xkcd

by **HawkDesigns** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:32 pm UTC

I use Vista. It isn't as bad as people think.

by **swanzilla** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:43 pm UTC

Ubunto 8.10 on my old media notebook
Vista on my new notebook
Ubuntu 8.04 on my netbook
XP at work, with PuTTy to access our UNIX servers

I had Windows 7 beta running for a few weeks...I'll stick to Ubuntu for the time being

by **r1chard** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:47 pm UTC

I use Ubuntu and Vista.

Vista is as bad as people think.

by **b.i.o** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:19 am UTC

r1chard wrote:Vista is as bad as people think.

It is not, at all.

by **quartrmster007** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:29 pm UTC

Vista currently (desktop). This summer (getting a Macbook Pro for graduation), I'm switching largely to OS X. Considering dual-booting Ibex as well, but I'm on the fence about that.

by **zerohero** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:57 pm UTC

I had previously noted that I dual-boot Microsoft Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux. On the same machine I had in mind back then, I now use Debian Linux exclusively.

I have completely removed my need for the one thing that kept me on Microsoft Windows: the .NET framework, which I used with C# on a daily basis. Aside from being in general a C/Python programmer these days, I can still use C#, even though I only use Linux; the mono project is alive and well.

by **r1chard** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:30 pm UTC

b.i.o wrote:
r1chard wrote:Vista is as bad as people think.

It is not, at all.

It totally is.

It stopped me from ripping my Chemical Brothers CD, for example. It actually intercepts the rip and returns 8 seconds of music for each track. No other Operating System does that. Sorry, but in my books thats "as bad as people think".

Also I can't mount my network drives because I bought Vista Home Premium instead of Vista Home Premium Deluxe Special Sauce.

That's just off the top of my head.

by **Berengal** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:40 pm UTC

r1chard wrote:
b.i.o wrote:
r1chard wrote:Vista is as bad as people think.

It is not, at all.

It totally is.

It stopped me from ripping my Chemical Brothers CD, for example. It actually intercepts the rip and returns 8 seconds of music for each track. No other Operating System does that. Sorry, but in my books thats "as bad as people think".

Also I can't mount my network drives because I bought Vista Home Premium instead of Vista Home Premium Deluxe Special Sauce.

That's just off the top of my head.

I had some DRM problems with Vista as well, but only in WMP. VLC and MPC played movies at resolutions higher than 320x240 just fine. I haven't used Vista for over a year though, so they might've "patched" that.

No, being able to circumvent it doesn't make it better. Well, it actually does, but I'm going to pretend it doesn't.

by **Marz** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:08 pm UTC

The fact that Vista even attempts to do things like that proves that they are simply not interested in creating a useful operating system.

Vista has converted a few people I know to Ubuntu through the power of sheer irritation alone.

by **0xBADFEED** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:30 pm UTC

Marz wrote:The fact that Vista even attempts to do things like that proves that they are simply not interested in creating a useful operating system.

Yeah... that's what it proves :roll:

MS is incredibly interested in creating a useful operating system. Whether or not they succeed, or you yourself find it useful, is another matter.

by **Marz** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:05 am UTC

And yet they go out of their way to ensure you can't do certain things... They aren't the only ones, but DRM and "usefulness" are antitheses. Windows actively stops you from doing certain things which you'd actually, to be honest, like to do. Thus, they are not interested in creating a useful OS.

by **0xBADFEED** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:34 pm UTC

Marz wrote:And yet they go out of their way to ensure you can't do certain things... They aren't the only ones, but DRM and "usefulness" are antitheses. Windows actively stops you from doing certain things which you'd actually, to be honest, like to do. Thus, they are not interested in creating a useful OS.

Yea, because when MS included DRM in Windows they were thinking, "Awesome now people won't be able to use anything they like." Rather than the more likely scenario of it being included at the insistence of the big content providers. If you want to be mad at someone be mad at the people who insist on putting DRM in everything, which in some cases includes MS.

