE on top and FreeBSD in the back - good concept.

 

[Tor]

Seems like a rather arbitrary selection of Linux distros in the poll..
anyway, I run Debian Linux on all my own computers and the one on my desktop at work.
Company mainly uses SuSE Linux.

 

[Caluser2000]

Yes, PC users tend to do an upgrade (or get a friend to do it) at some point, though it is true that there are still some XP hangers-onners.

Over 20% that access the internet by all accounts. I'd hate to think what the total figure is. Not bad for an OS that's been "replaced" by 3 versions of NT based Windows.

 

[Ole Juul]

Seems like a rather arbitrary selection of Linux distros in the poll..

I'll say. Relegating BSD to "other" also seems like a "statement". lol

 

[Ole Juul]

Re MS-Win XP:

Over 20% that access the internet by all accounts. I'd hate to think what the total figure is. Not bad for an OS that's been "replaced" by 3 versions of NT based Windows.

Interesting. That's quite high, and I wonder how many of those are regular consumers with 10 year old machines, and how many are people who know what they're doing and like to keep what works. I have a feeling that most are people who know what they're doing. From what I see (local sample), people who are not too savvy always have someone (who thinks he is) come along and install Vista or Win-7 and after a bit the machine becomes unpleasant to use and they just buy a new one.

BTW: Are all those versions really based on NT? Pardon my ignorance of the topic, but that's really interesting. That would mean that NT is a very solid OS. It would also indicate that all those different names of supposedly new OSs as announced by Microsoft are not really that different and would probably be better described by major version numbers of NT - adding weight to my suggestion that this poll seems to be more about the desktop environment that the actual OS. I certainly don't think a change of DE counts as a change of OS.

OK, there I am almost trolling again. But if different versions of Debian 2.2 (potato) is going to be lumped together with Debian 6.0 (squeeze) because they both employ a kernel named "Linux", then it would make sense to keep XP, Vista, and Win-7 under the NT category as well. As you suggest, just call them "NT based".

 

[Caluser2000]

Why not just lump all Linux together or go further all *nix? They all look the same at the command line.

Windows
Other

Seems to work.

 

[commodorejohn]

I wonder how many of those are regular consumers with 10 year old machines, and how many are people who know what they're doing and like to keep what works. I have a feeling that most are people who know what they're doing.

I know I'm deliberately sticking with it. I wouldn't mind having a more upgraded core OS, and my daily-driver machines are even fairly well within spec (for a non-Aero environment,) but they've just screwed around with the UI too much in too many aggravatingly pointless ways starting with Vista, and I'm just not going to support that.

BTW: Are all those versions really based on NT? Pardon my ignorance of the topic, but that's really interesting. That would mean that NT is a very solid OS. It would also indicate that all those different names of supposedly new OSs as announced by Microsoft are not really that different and would probably be better described by major version numbers of NT - adding weight to my suggestion that this poll seems to be more about the desktop environment that the actual OS.

Yes, everything from Windows 2000 on up has been NT-based. They do keep upgrading the kernel between versions, mind.

 

[Caluser2000]

I think Ole is just playing. I find it hard to believe anyone that's been into computers as long as he has didn't know that lil factoid.

Surely he didn't believe vista up had Dos at their core?

 

[Ole Juul]

I know I'm deliberately sticking with it. I wouldn't mind having a more upgraded core OS, and my daily-driver machines are even fairly well within spec (for a non-Aero environment,) but they've just screwed around with the UI too much in too many aggravatingly pointless ways starting with Vista, and I'm just not going to support that.

That's the impression I get from MS-Windows users who know a thing or two about computers. Isn't Win-7 fairly sensible though? .. or can be configured to be so?

Yes, everything from Windows 2000 on up has been NT-based. They do keep upgrading the kernel between versions, mind.

I think Ole is just playing. I find it hard to believe anyone that's been into computers as long as he has didn't know that lil factoid.

Actually you'd be surprised at just how many bricks short I am. I only keep up with MS-Windows on the very surface, and rarely actually have the opportunity to try any of those systems, other than to set up somebody's router or something simple like that. On that basic level, MS stuff seems perfectly "normal" to me. (ifconfig is called ipconfig, no big deal) So anyway, the fact is that I did not know that NT had made it this far up the line. All the talk of "new" versions seems to create way too much uproar for me to have suspected that. I see now that old time MS-Windows users can actually carry their skills forward and the changes are not nearly as serious as I've been led to believe. It would, in fact, appear to be on the level of a Linux distro version number - with, say, a change from KDE 3.5 to 4.0 - except people just changed the DE in that case. Frankly, assuming that a machine is already set up, I don't think that a professional with actual work to do, should be very concerned with the DE in general.

Anyway, yes I'm playing a bit, but I was also genuinely ignorant of the significance of NT. It sounds like the earlier versions would be very cool for vintage playing or low resource computing.

Surely he didn't believe vista up had Dos at their core?

Hehe I did know how DOS disappeared, but had forgotten how NT was introduced into the mainstream at some point. (I'll go do a Google now.) I just thought that a whole new OS and kernel was developed in newer versions. Microsoft (and users) certainly made it sound like there was a fundamental shift.

Windows
Other

Seems to work.

Actually, not too badly either. In fact, that was the underlying context of my comment on the poll.

 

[commodorejohn]

That's the impression I get from MS-Windows users who know a thing or two about computers. Isn't Win-7 fairly sensible though? .. or can be configured to be so?

