Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Dora

4 (5.4%)

Sven

1 (1.4%)

Faye

4 (5.4%)

Tai

3 (4.1%)

Marigold

12 (16.2%)

Hanners

10 (13.5%)

Mieville

1 (1.4%)

Raven

3 (4.1%)

Veronica

1 (1.4%)

Jimbo

1 (1.4%)

Jim

0 (0%)

Padma

0 (0%)

Princess (Sven's cat)

1 (1.4%)

Pintsize

0 (0%)

Yelling Bird

1 (1.4%)

Shame Orb

1 (1.4%)

Harriet

3 (4.1%)

Turkeys (male)

1 (1.4%)

Turkeys (female)

0 (0%)

Other (specify)

2 (2.7%)

OK, Fine, Claire

3 (4.1%)

Oops, forgot Marten

5 (6.8%)

And Momo

11 (14.9%)

Let alone Emily!

6 (8.1%)

Total Members Voted: 69

[jwhouk]

Yeah, I still use 7.

[Masterpiece]

Well, tastes differ, it'd be a sad place if they didn't. I'm glad we have a choice, I chose this.

Well, that's fine. Didn't even know it was yours, just thought you were mentioning another operating system with it. I wouldn't want to go without regular desktop icons and that stuff.

Also this stationary computer is still on Windows XP, although my laptop is Windows 7. Never been much for jumping into Windows systems and very consciously skipped Vista because some techier friends were saying bad things about its performance at the time. My computers are mediocre enough without that. /shrug

I skipped Vista too, after having used it on my fathers' machine for a while. It didn't differ too much UX wise from XP, just looked unnecessarily flashier and was so much slower. It never made any sense to switch to it, and I've been using Win7 after that happily.
I've been using a Lumia 800 and 920 after for two years now, and I've been wanting to make the switch to Win8 ever since I first saw leaked images of it. It's Win 7 with a layer of candy on top (imho), boots in four seconds, sleeps in 1, synchs without effort to both phone and new laptop, and runs Visual Studio, Photoshop and Premiere. I'm happy to use it.

[Masterpiece]

Windows keeps track of your homies now?

Nope.
But I am. (I called my friends Homies once, as a joke. They started calling themselves Homies since then  )

[Method of Madness]

My old laptop came with Vista in January 2009. It wasn't awful, but that fall Windows 7 came out and I had a student discount of $30 to upgrade, so I did. I'm glad I did. (The current computer I got refurbished in summer 2011 came with Windows 7 and I have no intention on "upgrading".)

[mtmerrick]

Kind of surprised, really, the fight hasn't already started over whether Dora should or should not be using a MacBook as opposed to a PC laptop. Or even a (gasp) tablet. Now there's a fight to watch. Even more fun to watch than "USS Defiant vs. Millennium Falcon: Who'd win?"

Well you only have access to some porn from a tablet, because a great many pornsites run on flash and most tablets don't run flash (at least, out of the box).

judging by the thickness of the laptop its not a Macbook Air or a Macbook Retina, but instead a standard issue Pro. I thought Dora was worried about money? a Pro starts at well over a grand.

i can't hate on anyone for using OSX. Its a pretty decent system. (IMO, more user friendly than w8 or conventional linux distros, but still can't hold a candle to 7) (but this of course is simply my opinion) This is completely the opposite of my feelings for iOS, which i consider to be little better than a Feature Phone OS. Seriously, even the craptastic Windows Phone 7.0 is more capable than iOS.  but that's an argument for a different topic.

and the defiant is SOOOOOOOO much better than the Falcon 

Well, tastes differ, it'd be a sad place if they didn't. I'm glad we have a choice, I chose this.

Well, that's fine. Didn't even know it was yours, just thought you were mentioning another operating system with it. I wouldn't want to go without regular desktop icons and that stuff.

Also this stationary computer is still on Windows XP, although my laptop is Windows 7. Never been much for jumping into Windows systems and very consciously skipped Vista because some techier friends were saying bad things about its performance at the time. My computers are mediocre enough without that. /shrug

I skipped Vista too, after having used it on my fathers' machine for a while. It didn't differ too much UX wise from XP, just looked unnecessarily flashier and was so much slower. It never made any sense to switch to it, and I've been using Win7 after that happily.
I've been using a Lumia 800 and 920 after for two years now, and I've been wanting to make the switch to Win8 ever since I first saw leaked images of it. It's Win 7 with a layer of candy on top (imho), boots in four seconds, sleeps in 1, synchs without effort to both phone and new laptop, and runs Visual Studio, Photoshop and Premiere. I'm happy to use it.

