Linux Mint is my favourite OS because of its compatibility and support. In most cases, all your hardware will run perfectly on first boot with the open source drivers and, if it doesn't, the extensive and friendly support forum is a lot more helpful (and supportive) than the Windows helpline.
I've got to say that my favourite OS has to be Windows XP just because of how easy it is to use it. It's simple, useful for getting work done, easy to navagate through files, and just really everything about it that I love in an Operating System.
Well compatibility and support are usually key things I look for in an OS. But that aside, Windows 2000 was always one of my favorites. I loved the simplicity of the interface and the stability of the OS. 9x's interface was also a favorite of mine.
Although there'd be no market for it, I'd love a modern OS with the 9x interface. Using a browser with the IE 5.5 interface and a modern rendering engine would be so much fun, at least for a little while.
Modern interfaces are great, but there's something kind of satisfying about the old 9x design. I'm not sure I'd ever use it as a daily driver, but it would certainly be a fun nostalgia trip.
Windows XP... because I loved the simplicity of it which is what modern OSes are lacking these days. I also like macOS really because it was a fond college memory
I've got to say that my favourite OS has to be Windows XP just because of how easy it is to use it. It's simple, useful for getting work done, easy to navagate through files, and just really everything about it that I love in an Operating System.
I spent many happy years with XP as my main OS but it wasn't until I started using Linux that I realised how little Windows encourages the user to be in control of his/her own system. When I was using XP, I would have been terrified of messing up the OS and having to reinstall it which meant I very rarely tried anything that was out of my comfort zone. With Linux, I don't have that fear and I've become a much more proficient computer user as a result and, in turn, I've been able to move that proficiency over to Windows 98 and get more out of it because I know what to look for.
Well compatibility and support are usually key things I look for in an OS. But that aside, Windows 2000 was always one of my favorites. I loved the simplicity of the interface and the stability of the OS. 9x's interface was also a favorite of mine.
Although there'd be no market for it, I'd love a modern OS with the 9x interface. Using a browser with the IE 5.5 interface and a modern rendering engine would be so much fun, at least for a little while.
Modern interfaces are great, but there's something kind of satisfying about the old 9x design. I'm not sure I'd ever use it as a daily driver, but it would certainly be a fun nostalgia trip.
windows NT 3.x and 4.x also good But it is more suitable for "workstations"
XP hands down was my favorite for years, just like with so many others (tis why Microsoft had such a hard time getting people to move to Vista - which was and is a POS, and then "OK, let's try again - Win7).
Now my fav is Win7. I can do so much simultaneously, and I can run XP AND Win98 virtually simultaneously, AND download from torrent AND FTP, and run another window with my cracker softs - erm I mean "my investigative tools" like the hex editor.
Yeah.
I really don't give a rats patootie about support or fkn vulnerabilities - the OS does amazing things.
We are so far beyond typing:
CD
CD:\
Dir | dir.txt
Windows 7 is a complex monster, and I hated it when I decided to keep it on the first new laptop that came with it. But I can work my way through it's intricacies somewhat now, and - here's the really, really important bit: I can accomplish useful work on other softs.
I'm not knocking the Linux fan bois - but seriously all that seems to go on is the endless variations of shells on top of the same core OS (like when Winderz users had this fad going on for Windows Blinds) and no one actually demonstrates (to me anyway) useful work being done - other than browsing the interwebs, and bragging how it's not vulnerable to malware.
Whatever.
The OS is just a tool to me - not a reason for existing.
I'm not knocking the Linux fan bois - but seriously all that seems to go on is the endless variations of shells on top of the same core OS (like when Winderz users had this fad going on for Windows Blinds) and no one actually demonstrates (to me anyway) useful work being done - other than browsing the interwebs, and bragging how it's not vulnerable to malware.
Personally, I find Linux useful for playing old PC games on a contemporary OS because Wine and PlayOnLinux are more configurable than the Windows compatibility mode. I also find Linux better for emulators than a post-XP Windows OS. I use Linux for one of the very things it's criticised for: gaming.
In any case, I'm not particularly anti-Windows. I had many happy years using XP and most Linux die-hards would disapprove of my use of Wine.
Either Windows 95 or Windows 2000 Professional. I use 7 as my everyday OS, but these two are tied for my favorite. Despite it's many, many flaws, I love Win95. You can get the best of both worlds, DOS and Windows. And I keep my backups on a laptop with 2000. It plays all my media files, and most of my games work as well.
Hmm... I have a lot of mixed feelings for most OSs I've used. I'd say that in the Windows category, either 2000, XP, or 7 are my favourites in terms of design and functionality. 2000 and XP are very simplistic and I like them for mostly the same reasons, and 7 looks good but is very performance-hungry. I've always appreciated macOS/OS X/Mac OS X more though, I really liked how certain features were handled and I always liked the design of the system. I admit I'm not very fond of 10.10 and everything after that but same can be said for Windows (I don't like 8 or 10). As for my favourite Mac system... I don't know. I liked 10.3, .4, .6, .8, .9, and .11.
