What OS are you running?
 

I am using Windows XP, but I am planning on switching to either Ubuntu or OS X soon.

Windows 2000 SP4.

Great OS highly recommended if you don't want to use Linux.

I am running--amongst the computers in my house--Windows Server 2003, Gentoo Linux, Slackware Linux, and Windows 3.11.
Slackware and Windows 3.11 are on a machine that I don't really use anymore; it sits in my closet.
Server 2003 is on my "main" PC, and Gentoo is on my server-thing.

Sticking with XP................for now.

Windows XP SP2

I hate Windows with a passion, but seeing as though a Mac is a little out of my price range at the moment, I've got no choice.

Windows XP PE. It looks like I'll be sticking with this for a few months, seeing as Vista is out soon.

XP SP2

It's orking fine, but it's giving me a hell of a time setting my DVD-RW to Ultra DMA mode instead of its PIO setting.

I had this problem on another machine recently; it would randomly switch back to PIO after time. The resolution, in this case, was to get the proper driver for the computer's IDE controller. (I doubt you have that issue, though.)

You might want to try uninstalling the device to see if Windows fixes that issue if you haven't done so already.

dual boot:
Ubunutu 5.10
XP pro

XP SP2

It usually works ok, but sometimes it acts weird and screws my entire desktop... o.0

XP Pro SP2

Vista's gonna blow. Except for general Windows bugfixes/stability, which I don't doubt will be improved since they were like starting from the ground up.

I'm running Gentoo Linux happily.
Nice and quick, though I accidentally blew up the imlib library earlier. ;_;

Simply put, that means I lost my desktop and some other related things for a short while.

This laptop has XP Home, desktop computer at home has XP Pro. Haven't really noticed much difference between the two at all, though this laptop's much newer and runs a lot faster even if the specs aren't so greatly different.

XP Pro SP2

I dont really understand peoples problems with Windows XP, as long as you treat it with due care and attention and not let it get riddled with spyware and virus's then it performs quite well with a yearly reformat

There are many people, however, that cannot afford a yearly format. Even so, a yearly format shouldn't be so necessary to keep an OS working the way it should.

Until they port foobar2000, EAC, Kega Fusion... etc. Over to Linux, I'm using Windows XP SP2. With the right tweaking it can *almost* be as lean as Win2k SP4

All Mac, all the time.... i'm using OS 10.3

XP Home. It works fine for me, you just have to treat your computer with gentle care.

Win Xp PE Sp2, it works fine

I have been running the same install of Windows 2000 SP4 for almost two years now (almost 5 in total), and it has proven to be rock-solid (aside from a few driver related issues.) At this rate, I could easily run it for another 5-10 years and not even consdier upgrading.

I've read that Microsoft will not support 2000, 95, 98, or ME starting spring of 2007, or something. All I know is that it's going to be soon, so..good luck with that.

Dualboot:

- Windows XP Pro for games, managing my music collection (the organizing system I've used for years isn't quite compatible with Linux file systems; it would be much less of a hassle if Linux could handle NTFS perfectly, though), software which I've found no equivalent under Linux yet (EAC comes to mind)

- Kubuntu 5.10 for everything else

Before Kubuntu, I had Mandrake Linux, which I've rarely used. Since I switched to Kubuntu, I roughly spend an equal amount of time in each OS.

I'd dualboot, but my HDD space is low and I don't want either OS fiddling with the DST (daylight savings time) settings, they'll cancel each other out. Though I might try a Linux Live CD...

Just so everyone knows, this is how not to make a post in this thread. Say something a little more to accompany your response. Perhaps we could add a poll for people who don't want to say anything.


I use Windows XP (SP2, of course). I'm not particularly fond of it, but it is the most well-supported OS at this point by third-parties. It certainly works well enough on my machine and it takes care of everything I do (Internet, music listening and TV watching, mostly).

If someone could make a port of Win98SE (and Win2k/XP) that would run well under Linux, I'd finally be able to give my illegitimate copy of Win XP the boot, but alas no one has a good system of running ALL DOS/Win9x/WinNT programs under Linux for me (VMWare is too damn slow).

