Web Development

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Which OS do you use?

0 helpful
36 replies

by intel inside me

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
I'm jus asking people what OS are they running.

36 replies

by choppit

For personal use it's currently 95% Linux(FC4) & 5% Win XP, at work it's around 50% Linux(RH4)& 50% Win XP.

by fred410

my home machines are 98 and ME
my work is xpig, corp setup that way, going to see if can regen to 2000
play machine is gentoo linux or suse

by lordshipmayhem

At home: about 99.999% Linux (I still need Windows for my fave tax prep software...)

At work: 100% Windows shop, not my choice

by amberhaze

At home: I use Debian Linux for my workstation, Slackware for my server and 3 Win XP boxes for wife, kids misc.

At work: I run about 14 Slackware servers for various companies, 10 or so Win 2000 and 2003 servers, and mostly XP pro workstations, with a few exceptions. On the repair desk, we see everything going as far back as I even saw a win 3.1 machine about a month ago... shudder (Although I must note, without any protection, the 3.1 machine was connected and NOT getting infected with anything... I guess it was too old for most modern infections... lol)

If it wasn't for software my clients use which is written specifically for MSSQL, I would probably go 100% to Linux for my servers.

by starderup

I am grateful to Redmond, WA for the constant stream of buggy software that puts food on my table (fixing it; making it work - email, etc.), but at home, I leave Windoze for my wife and son, who couldn't install a driver to save their lives.
I run SuSE Pro 9.0.
Last software I paid for. $35 shipped, and that was two years ago.

by debear

Currently using linux(redhat), xp-pro xp-home, win2k, win98 (for those who haven't upgraded yet); still prefer win2k for windows apps.

by neil higgins

it's mainly XP Pro,as "God" refuses to be "adventureous",plus a few Mac OS X machines.As the office has migrated up (down?), since the days of Windows 95,to XP,the official line is "stick to company policy",and dont rock the boat.At home it's Linux,naturally.

by deadly ernest

I have, and still use, some on older hardware, legal copies of Dos 6.2 with Win 3.11/32 (the 32 bit upgrade program applied); Win 98 SE; Win 2000 Pro; Win XP Pro; Win XP Pro 64 bit edition; Mandriva 2006; Fedora Core 4; Mandrake 10. And am looking forward to Trying Fedora Core 5 soon.

by jpjones

Because I was too rough with one half of the pair forming my raid 0, I am using my 4-yr old son's Deskpro. Until I swapped the OEM 4.3 (that's right, 4.3)GB hard drive to a 60 GB Deskstar, I used the old Win98SE. Now its running Win2K Pro but I had a H___ of a time getting it to handle that "big" a drive--it wouldn't tolerate the drive at all until I used the jumpers to force 15 head architecture rather than 16 head. Finally it "sounds" like it's spinning pretty fast even though this elderly machine thinks 4500 is fast.

Being too cheap to spring for overnight warranty service, I'll be using Win2K Pro for a few more days until the replacement drive & MOBO arrive--then I'll try to load XP Pro (I swear I don't know why I sprung for a 64 bit processor) onto 2 pair of raid 0s. Don't know how it will work out because I've never choreographed a pair of zeros mirroring another pair of zeros. Before the connector mishap, I just backed my zeros to a big ol' PATA Western Digital every night.

Since I have a chipset/MOBO fast enough to handle XP Pro's hoggish tendencies in the mem department, I prefer it to Win2K Pro. When swapping the harddrives, I needed to modify the boot.ini which is a snap in XP (as close as the Run window), but Win2K didn't like me trying to mess w/ the boot.ini and I felt like a contortionist.

by jpjones

As I continue to patch the patches here with Win 2K & the spouse, Office 2K, I have tried not to think about how long it takes to bring the oldsters up-to-speed. But I'm not nostalgic for the days of yore--I just wish I were as young as I was when I was using WordPerfect 4.1 on an IBM w/ an 8086/8087 Intel chipset.

