Non MS O/S

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:40 am

Hi
What other operating systems are people using out there?
I'm tempted to leave the Microsoft fold as I use as many non-MS progs as possible now, and despite what some people say, I reckon they are faster and less buggy.
What are the alternatives??

GeraintUk · Post by **GeraintUk** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:08 am

because i know you'll end up phoning me crying in a few weeks that nothing works on your non MS OS....
I can't resist but suggest you try

OS/2 WARP

i'm sure that will suit you perfectly

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:18 am

Ubuntu is my current fave

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:06 am

At the end of the day if you want the maximum compatibility with apps and hardware stick with windows. Not using MS apps while in windows is fair enough, i dont use any except Office, but a non MS OS is simply still not a good option.

Linux is the only viable alternative, but even that is very limited. The reason its less buggy is that nothing works with it, so less chance to go wrong! It not what the Linux guys want to hear but its true, and its a similar story with MacOS! You only have to look and the monumental failure of Linux powered devices (like routers, mobiles, set top boxes etc) to gain a foot hold to understand why.

Rover220CoupeTurbo · Post by **Rover220CoupeTurbo** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:49 am

The problem with smaller O/S's there is less support, more vulrable to security flaws and less updates.

The new Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard' is supposed to be quite good.

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:03 am

Personally i despise the Apple look, interface, and whole naive happy clappy united world image. Apple want your money and will screw you over to get just like any other company.

Linux isnt faster than windows (its a myth, really), its much less compatible and is best left to so called 'l33t' types, who dont really like Linux, they just hate MS and Apple and have no other choice.

Ritchie · Post by **Ritchie** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:08 pm

Stupid question time here then

Can you run a Apple OS on a PC based machine (ie not a Mac)

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Yes if you hack it. Modern Macs are PCs, Apple finally admitted the old PowerPC hardware was rubbish and Macs are now just dual core Intel powered PCs that cost too much, although they are faster than they were.

It amuses me no end, because for years Apple tried to say the PowerPC Mac was the fastest thing out there, but as soon as they went Intel the benchmarks went up.. Hmm..

dreaddan · Post by **dreaddan** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:28 pm

Grant,
There are only 2 real options.
1) Linux
2) Mac OS

As far as I know you can now get a hacked version of mac os that will run on a normal pc. If you dont fancy that your left with linux.

THere are sooooooo many linudx distros it's unberleavable.
However I would recomend Ubuntu /kbuntu , federa or cent os really.
Ubuntu /kbuntu is really the flavor of the month , while cent os is redhats enterprise linux for free

The only question are the apps you want to use mature enough for you use use in a day to day Ubuntu ?

rovex wrote:At the end of the day if you want the maximum compatibility with apps and hardware stick with windows. Not using MS apps while in windows is fair enough, i dont use any except Office, but a non MS OS is simply still not a good option.

It really depends on what your doing really, open office will happerly open and write ms office files. ok, GIMP isnt as good a photochop imo (and that may be down to useage)

Linux is the only viable alternative, but even that is very limited. The reason its less buggy is that nothing works with it, so less chance to go wrong! It not what the Linux guys want to hear but its true, and its a similar story with MacOS! You only have to look and the monumental failure of Linux powered devices (like routers, mobiles, set top boxes etc) to gain a foot hold to understand why.

Please define 'nothing works'...
I can only assume that there are less drivers available for linux than for windows, which yes is true you do have to pick your hardware more carefully than with windows.
Though pick any hardware that sticks to a standard and there'll be a driver for it.

As for software, as a general rule no windows software wont run on linux

unless you use something like wine or crossover office.

edit: try os/2 first though

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:50 pm

You cant play games properly in Linux. There are a few, but generally they suck compared to the Windows version.

Running a virtual windows is pointless and defeats the object in my view.

Lots of hardware doesnt work properly, or more accurately isnt fully functional. Open office is not 100% compatible with Office 2007, which i have here at home and need for work. We use it because that's what's dictated by our LIMS system and Q-pulse system in our lab.

The only good reason to use Linux is that you cant afford or refuse to pirate windows.

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:57 pm

The main progs I use which I'm worried about are:
Inventor 2008
Quickbooks 2002
I can use firefox and thunderbird for internet and email (trialling thunderbird now).
There seem to be plenty of useful word etc type options.