Eh...you can take care of most of the big stuff on Win7 - get a less glitzy theme, use a utility to get the nice, sensible Start menu back, and such. But there's a lot of annoyingly fiddly little stuff that you can't fix - changes in keyboard shortcuts, the fact that Windows Explorer now auto-sorts folder contents so you can't look at the end of a folder you've had open to see the files you just put there, the fact that you can no longer turn off that stupid HTML file/folder pairing, to name a few - that just get in the way of the workflow I've been developing for myself since the days of Windows 95 for no good reason. Basically, they've changed some things that really didn't need changing, and canonized a lot of other annoying changes that they used to allow you to turn off, because I guess someone had a stick up their butt about making sure that everyone was appreciating their work.

I'm told that you can just straight-up replace explorer.exe with the XP version on 32-bit Windows 7, that'd certainly work for me, but I've never tried this.

Anyway, yes I'm playing a bit, but I was also genuinely ignorant of the significance of NT. It sounds like the earlier versions would be very cool for vintage playing or low resource computing.

Yes and no. Pre-Win2k versions of Windows NT can be a bit more finicky to set up than Win3.1 or Win9x, and they also have much less tolerance for DOS programs' hardware tomfoolery (hence they're not nearly as game-friendly,) but they're really quite capable, and very solid.

 

[Caluser2000]

Anyway, yes I'm playing a bit, but I was also genuinely ignorant of the significance of NT. It sounds like the earlier versions would be very cool for vintage playing or low resource computing.

They can be. I've variants of NT 3.x and 4 to tinker with, used NT 4 with usb thumb drives-something MS said couldn't be done. Did a demo here of it, or was it NT 3.51, running from an HPFS partition here at one point IIRC. I also like playing with 2.2.x-2.4.x kernel linux distros just for the hell of it.

XP introduced NT to the mainstream so it's not surprising that there is still a relatively high user base.

 

[Mr.Amiga500]

My primary OS at the moment is OS X 10.5.8 on PowerMac G5. Before 2011, it was BeOS and before 2009, it was Workbench 3.1 on Amiga 500.

(...yes, I'm a little behind the times...)

 

[DOS lives on!!]

I wonder if mac users are prone to ditch their current OS for newer versions faster then PC users do (I expect so).

They do, and I would expect Mac users to be more enthusiastic about it. For Windows users, the thought of all the hassles of upgrading and a more lumpy operating system keeps them attached to their current OS. That is why Windows XP is still thriving on many PCs today--and why those people refuse to upgrade. They've used it for so long and they find it to fit all their needs (confortably). I bet Windows 7 was a new beginning for some of these folk. It greatly improved Vista and runs much faster.

Mac users actually have something to look forward to. To begin with, Mac OS doesn't get such bad scrutiny as Windows does. New versions are packed with enhanced features that appeal to the user. The upgrading process is simpler, although from what I've seen so far, Windows 8 has eased the process. With new features and the air of anticipation surrounding a new OS 10.x, why wouldn't they be motivated to upgrade?

 

[Caluser2000]

My primary OS at the moment is OS X 10.5.8 on PowerMac G5. Before 2011, it was BeOS and before 2009, it was Workbench 3.1 on Amiga 500.

(...yes, I'm a little behind the times...)

Nothing wrong with that at all. Indeed if it works and does what you require of it why not?

Marketing aside I would've thought Mac users in general would hold on to there kit for longer than other commercial platforms.

 

[bezerkus]

PS: Any MS-Windows users who are interested in BSD, I suggest you try PC-BSD as it is targeted specifically at Windows users and works a lot like it. KDE on top and FreeBSD in the back - good concept.

I'm going to have to try this setup! Good suggestion!

 

[nige the hippy]

but had forgotten how NT was introduced into the mainstream at some point. (I'll go do a Google now.) I just thought that a whole new OS and kernel was developed in newer versions. Microsoft (and users) certainly made it sound like there was a fundamental shift.

Funny old business, but for a while at least Microsoft were selling Windows built on "New Technology" with a gigantically capitalised N & T in an effort to distance themselves from the original meaning of NT which was "Northern Telecom" i.e. a half decent version of windows written by someone else that didn't crash every 5 minutes.

(I'm on Debian & although there are sometimes problems at least I haven't paid through the nose for the privelege)

 

[bezerkus]

They do, and I would expect Mac users to be more enthusiastic about it. For Windows users, the thought of all the hassles of upgrading and a more lumpy operating system keeps them attached to their current OS. That is why Windows XP is still thriving on many PCs today--and why those people refuse to upgrade. They've used it for so long and they find it to fit all their needs (confortably). I bet Windows 7 was a new beginning for some of these folk. It greatly improved Vista and runs much faster.

Mac users actually have something to look forward to. To begin with, Mac OS doesn't get such bad scrutiny as Windows does. New versions are packed with enhanced features that appeal to the user. The upgrading process is simpler, although from what I've seen so far, Windows 8 has eased the process. With new features and the air of anticipation surrounding a new OS 10.x, why wouldn't they be motivated to upgrade?

Two different types of camps, one that buys to last, one that leases a new car every couple of years.
First I have heard of features Apple has that Windows + Application does not have. Apple is designed to make as much money on hardware as possible, which is why the upgrade in hardware is more about asthetics and forcibly happens more often. I like upgrading hardware, but when an OS is open enough to run on different hardware with tons of software it is designed to last. The bad press comes from being #1 (ie Apple maps) and greater scrutiny which is usually deserved. What is amazing is an XPS I bought 7 years ago runs Windows 7 and 8 better than it ran XP. Unheard of on a hardware centric ecosystem rather than just a pure OS. It's why Mobile is designed to be thrown away and is just right for Apple. Nothing wrong with that if you like to replace your hardware every 2 years. I tend to want things that work to last a while. Too bad beginning with Windows 8 Microsoft is now in the disposable hardware business like it's rival.