Rumor: Windows 8 Set for September Reveal

:D I'm trying to avoid this topic at all costs. If they like Windows... good for them. That's the extend of my opinion :).
What do you use Mac or Linux?
I hate Win, and managed not to have a Win laptop for 2 years now (proudly using my mac). But now, I'm about to start my MFE and think I need one to work with others in my classes. Still, my new laptop has dual-boot (with Ubuntu) so if I find it feasible, I will use it for everything. Win 7 is better than previous Win OS. But still, I had more errors and reboots in 2 weeks with Win 7 than I did with Mac since 2008!!!!
 
What do you use Mac or Linux?
I hate Win, and managed not to have a Win laptop for 2 years now (proudly using my mac). But now, I'm about to start my MFE and think I need one to work with others in my classes. Still, my new laptop has dual-boot (with Ubuntu) so if I find it feasible, I will use it for everything. Win 7 is better than previous Win OS. But still, I had more errors and reboots in 2 weeks with Win 7 than I did with Mac since 2008!!!!

Why do you guys hate windows?
 
I used Mac for several years and turned to Windows 7 (dual boot) few months ago, so far I am satisfied with my windows experience... the main problem I had with Mac was the lack/compatibility of softwares which are popular in the PC world, I still remember several frustrating moments which I really wished to go back to windows (but the fame of Vista made me hesitate). However the smoothness and simplicity of Mac still is a great selling point.
 
What do you use Mac or Linux?
I hate Win, and managed not to have a Win laptop for 2 years now (proudly using my mac). But now, I'm about to start my MFE and think I need one to work with others in my classes. Still, my new laptop has dual-boot (with Ubuntu) so if I find it feasible, I will use it for everything. Win 7 is better than previous Win OS. But still, I had more errors and reboots in 2 weeks with Win 7 than I did with Mac since 2008!!!!

BTW, as you had mentioned it I just realize I didn't get any crash or 'frozen' issue so far which was really the trademark of windows... Windows 7 does improve a lot to be fair
 

koupparis

Carpe noctum
Vista was a POS when it came out. It was Windows 7 beta ... Still a Windows fan considering how many kinks have been ironed out. Everything is compatible (*nix/Mac have issues), software is abundant (again issues with *nix & Macs). Sure I have to reboot once every couple of weeks or so ... and I believe since 09 running Windows 7 I've had 1 or 2 BSODs ... likely my fault though :D
 
and I believe since 09 running Windows 7 I've had 1 or 2 BSODs ... likely my fault though :D

Reason for 99% of alls BSODs is a poorly designed driver which is not ceritifed by WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) and failed to handle situation like memory allocation failure due to fragmented memory or something like this. This small window which usually pops up when you try to install software driver and it says that it's not certified - there is a good reason not to conitinue ;)
 

koupparis

Carpe noctum
Macs and *nix machines are susceptible to viruses too. They haven't been targeted because there is no benefit in doing so. Spammers, DOSers etc see no use in attacking machines that make such a small percentage of online computers. Basically, the're superior in this sense because they're excluded ;)
 
Microsoft makes fantastic Operating Systems... why, just the other day, I was using their latest good OS, DOS!
 
Macs and *nix machines are susceptible to viruses too. They haven't been targeted because there is no benefit in doing so. Spammers, DOSers etc see no use in attacking machines that make such a small percentage of online computers. Basically, the're superior in this sense because they're excluded ;)

This argument is ages old, and rebutted number of times: see for pointers to some discussions here, but basically Unix machines are much less virus susceptible because Unix has sane system architecture regarding the security, and because Unix users are in general knowledgeable enough not to rush to click on any sort of crap they find in their e-mail. As for "no benefit in doing so" - don't be silly: Unix machines are indeed much smaller in numbers, but on the other side much bigger in importance (probably better part of server machines you access in your everyday work are on some sort of Unix).
 

koupparis

Carpe noctum
and because Unix users are in general knowledgeable enough not to rush to click on any sort of crap they find in their e-mail.
This says nothing about the susceptibility of Unix machines to viruses.


