Well, we should all be familiar with one version of Microsoft Windows or another, but what about the rest of the OS world?
I've tried Linux, attempted to try BeOS (failed to install), Mac OSX, DOS, OS/2, and of course, MS Windows.
I also know of Sun's OS called Solaris, but, other than that, what other Operating Systems are there that are maintained, current, and supportive of current hardware?
Anything?
[EDIT] FreeBSD, too, I forgot to list that one! Any good?
[EDIT][EDIT] ...er, well, all the other BSDs, too :-P
[EDIT][EDIT][EDIT] Darwin doesn't count because it doesn't have an Intel-side GUI,... or does it and I'm unaware?
~Kujila
ID:188318
May 11 2004, 4:08 pm (Edited on May 11 2004, 4:19 pm)
|
|
Kujila wrote:
I've tried Linux, attempted to try BeOS (failed to install), Mac OSX, DOS, OS/2, and of course, MS Windows. Which one? |
Well, from what I can remember, you've pretty much named all of the OSes that deserve mentioning. Although, when you say "Linux", you leave quite a broad market. There are so many different versions of Linux that it's not funny. Most of them are made by different people. Oh the wonders of open-source.
Anyway, I'm a Linux fan myself -- preferrably Mandrake because of the extensive development tools. It might be a good idea to look into LindowsOS, a kind of merging between MS Windows and Linux itself. Considering it can support both Microsoft and Linux compatible applications. Although, I think it's a little more functional when it comes to Linux applications... Not sure, haven't had the chance to use it just yet. Regardless, there's always a solution for those running MS Windows when they need Linux somewhere. This is called Cygwin. I believe you can find Cygwin at: http://www.cygwin.com/mirrors.html and the same site has some rather extensive information on the emulation. -- Slipknight |
In response to Jon88
|
|
I've tried Linux, attempted to try BeOS (failed to install), Mac OSX, DOS, OS/2, and of course, MS Windows. You mean there is more than one disk operating system :)? |
In response to Theodis
|
|
I know of AmigaDOS, QDOS and MS-DOS, but I'm sure there are lots more.
|
In response to Hazman
|
|
AmigaOS is still alive and kicking, and I understand is still the only true multitasking OS available for the desktop (ok, for the Amiga platform). Amigas themselves are staging a comeback in the near future.
|
In response to digitalmouse
|
|
digitalmouse wrote:
Amigas themselves are staging a comeback in the near future. *snicker* They've been saying this for years. |
In response to Slipknight
|
|
Considering it can support both Microsoft and Linux compatible applications. This isn't really true. Despite the yammering about it, Lindows (Linspire nowadays) isn't anything special. It's just a Linux distro made stupid. It's only purpose is to trick Walmart shoppers into buying their computers. It doesn't have anything capable of running Windows programs, except perhaps WINE, which is to say, it's exactly like any other Linux distro. I wouldn't bother with it. |
I also know of Sun's OS called Solaris Solaris is just a UNIX variant. If you've used Linux and BSD, it won't be anything really new. Not for a desktop user, at least. [EDIT][EDIT][EDIT] Darwin doesn't count because it doesn't have an Intel-side GUI,... or does it and I'm unaware? No. But you listed OSX already, anyway. :-) |
In response to nick.cash
|
|
nick.cash wrote:
[EDIT][EDIT][EDIT] Darwin doesn't count because it doesn't have an Intel-side GUI,... or does it and I'm unaware? There is a project to port MacOS X to Win32 platforms: http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/index.html - still a bit rough, but seems to be working. |
Steven3428 wrote:
digitalmouse wrote: Perhaps, but not legally. From the Mac OS X software license agreement: This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. I don't think a PC qualifies as an Apple-labeled computer. :) That said, I'm kind of curious to see how slow the above emulator is. I've read numerous times that a PowerPC emulator running on an x86 chip would be horrendously slow, and several times slower than Virtual PC is on a Mac. The reason I've seen given is that that PowerPC architecture has many more registers than x86, so it would take many more x86 operations to complete any PPC operation that uses multiple registers. I'm not a CPU expert, but this makes me curious to see whether such a project would even be worthwhile. |
[EDIT]: I like FreeBSD (the command line, anyway)