My feelings towards MetroUI and W8Apps are not NEARLY as positive as yours. That said I plan to skip over W8 if at all possible and go straight to Windows Blue (or, as its being called now, Windows 8.1)

[Method of Madness]

I have high hopes for Windows 9 because odd number Windows (98/XP/7) have been the better ones. Also...why does 7 need candy on it?

[Kugai]

Laptop runs 8.  Been getting used to it after shifting up from nearly two decades of XP on my old Desktop.

[Near Lurker]

You know, though... all this discussion about Dora's taste in porn is making me think about how she and Marten split up.  We're not looking at history repeating itself, are we?

[Storel]

I have high hopes for Windows 9 because odd number Windows (98/XP/7) have been the better ones. Also...why does 7 need candy on it?

One review I read somewhere recommended NOT upgrading from 7 to 8 unless you have a tablet, because the reviewer felt the new features of 8 were mainly tablet-oriented.

You left out Win 2000, which was awesome. I used 2K for years and loved it. XP was the next version after 2K, so that's two good versions in a row. Since then, yeah, basically every other version has been good.

[Is it cold in here?]

You know, though... all this discussion about Dora's taste in porn is making me think about how she and Marten split up.  We're not looking at history repeating itself, are we?

I certainly hope not.

Mieville may not know her password anyway.

[Bluesummers]

You left out Win 2000, which was awesome. I used 2K for years and loved it. XP was the next version after 2K, so that's two good versions in a row. Since then, yeah, basically every other version has been good.

Win2000 was 5.0, WinXp was 5.1 (both good versions, both odd integers)

[cesium133]

And Windows Vista, 7, and 8 respectively are technically 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2. 

[DrBear]

Maybe it's me, but I had no trouble with Vista and very little with 8, except for learning a couple new commands. Granted, the new 8 start screen has no place on a desktop computer that doesn't have a touch screen, but it works well enough when I get past that. Then again,maybe I'm a 

[mtmerrick]

I never had any problem with Vista, other than performance...

[Loki]

My Vista came with 512 MB RAM.

I later discovered it needs 1GB to run.

Don't know what they were thinking. 

[Pilchard123]

As did mine - though I thought it ran really well, since the last desktop computer I had was a 98 (possibly SE, can't remember) upgrade from a 95. Luckily, I was given 7GB of free RAM from work when I left. They were chucking out some machines and I asked if I could salvage the parts. I also got an entire tower out of it as well.

[GarandMarine]

Vista wasn't awful once you beat it into line. I like 7, I'm hoping to skip 8 completely.

[westrim]

*Tech hat*
Between 3 laptops bought at different times with wildly different specification orientations, I've used the last three operating systems, two for at least 3 years each. Here is my opinion:

Vista got a bad rap for issues that were mostly normal teething problems or manufacturers being minimum spec abusing twerps, but with the benefit of hindsight it was objectively a pretty decent operating system and a worthy evolution of Windows. My bargain basement laptop from 2008 ran it fine.

Windows 8 similarly gets a bad rap, but from personally using it for the last 3 months, I can say that most of the dark rumors I heard about it are bunk. All it required was a bit of poking around, and I barely see the start screen or any of its apps anymore. The performance improvements are noticeable, everything I'd been told was gone was still there, and holy heck the progress bar for moving files is actually informative, realistic, and accurate.

Waiting for the next OS after Windows 8 is a fools errand. It's a bridge between the desktop and the future as far as Microsoft is concerned, and the next OS will likely be completely Metro like, with no desktop. I think this is a fundamental error stemming from confusing about the difference between using a computer to consume or to produce and will cripple Windows as a productivity platform, but they didn't ask me.

[mtmerrick]

I was with you up until this point:

Waiting for the next OS after Windows 8 is a fools errand. It's a bridge between the desktop and the future as far as Microsoft is concerned, and the next OS will likely be completely Metro like, with no desktop. I think this is a fundamental error stemming from confusing about the difference between using a computer to consume or to produce and will cripple Windows as a productivity platform, but they didn't ask me.

Which is bull, because we've SEEN Windows Blue, its NOT a huge departure from 8. In fact they're so similar they're calling it WIndows 8.1 - basically its windows 8 without all the stupid limitations.