As for Linux, it's really hard to say because one of the biggest issues for me with it is the lack of compatibility with other programs, but I still really like the amount of variety and customisation there is to Linux operating systems. But from what I recall, I had quite a bit of problems with it so I don't like it that much.
I just want to add this: I'm using Win98 in a VM quite a bit right now, and it brought back good memories of having a GUI OS that literally snapped things open and shut. Boom-boom.
Windows 7, everything just kinda lumbers along, "oh we'll kinda open a window, eventually when you ask we'll get around to closing a window too".
Ah crap, the one OS that I like using without compatibility support. Pear OS 7 was a good nifty OS to use, but my favorite would have to be a tie of XP, Windows 7 and Ubuntu. Ubuntu just for the packages, and availability of different programs for that system is awesome. Way better than Solaris, or Open Indiana for that matter.
Either Windows 95 or Windows 2000 Professional. I use 7 as my everyday OS, but these two are tied for my favorite. Despite it's many, many flaws, I love Win95. You can get the best of both worlds, DOS and Windows. And I keep my backups on a laptop with 2000. It plays all my media files, and most of my games work as well.
Although there'd be no market for it, I'd love a modern OS with the 9x interface.
Why isn't this a thing? I'd use it.
There is, actually. I used Classic Shell when first switching to W7. Now, its still there all these years later, but I don't believe any of its features are active.
I adore Arch Linux, because Linux excels at letting you mix, match, tinker, and fiddle with every last detail of the system, and Arch's simplicity leaves plenty of room for nerding out over things like desktop environments and custom builds of software. It feels like you're building your own system out of prefabricated components rather than being delivered a finished product.
For actual work I'd probably just end up using Windows or macOS (is that what they're calling it these days?) because those systems are more cohesive wholes, but there's something thrilling about starting with nothing but the base group of packages and pacman-ing your way to a fully functional graphical system with all the modern conveniences (or a pile of xterms held together by TWM if that's what you prefer.)
Comments
Although there'd be no market for it, I'd love a modern OS with the 9x interface. Using a browser with the IE 5.5 interface and a modern rendering engine would be so much fun, at least for a little while.
Modern interfaces are great, but there's something kind of satisfying about the old 9x design. I'm not sure I'd ever use it as a daily driver, but it would certainly be a fun nostalgia trip.
I spent many happy years with XP as my main OS but it wasn't until I started using Linux that I realised how little Windows encourages the user to be in control of his/her own system. When I was using XP, I would have been terrified of messing up the OS and having to reinstall it which meant I very rarely tried anything that was out of my comfort zone. With Linux, I don't have that fear and I've become a much more proficient computer user as a result and, in turn, I've been able to move that proficiency over to Windows 98 and get more out of it because I know what to look for.
Now my fav is Win7. I can do so much simultaneously, and I can run XP AND Win98 virtually simultaneously, AND download from torrent AND FTP, and run another window with my cracker softs - erm I mean "my investigative tools" like the hex editor.
Yeah.
I really don't give a rats patootie about support or fkn vulnerabilities - the OS does amazing things.
We are so far beyond typing:
CD
CD:\
Dir | dir.txt
Windows 7 is a complex monster, and I hated it when I decided to keep it on the first new laptop that came with it. But I can work my way through it's intricacies somewhat now, and - here's the really, really important bit: I can accomplish useful work on other softs.
I'm not knocking the Linux fan bois - but seriously all that seems to go on is the endless variations of shells on top of the same core OS (like when Winderz users had this fad going on for Windows Blinds) and no one actually demonstrates (to me anyway) useful work being done - other than browsing the interwebs, and bragging how it's not vulnerable to malware.
Whatever.
The OS is just a tool to me - not a reason for existing.
Balance grasshopper, seek balance.
Personally, I find Linux useful for playing old PC games on a contemporary OS because Wine and PlayOnLinux are more configurable than the Windows compatibility mode. I also find Linux better for emulators than a post-XP Windows OS. I use Linux for one of the very things it's criticised for: gaming.
In any case, I'm not particularly anti-Windows. I had many happy years using XP and most Linux die-hards would disapprove of my use of Wine.
Why isn't this a thing? I'd use it.
As for Linux, it's really hard to say because one of the biggest issues for me with it is the lack of compatibility with other programs, but I still really like the amount of variety and customisation there is to Linux operating systems. But from what I recall, I had quite a bit of problems with it so I don't like it that much.
Windows 7, everything just kinda lumbers along, "oh we'll kinda open a window, eventually when you ask we'll get around to closing a window too".
There is, actually. I used Classic Shell when first switching to W7. Now, its still there all these years later, but I don't believe any of its features are active.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/make-windo ... indows-xp/
For actual work I'd probably just end up using Windows or macOS (is that what they're calling it these days?) because those systems are more cohesive wholes, but there's something thrilling about starting with nothing but the base group of packages and pacman-ing your way to a fully functional graphical system with all the modern conveniences (or a pile of xterms held together by TWM if that's what you prefer.)