<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Poll: If you were building a PC for yourself today, what operating system would you install? ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T02:40:22-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[reply to lk_bellsouth]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3300050]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[eComStation is the latest derivative of IBMs OS/2 Operating System. So hardly unknown. If IBM were able to market as well as they could write code, Windows would never have succeeded. In fact without OS/2 Windows would not be where it is today as the Kernel in Windows NT, which later became the kernel for Windows 2000 and XP (not sure about Vista and 7), was in fact the OS/2 kernel.As for pricing - the Snow Leopard price considering it is a minor upgrade from Leopard might seem like a good price, but you have to build into the equation the fact that it will only legally run on proprietry and more expensive hardware. I have nothing against MACs and OSX both are good products and you pay for what you get which is a good product and good support.I personally find Linux to be too complex (and I've worked in IT for over 35 years, so I could be called a geek) and sort of not quite there yet. It also has its uses embedded in devices such as routers and NAS devices it does a great job, just the desktop is too different for me. But that's my personal opinion, I know others have the right to different feelings about their favorite distribution of Linux. Who knows perhaps there's a distribution for me out there in the hundreds of choices and I simply haven't found it yet?On the cost to buy something you don't know and cant easily try, that's a very valid point. Serenity Systems and Mensys do have a free Live CD download available from www.ecomstation.com but it's for version 1.2 (i.e. about 6 years old), lets hope they will produce an eCS v 2.0 version so you (and others) can easily try it and see what you think.In any case - it's great to have choice isn't it and eComStation 2.0 is another choice.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3300050]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[edurrant]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 01:55:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[eComstation O/S]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3298935]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Since I've had no experience with this OS I can't say if its worthy or not. However, I have to ask 1) if its as good as you represent then why haven't more people heard of it? 2) Although I'm not an Apple fan the latest version of Snow Leopard is approximately $130 US, which is cheaper, and 3) Ubuntu Linux is free and has so much support from Canonical and the community that nothing else is needed. 4) Windows, of course, is off the cliff in so many areas that it doesn't merit comment. Given these facts, why should I pay $149.99 for an unknown? I'm not being critical, promise, just curious. Thanks.... Lee]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3298935]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[lk_bellsouth.net]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 06:14:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I *Actually* AM building a new system today!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3298885]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What do I seek in an operating system?StabilitySecuritySpeed even on low powered devicesGreat community supportLatest browser and Office application supportLow costVirus FreeAmazing usage features within the base OS itself.And what have I chosen ?? hieComStation 2.0!  Based on IBMs OS/2 operating system but a fresh and up-to-date version which was released a week ago and is currently being downloaded by thousands of happy customers!Check out www.ecomstation.com for further details.Note: I am NOT commercially linked in any way with Serenity Systems or Mensys who produce this new operating system - I just like the way it runs (and runs, and runs, and runs .........).]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3298885]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[edurrant]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 02:30:24 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Poll: If you were building a PC for yourself today, what operating system would you install?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3298616]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[eComStation2.0GA, just released past few days, for peace of mind all the time, ultimate configurability, and does only what I want it to do, not what the manufacturer thinks I should be allowed to do!Mike]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3298616]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[majilok@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 14:11:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Poll: If you were building a PC for yourself today, what operating system would you install?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3297512]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Just finished, I used Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on a RAID0 Array of SSDs.It NicE:)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3297512]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tweek, The Volvo Whisperer]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 23:50:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Naw,... they should (be req'd to)...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3294744]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...put Win2K in the public domain.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3294744]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jeslurkin]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 11:34:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Whoa whoa whoa!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3294196]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Calm down a sec here - Microsoft should be forced to support XP forever? It's a 32-bit OS! You can't even take advantage of 4GB of RAM under XP. (Yes, I know, they made a 64-bit version, which is a compatibility nightmare). This is like saying that Ford should never be allowed to update their cars and needs to do nothing but make 2002 Tauruses forever. Anything that discourages development of new products, even if the old one wasn't broken, is bad for the industry as a whole.Plus, Windows 7 IS a lot better than XP in practice. A recent survey right here on TechRepublic puts 57% of windows 7 users at &quot;very satisfied and another 27% at &quot;satisfied&quot;. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied comes in at 9%, meaning that among the participants here, 84% of those who have used it find it at least as good as whatever they were using prior and 74% either like it or REALLY like it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3294196]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Timespike]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 16:21:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Vbox seemed very manual]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290751]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[With VMware, you literally select &quot;Bridged&quot; from a NIC type when you add it to the VM profile. Same on Lin or Win all nice and easy.With Virtualbox it was a long arcane set of scripts and steps for creating the bridged device then adding each virtual NIC tapping into it.With KVM, the steps appear to be more strait forward though still with the manual bridge0 creation. I'll have to give it a go and see when I get some hobby time available.At this point, I like VMware but not having a native package has it's limitations. Given the same or greater feature set, I'd happily use something from the repository. Virtualbox would be my alternate preference due to coming 3D GPU support if they could provide a clean bridged networking setup. qemu-kvm I have to test and haven't confirmed it's 3D GPU support yet.