[Cankin]

I've been using Windows since 3.1 and from my memory, I've never seen the "Blue screen of death" since Windows 2000. XP and Vista are always stable and reliable for me. I never spend time to tweak or do maintenance which I personally hate.

 

[Magedark]

I've had the BSD about 3 times on this computer, but those were quickly fixed.

I use Windows because it's on here. I specifically use Windows XP because it's on here. That isn't to say I wouldn't switch to Mac, but I haven't the money to switch. As for Linux, I keep telling myself, "I'll try it one day."

I just use Windows because I like it and I grew up with it.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by taiyoyuden /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mac = noob.

 

[Apocalypsee]

I grow with Windows, and I do lots of gaming being the strong 2nd reason. I used Mac before, but it feels empty and not much to do on it, it not suitable for someone who like to tweak/tinkering around (like me)

It feels weird that everyone now fond and use iPod Touch/iPhone, I found nothing interesting in it, apart from touchscreen and good UI. I rather spend my money on Nokia N86 8MP or Samsung innoV8, there is so much thing I can do on both those phone than what iPod/iPhone can do

 

[MaZa]

Versatility, adjustability/tweakability and most of all Gaming. If it wouldnt be for the latter I would probaply scratch Windows and use Linux. Mac, the very little I have used them, gave me impression that it lacks all above. Its good for doing work though.

 

[MikoLayer]

Quote:

Further, Macs hold their value. The initial cost of a laptop might be higher, but selling it every 2-3 years and rolling the proceeds into a new one yields a cost difference of very little. When you factor in the time-wasting factor of Windows, it becomes incredibly expensive. In my case, Windows would cost thousands more in lost productivity. Even someone earning minimum wage would probably come out ahead in terms of lost time using a Mac.

Um, most people upgrade their hardware on a regular basis anyway, and you are artificially limiting yourself on macs where you lose FREEDOM to change parts at will. I really doubt you get something useful out of a machine 2-3 years old, unless you are dealing with people looking for collector's items. Well ok, you said laptops. PC laptops are so cheap these days, almost to the point where they are disposable compare to macs (deals under $400 regularly found on 15.4'' laptops), with even cheaper netbooks becoming increasingly popular. You must realize that not everyone wants a laptop, and even then not the top of the line one when they already have a desktop that is better in every conceivable aspect except portability.

I use my computer to browse on the web, watch videos, listen to music and play games, so do most individual users on PCs, I suppose. Not much productivity there to be had to begin with.
I do not lose any time with managing windows (unlike on linux) - there is nothing I do on particular except letting windows update to handle things and getting occasional vga driver upgrade - something that is irrelelvant on un-gameable macs anyway. There is no need to compulsively keep updating every single apps either, most of them work just fine and upadates are optional, unless you have specific issues or bugs with those.

You conviniently ignore the fact that people DO buy computers to game, and PCs are a better gaming machine without a doubt, no contest. With $600 or so, you can build a very respectable gaming PC that can handle anything you throw at it. Is there a mac that allows me to do that, let alone leaving enough funds for a next vga upgrade?

Quote:

That means you know something about Linux which has nothing to do with Windows. Hence saying you don't know enough about Windows to keep it running may very well be an apt judgment of your knowledge. Also your argument requires me to accept your experience as intelligence or wisdom on the matter. I've seen people, some with degrees for the matter, do things wrong for years. As such I'm not willing to grant you any benefit of a doubt on the matter.

I am with Shike here, spending more time with linux doesn't mean you know enough about windows. What is it specifically that you had so much problem with windows as of late, care to share with us? It really doesn't sound like you have ever tried windows 7, or vista x64 in past two years or so (not the very first few days where it needed to time to mature, same happens with linux if not worse). Try it if you havn't, your computer deserves better

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikoLayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am with Shike here, spending more time with linux doesn't mean you know enough about windows. What is it specifically that you had so much problem with windows as of late, care to share with us? It really doesn't sound like you have ever tried windows 7, or vista x64 in past two years or so (not the very first few days where it needed to time to mature, same happens with linux if not worse). Try it if you havn't, your computer deserves better

Honestly it sounds like he's stuck in 3.1, 95, or ME. I still want to know what issues he's had that could have incurred thousands of dollars worth lost productivity that would be Microsoft's fault. Unless he's freaking Bill Gates I doubt setting a task scheduler would be worth nearly enough to constitute an opportunity cost factor.

In fact, this has to be said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik Before you strictly adhere to a $300 or $400 price difference, consider the opportunity cost of blowing 50 or 100 hours of patching and registry scrubbing.

A registry clean only has to be performed if you've been installing and uninstalling applications regularly. If you only use your PC for five tasks a single registry clean will be enough. Furthermore a reg cleaning takes traditionally less than twenty seconds on a modern system and can be scheduled for regular intervals if you so desire. Windows update (patching) is set to automatic by default, you need do nothing for it to work. The above shows me you already have a gross misunderstanding of the modern Windows platform and as such I WILL discount your knowledge of the platform.

Judging by your statements it sounds like you want to hate Microsoft for the sake of hating them period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypsee I grow with Windows, and I do lots of gaming being the strong 2nd reason. I used Mac before, but it feels empty and not much to do on it, it not suitable for someone who like to tweak/tinkering around (like me)

Same here. I grew up with MS DOS, 3.1, 95, 98SE, XP, Vista, and Win7. OSX just feels so limiting for those that like to do stuff with and to their OS. I've actually had more trouble with OSX than modern Windows system in terms of networks and getting shares to work properly cross platform.

