What Operating System do You Use?

[averyimaginativename]

Old software indeed. Wine really lacks in support for DX9, DX10 and DX11 based games, and people who are not using NVIDIA or AMD’s proprietary drivers will invariably miss some OpenGL features that may be supported by their hardware as well.

Fair enough. The only 3D games I really play are Penumbra (oddly, the Windows version under Wine works fine, but the native version doesn't like FGLRX), Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines, and Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. So yeah, YMMV with newer games.

[MCP]

Macs are more for those who are media-obsessed (have a ton of music or something) or do artsy stuff like music composition or digital art. Linux I can't say anything about, because I've never tried it. And, of course, the above is just my personal opinion.

Just to be clear, while Mac OS X may come with more media friendly stuff out of the box (sort of, you have to buy it extra...), Windows is not lacking (especially if you buy software for it).

(edited from below comment)
For those who really want to do film editing, photo editing, and music editing, there is little difference because most major applications used by professionals or hobbyists run on both platforms. If I were a professional film editor, I'd buy a Windows laptop/desktop, an expensive HD Monitor, and whatever professional software I require. It would be cheaper and just as reliable.

For me, OS X is more like Linux without the headaches, unless you want to do open source development, then it usually becomes more of a pain in the butt.

I thought about this and there are two features OS X have that Windows does not:
1. Stable GUI. Things generally appear in the same place with the same commands as long as this application is using Cocoa. Also the GUI is fairly smooth. I've tried running Firefox on many different versions of Linux and don't try to visit something such as MLB.com, it will run slowly and look horrible while trying to scroll.
2. Back up included in the operating system. This is (or maybe was) not the case for Windows. Linux obviously can have backups, anything is possible on Linux.

There are a lot of little things, but since I haven't had enough time with Windows 7, I should stop comparisons until I know more. There are hardware differences too, but this has little to do with OS X.

[professor_max]

@artisticdude: If the bandwidth is a problem, you can take your Mac into an Apple 'store'; and apparently they will install Lion for you.

[Alarantalara]

For those who really want to do film editing, photo editing, and music editing, there is really no difference because all major applications used by professionals or hobbyists run on both platforms. If I were a professional film editor, I'd buy a Windows laptop/desktop, an expensive HD Monitor, and whatever professional software I require. It would be cheaper and just as reliable.

Unfortunately, this is not true. There are major applications that only run on one platform (e.g. Avid Studio for Windows, Final Cut Pro for OS X) and even for applications that run on multiple platforms, the plugins available may differ depending on platform (e.g. Photoshop). I have not done the research, so I do not know if one should be preferred for any case, but there is definitely a difference.

[uncleshelby]

I am extremely sad. My Ubuntu laptop died. R.I.P.

[johndh]

I primarily use Windows XP because that's what I'm forced to use at work.

At home I use whatever Linux distro I happen to be playing around with at the time (currently Xubuntu), and my first Android phone (also Linux) should be arriving in the mail this week.

[Evropi]

I dual-boot Lubuntu (LXDE/Openbox) and Windows XP. I'd probably never have tried it if it weren't for Windows Vista and it's twin brother (or the same person?) 7 being a piece of crap. Support for software is actually falling on XP which led me to try Linux.

I really dislike most Desktop Environments for Linux (don't you dare call it GNU/Linux) and other Unix-like systems except KDE but my terrible old desktop which is single-core and has an IDE hard-drive just cannot handle it at a decent speed. For anyone wanting to use it, do not try GNOME 3; it will make you want to pry your eyes out. I was never a fan of GNOME 2 anyway and Xfce I've found just as bad; but this is anti-ergonomy on a whole new level. Unity has much of the same philosophy and [lack of] usability, stay far away from that as well.

