What OS is the best?

[Statutory Ray]

Games aren't going to run any better for Linux if your computer simply can't handle them. ESPECIALLY since you'll be "emulating" them with WINE or Cedega. Your main OS might run better (I doubt it, really) but that's about it. You might just want to look into getting a new PC and sticking to Windows if you want to play any games.

 

edit: With the attitude you've got though, you might as well try it out and realize how misguided you are. Forcing yourself into using Linux isn't going to make you better with computers, networking, or IT as a whole, it's just going to make you better with Linux. I've met too many kids who think they're f*cking whizzes because they installed Ubuntu on their computer and set up a network or some sh*t.

 

If Windows runs like sh*t it's likely because a) your PC isn't that great, b) you don't know how to manage an installation of ANY OS, or c) all of the above. Linux isn't going to fix anything and I look forward to seeing you come back complaining because you couldn't figure something out.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Statutory Ray

[adiohead]

i use OSX leopard and XP

i wouldn't touch vista with a sh*tty stick!

 

might try out ubuntu on a partition as i've heard only good things

 

microsoft: "i'm a pc"

apple: "i'm a mac AND a pc"

 

 

[GTASIX]

windows XP all the way. Of course apple say "our os is better than windows". Its their biggest competitor.

 

 

 

 

And theres no need for a touch sensitive right click....

[Democrab]

I love it when people say Vista sucks, in 90% of cases, its the same bullsh*t that people regurgitate every new Windows release, but didn't seem to die down for Vista.

 

Performance is better than XP if you have Service Pack 1 for Vista.

The extra RAM used is given up when another program wants it.

The OS itself is a hell of a lot faster than XP ever was.

It doesn't slow down as you install/uninstall more and more programs like XP.

 

 

 

Still, Ubuntu 8.10 is way better than Vista or XP.

[DeeperRed]

i use OSX leopard and XP

i wouldn't touch vista with a sh*tty stick!

 

might try out ubuntu on a partition as i've heard only good things

 

microsoft: "i'm a pc"

apple: "i'm a mac AND a pc"

More like

 

Microsoft: "Hi, I'm a PC"

Apple: "Hi, I'm a fasion icon"

 

I use OSX, Vista, XP and Unbuntu.

Vista mostly since its on my Gaming rig but now theres an i7 in there I use it for video encoding and editing and gave my Mac to my sister.

 

Mac's are good to play around with in the store but thats about it. Apple charge REDICULOUS prices for them, especially since there hardware ain't great.

My friend his MacBook brought into school, about 6 of us where playing COD:WAW over Lan and he wanted to join in BUT he couldn't because Mac's don't like videogames and the hardware is not optimized for windows so using bootcamp the game ran like sh*t.

 

Ubuntu is fun, and I like on my laptop because its fast and swift and nVidia also support Linux now so drivers are very easy to get

[jelly]

Did anyone even read the original post? He said he didn't play games much any more, so he wants to try something new. That means little games being available for Linux is irrelevant. That means WINE being a load of crap is irrelevant.

 

Should sign you all up to reading lessons.

[Saggy]

I just craftily nicked my old laptop from my mum (the other needs to be sent off for repair anyway, buggered screen.) and it has XP.

 

It's less powerful than my other laptop that has 1GB of RAM, while this one has 222MB. And yet it runs quicker! Granted that may be because there's less sh*t on it but even for a 2 year old laptop it's still pretty quick.

 

Hopefully after my one comes back off repair I might like it aga-

 

Oh who the f*ck am I kidding. I hate Vista.

1Gb of RAM on Vista?

 

No-Wonder its slow, Get 2Gb RIGHT NOW. Vista is great once you have 2Gb of RAM.

Linux is great with 1 GB. My point? You shouldn't have to buy more RAM just to get your OS to run better.

 

 

Anyway, if you just want to try something new, then trying out Debian/Ubuntu might be fun. Then again, there's not really a terrible amount of difference for those without some niche to use it. I mean, gamers stick to Windows OSs because it's the most optimal platform for games, and developers/programmers or maybe network guys stick to Linux/UNIX because it's more optimal for that sort of thing.

 

As far as just browsing the web, using Skype, maybe playing some older games, there's not going to be a lot of difference. Gaming will be worse if anything; your performance in Windows will definitely outmatch what you can get emulating it with WINE. You might just find that you can run more tasks with less lag, which might be what you want.

 

 

At the end of the day, the only reason I'd say Linux is really the winning OS for no particular application, is because it's free and it runs a little better on low-profile hardware--though even that should be taken with a grain of salt, the newer Ubuntu/Debian desktop distributions are a little more intensive than your average Linux server.

[Democrab]

 

I just craftily nicked my old laptop from my mum (the other needs to be sent off for repair anyway, buggered screen.) and it has XP.

 

It's less powerful than my other laptop that has 1GB of RAM, while this one has 222MB. And yet it runs quicker! Granted that may be because there's less sh*t on it but even for a 2 year old laptop it's still pretty quick.

 

Hopefully after my one comes back off repair I might like it aga-

 

Oh who the f*ck am I kidding. I hate Vista.

1Gb of RAM on Vista?