I'm running Windows XP SP2 at the moment, but I'm really excited for the release of Vista later in the year. I also can't wait for Office 12! Despite the negative things people say about Microsoft, the company does have some truly innovative concepts this time around. The new interface, while resource intensive, looks to make using a computer much more streamlined. Here's an article that summarizes some of the pros and cons of Windows Vista:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...1740&ncid=1729

I'll try Vista once all the dust settles and CPU Magazine and GFFers can give my some hard facts and opinions of how the final code works (that and when I get a newer PC).

You really are closed-minded, aren't you?
First, why should those programs be ported when OSS-equivalents exist? wxmusik, amarok, muine, and several other programs function similarly to foobar2000; grip is (IMO) superior to EAC, as it's got less clutter in the configuration and runs much faster for me; no idea about Kega Fusion. Also, Windows XP, when I ran it, was leaner than Windows 2000. :P

Good for you. You do realise DST settings relate to your OS' configuration, and is not controlled by your BIOS?

That's got to be the most unfounded thing I've ever heard on GFF. "Porting" an OS would be impossible, as it would become an entirely different OS. Also, have you heard of DosBox and Wine? They do exactly what you want. In addition, VMWare's only as slow as you make it, though if your computer is weak, it'll be slow no matter what you do.

As a fun fact, foobar2000 runs perfectly in wine, and EAC is still mostly functional under it.

Also, why are you posting a reply "I'll do [x] when [y]" to everyone? It's annoying.

DOSBox has similar results to running DOS games under VMWare. Though if you could find me a link to running Wine under Damn Small Linux, I'd be glad to give that a try. Foobar2000 under the rock solid Linux sounds very appealing, though I still don't trust running EAC under Wine yet (call me pessimistic), I don't know how Linux handles CD-ROM commands.

While I will not attest that DOSBox is perfect, it is in 98% of the cases I hear about. What super-obscure games do you want to play that fail to run well in DOSBox? (I've never had trouble, and that's with something like 150 games.)

Also, what on earth does, "I don't know how Linux handles CD-ROM commands" mean? Could you elaborate a bit? As far as I've been able to tell over the years I've used Linux (or Unix, for that matter), it handles CD-ROM commands much like any other OS, unless I've been missing something. (Sure, the underlying code is different, but the same effects occur.)

I meant for Linux it doesn't support ASPI (to my knowledge), which is what EAC prefers to use (call me paranoid of ripping stablity, I'm an Audiophile). Also DOSBox runs very slowly under my current PC. Duke Nukem 3D doesn't even get 1fps when I run it (DOOM commonly uses 100% CPU time and freezes Windows)!

ASPI !== ultimate ripping security.

Things can be ripped 'excellently' with things like grip on Linux. As a matter of fact, you don't even need ASPI on Windows: an ASPI layer only provides a standard method of communication between the SCSI/ATAPI host adapter and the devices on it, which may or may not result in more desirable performance.

Also, what version of DOSBox have you tried D3D on? It works fine with 0.63 (for me, anyway).

I've been running Win ME for the past 6 or so years and I really like it. I never had problems with it like people keep on telling me how ME sucks and all.(Though I do notice when I Play my machine, I have to rebort every four or so hours depending on the game and etc. Unlike my friend's machine on XP...)

But I am going to get XP as soon as I buy a new machine during the summer... I'll porblay make a thread on which XP to get so this thread doesn't get derailed.

XP SP2. I fooled around with Vista Beta 2 in fall last year but lost interest fast as everything so so much slower and my 5.1 sound wouldn't work.

I've also been known to dabble in teh loonicks (Mandrake/Mandriva, particularly), but Windows XP truly is a superior operating system.

I actually have a slow 700MHz PC. And it recommends a fast (I'm sure 3GHz is high, but I don't even have 1/4 of that) PC, I just can't compete with the high system requirements. I mainly run DOOM, Duke3D, Dungeon Keeper, Sim City 2000 amoung others when I play DOS games.