It's pretty decent. But I probably boot into XP slightly more as all my games are there and I'm too stupid to use WINE properly. Apart from that, everything's cool! Now, if only LibreOffice (or Calligra for that matter) actually used a Ribbon GUI... a lot of people detest it but after having received training in its use by an employer, I must say my productivity with Ribbon is a lot higher than with the traditional, ugly and seriously cluttered GUI which resembles that of Microsoft Office 2003. Nevertheless, Lubuntu is pretty decent if a bit half-arsed. If you want to try out KDE, use Chakra Linux; that distro is rad. When I get a gaming PC, I'll definitely switch to that.

[uncleshelby]

I really dislike most Desktop Environments for Linux (don't you dare call it GNU/Linux)...

GNU/Linux yeah,yeah. does have some really good Deskop Enviroments/Window Managers, you just have to find them. I use Awesome WM, a lightweight window manager that is possible to use with just the keyboard. It's Super-fast (half-second logins), and it's a tiling manager, which means it re-sizes the windows automatically, which means... Less touching the mouse! Yay!

except KDE

Bleh. KDE is bloated. I can't stand bloat. Just saying. Although I'm a programmer with a slow computer, so if your a non-programmer with a fast computer... I guess you could like it.

For anyone wanting to use it, do not try GNOME 3; it will make you want to pry your eyes out. I was never a fan of GNOME 2 anyway and Xfce I've found just as bad;

GAH! Die, GNOME 3! Man, what on earth were those devs thinking? It's slow on a 8 Gig Ram, 2+ GHz machine with all the drivers installed! Gnome 2 isn't amazing, but at least it's usable. XFCE is just ugly. Bleh.

Now, if only LibreOffice (or Calligra for that matter) actually used a Ribbon GUI...

I haven't used any Ribbon GUIs very much, but it seems okay.

Coming back to the subject of KDE, did you know that you can get it on Ubuntu/Lubuntu/Xubutnu (mine)/Any other Ubuntu? It's not that hard to install, actually. There's a million guides online.

[Crendgrim]

except KDE

Bleh. KDE is bloated. I can't stand bloat. Just saying. Although I'm a programmer with a slow computer, so if your a non-programmer with a fast computer... I guess you could like it.

Well, I am a programmer, and I always used KDE since switching to Linux. Okay, I never had a slow computer (I even need a fast one to compile in reasonable time), but KDE always worked nicely for me. Especially since KDE 4 is finally stable, it convinces me more and more; and I just do not want to miss all my programs again. At the same time I hear from many people liking Gnome 2, and even some being convinced by Gnome 3 or Unity. And then there are those who are using Xfce, LXDE, or "simple" (read: "non-bloated") WMs like you.
I guess this is all about personal taste and you just cannot say which WM is the best.

For a normal user, though, I would recommend using Gnome or KDE (or maybe Xfce / LXDE), as these are not only WMs, but also whole desktop environments.

GAH! Die, GNOME 3! Man, what on earth were those devs thinking? It's slow on a 8 Gig Ram, 2+ GHz machine with all the drivers installed! Gnome 2 isn't amazing, but at least it's usable. XFCE is just ugly. Bleh.

You call that machine slow?
Regarding Gnome 2, that is a nice environment for every-day use, if you do not like the mass of graphical effects and stuff KDE is presenting you. Xfce is a very fast and light-weight desktop environment, which I like to use for servers where I have to log in graphical from time to time.

Coming back to the subject of KDE, did you know that you can get it on Ubuntu/Lubuntu/Xubutnu (mine)/Any other Ubuntu? It's not that hard to install, actually. There's a million guides online.

If you want to use Ubuntu – why don't you just use Kubuntu then? That should be way easier than installing KDE upon an already existent Ubuntu installation...

[uncleshelby]

GAH! Die, GNOME 3! Man, what on earth were those devs thinking? It's slow on a 8 Gig Ram, 2+ GHz machine with all the drivers installed! Gnome 2 isn't amazing, but at least it's usable. XFCE is just ugly. Bleh.

You call that machine slow?

That's not the one I use. That's a server I've used a couple of times.

EDIT: Oh, it was heaven.