Yes, Microsoft wants the desktop to go away. but right now Windows Phone 8 is a more capable platform than WIndows RT, and RT basically is W8 without the desktop. "PC metro apps" are so far from being able to replace the entirety of the desktop its not even funny.

Plus, there are a LOT of programs people use on a daily basis that simply can't work as a metro (or metro-only) app, due to code and framework restraints. Things like Browsers, media players, and games. much less something that requires heavy lifting like Revit. 

Microsoft won't be killing off the desktop anytime soon.

[Masterpiece]

I have used Windows 8 on a tablet and it seriously flies. But while the first pass of Win 8 was clearly tablet only (I remember the developer preview, and that one was horrible to use with mice), the final product is pretty well operable with a mouse. Granted, the behavior clashes between desktop and metro don't make sense and hurt usability, but if you use gestures like hot corners and swipe from top to bottom, it's very usable.
mtmerrick, why would you want to wait for Windows Blue, which so far looks like nothing more like a feature update to Windows 8, the snow to OSXs leopard? It's not gonna be fundamentally different, the official name is Windows 8.1
My opinion on the start screen is a bit split. But before I get into that topic, I want to ask you: Do you still use the start menu? I know I never did, unless I wanted to access the universal search that was in it. The start screen still goes to search once you type, a vastly improved search, I might add.

[mtmerrick]

I use my start menu religiously. loads of programs and custom shortcuts pinned to the main view of the start menu, and a crazy custom folder setup in the all apps menu.

[TimO]

The trouble with Windows (and any other OS for that matter), is that to sell a new version, it needs to look radically different, so that people think that they're buying something new.

It would be nice if they spent effort on making it more resilient and bug proof, and better internals to program against, but that isn't what sells to the average bod on the street.

It's the difference between selling a new car based on it's greater efficiency and green credentials (which is starting to work to a degree), or selling it based on its looks, with Carlos Fandango spoilers and go faster stripes, which unfortunately is what makes it look like a fast car to the run of the mill bod.

Even open source software suffers from that, since they need to compete with Windows on the desktop, so have to also come out with a new and prettier version periodically.

[Madmartigan]

I feel so alone.

Looks I'm one of the few hearing running on a MAC OS.

[Sidhekin]

In an argument about Windows versions, don't expect OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, nor other Unixen to be hot topics.

Unless neck-beard AI makes a cameo. 

* Sidhekin is mostly a Linux user, but the only thing keeping him from sharing his workplace experience with Vista, is the dread of reliving it all.

[Mr_Rose]

My only workplace experience with Vista was wiping it so I could put XP on the company laptops.

[mtmerrick]

My only workplace experience with Vista was wiping it so I could put XP on the company laptops.

same here. In my uncle's office, there were several Vista 32 machines that I downgraded to XP. Never had to worry about vista in my home life. Several of my relatives had/still have vista machines, so I've had plenty of exposure to it. I Honestly don't mind it, if it runs smooth enough. 

[Storel]

...and holy heck the progress bar for moving files is actually informative, realistic, and accurate.

OMG, isn't that a Sign of the Apocalypse?? 

I never thought I would see that in my lifetime.

[Method of Madness]

I'm not so much waiting for the next OS as I am just keeping 7 because I have no reason not to.

[Masterpiece]

...and holy heck the progress bar for moving files is actually informative, realistic, and accurate.

OMG, isn't that a Sign of the Apocalypse?? 

I never thought I would see that in my lifetime.

You should watch this Not a valid youtube URL. A lot of the ideas Win8 had for the desktop are good ideas.

Also, if you have the time, watch this: http://uxweek.com/2012/speakers/jensen-harris/

Jensen Harris, the guy who developed the Metro look and feel for Windows 8, gives a presentation on user experience in Win 8. I love the guy

[Storel]

Very cool, thanks for the video!

[bhtooefr]

In an argument about Windows versions, don't expect OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, nor other Unixen to be hot topics.

Unless neck-beard AI makes a cameo. 

* Sidhekin is mostly a Linux user, but the only thing keeping him from sharing his workplace experience with Vista, is the dread of reliving it all.

I've got four Linux machines, one OS X machine, and one FreeBSD machine running simultaneously, plus a couple Solaris machines, another couple Linux machines, and another OS X machine in my storage unit.