I'm running Windows 98SE. It's pretty sad, really. The computer started out with Windows ME, and when that eventually crapped out, I had XP for 30 days until it stopped working. I couldn't afford to buy anything, so I just had my aunt install Windows 98 on it.

Actually Win98SE is not a bad OS as far as pre-Win2k is concerned. It's by far the best Win9x OS you can get. The only real disadvantages would be the lack of stability/security and the fact most newer programs won't run (the big upside is Win98 has reallly low system requirements). About WinXP, if your copy was legit, you should have activated it. If it wasn't, you should just pick up the Corporate Edition, which is on almost any site that has Windows torrents.

I couldn't activate it because it had already been activated on another computer. It just wouldn't let me do it, because that's not allowed, apparently. Back then, I don't think I knew that BitTorrent even existed, so that wasn't an option.

Well if you're happy with Windows 98SE, I wouldn't change anything, sometimes keeping things the same is a good thing (provided you have no major gripes about using Win98).

dual booting:
XP Media Center Edition 2005
Vista Build 5270

Surprising the vista build is stable for me, the only real problem i'm having is with my Audigy 2 sound card, which is a known problem.

The gripes I have likely stem from my other specifications, and have little to do with the OS. But I really don't know. 128 MB RAM, 800 MHz processor. And my pitiful 19 GB hard drive. Not exactly good.

According to your specs Windows 2000 would work wonders for you (I run XP on a 700MHz with 128MB RAM, Win2k would run even better). As long as you don't run DOS or old Windows programs (old meaning Windows 3.1), it should run fine for you.

On BigShell I'm running Gentoo Linux with KDE, and dual-booting Windows XP Home for high-end gaming (though Linux works fine for most emulators and it also has a huge selection of independent games).

I've also got Gentoo running on OuterHeaven which is a Powerbook G3 Lombard (1999). Found a nice, little window manager called wmi that lets you use the keyboard for everything, which is great because I hate using a trackpad.

I'm using Windows XP SP 1, and this desktop will remain running on it for some time. This summer, however, I'll buy a new Mactel laptop, which will be running OS X Tiger, of course.

I'm gonna call bullshit on you here.
This is advertising, and I hope your post gets deleted. A pathetic PR stunt.
Yes, I am being crude and uncivilized here, but you sir take the fucking cake. Even fanboys of Microsoft can keep their sperm inside their person while discussing the various virtues of the Windows OS. You are probably paid to do this, and it is fucking sickening.

That said, I have dual boot for Debian 3.11 and Windows XP SP1. My eventual goal is to rely solely on linux distros. It's not quite feasable right now because I'm still learning (took me 4 hours to install KDE when it turns out all I needed was apt-get install kde :tpg:). Once I get the hang of Debian and CLI, I think I'll be switching forever. For now though, XP is where it's at.

yes neus, i thought he was a bit overenthusiastic about office 12 too....

i'm running windows xp sp1. i really don't like sp2- it fucked around with zonealarm and internet access, and kept saying my antivirus is out of date, which it isn't.

anyway, i'm not looking forward to vista and i'm not trying to get out of using windows-- i have too many programs that are rooted in what i'm doing. from the 20 or so winamp plugins that i rely on for music formats to the 3 programs i use to develop music / software in DOS, i can't switch. well, i guess i could, but it'd be painful and annoying, which i don't want.

Currently running Windows XP Pro, but will probably try out Ubuntu Linux on a laptop soon.

I'd try out linux, but the first thing I'd do is look for tools / programs to allow me to run windows programs. I don't ecounter any problems with windows at all - any problems or crashes for me are caused either by 3rd party drivers or programs. And those happen extremely rarely.

So I'll stick with my XP SP1 and be happy with it.

IMO, trying to run Windows programs in Linux, while very possible, is somewhat pointless. Many people have taken it upon themselves to write programs to allow them to do what could previously only be done in Windows. You'd be surprised just how many open-source programs do just what you're looking for.

Agreed.
Linux has been my primary operating system for over two years now and I've come to do everything with it, exept for some things that really need Windows (which is an XP-SP2 I reach via dual boot with Grub). You know, some games, some apps they make me use at college.