 

No-Wonder its slow, Get 2Gb RIGHT NOW. Vista is great once you have 2Gb of RAM.

Linux is great with 1 GB. My point? You shouldn't have to buy more RAM just to get your OS to run better.

XP runs well with 1Gb, If your computer has less than 2Gb, Chances are, you only check emails and browse internet, or have a really old computer, so why would you want to run Vista anyway? Even my mums cheapo Dell came with 3Gb.

 

And I'd have to buy more RAM to get Linux to run on my old PC, it has about 2Mb RAM, so you have to upgrade your amount of RAM to get any OS to run better, more RAM is better anyway, it makes Everything faster, unless you are upgrading from 8Gb to 12Gb or something.

[Saggy]

I just craftily nicked my old laptop from my mum (the other needs to be sent off for repair anyway, buggered screen.) and it has XP.

 

It's less powerful than my other laptop that has 1GB of RAM, while this one has 222MB. And yet it runs quicker! Granted that may be because there's less sh*t on it but even for a 2 year old laptop it's still pretty quick.

 

Hopefully after my one comes back off repair I might like it aga-

 

Oh who the f*ck am I kidding. I hate Vista.

1Gb of RAM on Vista?

 

No-Wonder its slow, Get 2Gb RIGHT NOW. Vista is great once you have 2Gb of RAM.

Linux is great with 1 GB. My point? You shouldn't have to buy more RAM just to get your OS to run better.

XP runs well with 1Gb, If your computer has less than 2Gb, Chances are, you only check emails and browse internet, or have a really old computer, so why would you want to run Vista anyway? Even my mums cheapo Dell came with 3Gb.

 

And I'd have to buy more RAM to get Linux to run on my old PC, it has about 2Mb RAM, so you have to upgrade your amount of RAM to get any OS to run better, more RAM is better anyway, it makes Everything faster, unless you are upgrading from 8Gb to 12Gb or something.

You had a PC with 2 MB of RAM?

 

Did it look like this? http://www.digibarn.com/collections/system...8800/altair.jpg

[Democrab]

I just craftily nicked my old laptop from my mum (the other needs to be sent off for repair anyway, buggered screen.) and it has XP.

 

It's less powerful than my other laptop that has 1GB of RAM, while this one has 222MB. And yet it runs quicker! Granted that may be because there's less sh*t on it but even for a 2 year old laptop it's still pretty quick.

 

Hopefully after my one comes back off repair I might like it aga-

 

Oh who the f*ck am I kidding. I hate Vista.

1Gb of RAM on Vista?

 

No-Wonder its slow, Get 2Gb RIGHT NOW. Vista is great once you have 2Gb of RAM.

Linux is great with 1 GB. My point? You shouldn't have to buy more RAM just to get your OS to run better.

XP runs well with 1Gb, If your computer has less than 2Gb, Chances are, you only check emails and browse internet, or have a really old computer, so why would you want to run Vista anyway? Even my mums cheapo Dell came with 3Gb.

 

And I'd have to buy more RAM to get Linux to run on my old PC, it has about 2Mb RAM, so you have to upgrade your amount of RAM to get any OS to run better, more RAM is better anyway, it makes Everything faster, unless you are upgrading from 8Gb to 12Gb or something.

You had a PC with 2 MB of RAM?

 

Did it look like this? http://www.digibarn.com/collections/system...8800/altair.jpg

No, It has an AT case and a 286 (I think, never tried to run DOS on it to find out.)

[Picolini]

 

I just craftily nicked my old laptop from my mum (the other needs to be sent off for repair anyway, buggered screen.) and it has XP.

 

It's less powerful than my other laptop that has 1GB of RAM, while this one has 222MB. And yet it runs quicker! Granted that may be because there's less sh*t on it but even for a 2 year old laptop it's still pretty quick.

 

Hopefully after my one comes back off repair I might like it aga-

 

Oh who the f*ck am I kidding. I hate Vista.

1Gb of RAM on Vista?

 

No-Wonder its slow, Get 2Gb RIGHT NOW. Vista is great once you have 2Gb of RAM.

Linux is great with 1 GB. My point? You shouldn't have to buy more RAM just to get your OS to run better.

You shouldn't have to spend hours and hours to get your OS to operate how you'd like either.

 

Win/lose, either way. I'd personally spend an extra $25 in RAM for the convenience.

 

And really, over time it's only natural that OS's will take up more resources. Either that or you'll be stuck with the same features. While they could add a few new features each build and keep the OS nearly as light, it's easier and cheaper to do it as MS has, especially since PC components are getting cheaper and cheaper as time passes. While the PC's we have right now would run early OSs and Linux fast as sh*t, those OS's don't have the same features as current OS's do.

 

Compare it to cars. It's like saying "you should have to have a stronger engine to move a car with AC, full stereo system, heated leather seats, onboard nav, etc etc." Add all that weight and you can't expect it to go as fast.

Is Vista in particular bloated? Probably. But 99% of the time I have no problem with 2GB of $25, 800MHz DDR2 RAM.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Picolini

[Saggy]

I just craftily nicked my old laptop from my mum (the other needs to be sent off for repair anyway, buggered screen.) and it has XP.