The Linux machines:
bhtooefr-server, Dell Dimension 2100 running Ubuntu Server 10.04
Eowyn, Asus RT-N16 running DD-WRT
unnamed WRT54G running DD-WRT in client bridge mode
Droid 2 Global running Android 2.3.4
(in storage) HP TouchPad running Android 4.0.something
(in storage) another WRT54G running DD-WRT

The OS X machines:
bhtooefr-mbpr, MacBook Pro 10,1 running OS X 10.8.3
(in storage) Forgot the name, probably bhtooefr-ibook, PowerBook 6,5 (iBook G4), running OS X 10.5.8, although barely

The FreeBSD machine:
uncannyvalley, Dell CS24-SC (a weird Core 2-era 1U dual socket whitebox server that Dell badged as their own, presumably for some major customer) running FreeBSD 9.1 (just installed this morning, will be replacing bhtooefr-server)

The Solaris machines:
(in storage) leydenjar, RDI PowerLite 50 running Solaris 2.5.1
(in storage) brescia, SunBlade 2500 running... OpenSolaris b134? Been a long time since I booted that machine.

In any case, I use Windows pretty much exclusively at work, but thankfully I don't have to touch Win8 yet.

[Bluesummers]

And Windows Vista, 7, and 8 respectively are technically 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2. 

That's...incredibly stupid of them. Why call it "Windows 7" if it's really "Windows 6.1"? Thanks, MarketingSoft.

[Method of Madness]

Because it was the 7th Windows (I don't think 2000 counts, but I'm not entirely sure why).

[Bluesummers]

Was it the seventh Windows? I'm not quite sure...If we go by Wikipedia's records, it should really be "Windows 17"...

This, of course, counts Versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.1NT, 3.5NT, 3.51NT, 4.0NT, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8. Most people aren't going to count all of those, but still....it's confusing.

[Method of Madness]

3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8 (which is why I praised the odds and don't care for the evens (from 98 on, at least).

[Sidhekin]

Gets me thinking ...

There were for a while two different series of Windows.  The four(?) NT versions and the 2000 started a new fully 32-bit series, "building" on OS/2 and VMS , parallelling the old hybrid 16-bit/32-bit series, based on MS-DOS.

The old series was dropped (except marketingwise, I guess) after ME (Millennium Edition nicely parallels 2000).  The later XP, Vista, 7, and 8 are of the new series.

I guess that makes the seven versions 3.1NT, 3.5NT/3.51NT, 4.0NT, 2000, XP, Vista, 7.  (Counting 3.5NT/3.51NT as one, marketingwise?)

After which it would be simple, marketingwise, to retrofit the "7th" to the old series as well, probably counting XP, Vista, and 7 as belonging to that one as well, since the "Home" versions of these were marketed as such a continuation ...

ETA: Oh, and here's a nice table of NT versions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases

[YourMaster]

The question isn't "why is it 7 when it's really 6.1", it's "why does GetVersionEx() say it's Windows version 6.1 when it's called Windows 7".  The 6.1 number is checked by software, both good and bad software, to decide what the host operating system is capable of.  And when they moved from 5.1 to 6, they got a bunch of unnecessary compatibility breaks that they didn't get when the previously moved from 5.0 to 5.1, so they decided not to move the major version up by 1.  Windows 8 returns 6.2.  I psychically predict the next version will be 6.3.

Why is the minor version number less of a problem than the major one?  That just happened to be something poorly-written applications tended to ignore anyway.  I guarantee there's at least one poorly written application that will balk at even the minor version number change.  There might even be ones that are find with the major version number but not the minor one.  If they hit critical mass at Windows 13 (say), then they might just jump the major number straight from 6 to 13.

None of those numbers indicate anything "real".  One is just a name made up to explain the product to people.  Another is a made-up number (technically, a vector, not a decimal number) which is a name to explain the product to software.  Their purpose isn't really counting, it's distinguishing.

This isn't substantially different from how Mac OSX has been the tenth Mac OS for 12 years now, yet we're up to the 9th Operating System called OSX, which naturally has version number 10.8 (because the first was 10.0 and the second was 10.1 etc.).  Or the iPhone mess, where the 2nd one was called 3G, the third was called 3Gs, then they got it right again with 4, then they ruined it by naming the 5th one 4s, and the sixth one is obviously called 5.