One benefit of my son's system over mine is that when I'm using it, it is quiet--there's only 1 fan. My homebuilt system has 8 fans when you count the power supply & the graphics card--after too many hours using it, I'm wondering when the plane is going to land.

When the boy uses his system, however, its very loud w/ KidPix or Blue's Clues or the BackYardagins or especially Danny Phantom.

by dawgit

one can only make a machince do what it can. So depending on what project I'm working on, and which machine I use the following: WinXP Pro (& a Home edit. hiding 'incase'), Win2k Pro, WinME (under Linux), Win98SE, DOS 6.22 (super for embeded stuff & fast for that type of work too!) Red Hat - Fedura, Suse Linux (all flavors). But no Apples (yet)

by alan henderson

Love to use Linux, but I spend my life helping people with Windows, so I'm stuck with it. Don't have time to keep on top of 2 OSs.
But with every extra intrusion on my life generated at Redmond, the temptation to change grows. Watch this space Bill Gates.

by rashby1

I'm using Suse 10.0 at home. Im dual booting to xp pro. I'm showing my son (6 years old) how to use both Knoppix Kids and XP. At work, I support w2k workstations.

by trule

Let's see.....

At home Mac OS X 10.3.9, 10.2, 9.2.2, Win 98SE
At one workplace it's Win XP Pro, Win2000, Ubuntu Linux, Mac OS 10.4.x
At another it's Win XP Home

-----
EVERYBODY sing!
"I am schizophrenic and so am I"

by perry.studt

My OS is Mac OSX 10.4.5 PPC version. It runs on a dual 867MHz
PPC G4--at least partly because of the difficulty of transforming
mac quicken files to windows quicken ones. The OS is smooth and
fluid. I'm looking forward to Vista. Maybe it will come up to
scratch. It would be nice to be in the main virial stream for a while.

by nighthawk808

OpenSuSE 10.0 on AMD. The only way I'd use an Intel processor is if you gave it to me for free. They're most useful when put under a short table leg to level it out.

by deadly ernest

Over the years I have used hundreds of Intel chips and only had a problem with one as a warranty and two others dying after 12 years of constant use. Used five Cyrix chips and had a problem with one gong belly up after 9 years. I have used three AMD chips and two went belly up within 18 months - warranty refused and the other just does not work at the moment, tested OK by another tech but refuses to work on the system it came with and the board checks out OK too. Am looking into all the relevant onboard settings, I did not buy or set the board up so not sure how it is set up - am awaiting the board manual which is in the mail.

I am begining to think that my problem with AMD is that I do NOT overclock them, I never overclock a CPU - but friends who swear by AMD always overclock their chips by a lot. Oh well.

by amberhaze

Personally, I have used thousands of each (Intel, AMD, and misc others. I have had very few processor failures. And all the failures I have ever had, can all be attributed back to either a mother board fault (often bad caps), bad or inadiquate power supply, or dirty processor fan. I have never had a processor die on me after the 30 day burn in that wasn't directly attributable to one of these three causes.

Just relating my personal experiences.

by nighthawk808

Perhaps you've had some bad luck. I don't know how many processors I've used, but the count has to be pushing 50. Of those, I've only had two die prematurely, and both of those were Pentium 4's. I did acidentally kill an Athlon XP 2000+, though. I cracked the core while installing a Coolermaster Jet 7 HSF. I've got to say this to AMD: an exposed-core CPU is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen.

I wasn't always this big of an AMD fan. It wasn't until the Athlon XP came out that they really started to stomp Intel. They've done a pretty impressive job keeping their lead once they got it, especially considering the massive resources Intel has.