It depends on who it's "useful" for. DRM is very useful for content providers. Or at least they perceive it as useful. MS was indeed very interested in making an OS that is useful to content providers. You just happen to be a content consumer rather than a content provider. I would say MS is in the habit of trying to make the OS too useful.

But your argument is ridiculous and childish and completely overlooks the other billion and one things you can do. If you want to say "I don't like DRM and I don't like Windows because DRM is so tightly integrated into it." that would be fine. But saying, "I don't like DRM, and Windows has DRM therefor Microsoft isn't trying to make an OS that's useful" is just stupid.

by **Marz** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:46 pm UTC

Because content providers could really pressure the company with the majority in the computing market... Then they can uh, not distribute their content. Awesome.

It's not that they're thinking, "let's make this not useful!", it's that they're more interested in making money than making an OS that works how you'd like.
Now, you may be fine with that, but as there are OS's out there that aren't designed to irritate me, I'll go with them. And I tend to see things from a user's point of view, because, you know, operating systems are for users. Hence the name. "Useful [for the users]" was implicit.
(If you would like to be anal, yes, Microsoft is very interested in making an OS which is shit for users and awesome for content providers. Are you arguing that is a good thing?)

Also, it's not solely the fact that it has DRM, so that statement would be incorrect. There are a number of things Windows does just to stop me doing what I want to do. Any system that does so isn't worth my time.

Also, please don't be an asshole.

by **0xBADFEED** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:49 pm UTC

Marz wrote:Also, please don't be an asshole.

I'm not being an asshole. You're the only one getting all worked up here.

I didn't mean to imply that you were stupid in my last post and I wasn't calling you stupid. I was saying that line of logic was stupid and naive. I'm sorry if I offended you.

I didn't say they "pressured" them. I said they "insisted". You're assuming content providers want to distribute their content to your computer. They don't. That gives them less control. And they've basically been fighting it tooth-and-nail for the last decade rather than thinking "hey how do we make money off of this?" they've been thinking "Gee Willikers we're losing our shit".

DRM is a very complex topic and I'm no expert in it. But, I really don't think content providers are going to target computer-based distribution without DRM. MS knows that. They have to give them some sort of protection if they are going to target computer-based distribution. I know DRM is a pain in the ass, but it's the carrot on the stick that enables large content distributors to take that distribution model seriously rather than see it as a bunch of people just pirating "their" content.

MS is also a content provider so they perceive DRM as being in their best interest as well.

Why should I assume that "usefulness" is only for the user? It's not at all implicit.

And if DRM allows more content to be targeted at your computer is that "useful" to you?
I don't know.

What I do know is that you're oversimplifying a really complex topic and acting like MS is just out to piss people off for no good reason. Which you can't honestly believe. Or if you do, maybe you'd like to join us in the real world where most things are the result of many complex interacting forces rather than the whims of an evil overreaching corporation.

by **Marz** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:17 pm UTC

No, you're oversimplifying what I'm saying, too. I'm not saying that MS was placed here on Earth in order to irritate users, but I do believe that they are more interested in making money than making an operating system which is good for users. The problem is, DRM doesn't allow more content to be distributed to computers, because we can rip CDs anyway. Except, we can't if the operating system doesn't allow us to. So it's not giving us anything; it's just taking away, by not letting us rip music. If the OS didn't support DRM, we would rip music; there wouldn't be any more content provided... The content providers are scared about losing their shit, and they don't really know what to do; needless to say, stopping us from ripping music isn't what to do. That's just pretty dumb.

Anyway, we're in Religious Wars, so radical opinions are totally cool here.
As it stands, I don't know what the solution is, but I know the solution isn't to stop people owning their own property...
Besides, I'm a pirate, so I don't care all too much.

by **0xBADFEED** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:27 pm UTC

You're still thinking about the CD, DVD, etc. models of distribution.