(edit): autostart also. I need at least one of my VMs to be started when the system boots up. Virtualbox is not well suited to that without yet more arcane gyrations. Easy bridged networking an VM autostart at boot would replace my VMware overnight even if it meant not being able to simply convert my existing VM images.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290751]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 10:40:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Dual OSs]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290238]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Primary - Win 7 EnterpriseSecondary - Ubuntu 10.04 in VirtualBoxYou've got to know both if you want to keep on buying groceries! (grin)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290238]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[lk_bellsouth.net]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 14:54:44 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Enable the (Hidden) Administrator Account on Windows 7 or Vista..]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290115]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Read more here:http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/enable-the-hidden-administrator-account-on-windows-vista/]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290115]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Peconet Tietokoneet]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 11:51:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Enable the (Hidden) Administrator Account on Windows 7 or Vista]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290112]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Read more here:http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/enable-the-hidden-administrator-account-on-windows-vista/]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290112]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Peconet Tietokoneet]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 11:45:20 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[How to Enable Windows 7 GodMode...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290094]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Read more here:http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2010/01/05/windows-7-god-mode/]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290094]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Peconet Tietokoneet]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 11:30:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290075]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I just created the bridge interface in /etc/network/interfaces, disabled Network Manager and added some firewall rules to allow forwarding across the bridge. (Ubuntu 10.04)FWIW I never had any issues with bridged networking under VBox (non OSE) but don't remember if there was any manual config.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3290075]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Choppit]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 11:09:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Will KVM do bridged network cards?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289884]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What keeps me bound to VMware rather than jumping over to Virtualbox is bridged networking; my virtual network cards appear on the network beside my physical network card instead of being behind NAT through the physical NIC. When I last looked at VB, it required some sad archane scripting.Do you or anyone else know if KVM does simple NIC bridging similar to VMware's simple dropdown selection? I'd love to have something natively built for Debian Stable but with VMs containing server builds, bridged NIC is a requirement.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289884]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 07:24:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Mint]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289645]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I didn't mind Linux Mint. I found that when I had installed applications on it tho it didn't seem to like my netbooks screen resolution where as Ubuntu did. I was unable to find an answer to it so I reverted back to Ubuntu.For the users point of View I don't think they would notice a great deal of differance between how Linux Mint and Ubuntu works.Thanks,Matthew]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289645]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mamies@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 22:59:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Why indeed]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289634]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I have paid M$ for upgrades since Win3.1. Enough is Enough.  Through working with Linux on servers, I became familiar/comfortable with Linux.  I tried several really good distros.  Linux being Linux, there are several choices.  Mepis Linux turned out to be the one for me.  You may very likely have chosen something different.  That is OK too.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289634]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sagax-]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 18:24:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Actually, not all games and programs will run in the Win 7 XP Vm mode]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289641]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[you're better off running a version of XP in a VM on Linux, as you get a better result.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289641]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 18:04:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Try Win7 Ult - its great and has XP Comp Mode]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289622]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Ubuntu 10.04 is great but you may want to start with 9.04 and upgrade when your ready. I started when 7 was out and worked through8, 9 , and now 10. I like openSUSE as well. Also, Chromium is out, its googles OS and you can try compiling it inside UBUNTU. There is an easy compiler inside Ubuntu you can download now made available a few days ago. Win7 64 will allow a lot of RAM usage now too. All your games, if you play any will work. But you can VM any os inside it. Big plus, hope that helps.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289622]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jaron22]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 17:24:00 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Problem solved]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289608]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I hadn't checked for a while and it appears the KMyMoney now has the cash flow functionality that I needed. Win2K is now gone Also dropped Virtualbox in favour of KVM]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3289608]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Choppit]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 16:48:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Windows can't do everything]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3287039]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Even if it is Windows7, there are still things you can't do with it that justify a second bootable OS.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-329700-3287039]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 16:01:41 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