GeraintUk · Post by **GeraintUk** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:08 pm

Grant620 wrote:The main progs I use which I'm worried about are:
Inventor 2008
Quickbooks 2002
I can use firefox and thunderbird for internet and email (trialling thunderbird now).
There seem to be plenty of useful word etc type options.

what about those pieces of software you use for car things, like DTA, EPC, Rave etc....
they are only examples, but are you sure you can risk them not working ?
Seriously m8,,,I know you too well. Don't bother with Linux or anything else.
You haven't got the time to fix things later.
You might hate MS, but is it really that bad ?
If annoyed with later versions, go back to Windows 2000. it'll run like a bullet compared to XP and Vista, but it won't be quite as user friendly on the interface etc.

al_roverMG · Post by **al_roverMG** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:16 pm

Sorry Rovex but you talk out of your ARSE. I have used Mac os tiger for nearly a yeah now on my mac book pro and would never go back to the rubbish that MS dish out. It is fast, much more user friendly and just as compatable as any of the MS rubbish and of course doesnt suffer the many pitfalls (like being as secure as an open door) that MS products have. I even downloaded a virus onto my mac the other day just to see what happened and it laughed at it then deleted it automatically for me.

The only problem i have had is compatibility with running MSN as you have to use third part software but so far i havent found a single supposidly pc only game that wont run on my mac with the software i have and always faster than my similarly spec'd home pc. Have bought lepard today and from the demo i got in the apple store it looks every bit as good as tiger and then some. Makes Vista look positively dated.

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:53 pm

YOU might like the interface, but i hate it with a passion. I find it simplistic and patronising. I hate Apple products with a passion and every single update makes it worse not better. Buy the way ive never had a virus in Vista either, even when testing it, as i do as a computer hardware and software tester for websites, which i have done for a number of years. If you think Macs are virus proof your in for a big shock one day, ive got software here that will take down a mac in seconds, even Leopard, in fact id say a top level attack on MacOS is far more damaging than it is in Vista.

I love how mac users think Mac OS is better. It might be because they have no idea how to use windows properly or dont give it a chance.

I have the unfortunate task of reviewing Leopard right now, its way slower than my 6 month old Vista install on similar hardware and my god is it ugly.

My task is to test the OS and see the state of Mac gaming. Well its pretty poor. When the games work they are slower. Trying to force Crysis to work is Pointless, the only viable way is to dual boot Vista to enjoy the full DX10 experience. Frankly it would be best to just wipe out MacOS completely, or better yet, not buy a Mac in the first place and save yourself some cash.

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:52 pm

rovex wrote:. Frankly it would be best to just wipe out MacOS completely, or better yet, not buy a Mac in the first place and save yourself some cash.

Oooh,i dunno about that rovex.
Its true Vista is a very fine operating system once all the annoying controling features have been subdued,but to want/give microsoft total domination is a very bad idea.Competition = innovation and in an ideal world Mac would be in there with a 50% market share.

Still wouldnt touch an iphone mind

xr4x4 · Post by **xr4x4** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:34 am

whats wrong with windows xp pro.. really?

ive never wanted to use a another OS..

if your having problems with windows, your using the wrong hardware, or too much or buggy software, toolbars, google desktop cr@p and alll the free shite 'added' software that all these downloads now come with.

imo

Chin. · Post by **Chin.** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:40 am

xr4x4 wrote:whats wrong with windows xp pro.. really?

ive never wanted to use a another OS..

if your having problems with windows, your using the wrong hardware, or too much or buggy software, toolbars, google desktop cr@p and alll the free shite 'added' software that all these downloads now come with.

imo

use CCleaner aswell

xr4x4 · Post by **xr4x4** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:02 am

Marcin wrote:
xr4x4 wrote:whats wrong with windows xp pro.. really?

ive never wanted to use a another OS..

if your having problems with windows, your using the wrong hardware, or too much or buggy software, toolbars, google desktop cr@p and alll the free shite 'added' software that all these downloads now come with.

imo
use CCleaner aswell

lol... ok..

al_roverMG · Post by **al_roverMG** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:38 am

rovex wrote:YOU might like the interface, but i hate it with a passion. I find it simplistic and patronising.

Sorry but how is something which is simple to use and very straightforward patronising?? yes it is simplistic because it doesnt need to be overcomplicated like the MS Shite. As a great man once said it just works. Lepord is, IMO much more pleasing on the eye than vista (which i grudgingly am forced to use on my desktop) and much smoother in operation.

I personally find it insulting that MS rather than pay to beta test something use the paying customer to do it. Also you cant get over the fact that while vista needs a million variants all of which are 300 quid plus retail price Mac OS only need one which is better than ultimate 64 vista and costs just 89 quid.