[lipk]

Gnome 3 is very good imo. It's not unfunctional at all, just very different from traditional DEs like Gnome 2 or Xfce. It's controlled by the keyboard rather than the mouse. It's not bad, you just have to get used to it. Ah, well, and it runs fine with less than 8 gig ram, an average Intel Core 2 Duo and a rather low-class ATI graphics card. Much smoother than KDE4 or Unity

[Iris]

It's controlled by the keyboard rather than the mouse.

That statement alone makes it sound like a major step back in the history of computer user interfaces.

[Kaiserdrache]

I'm using linux Mint in version 10 actually. Both my very cheap laptop (279€ / ~375USD) that is nearly two years old and my new desktop (half a year old, also very cheap at ~400€ / 535USD) run very smooth and I'm totally happy. Perfect OS for me, stable, secure and plenty of applications to choose from and everything for free (that's really important as I'm chronically low on money).

[Evropi]

(sorry for the extra-long post)
I should note, I focused on DEs in my post as they're really what make or break a Linux distribution depending on an individual's use case.
Personally, I am quite technical, just one step below a programmer but I want to avoid using the terminal at all costs. I really dislike it, seriously. I don't see it as a "non-free" way of thinking, I'm just not comfortable learning the syntax and all.

And lads, my desktop is 7 years of age and has a single-core processor--a 32-bit 2.66Ghz Intel Celeron 330! I don't think it can support the 1GB of RAM in my machine actually, being so underpowered. It's also extremely inefficient with resources due to its old technology, my mother's netbook seems to run faster with considerably less resources! It has 3D support as it has an upgraded graphics card, a GeForce 6800GT which is pretty decent but it's quickly being phased out and I can't play my Paradox Interactive games anymore. *sniff*

Bleh. KDE is bloated. I can't stand bloat. Just saying. Although I'm a programmer with a slow computer, so if your a non-programmer with a fast computer... I guess you could like it.

Well, I am a programmer, and I always used KDE since switching to Linux. Okay, I never had a slow computer (I even need a fast one to compile in reasonable time), but KDE always worked nicely for me. Especially since KDE 4 is finally stable, it convinces me more and more; and I just do not want to miss all my programs again. At the same time I hear from many people liking Gnome 2, and even some being convinced by Gnome 3 or Unity. And then there are those who are using Xfce, LXDE, or "simple" (read: "non-bloated") WMs like you.
I guess this is all about personal taste and you just cannot say which WM is the best.

For a normal user, though, I would recommend using Gnome or KDE (or maybe Xfce / LXDE), as these are not only WMs, but also whole desktop environments.

I agree. The main reason I'm stuck with LXDE is because I can't use a more full-featured environment like KDE. GNOME 2 was okay, it was just that I used KDE first and got used to that instead. However, GNOME is now dead and its insane zombie form known as version 3 has taken over which made me throw up in my mouth a little (I'm the first person to use this phrase since the 90s). My main gripe with it--apart from generally being butt-ugly (applications, not so much the desktop) is that applications don't fit in. The problem is that neither Qt (not KDE) apps like qBittorrent or Gtk apps (like Ubuntu Software Centre) fit in well. They resort to a really ugly theme which ignores the LXDE "widget theme" used in most applications.
Xfce I find too ugly personally and Lubuntu is already configured to look quite decent.

It's controlled by the keyboard rather than the mouse.

That statement alone makes it sound like a major step back in the history of computer user interfaces.

Pretty much summed up why I disliked it. Call it a first impression but it took me years before I began using keyboard shortcuts in other environments and I still tend to use the mouse more, it comes more naturally and certainly feels more practical. GNOME 3 assumes you type in the name of every application for instance and have a speed dial of sorts, a feature I never used even on my mobile phone. That's why I can never like it even it becomes more conservative in its design decisions like the Activity menu.
What people say about KDE and "too many clicks" is a load of crap. I have one hand on my mouse and the other in a resting position on my armchair. In GNOME 3 I'd have to go to Activities, Applications, scroll down a massive list, trying to look for the specific application which is uncategorised and then double-click it. What a joke of a desktop environment. And no thank you, I don't like your docks taking up my valuable screen space, a single taskbar with everything on it which is always shown is the ideal compromise between screen space and minimal clicking around! Sure, I could hide the dock and put it beneath open windows but that would simply be impractical, wouldn't it?