I've never overclocked an Intel chip, but I've overclocked every AMD that I use regularly. I had my 2000+ clocked at slightly over 2 GHz from its standard 1.67 GHz using nothing more that the stock HSF. The 3000+ I'm writing this on is clocked at 2.39 GHz from its standard 2.17 GHz. The CPU could probably go higher (it's currently running at 102 degrees F with a continuous full load because of Prime95), but the A7N8X motherboard it's in doesn't seem to like going much higher than that.

You may not think the OS would have anything to do with overclocking performance, but when this machine was still a dual-booter, I couldn't overclock it at all. XP would toss a BSOD after about 20-30 minutes of gaming with even a slight overclock (i.e., from 2.17 to 2.18 GHz). I've pushed this thing to almost 2.4 GHz with Linux and run Prime95's stress test (much harder on the CPU than gaming) for hours.

by popcontext

Just kidding! I actually use XP at home. I didn't think it was possible, but I have finally found something that takes more time than for Windows to boot. Sign on to AOL with dialup by the time all of the animated ads finish loading it's time to go to bed.

by nighthawk808

http://www.opensuse.org if you want to experience just how powerful Linux is and aren't afraid to tinker a bit. Download the eval version.

http://www.xandros.com/about/downloads.html if you want to check out Linux but feel like you're still using Windows XP. The BitTorrent is free.

http://www.kubuntu.org for a balance between Linux's power and Windows's brain-dead simplicity.

http://www.knoppix.net for a Live CD version that loads directly from CD and doesn't require any installation on your hard drive. It's MUCH slower than installing a distro on your hard drive since the CD-ROM is so much slower than a hard drive, but it will give you a chance to see just how Linux isn't nearly as hard as people say it is.

Of course, by recommending any distro, I've poked a flaming stick into a killer bees' nest. Nevertheless, I think that if you try Linux for a little while, you'll get hooked. If you do decide to do a hard drive install, I've compiled a few tips here: http://www.geocities.com/lmc2124/no_ms.html

by jgaskell

I couldn't imagine using just the one OS - what kind of IT professional would I be?

At my workplace I use Windows XP Tablet on my own PC, Windows 2000, 2003 and Debian on the servers. At home it's Windows XP Home, Fedora and Debian. I keep my hand in with other OSes, though I haven't seen much MacOS lately, I must admit. Still do a fair bit of work with Unix and OpenVMS.

by tknepper17268

I currently use only Microsoft O/S's For one I wish I knew some of the others and for another I wish I knew the compatabilities of software with the other o/s's

But I am mostly using XP PRO on Most all my Companies Computers.

by frankie566

Server - Windows Server 2003, Laptop - Win XP & PC - Win 2K Pro, & Some workstations still Win98SE at a Public Library.

by npbwbass

Because of insatiable curiosity I have loaded and used all Windows OS versions since 3.11, BSD, multiple distros of Linux, and MAC OSX. I have settled mostly on SuSE 10.0 and MAC. My home systems are dual boot SuSE/XP pro and a MAC OSX. My wife who is a novice uses only SuSE and the MAC. I support all of these OS's at work as the CTO.

by av8rninja

Because I live a lifetime of discontinuation. I loved 2k from the start, it was in my opinion ten feet tall and bulletproof, until XP became big little brother. So now I will be stuck not being able to use a lot of software that I don't care about anyway.

I want to learn Linux, but like a chain smoker saying he is going to quit, I am like everyone else that says they want to learn Linux, probably ain't gonna happen.

I love the way Microsoft separates the smartypantses from me, in the system requirements of Office 2007, it says XP SP2 and later....and Vista. Guess that leaves me out? Hell, I don't know if pro is after xp sp2???

I have used win since 3.1 and I repair computers, if I kept all that crap in my head I would flippin explode. If someone wants to tell the dumbass here which windows came when....I'd appreciate it.

by userdeletedbyrequest

I only recently upgrade my network on to Windows XP from 2000 I love it! but unfortunately its time to upgrade. The good thing is that Windows XP is build on the foundations of 2000

This discussion is closed to new replies.