The most curious thing about using Linux is, how you whole perception of software gradually changes. It becomes an issue for you wether a program is "open source" or just "freeware". You scratch your head when installing something on Windows by first browsing to its website, download the *.exe, run it, go through the setup and probably clean up after it (you know, those autostart nazis among programs). After a while you have a couple of those fancy command line tricks up your sleeve, not so much because you couldn't do it through graphical/mouse driven means (those days are mostly gone, thank god) but it's just faster.

Well, to balance things out a bit, I think M$ certainly did a lot to push graphical interfaces in general and some of their mantainance progs are easier to use than a command line. But as mentioned before, the last point is gradually fading and the lack of choice and open standards really puts me off by now.

If you feel like trying it, I'd recommend the Ubuntu or SuSE distribution. And it wouldn't hurt to have a friend over with some experience to spare. (I once did this break-in-ritual over phone ... distance call - you get the idea.)

I stick with Windows XP SP2 for the most part. I haven't encountered any major problems yet, but it was a large improvement from using Windows 98 for a few years.

I'm running Mac OSX 10.3.9 and do plan to get the new iMac with the Intel cores soon. :biggrin:

Windows XP Pro SP2 on most of my machines and all my laptops. Two of my linux boxes run Fedora Core 4, but the linux box I mainly use is running Ubuntu 5.10.

At my house, we use Windows 2000. We took this shift maybe a year and a half ago (?) mainly due to us being familiar with how 98 works. XP is just too stylish.

I'm running Windows XP MCE 2005 Roll-Up 2. It's not exactly the most stable OS I've used but its pretty fun to play with. People say MCE isn't very gaming friendly since it focuses mostly on multimedia. I can't tell the difference because I couldn't play games on my old PC which barely ran Windows XP/2000. Since I have two HDDs now I was thinking about installing Windows XP Pro on the other drive and duelboot to see how it would run games compared to MCE. However I'm not sure if its worth all the trouble, because I really like using MCE and the only game I play is World of Warcraft.

For the moment, my desktop has Windows XP home edition, and my laptop has Windows XP Professional SP2. However, I'm debating on whether I should use Linspire Five O or Ubuntu for my desktop's OS in the near future.

I've got Windows XP Pro on one of my computers, and Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition. Both of those licenses are free from my school, so that is awesome.
I also have numerous other servers licenses, and about 3 other xp pro ones, but one is being used by a friend of mine, so I guess I only have 2 available.

Currently.. CentOS.. until I get a new computer and it'll be Gentoo

Windows XP, ubuntu Linux. Waiting until intel based mac OS is available.

Windows XP Pro and the latest version of Ubtuntu. Thinking about switching distros again though, every one I try has at least one major annoyance (ie, Ubuntu doesn't like my soundcard. Neither does Fedora Core 4. Debian seems to think I have no hard drives! One day, I'll find one that works...!)

Has anyone tried running an OS on a console? I'm curious to see how Linux would run on a Dreamcast...

I do remember hearing about that sometime in the past, this is what google turned up though. Pretty Cool. :)

http://www.m17n.org/linux-sh/dreamcast/

I wonder if twm is the only window manager that will run on that distro. If so, that's a tad bit depressing. Though, I suppose, it's not meant to look nice; it's a proof of concept.

I ought to try it out with a friend's Dreamcast...

On my oldest computer (1.3 ghz), I use Windows 2000, pretty stable for me.
On my desktop (3.2 ghz), I have a dual-boot with Windows XP Professional and SUSE Linux 10.
On my laptop, I have Windows XP Home, but I plan on upgrading it to Pro sometime soon.

Desktop: Gentoo Linux, Windows XP
Laptop: Gentoo Linux
Fileserver: Gentoo Linux

Windows XP (Home Edition) and Mac OS X at home.
Windows 2000 (Professional Edition) at work.

Windows 2000 sp4
I got winXP at work, but don't like it much.

Hmm, this is what I like about the Dreamcast, it's so much more hackable than any other console system. Too bad I lack the DC cable modem, the I could try GFF on a Dreamcast...