Anyway, as far as version numbers go, the Windows 9x series (including Me) was all Windows 4.something (eg. Me was 4.90, which is not 4.9 but is 81 minor versions higher than that); Windows 2000 and XP were Windows 5.0 and 5.1; Vista was Windows 6.0.  Before Windows 95, Windows was marketed by version number directly (eg. Windows 3.1).

[pwhodges]

Before Windows 95, Windows was marketed by version number directly (eg. Windows 3.1).

You forgot the Windows vs Windows for Workgroups split.  And Windows 3.11 hasn't been mentioned either.

And there was the GUI that didn't make it... (Bob)

[Pilchard123]

Comic Sans made it though.

[Is it cold in here?]

Perhaps Microsoft has realized that the only way to get the stock price rising again is to sacrifice a version.

[DSL]

Perhaps Microsoft has realized that the only way to get the stock price rising again is to sacrifice a version.

You get to skate on this one because the pun jar's busy over in the ant thread.

[Redball]

She does, however, seem to be sensitive (and not for the first time) to the (projected) opinion of one particular individual of of the species felis silvestris catus, and therein to me lies the joke of QC Two Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Nine.

EDIT: OK, here's my contribution to the overthink: We know Dora projects her opinions onto Mieville ("No, not murder. You always suggest that") so she lets the cat stand for her slight guilt feelings (because she reads the forums) about watching a guy-on-guy porn site. Not much of an overthink, I admit, but the best I have for now.

I didn't make a connection between my own viewing habits, my cats and  this comic until last night -- I mean, a cat is just a cat, right? But my long-ago neutered male Siamese has started humping my arm after I get into bed with my laptop. The little bastard gets angry with me when I throw him off.

[Masterpiece]

Thank you YourMaster, you explained the compatibility issues much better than I could have.

[bhtooefr]

For what it's worth, the entire list of released (not alpha, not beta, not Release Candidate, not (in one case) a beta add-on to a release version, although a couple of these are a bit iffy as far as not being beta - namely, Premiere Edition 1.00, and ) Windows versions by major and minor version, as far as I know. I'll note that, with NT 3.10, and with Windows 4.00, Microsoft began transitioning to doing fairly major functionality changes and bug fixes in service packs or OEM Service Releases, whereas before they did them in minor version changes. I'll list those in parentheses.

1.0x
Windows Premiere Edition 1.00
Windows 1.01 (added Write)
Windows 1.02
Windows 1.03
Windows 1.04

2.0x
Windows/386 2.01
Windows 2.02 (might have just been the 8088 build?)
Windows 2.03 (also available as Windows/286 and /386)

2.1x
Windows 2.10 (only available as /286 or /386)
Windows 2.11 (only available as /286 or /386)

3.0x
Windows 3.00
Windows 3.00a

3.1x
Windows 3.10 (also available as Windows for Workgroups, which added SMB/NetBIOS/NetBEUI support)
Windows 3.11 (also available as WfWG, which added an updated kernel with 32-bit driver support and the aforementioned SMB/NetBIOS/NetBEUI support)

NT 3.10
Windows NT 3.10 (RTM build 511, RTM build 528 (apparently added DEC Alpha support), SP1, SP2, SP3 - I might have this slightly wrong)

NT 3.5x
Windows NT 3.50 (RTM, SP1, SP2, SP3)
Windows NT 3.51 (added PowerPC support and some bugfixes, RTM, SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5)

4.00
Windows 95 (RTM, SP1/OSR1, OSR2, USB Supplement to OSR2, OSR2.1 (slightly updated kernel from the USB Supplement), OSR2.5)

NT 4.00
Windows NT 4.0 (RTM, SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SP6, SP6a)

4.10
Windows 98 (98, 98 Second Edition)

4.90
Windows Me

NT 5.00
Windows 2000 (5.00 - RTM, SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4)

NT 5.01 - I'll note that during this time, Microsoft started changing how they displayed their version numbering. Most versions of NT 5.01 display their version as 5.1.
Windows Advanced Server Limited Edition (ASLE 1.0 (and this one identified as both Windows Whistler (XP's codename) and as Windows 2000 ), ASLE 1.1 (not sure if this displays as 5.01 or 5.1, or what it IDs as))
Windows XP (displayed as 5.1 - RTM, SP1, SP2, SP3 - also in a "64-Bit Edition" (RTM, SP1) for Itanium)
Windows Datacenter Server Limited Edition (don't know how it displayed)