 

It's less powerful than my other laptop that has 1GB of RAM, while this one has 222MB. And yet it runs quicker! Granted that may be because there's less sh*t on it but even for a 2 year old laptop it's still pretty quick.

 

Hopefully after my one comes back off repair I might like it aga-

 

Oh who the f*ck am I kidding. I hate Vista.

1Gb of RAM on Vista?

 

No-Wonder its slow, Get 2Gb RIGHT NOW. Vista is great once you have 2Gb of RAM.

Linux is great with 1 GB. My point? You shouldn't have to buy more RAM just to get your OS to run better.

You shouldn't have to spend hours and hours to get your OS to operate how you'd like either.

 

Win/lose, either way. I'd personally spend an extra $25 in RAM for the convenience.

 

And really, over time it's only natural that OS's will take up more resources. Either that or you'll be stuck with the same features. While they could add a few new features each build and keep the OS nearly as light, it's easier and cheaper to do it as MS has, especially since PC components are getting cheaper and cheaper as time passes. While the PC's we have right now would run early OSs and Linux fast as sh*t, those OS's don't have the same features as current OS's do.

 

Compare it to cars. It's like saying "you should have to have a stronger engine to move a car with AC, full stereo system, heated leather seats, onboard nav, etc etc." Add all that weight and you can't expect it to go as fast.

Is Vista in particular bloated? Probably. But 99% of the time I have no problem with 2GB of $25, 800MHz DDR2 RAM.

The only distributions that take "hours" to setup are niche ones geared towards those that want to get real up-close to Linux. There are very slight learning curves with Debian/Ubuntu style distributions, that can be over-come by simply reading. This guy has already said he wants to try new things, so I'm pretty sure he's willing to do that.

 

As far as the car comparison goes, if I had to spend time to install my own air-conditioning and stereo equipment, but got the engine for free, I would definitely learn how to do my own air-conditioning and stereo equipment.

 

 

I already addressed the resources misconception, so I'm not going to make another sh*tty comparison with cars to compliment the one I already made. The only place Linux's capability to run on low resource platforms are in niche areas. I mean, I suppose one could argue that because most supercomputers run Linux, it's superior, but that's not practical to say. That's why I wouldn't make the argument that Linux is better because it will run on a Pentium II with 128 MB of RAM; no one should be running that kind of equipment for anything but light server work. The point I was making is that you definitely don't need 2 GB of RAM to run Linux for what he wants, even in the more beefy distributions, so I don't see why one could argue that you need it to run Vista and still defend it. Doesn't that represent something that should be pointed out to someone considering Linux?

[adiohead]

More like

 

Microsoft: "Hi, I'm a PC"

Apple: "Hi, I'm a fasion icon"

think i hit a nerve

 

i have both mac's and pc's.

 

 

Mac's are good to play around with in the store but thats about it.

 

that is total bs and you now it.

most albums you listen to will have been recorded on macs.

don't be such a fan boy.

 

i use mine for recording and it's fantastic. i will soon be using my macbook pro live to play samples too.

 

i love my pc's too, and i actually prefer media player to itunes.

i'm no fanboy

 

[Democrab]

that is total bs and you now it.

most albums you listen to will have been recorded on macs.

don't be such a fan boy.

Got anything to back that up? And don't say www.apple.com either, that's like me backing up that Oil is going to last forever with a link from an Oil Company that stands to lose cash.

[adiohead]

of course i've got nothing to back that up. duh!

 

i have no idea what music he/she listens to. could be old vinyl recording on tape

[Saggy]

Just because Mac's only marketable niche is audio/video production, doesn't mean that a majority of the industry uses it or anything.

[adiohead]

Just because Mac's only marketable niche is audio/video production, doesn't mean that a majority of the industry uses it or anything.

yes true, i know my point was audacious and probably wrong, but the mac is VERY good at audio/video

 

(not just good to play with in the store)

[Cursed]

I just booted my Ubuntu Live 8.10 Live CD, and it's looking pretty nice:

 

 

As long as you don't want to run too much external software. Maybe just do Office tasks, suft the net ect. then it would be fine, and some of the themes are really nice.

[Saggy]

 

As long as you don't want to run too much external software. Maybe just do Office tasks, suft the net ect. then it would be fine, and some of the themes are really nice.

Nah, it works really well for me with more intensive things than that...

 

 

Yes that's Married with Children, being displayed on my TV with TwinView. No I didn't download it; TV capture cards ftw. Then there's Thunderbird, FireFox, and VirtualBox running Windows XP.

[Cursed]

I can never figure out how to setup my wireless internet on Ubuntu, that's why I never switched

[Statutory Ray]

 

If your computer has less than 2Gb, Chances are, you only check emails and browse internet, or have a really old computer

Sorry, but you're dumb.

 

 

Compare it to cars. It's like saying "you should have to have a stronger engine to move a car with AC, full stereo system, heated leather seats, onboard nav, etc etc." Add all that weight and you can't expect it to go as fast. Is Vista in particular bloated? Probably. But 99% of the time I have no problem with 2GB of $25, 800MHz DDR2 RAM.