I'm talking about DRM enabling whole new models of distribution. I'm talking about internet-based music services like Rhapsody, streaming movies and TV over the internet, etc. Direct distribution of content to your computer. The content providers would never go for that without some perceived layer of protection, DRM.

MS knows this. They know the best way to get the content providers on board with direct distribution to your computer is by offering this protection.

I'm saying an argument can be made that DRM is "useful" in the sense that it enables these new distribution models. This is what you're overlooking completely and what makes your stance naive.

by **Marz** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

I do believe we were discussing the prevention of CD ripping. Not torrenting, music downloads, etc.
With downloads, it is perhaps more understandable (although, in my opinion, still wrong).

by **Xanthir** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:38 pm UTC

0xBADFEED wrote:I didn't say they "pressured" them. I said they "insisted". You're assuming content providers want to distribute their content to your computer. They don't. That gives them less control. And they've basically been fighting it tooth-and-nail for the last decade rather than thinking "hey how do we make money off of this?" they've been thinking "Gee Willikers we're losing our shit".

DRM is a very complex topic and I'm no expert in it. But, I really don't think content providers are going to target computer-based distribution without DRM. MS knows that. They have to give them some sort of protection if they are going to target computer-based distribution. I know DRM is a pain in the ass, but it's the carrot on the stick that enables large content distributors to take that distribution model seriously rather than see it as a bunch of people just pirating "their" content.

You are correct that current CD/DVD sellers don't want to target computer-based distribution. Your problem comes when you say that DRM is necessary for them to target computers. Or, more properly, your underlying assumption that allowing DRM is the *only* way to get good content on our computers is your problem.

CD/DVD sellers don't produce music, nor do they produce movies. They produce CDs and DVDs. That's their entire business model, and that's why they've been fighting digital distribution, and coming up with asshattery like DRM and mass lawsuits. The music and movie industry are stronger and more profitable than ever before. The only major industry remotely connected to them that's losing money is the CD and DVD sellers (and, in a related note, the paper sellers that call themselves newspapers). The digital age of piracy we're in right now is actually enormously beneficial for content producers.

MS embracing DRM isn't doing us any favors. It is 100% a sop thrown to the CD/DVD selling industry. We users don't need it to get good content, and content producers don't need it to get paid. The idea that piracy hurts content producers is the most pernicious and successful lie the CD/DVD industry has managed to put out. It's good for users, it's good for content providers, it's bad for people trying to sell plastic disks. That's about it.

I'm talking about DRM enabling whole new models of distribution. I'm talking about internet-based music services like Rhapsody, streaming movies and TV over the internet, etc. Direct distribution of content to your computer. The content providers would never go for that without some perceived layer of protection, DRM.

You may notice that the DRM-based versions of these are gradually dying off, and being replaced by free-as-in-liberty versions. Your points are at least a few years old, BADFEED. It's become crystal-clear that people really *do* care about the effects of DRM on their computers and their content (especially when the DRM servers get shut down 2 years after you 'bought' your music...). It's also become crystal clear that people can make gobs of money off of exploiting piracy.

by **0xBADFEED** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:43 pm UTC

Marz wrote:I do believe we were discussing the prevention of CD ripping.

It started out as just ripping. Then you made a statement about how DRM was categorically bad and showed MS's disregard for the users. That's where I came in because that's a statement I have problem with. Even if DRM makes music-ripping a pain in the ass it has a fairly large up-side.

And you admitting that you actually do pirate content just proves the point that there is a case for DRM. You can't simultaneously hide behind "It's my content, I paid for it, I can do what I want with it" and infringe copyrights.

You can either use the content lawfully and be indignant that you're a law-abiding user that is being restricted, or you can infringe copyrights and be mildly annoyed.

Whether you believe the copyright law is fair or sensible is an entirely different debate.

Xanthir wrote:CD/DVD sellers don't produce music, nor do they produce movies. They produce CDs and DVDs. That's their entire business model, and that's why they've been fighting digital distribution, and coming up with asshattery like DRM and mass lawsuits.

...snip...

