I had a small discussion in another section of the forums going and discovered that there were more people than I thought who were not using Windows.

My question to you is, 'What's your OS and why?'

What do you use it for?
How does your OS help you out for your needs?
What would you change?

and, if your non MS, why?

Just general discussion, but pretty interesting I hope.

I'm currently using Windows Server 2003 Enterprise.
Why? It's the most stable form of Windows I could get my hands on that does everything WinXP could and A LOT more.
It's also the best Windows gaming platform I've used.

I've also got Linux running recently as an alternative for experimentation(will make full move eventually).

MCE 2005. I chose it for better picture/video/music fun. That is about it.

When you ask a question like that in forums like this, you are going to get a higher percentage of people using something other than Windows. These forums tend to attract the so-called geeks, and they are most likely to be using something less user friendly like Linux or Unix. Before any of you Linux/Unix geeks say your OS is as user friendly as Windows, just don't, because it isn't so for the average computer user, which you are not. Computers are tools, not the end all as many geeks tend to view them. Before you geeks crack on me, I consider myself one of you, with skills far above the average users. In fact, my business is computers. We run Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP Pro on workstations. It's a stable, integrated platform with readily available software and hardware, and support. Just like our customers, we want simplicity and ease of use when accomplishing our business tasks. I'm not knocking other than Windows OSs, they're just not what we need to do our business most efficiently, and they're not what our customers want.

Windows XP and 2k3 Server
Simple, it works, its easily secured, and everything runs on it.
I have Cygwin installed on all my machines so I can SSH into them and do stuff, but I only use it when I'm away from my computer.

I've used a Mac longer than I've used a PC, and let me tell you, Mac OS X f'ing sucks.
it kernel panicked more than my Windows BSODs (twice in my entire lifetime of using Windows)

Plus with Windows, if you dont like something, you can remove it (XPLite or w/e). Like all these people complaining about spyware, dude, just uninstall Internet Explorer if you dont know how to use SBSD and SpywareBlaster.

Heres a good trick to keep Windows Explorer from crashing if a program hangs it. Open up a folder, go to Tools > Folder Options > 'View' Tab > Check Launch Folder Windows in a seperate proccess.

I find this quite interesting, everyone who has replied so far is very much in favour of MS - not because MS is bad or anything, just because people usually are very anti MS because it's 'cool'.

What would you say the advantages of running Server 2K3 over 2K?

In reply to jesterx, personally I don't think MAC OS X 'f'ing sucks'. I have my PC for any 'power-usery' that I want to perform, and I run OS X I guess in the way 99.5% of DELL customers run XP. As in, not really pushing it that far and wanting to keep it nice and simple. I need my Apple for my work, but recently I have been using it more than my PC for web browsing, Office etc...

Good tip for XP though.

What's Linux like as a server (integrated into a WXP/OSX environment?

I'm pretty sure M$ has a huge long list of FAQ on that one.
The biggest one I can think of is Active Directory.

And with the the recent release of R2 you get virtually transparent Unix compatiblity. .Net Framework 2.0 was added too, but it'll take time to fully utilize it.

I view Server 2K3 as being optimized for both XP Pro and 2K Pro clients while 2K Server was only targeted at 2K Pro.
It's a matching thing.

Hacked up Windows XP Home pre-Service Packs for the real "workhorse" machines. Tweaked Windows ME on the K6-2 system.

Why not XP Pro? And ME tweaked how?

I thought ME was a lost cause?

Home because I don't have a need to use the added features of Pro. I can network just fine using Home. I have a copy of Pro sp1, and a copy of Home SP2, and a copy of MCE 2005, but I prefer to use this early copy of Home sans service packs, just because it has so little overhead (1.01 GB install size, 70 MB of ram usage and 58 MB of page file after startup on a fresh install!).

I use ME because the computers won't run well on XP, and I don't own a copy of windows 2000. I have a copy of 98SE, and copies of 95a and 95b OSR 1.1 (usb support), even a copy of 95a on a 27 floppy disk installation set. Of all the 9x OS's, I find ME to be the best offering. It really doesn't appear to be any less stable than 98SE.

The tweaks I'm referring to are just simple settings adjustments and the removal of unnecessary programs (outlook, movie maker, etc.) to allow ME to run well on only 92 MB of ram, as ME really needs 128 MB to run great.

WinXP home on my main machine - because it's good for gaming and I could get a legal copy cheap (OEM when I built the machine)

Win2k on my download box, because it's stable and I had a copy spare 'cos I put WinXP on the main machine.

Windows 98 sits in a case on the shelf. I still need the 98 disc as my Win2k was an upgrade version.

Windows 95 is in it's case, in a big box full of junk. If I ever use it again as anything other than a coaster, then feel free to stick a pitchfork in my head.

LOL... I did recently find a use for windows 95 8O

A friend of mine farms, and all his John Deere shop manuals are on CD, using PDFs to view the schematics. It was a pain to have to print off the schematics so that he could view them in the shop, and if he happened to need a different schematic, he'd have to go back inside the house and look it up, and print it out. Don't forget that farm equipment maintenance is a dirty job, so the idea of getting the computer, mouse, door handles, and floors dirty by having to go to and from the house to get these schematics were not well received by his wife.

The fix? I made him a special purpose computer that he can use in his shop to view the diagrams directly from the CD, greatly reducing his repair time. The computer was a pentium 120 MHz machine on an AT mobo, with something like a 2x CD-ROM, 800 MB hdd, and a floppy drive. I removed the sound card and modem, installed a passive heatsink rated for a p133, put windows 95a on it, and removed all the programs (internet explorer, paint, games, etc). I installed Foxit reader, and a couple John Deere desktop backgrounds. It is very fast and rugged enough for its environment (heat, cold, lots of dust). other than that project though, I doubt I'll ever use windows 95 again.

Does anyone actually like Windows 95? I wouldn't normally ask, but someone liked Windows ME.....

Superb question!

Hmmm.... let me think

*5minutes later*

No (OEM with my P-75)

Windows 95 was awsome when it was new, and it really wasn't all that bad even when windows 98 and 98SE were out. When windows 2000/xp came out though, windows 95 really started to show its age. Then the usb phenomenon took over, practically killing windows 95. Windows 95 was great in its day, but now it is too old to be considered for a modern operating system (most cd burners won't work, modern web browesers don't work, at least 90% of usb devices do not work, most new programs/games will not support it, it can only address 512 mb of ram, etc.). It is still great for a single purpose and/or electronic typerwiter functions though.