Coming back to the subject of KDE, did you know that you can get it on Ubuntu/Lubuntu/Xubutnu (mine)/Any other Ubuntu? It's not that hard to install, actually. There's a million guides online.

I know, man! But still, it's a heavy download and my downloads are limited to 100GB per 6 months by my ISP. I'm extremely careful with what I download.
I have looked into it before actually and I'm worried because the package is called "kubuntu-default" or something. There are a couple of them. My problem is that Kubuntu by default is extremely bloated in its default loadout and takes a very long time to start up. I've downloaded it before. Such a mess. I don't like its default loadout of apps either, like Clementine.

Another worry of mine is that I've always done clean installs in major changes like these. Can someone explain to me if I need to configure my xorg.conf or something before a change in window manager? LXDE does actually have a box in which you can type the name of the window manager you use in "Desktop Session settings" but just below it is a note to only use it if you know what you're doing and so on and so forth... does anyone have experience with such a change? Will X collapse, never to rise up again? The main reason I want KDE is because I've always been used to KDE applications and I know my way around them. I also like its philosophy--much contrary to the UNIX philosophy--very few programs that do very many things, sometimes with a sense of feature creep. But as it's such an old project, they do them rather well which is facilitated by the excellent UI!

[Iris]

And lads, my desktop is 7 years of age and has a single-core processor--a 32-bit 2.66Ghz Intel Celeron 330! I don't think it can support the 1GB of RAM in my machine actually, being so underpowered.

Unless you mean actual electrical power input (which would raise even more questions), I think it should work fine up to ~ 4 GiB without PAE (Physical Address Extension) assuming the actual circuitry on both the CPU and the motherboard supports the extra memory (someone more tech-savvy than me could confirm), other physical limitations on RAM module form factor, speed, capacity and count notwithstanding.

Another worry of mine is that I've always done clean installs in major changes like these. Can someone explain to me if I need to configure my xorg.conf or something before a change in window manager?

Just to get it out of the way since people tend to get them mixed up all the time, window manager != desktop environment. KDE*, GNOME, Xfce, LXDE are considered desktop environments that provide a window manager (or allow you to use an alternative), a basic set of desktop applications such as a plain text editor, file browser, terminal emulator, calculator, etc.; and a way to interact with installed applications through a common menu or a similar facility. Window managers only take care of a restricted subset of the functionality provided in a full desktop environment, that is, managing active applications and their windows, virtual desktops, compositing and so on.

(KDE’s window manager is kwin, GNOME 2’s is Metacity if I recall correctly, Xfce has its own and so does LXDE; it’s possible to use Compiz instead on KDE and GNOME 2.)

That said, your window manager choice and configuration is usually left to your desktop environment**. Your desktop environment is left to the display manager that allows you to login (KDE uses kdm, GNOME uses gdm, etc.), not even X.org, so xorg.conf is not involved. In fact, nowadays it should be rarely necessary to edit xorg.conf at all since modern X.org server versions use autoconfiguration at startup and usually do it correctly. In the past you’d often need to write a xorg.conf by yourself or with the aid of a tool to set your real/optimal input and output hardware configuration.

In gdm and kdm’s case, you can choose your desktop environment from a drop-down menu in the login screen for a single session. If you are using gdm you can configure the default for future sessions as well — no idea about kdm since I’ve never needed to change my defaults with it. The desktop environment doesn’t need to be started from the display manager that it includes — it is perfectly possible to launch GNOME from kdm, for instance, although in the past some non-standard functionality could become unavailable.

* KDE here referring to the full software compilation including Plasma Workspaces and the KDE applications.
** Unless you are using a plain window manager without a desktop environment.