Of course, Xbox Linux and Gamecube Linux and PS2 Linux exist, too.

Yes but I would need to mod my PS2 to play the game. Or order the discontinued official PS2 Linux distro, and the latter option would cost me over $150 on eBay.

gaming rig: Windows XP sp2 and ubuntu 5.10 - Same as Shadow Drex, ubuntu just won't use my soundcard. It'll make sounds but it'll make your ears bleed. Right now I'm checking out Debian and Berry Linux.
server: Windows XP sp1 (for now)
laptop: Windows XP sp2
old computer that I consider a backup (P3 600MHz): Windows 2000 sp4

Laptop -- XP Media Center SP2
Big PC -- XP SP2
Baby Cube -- XP SP2

Nothing flashy as far as OS'es go.

I have been using Windows ME and just recently upgraded to XP. So far, I'm no too impressed. Maybe it's because I liked the simplicity of ME. :fish:

Xperience because it works just fine.

Windows 98 se, the best os in the world.

Mac OS X 10.4.5 Tiger, the OS of champions.

Too bad most newer programs don't run on Win98, they all have gone to the lands of Windows XP.

I'm using Windows XP Home Edition SP2,of course is better than Win98 or WinME

Too bad it's unstable on anything faster than a 500 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM.

My main computer runs Windows XP SP2. Every other computer I touch is pretty much the same. Unless you count what I usually use at college, which is some version of Sun Solaris using some version CDE.

I have Windows XP Home SP2 on my desktop, and my laptop has Windows XP Professional SP2 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 both stuffed onto one 40GB drive. My parents' computer runs Windows XP, too, and my old desktop runs Windows 98SE.

Nothing weird and exciting like Solaris or OS/2 or anything, sorry.

XP Pro, would be using 2000, but Battlefield 2 won't let me. :(

I'm using Windows XP Home Edition now, but I used to use Winsdow 2000.

Windows XP Home SP2 for me. I should have got Professional instead. But since I'm just playing games, doing some light codings and posting on online forums, I don't think I think special OS.

I'm running OS X 10.4 and occasionally XP Pro in a virtual machine.

Will likely be adding a PC sometime, and it'll either be running XP Home or Media Center. Now, assuming that this is just going to be a regular machine, is there any advantage/disadvantage to getting the media center edition instead of home? I'm going to get whatever comes with a 'good buy' computer anyways, and thus a Pro edition isn't an option.

No, you WANT Pro because Home is a heaping pile of useless shit.

Unless you don't want any flexibility in configuring your computer what-so-ever.

I don't know if Media Center is based on Home or Pro, but I'm leaning towards Home.

Media Center is based on XP Pro 2002. As I said earlier it's a 'fun' OS to play with, but not as stable as XP Home or Pro. If you want to be able to use your PC like a DVR/DVD and record/watch TV/DVDs with it, MCE is the OS for you. It was built for multimedia purposes. The downside is all the neat little gadgets that come with MCE hog background resources, so you'll want a PC thats at least 2+GHz and has 1+GB of RAM if you plan on playing games with it too. I can post some screenshots if anyone wants to see what the Media Center interface looks like.

Also, alot of OEM PCs w/MCE come with problems out of the box. Theres a hardware glitch that causes MCE to crash/freeze while you're watching TV/Recorded TV and no one knows a real solution to fix it. Theres a Windows Update that claims to fix this problem but for most people it makes it worse or doesn't fix it at all. My PC came with this problem and I wasn't able to fix it until after reinstalling MCE for the third time and reinstalled the update.

It is based off of XP Pro, however MCE still lacks the ability to join an Active Directory Domain like XP Home. This is something to consider if you ever plan on joining a domain.


Anyway, I'm running XP Pro on my main desktop and my laptop. I gave up trying to use Linux as a desktop OS. I found it completely counterproductive and usually spent more time trying to get Linux to do something I needed it to do than I spend worrying about security issues with Windows XP.

