Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:46:05 +0200 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "FreeBSD Questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's Message-ID: <007901c25b4d$6f55f970$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <20020911035308.GA90385@peitho.fxp.org> <200209130754.49828.bts@babbleon.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bob Bomar writes: > I am writeing a paper on the diffrences of various > Operating Systems. Mainly I am looking at Windows > and Unix and Unix-Like operating systems, and Windows > and Mac OS X. > > I am looking to gather information on how and why people > choose an OS. I am also looking to gather information on > why other OS's were not choosen. For the desktop, I chose Windows. It has the best support for the greatest number of applications, and it is the most popular and mainstream PC operating system. I have other things to do in life besides tweak my computers, so I follow the path of least resistance. I do, however, run only Windows NT and Windows XP (I have two desktop machines currently); I've never used Windows 9x, and I never will (the NT/2000/XP family and the 9x family are actually two completely different operating systems, and the latter is _dramatically_ inferior to the former, so much so that it makes it hard to get work done). I would probably still be using just Windows NT, but I had to get a XP machine in order to support a new scanner that requires Firewire--the usual story of everything becoming obsolete every six months (I wanted to try this on my FreeBSD machine, but nobody seemed to have any clue of how to do it, so I gave up on that). My home server runs FreeBSD, because I wanted a UNIX machine, and because FreeBSD seemed like a good choice, because it was essentially UNIX (except for the trademarked name), and it was free, and it matched the OS running on my external production Web server. I use the server to run e-mail, a local DNS server, a local FTP server, and a prototype of my production Web site. It is extraordinarily reliable and typically runs for months at a time (although I had to boot it a few days ago when a "mt status" command hung and absolutely could not be killed no matter what I did). > In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great > choice. It is fast, reliable, and very well > built. But as a desktop choice, it leaves a > little to be desired. I agree. FreeBSD makes a much better server than Windows NT/2000, much easier to use, much less hardware required, runs longer without problems and has fewer bugs (and it's free too!). However, I would not run any flavor of UNIX on the desktop. I tried that for a short time and it was a joke. Clearly, people who run UNIX on the desktop have little else to do but play with their computers; I could never afford to dedicate that much time to just getting a system to work. > Windows, IMHO will remain a main desktop choice for > a long while, but I do belive that alternative OS's > such as FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux, and other will become > more and more popular. I expect their popularity will level off soon enough. All flavors of UNIX are for geeks, not for the mainstream. The Mac has a better chance, but I don't expect the Mac to advance to any degree, either. It will be Windows for the foreseeable future. > As I have been going through a UNIX course at a > local college, I have come to appreciate Solaris. Proprietary operating systems have their advantages, especially when you need support. Linux, incidentally, is an incredible waste of time--a perfect example of a product that owes all of its popularity to hype, and none to technical superiority. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?007901c25b4d$6f55f970$0a00000a>