Now i know as a rigid lover of all things MS you will go and lick your bill gates poster but frankly i prefer the fresh approch of Apple who actually give a toss about their customers.

Chin. · Post by **Chin.** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:41 am

xr4x4 wrote:
Marcin wrote:
xr4x4 wrote:whats wrong with windows xp pro.. really?

ive never wanted to use a another OS..

if your having problems with windows, your using the wrong hardware, or too much or buggy software, toolbars, google desktop cr@p and alll the free shite 'added' software that all these downloads now come with.

imo
use CCleaner aswell
lol... ok..

Seriosuly , just deleted 979MB of useless crap from my HDD

Very useful tool .

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:30 am

al_roverMG wrote:
rovex wrote:YOU might like the interface, but i hate it with a passion. I find it simplistic and patronising.
Sorry but how is something which is simple to use and very straightforward patronising?? yes it is simplistic because it doesnt need to be overcomplicated like the MS Shite. As a great man once said it just works. Lepord is, IMO much more pleasing on the eye than vista (which i grudgingly am forced to use on my desktop) and much smoother in operation.

I personally find it insulting that MS rather than pay to beta test something use the paying customer to do it. Also you cant get over the fact that while vista needs a million variants all of which are 300 quid plus retail price Mac OS only need one which is better than ultimate 64 vista and costs just 89 quid.

Now i know as a rigid lover of all things MS you will go and lick your bill gates poster but frankly i prefer the fresh approch of Apple who actually give a toss about their customers.

Sorry to disappoint you but i dont love all things Microsoft. The XBOX is just ..Meh.. Windows Mobile sucks big time and the Zune is a joke. However Windows is the best OS. MacOS seems stable, but only because the Mac is a relatiely closed system, it doesnt have to deal with the thousands of sometimes bizarre hardware devices out there. You might love it now, but wait until it crashes on you taking out all your data. It WILL happen and in a fashion windows could never do. Seen it many times.

I agree Windows is too expensive, but no one should really just buy the straight windows retail. Student Licences and OEM copys can be bought by 90% of the population which makes it no more expensive than MacOS. Besides you pay more for a Mac in the first place.

Lets not start on which company is best now. With the iPod and iPhone its clear Apple want all your money and will do it anyway it can. Both are possibly the most cynical attempt to screw over the customer ive ever seen. In built failure that requires you to pay Apple to fix seems to be their main way they make money.

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:45 am

al_roverMG wrote: but frankly i prefer the fresh approch of Apple who actually give a toss about their customers.

Al ...i believe the new Iphone is locked to one network only ..02 i believe.

Apple are making customers pay Â£300 for a phone(and not a very good one) to be told which network they have to use.
Also if they unlock it and apple software update finds out then it breaks the phone for you !!!

OK i know this isn`t PC operating systems now,but Apple are no different to Microsoft in my eyes.

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:08 pm

The single network approach is so Apple can prevent competition and can maximise profit. To put the iPhone out to tender like it did ensured there would not only be no price war on it, but also that a single network would actually pay apple a premium to have exclusive rights.

Frankly charging Â£269 for it AND a contract is a scandal. The Â£199 IPod touch 8GB is almost identical except that the iPhone has what amounts to a Â£30 phone graphed into it. The Iphone is cheaper to make than the free on most contract N95. O2 have no choice in the unit price, only the contract cost, which isnt to bad really. As it stands the iPhone should be free on Â£40 contracts and over and thats only because its new.

Ritchie · Post by **Ritchie** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:56 pm

rovex wrote:Yes if you hack it. Modern Macs are PCs, Apple finally admitted the old PowerPC hardware was rubbish and Macs are now just dual core Intel powered PCs that cost too much, although they are faster than they were.

It amuses me no end, because for years Apple tried to say the PowerPC Mac was the fastest thing out there, but as soon as they went Intel the benchmarks went up.. Hmm..

Anyone know where i can read up on how to do this, the old dear has been after a mac for ages, if i could get her pc running like one, would save loads of hassle

Cheers

Ritchie

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:00 pm

Depends what PC you have. It is illegal, so i cant link to it here (plus its encouraging Mac technology

)

Bikernut · Post by **Bikernut** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:35 pm

Ritchie...get that proggy "style XP" and use the apple theme.

She`d be none the wiser

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:38 pm

Yes or Object Desktop or Windowblinds. That way if you do like the Mac interface you can have it, but, because your still running Windows, you still have a usable computer!