I'm well aware of Pro's advantages over home. The reason it's not an option when buying a new machine is because any oem I'd be buying from would not change the OS that comes with the bargain machine. Thanks for your input, but my query was only with regards to which OS of the two available would be better or if anything would really be different. It's a stop gap measure until I put a better, more costly OS on it.

Double Post:
Guest, Cetra, thanks for your insight on MCE, as I've not used it. Sounds like home is the way to go at the same pricepoint. Neither is going to do anything I care about over the other, and if I'm using a mediocre OS (home), it might as well have a few less headaches than the other mediocre OS (MCE).

All depends on the sales though. ^^

You do realize you could easily download WinXP Pro, most online versions don't require activation (this version called the Corporate or Volume Licensed Edition). And there's a very easy way to get past the Windows Genuine Advantage check that comes with manual usage of Windows Update and downloading from the Microsoft site.

I don't pirate software anymore, hence, not going to do that. The XP Pro I'm using in virtual PC is not a legal copy, but I'll remove it when I get a real PC. I appreciate the thought though.

On my main comp I run Windows XP Pro SP2 Int. My Laptop runs 2000 Pro because anything else would make it explode.

I have copies of the December CTP of Vista, I might have the February CTP but I don't think so. I have Intel's Tiger 10.4.5 also. I plan on testing them as soon as my external decides to work again.

I actually have shitloads of valid XP keys, just not for Pro, only Home. I also have valid keys for older versions of Windows too. Might have a 2000 Pro one, have 98SE, and countless ME serials.

Well I guess you could just save for Windows Vista when it comes out. Unless you really tweak Windows or use Windows in a businesslike environment, you're not missing out on too much by using Windows XP Home (plus why pay an extra $100 for an OS very similar to the one you already have?).

I use Windows 2000 SP4 for the most part. A few months ago I installed Windows XP64 just to see how well it performed on my system (which is supposedly ideally suited for it, with a couple of Opterons on the motherboard). Performance was a little bit slower, but I appreciate the PowerNow! support which can stop my ears from bleeding due to fan noise, unlike in Windows 2000 where I need to use RMClock to get a similar effect and it tends to be unreliable anyway.

Woo! It's Spring Break! I left my PC at school and am now running Tiger on my 400Mhz Macintosh G4. I can't wait until the Intel version of OS X is stable enough to install on my PC, because I definitely prefer it to Windows (although the Terminal leaves much to be desired).

Are you saying Terminal leaves much to be desired compared to Window's command line? If so, what?

Only issue I have with it is that when switching between DOS and Unix command lines I will often mix up commands. It's amazing how poorly ls works in Windows. You can try, and try, and try. ^^

Double Post:
I do a great deal of networking, so it's going to run 2000 server, 2003, Vista etc. So testing an XP Pro environment is something I'm going to be doing. The Home vs. MCE issue is only because I'm going to get one for 'free', so it might as well be that which is most suitable in the immediate future.

lol, of course not. I rarely, if ever, need to use DOS in Windows. But OS X's Terminal doesn't seem to read extended keys properly. I normally use Home and End to go the beginning and end of a line instead of the top and bottom of a document. Actually, you can set them to do that, but for some reason it doesn't work in vim. And then when you set it so it works in vim, it doesn't work on the command line. I'm sure there's a solution, but it's probably better to just get used to the default layout.

Hahahahaha, have you ever used some of the things that Windows XP Pro has that Windows Home doesn't?

And I'm not talking about domains and shit, I'm talking about the stuff they don't tell you that's not in Home that's in Pro.

Have fun trying to create users other than Administrators or Users, sharing your things over the network with any decent control, or otherwise, administrating your computer decently.

And any XP doesen't handle these jobs decently to begin with. From what I've heard, the Home and Pro editions are actually just a few registry changes apart, is that true?

More or less, here a list of things that windows xp pro has over windows xp home:

- SMP support (multi-processor support)
- Roaming user profiles
- Remote desktop
- Access control
- Encrypting file system
- Offline files and folders
- Remote installation service
- Windows server domain support
- Group policy
- Software installation and maintenance
- Multi-lingual user interface support

Wait a minute...
Theoretically, in virtue of the fact that Home can use NTFS, shouldn't it have an "encrypting file system"?

