MS Vista or XP

[Michael Graves]

If you are installing onto a PC, you're best off with Linux. But if you have a masochistic bent and must have Microsoft, avoid the Vista for now. I've had it on a test PC for several months now and, while there are a few things about it I like, there is definitely more about it that I don't like. Several times, in the middle of writing a document, I've had the message "Updates Completed, Restarting Computer.", and it rebooted without asking or allowing me an opportunity to save. And yet my AU settings are set for Prompt. On top of that, Microcrap insists on "updating" my computer with software that hardly qualifies as a patch or OS update. The Genuine Notifications is an example of that. Stay away from Microsoft if you can.

[Kevin M Bourque]

There's no perfect solution, but XP SP2 is a pretty good operating system. I"d go with that if it's an option. Do get some kind of anti virus.

Let someone else work the bugs out of Vista (you can always spot the pioneers...they're the ones with the arrows in their backs).

I use Windows, OS X and Linux at work. Mac fans tend to be ardent supporters of their machines, almost like a religion. I find that Macs have irritating quirks just like Windows...the notion that "it just works" is just marketing, IMHO. They're fine machines; just don't expect that you're never going to curse at it. Let the flames begin.

Linux gets better all the time. I don't think its ready for prime time UNLESS you're a pretty good techie and you don't mind tinkering now and then. I've used all the latest releases and if you need to give it a try, SUSE 10.2 with the KDE desktop is pretty good (I like the KDE toolset better). There are other good ones.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I bought two new machines a couple months ago. I looked very closely at Vista, but it is too young right now. Requires major hardware - at least 2 gig ram to be realistic, and 4 gig for image processing, IMO. also, a lot of older hardware does not and maybe never will have drivers for Vista.

because of my desktop publishing, I came real close to buying a new Mac. If i had to choose between only Vista and Mac, for desktop publishing and image processing, i woudl of gone with a new Mac.

As for Linux, I installed it on an older machine (Ubuntu). I like it very much, but it does have a learning curve. It does have some major advantages over Vista, and even XP in some cases. My advice, is if you have an older machine you seldom use, do a clean install of Ubuntu and start teaching yourself, but keep your XP machine as your "major" workstation for now.

A year from now Vista might be more mature, and the way to go, but I a have "resurrected' some older hardware that I thought I would not ever be using again by installing Linux, so it's worth a serious look if you want to save some money. Another weird factor i have found is that it is - as of right now - easier to find linux drivers for some older hardware than it is Vista drivers. I do not know if this will hold true 6 months form now, but right now that's the fact.

IMO, bottom line - new machine - get XP for now. Second choice, get a Mac. Third choice, go linux, last choice, go Vista.

good luck
joe

[Rakesh Malik]

On top of that, Microcrap insists on "updating" my computer with software that hardly qualifies as a patch or OS update. The Genuine Notifications is an example of that. Stay away from Microsoft if you can.

This attitude is the reason that certain viruses had such widespread impact even though the flaws they exploited had been patched for nearly a month before the viruses hit the wires...

The new x86-based macs are pretty nice, though in the end they do end up costing more than Windows machines (at my previous company, the IT department found that configuring the developer machines cost nearly 2x as much if they were macs than if they were Dells in order to match the configurations).

OSX is a lot like Linux, but with a pretty nice GUI. Windows XP also has a pretty nice GUI though; even my mother who isn't significantly more tech-savvy than my cat rarely has a need to ask for help.

[JavaDuke]

If your budget is not as tight as mine - go for Mac. Some call it religion, while some call it The System - reliable, fast and has nice gui. It is true that Apple hardware is way overpriced though. But I'd rather pay extra $$$ for peace of mind. What you really pay for is basically the UNIX operationg system that runs Photoshop IMHO it worth some extra bucks. Believe me - I just lost my hard drive because of Windows glitch.

[Michael Graves]

Rakesh, I think you misunderstood my message. I don't fault updates that protect the OS from intrusion or other malicious intent. Genuine Notifications does not do that. It scans your hard disk checking all versions of your software looking for pirated software. Now, I'm not big on piracy. But I'm even less enthusiastic about having a manufacturer invite itself into my computer to see what software I'm running. And when I tell the OS to notify me before installing updates, then GOD DAMMIT NOTIFY ME!!. Where I work, we test each and every Microsoft update and patch before we allow it to be installed on our servers. They run proprietary software that we make a few billion dollars a year from. Many patches do not work in conjunction with all versions of software. We have over 75 patches listed in our incompatible list. If my engineers identify a problem with a patch, then that's probably one I don't want on my computer at home either.

[Rakesh Malik]

Rakesh, I think you misunderstood my message. I don't fault updates that protect the OS from intrusion or other malicious intent. Genuine Notifications does not do that. It scans your hard disk checking all versions of your software looking for pirated software. Now, I'm not big on piracy. But I'm even less enthusiastic about having a manufacturer invite itself into my computer to see what software I'm running.

I'd like to find out what's really going on under the hood...

And when I tell the OS to notify me before installing updates, then GOD DAMMIT NOTIFY ME!!.

That I agree with.

Where I work, we test each and every Microsoft update and patch before we allow it to be installed on our servers.

The last company I worked for that made that claim had their network taken down because they were so far behind on the patches. Several of my friends and I had a good laugh over that, because it was a large defense contractor.

They run proprietary software that we make a few billion dollars a year from. Many patches do not work in conjunction with all versions of software.

And it will get worse when MS stops bending over backwards to fix problems in other people's software... but that's not MS fault.

We have over 75 patches listed in our incompatible list. If my engineers identify a problem with a patch, then that's probably one I don't want on my computer at home either.