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:30 pm

GeraintUk wrote:
Grant620 wrote:The main progs I use which I'm worried about are:
Inventor 2008
Quickbooks 2002
I can use firefox and thunderbird for internet and email (trialling thunderbird now).
There seem to be plenty of useful word etc type options.
what about those pieces of software you use for car things, like DTA, EPC, Rave etc....
they are only examples, but are you sure you can risk them not working ?
Seriously m8,,,I know you too well. Don't bother with Linux or anything else.
You haven't got the time to fix things later.
You might hate MS, but is it really that bad ?
If annoyed with later versions, go back to Windows 2000. it'll run like a bullet compared to XP and Vista, but it won't be quite as user friendly on the interface etc.

Well, I use my laptop for DTA and EPC etc. Nothing will change on that.
I have sent a load of discs and DVD's off to a friend today who uses Ubuntu. He is going to try and install all the software I use and report back...
Having seen how fast his machine worked, I'm getting more convinced!!
He has some old Intel Celeron thing (800mhz) with 512mb memory. Was pretty shocked at how smooth it felt.

G - have you tried Linux based stuff? Recently?

The truth is, I'd like Vista, but it seems to be sooooo hardware intensive! Don't want to buy a completely new PC when I only recently sorted this one!

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:32 pm

What is its spec?

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:39 pm

your planning on running pc native apps on a linux ditro?

those applications will be slower than they were. Yeah the pc will be faster overall, but running programs under emulation (which rely on all sorts of operating system components), itll be no faster?

if you want a fast pc, just dont install tons of crap on it, and dont run vista...

tbh, i remember teh days of half a meg of ram and 2 floppy drives, and its not until things called pentiums came out you could actually not really worry about power..

anyone else complaining about a pc not being fast enough in this day and age didnt know they were born!

seriously, ive gota cobbled together athlon 2800, with a gig of ram, some old hard disks, a geforce 4, etc, and its fine?! before that i was using a 1.4 p4 for years....

Theres a reason windows is on every desktop of every house, and thats because if it wasnt, we'd be in digital anarchy...

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:44 pm

Vista is fast, given more RAM and a few weeks to optimise itself (this setup time is critical, dont judge it on its initial feel). My vista system fully boots in 22 seconds, including a RAID setup screen. The desktop is faster than XP, its hardware accelerated. All most PCs need is more RAM, which is dirt cheap now.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:48 pm

my only experience of vista is vista64bit ultimate, installed on a Q6700 with 1033ram (4gb thereof), running an 8800gts, and frankly, its shocking.

not least because of the bugs, but its not offering anythign extra?

i only had to upgrade from win2000 because msn messenger wouldnt save my tag-line...

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:53 pm

Scott wrote:your planning on running pc native apps on a linux ditro?

those applications will be slower than they were. Yeah the pc will be faster overall, but running programs under emulation (which rely on all sorts of operating system components), itll be no faster?

if you want a fast pc, just dont install tons of crap on it, and dont run vista...

tbh, i remember teh days of half a meg of ram and 2 floppy drives, and its not until things called pentiums came out you could actually not really worry about power..

anyone else complaining about a pc not being fast enough in this day and age didnt know they were born!

seriously, ive gota cobbled together athlon 2800, with a gig of ram, some old hard disks, a geforce 4, etc, and its fine?! before that i was using a 1.4 p4 for years....

Theres a reason windows is on every desktop of every house, and thats because if it wasnt, we'd be in digital anarchy...

I was drinking when my mate was talking to me about it, but he was on about a program called Wine or WYP or something. I'll check. He seemed to think it is NOT an emulator.
Anyhow - I know how long all the progs take to load and reaction times etc, so will see if his low spec pc is as fast with Ubuntu as mine is with XP Pro

Mine is:
AS ROCK AM2NF3-VSTA Mobo
AMD AM2 64 3500+ CPU
2GB Ram
400gb SATA drive
Radeon X800 Pro GPU

The mobo and CPU are meant to be fine for Vista.
BUT, Vista is many of your english Â£Â£Â£
If I end up staying with XP I'll not be upset to be honest - just wondering if Linux is in fact any better in any way.

My original question was what other O/S's people were actually using. I know all the theory about what is good and bad, but how about actual experience?

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:03 pm

Vista will be fine on that. Ive not experienced any major bugs to be honest, certainly not in the 32 bit version and nothing much in the 64bit version. If you want a cheaper way to get Vista get an OEM copy. All you need to do is buy some form of hardware, Vista home premium is then about Â£62.

Linux does have its uses, but really its still not a viable option for a home user in all honesty.

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:06 pm

If Vista, I'd need Vista Business.