Also, as a note, group policy in XP affects all users: don't expect to restrict specific users from things with it. (Granted, the policy editor in XP can be very useful for modification purposes alone.)

It should, yet I'm on a windows xp home machine and the EFS option is grayed out :(.

At the moment, I'm running SuSE OSS 10.0 on my AMD64 Box, and MacOS 10.4.5 on the PowerPC box :P

Getting a little peeved with SuSE as it won't play any MP3s copied from the Mac via FTP...Switching to Fedora Core :)

I do rember there being some registry hack you can use to use EFS on WinXP Home. I wouldn't know if it works or not, because I use WinXP Pro.

Eh, I really (personally,) wouldn't recommend Fedora. It's OK, but you can do better. Ubuntu is what I recommend, but you won't have MP3 support right off the bat.

But, hey, you'll definitely learn something out of it.

Have you checked out Packman? It has a few packages left out of SuSE for legal reasons.

I use Windows XP. Mainly because I have figured out how to use it so well that if I were to switch, I would have to learn everything all over again. I just hope that I have enough money to get the new version of Windows when it comes out in the next while or so.

Yeah, might just do that :) Thanks guys...

Methinks I'll be reinstalling SuSE then :P

Though you should consider that Windows Vista will revamp several concepts as well, so wether you give an alternate operating system a try which you can legaly obtain for free or buy an expensive upgrade for your Windows, there will be re-learning involved either way. And it's not like every single aspect of, say Linux, is so otherworldly different from Windows, not anymore.

Relearning an OS isn't that hard. In fact if you don't deeply tweak or probe your OS, you won't notice too many differences between how to use Win98SE and WinXP (which is how it should be).

I mac :D on 10.4 ;)
and runs XP Pro virtually when theres a need to.

not many mac useres around here huh o.O

I use Windows XP for gaming and chatting with my people and offline I use ubuntu because its just cool when I get all those "WTF Looks" when I start ubuntu

Those same looks, when compiling something in Gentoo, get magnified ten times. "Did you write all that?!?!?!?"
"Uhh... no."

Nope, not too many, but there's a cadre of us. Before the crash we had a sort of "Mac Users" thread that contained a lot of chat on all things Mac (including requests for help), but that was lost. Maybe one of us should re-make it.

I use Windows XP Pro primarily. I run a separate, slower Linux box with SuSE 10 on it. It's has a Samba server, and acts as primary domain controller so my two little brothers can have roaming profiles, since we have so many computers in the house of varying speeds.

I'm curious if you're going to get MacOSX for the x86 platform. There's a lot of buzz about this, finally you'll be able to dual boot Windows (for all those programs greedy authors won't port) and OSX.
Me? I heven't used a Mac since I graduated from high school (June 2005), I did have a lot of fun getting root access on the school PCs though.

As of yet, a way to dual boot OSX and Windows on the x86 Macs hasn't been found.

Apple's use of EFI (Without BIOS compatibility/emulation) with 32bit chips means that you can't use the EFI compatible Windows (Those intended for Itanium), because they are 64bit only. The 32bit versions of Windows don't work because they require BIOS instead of EFI.

The really sad news is that it appears that Vista will not include EFI support until the release of 'Longhorn Server' in 2007. So what everyone thought would be the easy way of dual booting those two OSes is looking pretty grim. http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/03/10/0526237.shtml

XP Professional SP2. So far so good.

I wanted to try Linux yet I don't know what will I use. SuSE, Mandrake, Fedora, and Ubuntu makes it confusing as ever.

Yeah, but isn't there hacks of OSX that allow it to run on regular Windows PCs? I know it's not official or anything but it's a start,

Well, yeah, that's the easy solution.

However, it's pretty much useless if you want it the other way around.

How long do you think transitioning to Vista will take? I'm all okay with XP right now. I haven't found their new GUI aero glass really necessary yet. Their new search integration and other various add-ons may be good. They're constantly stressing how you need a "powerful" computer just to run it well. Anyone know if it runs fine with all the gfx options off?