Other than a few applications that needed patching now and then, I haven't actually a problem with any of the software I've been running on my 3 XP boxes at home or with the XP boxes I've been using for work. I've also not had problems with viruses even though I don't have any virus scanners on my computers at home.

It took MS much longer than it should have to put it in place, but the testing process they have now is far more robust than what the vast majority of the companies out there have, so I'm no longer willing to trust the IT department to 2nd guess MS.

[Donald Qualls]

Unbuntu with GIMPShop. Did I mention if you build the machine yourself, you'll save $200 or so vs. the OEM version of Vista, or $100+ vs. OEM XP? That's enough to buy another RAM stick...

[Joseph O'Neil]

Other than a few applications that needed patching now and then, I haven't actually a problem with any of the software I've been running on my 3 XP boxes at home or with the XP boxes I've been using for work. I've also not had problems with viruses even though I don't have any virus scanners on my computers at home. .

-snip-

I have had issues with updates spoiling some of my software and even hardware setups. But to that effect, I have noticed two things. First, I use some speciality software that is not always in the mainstream. Takes longer for the small companies to catch up.

Secondly, and maybe it is just me and my natural sense of paranoia coupled with unrestricted conspiracy theroy syndrome, but it seems to me that any software product I use that has a direct MS compeditor - for example, I use Eudora or Thunderbird for e-mail, and i use Wordperfect business suite instead of the MS product, etc, and these "compeditors" seem to be the ones that suffer the first when some updates (not all) are automatically installed.

But then again, maybe the voices in my head are just saying the wrong things.

Back to the talk of linux (in my case Ubuntu), as much as I am learning to love and use linux, I would not reccomend to everyone to jump in cold. Maybe if you have somebody close by who understands linux and will come over for a couple of evenings or afternoons to get you started and running. But I would start learning it, if possible.

I see linux as the future for me. I have found in the past (starting my my old AT that had 2 meg ram and a 20 meg hard drive ) that for commercial & business operations, the usefull lifecycle of computer hardware & software is roughly 3 to 4 years before you are bascailly forced into an upgrade(s) of some kind. But linux changes that. My 6 year old laptop with linux fires up faster and runs programs like open office faster than my two year old laptop with XP and WordPerfect, even though the XP machine has twice the ram and is much faster processor.

If for business use I had to jump into a whole new O/S other than windows right at this moment, and have it work right out of the box, in my case, MAC would be the way to go. The learning curve and setup, IMO, is shorter than linux, but even that gap I think is closing.

joe

[Marko]

This attitude is the reason that certain viruses had such widespread impact even though the flaws they exploited had been patched for nearly a month before the viruses hit the wires...

Yes, I would agree with that. But when users start delaying system updates to avoid all the problems those updates may cause to the point that they compromise security, I would say there's a really BIG problem with the OS itself or with its manufacturer. Or both.

As a heavy dual Mac and PC user, I used to divide tasks between my Macs and my PCs, but I switched everything to the Mac over the past two years precisely because of what Michael talks about. I naturally have all my machines configured to look for updates at startup and to notify me before installing.

On the Mac, the system first gets a list of all the notifications and asks for your permission before the download and at the same time lets you choose which ones you want. Once the download is complete, it asks for authorization to actually install the downloads, installs them all in one swoop and only then restarts the computer. Only once, no matter how many individual pieces. Of course, it gives you a choice of restarting, quitting or continuing to do whatever you where at before the update.

Now, on the XP box, the downloads started being increasingly more frequent, more random and more time-consuming until the Genuine Notification came along. Then it became so slow, that I would start the computer up first in the morning and then went about my usual morning routines so I don't waste time waiting for GN to scan through everything. That's when I finally gave up on it and moved everything to the Mac. I keep two PCs now only for testing web pages I design and even that is mostly because of Microsoft's bugs and non-compliance with standards it participated in defining, this time in Internet Explorer.

Of course, my PC was relatively current when I first installed XP in order to run it at all. Any version of OSX will run on any G4 and newer, and even on most G3s. That's 1999 vintage we're talking about. And not just that, every version of OSX to date, and I had them all from the very first one, has increased the speed of the computer it ran on, regardless of its vintage!

This is actually one of the real strengths of OSX, as it will let you run whatever hardware you have as long as you find it fit. This significantly prolongs the useful life of equipment and stretches out the upgrade cycle.

The new x86-based macs are pretty nice, though in the end they do end up costing more than Windows machines (at my previous company, the IT department found that configuring the developer machines cost nearly 2x as much if they were macs than if they were Dells in order to match the configurations).

They don't really. Equally equipped PC will come up in the same ballpark as a Mac, provided that you use the same components. Real savings on a PC come from either omitting some options such as FireWire or BlueTooth and such that average users rarely use altogether or from using cheaper (read: lower quality) components instead.

But in a serious corporate environment, the price of hardware is just one part of the overall cost of the system and a relatively minor part at that. The biggest portion of overall cost is software and support. The reason why most IT departments consider Macs more expensive is that most if not all of them hold some Microsoft certification or the other and in order to properly support a Mac they need to hire a separate person. And in really serious corporations that can't afford to have any downtime, it means at least two people for redundancy.

On some levels, that mindset is very similar to web design: companies either pay for a full time designer or at least have a consultant on retainer OR they have one of their IT people, usually the Network Admin, slap something together in MS Front Page. It may be cheaper, but it shows very clearly.

OSX is a lot like Linux, but with a pretty nice GUI. Windows XP also has a pretty nice GUI though; even my mother who isn't significantly more tech-savvy than my cat rarely has a need to ask for help.

OSX is basically a BSD UNIX with NeXT STEP kernel and modified NeXT GUI.