Linux vs Windows.....

[Excessum]

XP 32bit on my regular PC (looking forward to the upgrade to Win Server 2008 64bit next week), Windows XP 32bit on my 24/7 rig and Debian on my office box (though i use it 2-3 times a month tops)... I would gladly move to Linux any day if only it had all the software i need... just the thought of running all of my win-based soft through Wine gets me an eye-twitch...

[KitsuneFr]

I use Windows XP at work, a Linux clone on my EEE PC and Vista on laptop.
I was surprised by Vista, because first it was very annoying to have always control messages even if you had Admin account, but now after a few months and after Service Pack 1, it is working nice, still even I wanna my job's desktop switched to Vista! But I don't use aero, for me it's a fake, my NGC main menu seems to do better!

[Tyrien]

The only problems I have with vista is the permission request when you want to do anything that can alter the registry, or system properties. Other than that it's great. Despite the bad press Vista is definitely the way to go unlesss you're a heavy PC gamer.

[naturesbless]

I'm using Windows XP right now... I'm waiting for Vista to get patched up a bit more then I'll probably switch to Vista. I don't really like to use Macs though... for some reason I just don't... I've always been using Windows XP and I guess I just like XP so much I don't want to change it.

My school has bad Macs so i guess that also built my dislike towards them. Also... I've never used Linux so I guess I can't place an opinion for it.

[MissMisa]

I like my Windows XP. You have to learn to use Linux and for me it's just not needed. Vista sucks because it likes to screw up everything I ask it to do, it can be sorted but it's a bind. My friend has a vista laptop an it likes to screw around with my graphics tablet, as well as everything else we attempt to plug into it. It's easily sorted but doesn't happen as often on XP so I'm fine with that.

Oh and I really like Macs. From a graphic design point of view, it works the best for me. Everything is easily accessible and you can switch between Painter, Photoshop or Poser really quickly. I used one at both my work experiance placements and I really liked them.

[Excessum]

Originally Posted by Tyrien

The only problems I have with vista is the permission request when you want to do anything that can alter the registry, or system properties. Other than that it's great. Despite the bad press Vista is definitely the way to go unlesss you're a heavy PC gamer.

It's not just about the games, Tyren... a lot of heavily-hardware dependent software works slower on Vista (Let's take video editing, or Virtualization for instance)... it just has too much unneeded stuff in it... That's why i choose Windows server 2008 over Vista... it is definitely not as user friendly, but it sure beats the crap out of Vista performance and customizability-vise. But yeah, Vistas 10-25% percent of loss in gaming performance in comparison to XP is also quite unpleasant.

[Tyrien]

Originally Posted by Excessum

It's not just about the games, Tyren... a lot of heavily-hardware dependent software works slower on Vista (Let's take video editing, or Virtualization for instance)... it just has too much unneeded stuff in it... That's why i choose Windows server 2008 over Vista... it is definitely not as user friendly, but it sure beats the crap out of Vista performance and customizability-vise. But yeah, Vistas 10-25% percent of loss in gaming performance in comparison to XP is also quite unpleasant.

True. But It's also known that if you're really serious about audio/visual editing, particularly larger files (HD/Uncompressed Audio) that a Mac is the best bet. The computers are designed around to do such things.

One thing I appreciate with Vista is the option to Turbo Cache 1GB of RAM. This helps for loading out of hibernation/sleep and makes even a cold-boot up faster in most cases.

One thign I'm nto fond of is 32Bit OS. This is because of it's lack of RAM viability. You're capped off at 3.5GB at most. Usually less though. Which for everyone except the niche crowd it's not required to have more than 2. 64-bit though from my understand is also known for more problems software wise because most modern programs are designed around the 32 bit architecture.

[Excessum]

Originally Posted by Tyrien

True. But It's also known that if you're really serious about audio/visual editing, particularly larger files (HD/Uncompressed Audio) that a Mac is the best bet. The computers are designed around to do such things.

One thing I appreciate with Vista is the option to Turbo Cache 1GB of RAM. This helps for loading out of hibernation/sleep and makes even a cold-boot up faster in most cases.

One thign I'm nto fond of is 32Bit OS. This is because of it's lack of RAM viability. You're capped off at 3.5GB at most. Usually less though. Which for everyone except the niche crowd it's not required to have more than 2. 64-bit though from my understand is also known for more problems software wise because most modern programs are designed around the 32 bit architecture.

The funniest thing about macs is that for the money you spend on a mac, you can assemble a PC that will perform the graphic/video editing tasks on the same level (and in most cases even better) as the apple boxes... They had a entertaining article on Tom's hardware about this about a year ago... and now considering the new generation of Intel CPU's... well, macs in my opinion have lost all the appeal as a designers workstation... though the personal preferences, of course, still remain

Yup, the caching feature is nice, though rarely used X)

About the 64-bit OS'es... yeah, although most of the 32-bit software cam be launched through emulation, the biggest problem (which has held me back from migrating to 64-bit for a long time) however, is the lack of low level software and driver support, especially for legacy devices... and the fact that a lot of the "64-bit" software is actually a recompiled 32-bit one... which may (and often is) cause some compability issues. Right now i am looking for a good 64-bit security package and i have found that most of my favorite antiviruses just won't work properly on 64-bits, although they are marketed as 64-bit applications. I do hope that Eset's smart security will work as intended when i have my 64-bit setup up and running >_<

As i understand you have had experience with 64-bit OS, Tyren?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Excessum

It's not just about the games, Tyren... a lot of heavily-hardware dependent software works slower on Vista (Let's take video editing, or Virtualization for instance)... it just has too much unneeded stuff in it... That's why i choose Windows server 2008 over Vista... it is definitely not as user friendly, but it sure beats the crap out of Vista performance and cstomizability-vise. But yeah, Vistas 10-25% percent of loss in gaming performance in comparison to XP is also quite unpleasant.

You can tweek vista to make it faster than XP could ever be... Vista has some serious power when you allocate a limited amount of memory to all the crap that's running in the background.

Also, at work, I'm actually testing a computer I built for some Video/Graphics guru's. dual core Xeon processor, 16gb Ram, SAS drives etc. On 32bit Xp, it was terrible. The ram, as you know, won't go past 3gb. I set up an array to have two SAS drives work together to become one which makes things faster, but 32bit XP doesn't see much difference...
Then come the 64bit xp... For this, XP runs amazingly well. But has disgusting issues running a lot of programs. In fact, the majority of programs install, but have like a backward compatibility thing where they install and run as 32 bit programs. It sucks...
Vista, aww, amazing vista. I never seen something run so smooth and so... WOW... I was in Awe... I set up a dual screen layout, ran several programs; Photoshop, Maya, AutoCAD, media player, IE, itunes, Call of Duty 4. THEN I opened a ONE GIG text file... The file opened in 5 seconds... On the other XP's, with nothing else running, the text file opened in no less than 5 minutes...

So now, in my report I'm giving in to the company, me and my boss (guy that actually knows all the stuff) are gonna recommend the company to incorporate Vista instead of sticking with XP. Especially for the high end users.
Next week, i'll be working on making a company specific image of Vista. So, soon enough, i'll be able to find out how much of the crap running the background is actually needed. But according to the boss, Vista has far greater potential than XP.

[Ryuk999]

im gonna have to stick with windows..well..cause i honestly have to say i have never in my entire life operated a system with linux installed..and for some reason..never interested..but yeh ^^;
oh and as for mac...well.. i honestly think their computers suck..but thats jus me ^-^