Windows XP Professional, with most of the graphic crap turned off. Tried a dual-boot with Fedora Core 4 that went over pretty well, so as soon as I find a bigger laptop HDD (no less than 60gb), then I'll reinstall it along with XP.

As far as Vista goes, I don't think my laptop would be able to handle it!!

I run Windows XP Pro SP1 due to a recent upgrade (motherboard, graphics card.)
Don't see myself upgrading it to SP2, it works so i'm not going to break it.

Still running Windows XP SP1 as well. I'm not touching SP2 since, well as Domino said, its (SP1) working well.


I wanted to install Ubuntu as well, but meh.. no space >_< Sad....

OK, amongst my many systems:
Ubuntu 6.06 Dapper Drake (Laptop)
Gentoo Linux (Desktop)
Windows XP SP 2 (Mother's desktop)
Windows 98 (Second laptop, only used to connect to my Yamaha keyboard)

I've been a near-exclusive Linux user for years (only dropping to Windows for the odd game here and there), and have yet to have any serious issues with it.. Or I should say that all the problems I have had are from me experimenting with cutting edge pre-alpha software (can anyone say xgl + compiz?)

A lot of people I know have various issues with Compiz, for example, so I think that's fine.
Granted, it took ages for rtorrent to compile for me...

I'm running an XP SP2 Professional edition laptop.

Can't say I'm enjoying the OS though, my computer has really started to get bogged down and attempts to clean up the mess have been pretty futile. Reformatting also has turned into a non-option since the amount of data I have has now surpassed the amount of storage I have. What a predicament.

Once Leopard comes out though, I might get a Macbook Pro. They're looking great.

Here, Windows XP Professional SP2 (US) and sometimes, a brazillian version of Linux Knopix (called Kurumin).

:)

Windows XP Home Edition upstairs on desktop PC.

Mac OSX 10.4.6 Tiger everywhere I go on my Powerbook G4.

The latter has taken over completely.

Windows XP Pro SP2.

How many different OSes do people REALLY use anyway?

Windows, Mac OS X, or some variant of Linux. Everything else is pretty marginal.

Hey, that was an EASY question!

My gaming comp runs XP Pro.

My laptop runs Ubuntu but I'm going to switch it over to Gentoo here pretty soon because Ubuntu runs unbelievably slow on it - even slower than Windows XP does.

I have 3 other machines in various states of disrepair that I all run off Ubuntu Live CDs.

On my laptop I have winxp pro, while on my desktop I'm dual booting winxp and winxp64 - the 32bit os on the bigger 300gb hdd, and then xp64 on the smaller 80gb hdd.

I can definatly notice how much faster 64 bit windows loads, and how the 64bit apps run much faster.

My three desktop computers use Windows XP Pro SP2 with a server running Windows 2003 SP1 and my two laptops both with Windows XP Home.

Currently using VMware to run multiple versions of windows xp sp2 on the server to help me with my networking skills.

Yep.
Anyone here ever met an actual BSD user?

Yep, there was this guy at college who ran everything *BSD. I tried it for a few days, but felt better off with Linux. Hardware support is bad enough as it is with Linux, with BSD it must be worse.

Then again, technically anybody who uses Mac OS X is a BSD user...

Slackware Linux 10.2 with kernel 2.4.32.

Windows XP SP2 on all three of my machines, the perfect OS.
I had Ubuntu with Fluxbox on my laptop earlier, but I got sick of all the fiddling. I just want to use my OS, launch my apps, type homework, print it out and so on. Ubuntu required way more fiddling with everything, so I switched back to Windows.

I'm using Windows XP SP2 on my main computer, but our home domain controller is running SuSE 10. I like SuSE, but using Windows will probably always be more comfortable; kind of like a first language.

I'm currently using Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.

Win XP Pro 64 edition.
Win XP Home on the other computer.

Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. I mean, is there anything else?

Oh, laptop runs XP SP2, web server runs Linux.

My home network's primary domain controller runs NT Server.
Except it doesn't.
Except I have no primary domain controller.