Operating Systems

[Valerunner]

XP out of necessity.

If I had the power, I'd go for dualbooting 7 and Ubuntu/Linux.

 

[bulbasaur]

I love Windows!!! I know all the technical stuff about it, and love the features mac doesn't have. I think Mac is way too simple:sad: I can't get where to go if you want to do something. Example: If I want to make a new text file, on Windows, you can just right-click, go to sub-menu "new" and click text file. But on mac, you'd have to go all the way to textedit of TextWrangler and then Save As to do that.
But I don't like Windows Vista for some reason. Maybe not enough programs run on it properly? Maybye the 32-bit help file is gone? I don't know why I hate it that much.

 

[Time Psyduck]

Windows vista.

It came with my laptop and it does what I need it to.

 

[Retsu]

it does what I need it to.

This is the worst excuse for using shitty software.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

Example: If I want to make a new text file, on Windows, you can just right-click, go to sub-menu "new" and click text file. But on mac, you'd have to go all the way to textedit of TextWrangler and then Save As to do that.

Why would you want a blank text file that you couldn't edit without opening a program?

 

[Negrek]

This is the worst excuse for using shitty software.

Why?

 

[Abwayax]

This is the worst excuse for using shitty software.

What else should software do?

 

[surskitty]

Software should do what you need and want it to efficiently.

 

[Abwayax]

I can't speak for other users of Vista, but I've never had a problem with it. Of course, I have to disable the shitty new theme and the UAC thingy first

 

[Negrek]

Software should do what you need and want it to efficiently.

What is "efficiently?"

 

[surskitty]

With as little time, effort, and resources required as possible. :/ There's room for improvement in everything, but Windows seems to have a lot more room than other things.

 

[Negrek]

"With as little time, effort, and resources required as possible," isn't "efficiently," it's "as efficient as possible" or possibly "most efficient." Just saying that something should be efficient doesn't say much, because efficiency is something that is measured by comparison. Plowing with oxen is very efficient when compared to attempting to work a field by hand, but compared to mechanized farming, I daresay it's worlds less efficient. However, that doesn't mean that if you use animals to plow a field doesn't mean you aren't doing the work efficiently unless some sort of context is provided.

Anyway, efficiency is about more than just filesize and elements of programming. Just because the system is faster doesn't mean that it's necessary the most efficient to use. If someone isn't familiar with a certain OS, they may take much longer to accomplish a simple task and become much more frustrated than they would working with something they were accustomed to, even if that OS is the most efficient on the market. Also, at what point does relative efficiency stop mattering altogether? I'm sure that, for example, my internet could run faster, but I don't know that I would actually notice much, if any, difference if it did. A computer is just a tool--to what extent does a lack of efficiency actually prevent a layperson from using it? And to what extent is that lack of efficiency a result of programming for things that computer-savvy types find worthless, but which people with less knowledge find convenient?

Windows is not the most efficient operating system, thus making it inferior from a purely objective standpoint if it is assumed that this lack of efficiency is relevant to the user's needs; however, that does not necessarily make it the best operating system for any given person to use. Just because it's not the best specs-wise doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense for people to use it.

 

[surskitty]

If someone isn't familiar with a certain OS, they may take much longer to accomplish a simple task and become much more frustrated than they would working with something they were accustomed to, even if that OS is the most efficient on the market.

Then it's not efficient for them to use it. I have nothing against people using Windows in general; I do have problems with people trying for quite a while to get something done the hard way when there's an easy and obvious solution to fix it. There's a point where it's easier and faster to switch to something objectively better than it would be to keep using whatever you're used to.

If someone really likes to use Internet Explorer, for example, then that's fine; the problem arises when they expect other people to take time and effort to cater to them.

 

[Negrek]

Oh, certainly. I'm just rather tired of the fact that some people act as though saying "I like it and it works for me" is some sort of crime against logic instead of the way that all organisms operate. If someone's taking the long way out and switching methods has a sufficiently low cost, then sure, they're only making life worse for themselves.

 

[Abwayax]

Yeah, but you really can't compare using Windows to using Internet Explorer. Browsers are quick, easy, and inexpensive to replace. Although I'm certainly not part of the "let's force everyone else to use my favorite browser" club (it doesn't affect only IE users, believe it or not - some web devs out there seem to think that IE and Firefox are the only two browsers in the world and assume that if someone's not using Firefox, then they're using IE and thus BAD BAD THINGS - as someone who primarily uses Opera this affects me and I have found I have to change my user agent string to fake being Firefox or IE in order to get around this), I will admit that IE... sucks. Hence why I avoid using it as much as possible. Additionally, pretty much all browsers have the same sort of interface anyway.

OS's, on the other hand, take much more time and effort to replace, and there are very glaring differences that take some time getting used to. Switching from Windows to Linux is a much larger transition than switching from IE to Firefox. Yes, Windows does have its problems, but they don't cause grief for the rest of the internet the way IE's lack of support for standards does. So it's rather fair for Windows users to use Windows because "it works" (you can't say IE "works" either, unfortunately). And then there's the fact that Linux and UNIX target more, erm... sophisticated computer users while Windows just kind of... dumbs it down a bit (to put it nicely).

Edit:

Why would you want a blank text file that you couldn't edit without opening a program?

I find it quick and intuitive, actually, but then again I'm just used to Windows. You're still opening the program, so it's not like you're skipping anything.