NT 5.02 (displayed as 5.2)
Windows Advanced Server Limited Edition 1.2
Windows Server 2003 (RTM, SP1, SP2)
Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, Version 2003 (RTM, SP1)
Windows Server 2003 R2 (RTM (2003 SP1 with added features), SP2)
Windows XP x64 Edition (RTM (based on 2003 SP1), SP2)

NT 6.00 (displayed as 6.0)
Windows Vista (RTM, SP1, SP2)
Windows Server 2008 (RTM, SP1, SP2)

NT 6.01 (displayed as 6.1)
Windows 7 (RTM, SP1)
Windows Server 2008 R2 (RTM, SP1)

NT 6.02 (displayed as 6.2)
Windows 8 (RTM)
Windows Server 2012 (RTM)

I'd say it's fair to lump any .0x change in minor version before NT 5 together (I've seen more functionality added by a service pack, than by any .0x change before NT 5.01), so that means there's 1.0x, 2.0x, 2.1x, 3.0x, 3.1x, NT 3.1x, NT 3.5x, 4.00, NT 4.00, 4.10, 4.90, NT 5.00, NT 5.01, NT 5.02, NT 6.00, NT 6.01 (being the 16th version by that measurement), and NT 6.02.

Now, given that Windows 7 is consumer oriented, let's remove every NT prior except for 5.01 and 6.00, and forget about 6.02 (because it's just incrementing by one)... now it's 1.0x, 2.0x, 2.1x, 3.0x, 3.1x, 4.00, 4.10, 4.90, 5.01, 6.00, 6.01, or eleven versions.

Combine 2.0x and 2.1x, the changes were really quite minor as I understand (much less than some service packs *cough*XP SP2, 2003 SP1*cough*), we're to ten. Combine 3.0x and 3.1x, even though the changes were much more major there (and 3.11 had an edition with very major changes), we're to nine. Combine 4.00, 4.10, and 4.90 (I can actually make the case for combining 4.00 and 4.10, there's more difference between 98 and 98SE, than there is between 95 OSR2.5 and 98, but 4.90 is actually quite different under the hood), we're finally to seven.

[jwhouk]

Meanwhile, I miss Mac OS 6.0.8.

[Zebediah]

I actually saw a working installation of Windows 2.10 once, long ago, back when it was still state-of-the-art. I wasn't impressed.

[Storel]

Meanwhile, I miss Mac OS 6.0.8.

The last Mac I used regularly ran the highest version of System 7 -- 7.5, or something like that? -- and I miss it a lot. I loved how friendly, elegant, and easily customizable it was. Basing the Mac OS on Unix just seems... klugey to me. I used Unix extensively in college (it was my first real OS, actually) and it has an elegance of its own, but it was never designed as a GUI OS, and I just can't see how putting a GUI layer on top of it could ever be as clean as having an OS that was designed for GUI from the ground up. It seems to be doing well, though, so I guess it works.

[bhtooefr]

Honestly, OS X is my favorite *nix as a user, although the key is partially that most of what you see as a user isn't the traditional *nix world - it's EXTREMELY different (which is what NeXT was going for back in the 1980s, I know). Yes, you can fire up Terminal.app, and get a somewhat BSD-like userland, but even then, a lot of what you work with is still NeXT/Apple, not BSD.

I find most *nixes to actually be fairly ugly and hackish, but they are damn effective, I will say.

(Then again, one of my favorite OSes to play with is RISC OS, which is an AMAZINGLY hackish OS, that as soon as you go under the hood, sane developers start projectile vomiting at how ugly things are. My ideal OS would probably incorporate elements of RISC OS, BeOS, and have central package management that works seamlessly with multiple repositories. Request a package from the attached repos, get a package. Grab something from somewhere else and put it on the system, and it automatically registers itself with the package manager for updates and dependencies to be fulfilled from either the system repos or a repo referred to in the package.)

[westrim]

I'm not so much waiting for the next OS as I am just keeping 7 because I have no reason not to.

No argument there. I've never seen the point in buying a new OS if it's not coming with a new computer. If in some alternate universe I had the money for a desktop and a laptop so I could focus the desktop on performance and the laptop on weight, the desktop would probably still be running Windows XP with new parts. But I don't, so laptops only for me.

The only Mac I used was in elementary school, so I couldn't tell you the OS version. I played the heck out of SimCity 2000 on it, though.

[jwhouk]

Oh yeah, SimCity on my Mac LC was fantastic.