 

[nraymond]

I find anyone who uses just one OS pretty narrow, but I've been using multiple operating systems since I was a kid, starting in 1983, and it's what I'm used to. After years of using a lot of stuff out there, and spending 40+ hours a week doing IT work primarily in Windows (with some Linux and in the past Solaris), here is where the strengths are:

Mac is where productive, creative work can get done well
Windows is where you can play many games (and where you can find the most commercial software, good or bad, a lot of it bad)
BSD (Free/Open/Net) is very good for servers
Linux is good for a desktop internet OS and content creation (i.e. Medibuntu) as well as server duties
Solaris is a very good server OS
IRIX was great for anything media related, especially 3D and sound production
HP-UX was a good server OS
VMS was good, and it's kernel was rewritten from VAX assembly to C to become NT, which Win32/Win64 runs on top of now, for better or for worse
BeOS was good (and is coming back as Haiku)

I've heard AIX is good, but it's the only one I haven't used so I can't comment.

But I do run most of the rest at home, and share a lot of data pretty seamlessly between them.

 

[Mystere9]

1. Obscure third party software(ever heard of the X68000 guys? try to emulate that on a *nix system).
2. Easy gaming
3. Everything installs in binaries. I really find it a pain in the butt to go searching for the right packages in the depository every time I want to install something. If it's not in the depository, you have to compile it from source, which is an even bigger hassle.
4. As silly as it may seem, I find it a vast convenience to be able to simply press the power button on my computer and know that it will boot into the right kernel version of the right OS without me sticking around to select it(This mostly applies to versions of linux that auto-install GRUB or similar.
5. In a way that is hard or impossible to quantify, I find that I get stuff done fastest on a Windows PC(I grew up on macs, so it can't be the familiarity factor)...
6. I found that optimizing Vista to run as fast as possible was faster and less frustrating than installing everything I would want to use on Ubuntu.

 

[Uncle Erik]

My dislike of Windows has built steadily over the years. If a company proves unreliable in the long term, I have fantastically low incentive to give them the benefit of the doubt. When competing products offer everything I need, why switch? I am forced to run XP at the office (maintained by a staff of five, six figure budget, and a senior equity partner calls the IT shots - there is ZERO opportunity for influence otherwise, and yes, people have quit because of it) and it had to be rebooted at startup this morning. It frequently has similar problems, requiring a reboot or two per day. Some of you will list reasons how this can be fixed, but as I pointed out above, my influencein the organization is nothing. These problems have been brought up by people more powerful than I am, and we're stuck until that particular partner either dies or retires. I have tremendous respect for the guy otherwise, but the network is unreliable at best. I take my Mac in when things are critical.

As for hardware upgrades, some of us like to get a few years off an investment. If you want a breakdown of why that makes financial sense, I can give you that. Needless upgrades are a complete waste, especially when there are more useful toys to buy or dropping money into cash-producing investments. A newvideo card every six months is throwing money down the toilet.

Further, as you age, you'll increasingly find videogames a waste of time. If you game, I'm not criticizing you, but many of us spend our lives differently. You have to accept that gaming is the province of the younger. For the rest of us, a few extra frames per second is the equivalent of following soap operas and fashion rags. Just an utter waste of time.

When you take that out of the equation, Mac and Linux make a lot of sense. So does older hardware, for that matter. The Linux box still chugs along with an Athlon64 single core running at 2.0GHz and with 4GB of RAM. It handles everything I need and stores my photos just fine. Most importantly, however, I haven't spent a dime on it since 2004. Frequent upgrades probably would have eaten significantly into the down payment I put on an income producing piece of real property. With some generous tax breaks, I might add.

Computing just is not that important. Why insist on maximum compatibility with everything when all you really need is a piece or two of hardware that works - reliably - in the long term?

 

[h.rav]

^ I couldn't agree more. I just need something that works well and it is my Mac.

I have used (and own) Windows 3.1 to 7 RC. Both have their own advantages, but I still prefer a Mac due to their reliability and ease of use.

 

[Arainach]

So you have incompetent Admins and blame Windows? Real fair. A poor administrator can ruin ANY operating system.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you have incompetent Admins and blame Windows? Real fair. A poor administrator can ruin ANY operating system.

Windows is an ad-hoc OS, created from the detritus of DOS (my intro to modern computing was DOS 3.2.) It's true, as you say, that incompetence can ruin any OS. It's also true that an OS cobbled together from bad beginnings encourages incompetence.

DOS was a bad imitation of CPM. Windows builds on that questionable heritage.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Cankin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Windows is an ad-hoc OS, created from the detritus of DOS (my intro to modern computing was DOS 3.2.) It's true, as you say, that incompetence can ruin any OS. It's also true that an OS cobbled together from bad beginnings encourages incompetence. DOS was a bad imitation of CPM. Windows builds on that questionable heritage. I'm just sayin'.

Is that the case with Vista or 7?

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Windows is an ad-hoc OS, created from the detritus of DOS (my intro to modern computing was DOS 3.2.) It's true, as you say, that incompetence can ruin any OS. It's also true that an OS cobbled together from bad beginnings encourages incompetence. DOS was a bad imitation of CPM. Windows builds on that questionable heritage. I'm just sayin'.

Completely and absolutely wrong. XP, Vista, and 7 are all built off NT, which has absolutely no connection to DOS or CP/M.