As for "no benefit in doing so" - don't be silly: Unix machines are indeed much smaller in numbers, but on the other side much bigger in importance (probably better part of server machines you access in your everyday work are on some sort of Unix).
True most servers, databases etc are housed on Unix boxes, how many emails & websites are accessed on these boxes? How many different peripherals are plugged into these boxes? That's the difference. You don't usually use and access a server like your home machine. You have to actually hack your way into these machines, and these days this is getting harder and harder. Also virtually due to their setup as servers etc they are made impenetrable.


Taken from your link:
Shane Coursen, a senior technical consultant with Kaspersky Lab, claims, "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system ... The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the interest by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS.
All I'm saying is there is a reason why Windows PCs are so prone to malware, viruses etc, and it may in part have to do with the architecture, but it also has to do with the way Windows is used and by whom. Are the people developing for MS for all these years that daft?

Anyway all I wanted to point out is that people are too quick to toss out Windows. Don't get me wrong, I oftentimes think it's a POS OS, but I still do 95% of my work without errors in Windows.
 
This says nothing about the susceptibility of Unix machines to viruses.
Well it does in a sort of way, as Unix is such of a platform that is forcing its users to learn about the system in more details, instead of just clicking around. Although I have to admit that with this new generation of Linux users, coming to use only distributions that are created to be as much Windows-like as possible (like Ubuntu etc.), that may not be the case any more.

True most servers, databases etc are housed on Unix boxes, how many emails & websites are accessed on these boxes? How many different peripherals are plugged into these boxes? That's the difference. You don't usually use and access a server like your home machine. You have to actually hack your way into these machines, and these days this is getting harder and harder. Also virtually due to their setup as servers etc they are made impenetrable.
Actually, there are lots of Unix machines that are used both as servers, and for daily work of many of users. For example at my department at university there exist two Linux machines, one for teachers and the other one for students, and both run mail, Web and number of other servers (including SMB server for all Windows workstations accessible by students), and are also accessed daily (either through SSH or X clients) by many people for doing their work. However, the effect of hypothetical Linux virus spread for example by e-mail can't came close to the effect of Window virus: as I've mentioned above, Unix systems have reasonable security architecture, with clear separation between administrator and other users, so eventually files and such of a particular user could be affected, but that's all; that's simply not the case for Windows systems

But I understand your point. Still, if you take into account other types of malware, wouldn't you say that trying to breach into some Unix servers would be much more tempting for crackers than breaching into some dummy desktop Windows machines? So the whole argument that Unix machines are not attractive as target just can't hold.

Taken from your link:
If you read up to this quote from Kaspersky guy, then please read also rebuttal by Rick Moen - I've linked to this Wikipedia page exactly because it lists several of alike pointers, so that I don't have to beat a dead horse here.

All I'm saying is there is a reason why Windows PCs are so prone to malware, viruses etc, and it may in part have to do with the architecture, but it also has to do with the way Windows is used and by whom. Are the people developing for MS for all these years that daft?

Anyway all I wanted to point out is that people are too quick to toss out Windows. Don't get me wrong, I oftentimes think it's a POS OS, but I still do 95% of my work without errors in Windows.
I've restrained myself from discussion in this thread for exactly the same reason that @alain mentioned in his message above: whatever OS or anything else works for someone and make him happy - it's great. But if we have to compare, let's base the comparison on sound arguments.
 
I've restrained myself from discussion in this thread for exactly the same reason that @alain mentioned in his message above: whatever OS or anything else works for someone and make him happy - it's great. But if we have to compare, let's base the comparison on sound arguments.

The most relevant base has to be the compatibility of softwares and the ease of programming in each environment. Do I find it easier to program on Win/Mac rather than on Linux? In terms of compatibility, where do I have to screatch head more?!
 

alain

Older and Wiser
The most relevant base has to be the compatibility of softwares and the ease of programming in each environment.

What do you mean by "compatibility of software"?

Do I find it easier to program on Win/Mac rather than on Linux? In terms of compatibility, where do I have to screatch head more?!.

I haven't programmed on the Mac so I can't comment. However, I find it easier to program in Linux than in Windows
 
What do you mean by "compatibility of software"?

When writing a software on different OS, how much you should care about if the software will be compatible with other versions of OS. There are platform specific softwares which can be tun on particular OS. That's what I meant.
 
Top