You may notice that the DRM-based versions of these are gradually dying off, and being replaced by free-as-in-liberty versions. Your points are at least a few years old, BADFEED. It's become crystal-clear that people really *do* care about the effects of DRM on their computers and their content (especially when the DRM servers get shut down 2 years after you 'bought' your music...). It's also become crystal clear that people can make gobs of money off of exploiting piracy.

I agree with you. I don't think DRM is necessary for these models.

But I do think it was necessary as the initial carrot-on-the-stick to get the distributors on board. I think in the future we'll see DRM go away. And that's a good thing.

I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit, as I generally think DRM is a pain in the ass and I'll be happy to see it die.

by **Xanthir** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:53 pm UTC

Damn your ninjaing. I had to wipe my whole post castigating you. >_<

I still disagree. I think DRM was a remarkably short-sighted move perpetrated by people who also hadn't yet realized the ludicrously profitable opportunities opened up by digital distribution. To be fair, things like torrents weren't around back then, where you can spend a pittance of bandwidth hosting a tracker and pushing out the first few copies and get your content out there to ridiculous amounts of people.

If DRM had never come into existence, I personally believe we'd be 5 years forward on the evolution of business models.

by **Marz** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:58 pm UTC

0xBADFEED wrote:And you admitting that you actually do pirate content just proves the point that there is a case for DRM. You can't simultaneously hide behind "It's my content, I paid for it, I can do what I want with it" and infringe copyrights.

You can either use the content lawfully and be indignant that you're a law-abiding user that is being restricted, or you can infringe copyrights and be mildly annoyed.

Whether you believe the copyright law is fair or sensible is an entirely different debate.

I tend to actively work against anything I disagree with... As it happens, once I've pirated music, I always buy the music if I like it. 95% of the music I've bought in the last month I previously pirated, and ~80% of the music I've pirated I've bought. It's a good model.

I would like to know what the music industry do next; I hope they realize DRM is pointless and draw up some new idea. It seems they are beginning to change their minds, with the unDRMment of the iTunes store and such...

For the record, I don't tend to wholeheartedly believe arguments I put forth in Religious Wars; that's what it's here for. I do despise DRM, as well as patents, though.

by **0xBADFEED** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:Damn your ninjaing. I had to wipe my whole post castigating you. >_<

Yes, I saw it coming a mile away.

I still disagree. I think DRM was a remarkably short-sighted move perpetrated by people who also hadn't yet realized the ludicrously profitable opportunities opened up by digital distribution.
If DRM had never come into existence, I personally believe we'd be 5 years forward on the evolution of business models.

I think you give the content distributors far too much credit. They only get on board once they see a revenue stream. And they weren't about to just start pushing "their" content to people without some protection.

It's a chicken and egg problem.

I'm not about to give up control of "my" content until I know I can make revenue and I'm not going to make any revenue until I start putting some content out there. I can see your point. But I still think that DRM was a necessary evil to get the ball rolling.

Their CD, DVD, etc. distribution businesses were such cash-cows and they had such total control over them they just couldn't wrap their heads around the concept that they could still make boat-loads of money by relinquishing some of that control.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Marz wrote:For the record, I don't tend to wholeheartedly believe arguments I put forth in Religious Wars

Par for the course.

by **Xanthir** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:58 pm UTC

I think you give the content distributors far too much credit. They only get on board once they see a revenue stream. And they weren't about to just start pushing "their" content to people without some protection.

It's a chicken and egg problem.

I'm not about to give up control of "my" content until I know I can make revenue and I'm not going to make any revenue until I start putting some content out there. I can see your point. But I still think that DRM was a necessary evil to get the ball rolling.

Their CD, DVD, etc. distribution businesses were such cash-cows and they had such total control over them they just couldn't wrap their heads around the concept that they could still make boat-loads of money by relinquishing some of that control.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Nah, we don't have to, because we're arguing about different things.

You're saying "Without DRM, the CD/DVD sellers wouldn't agree to put their stuff online, and so we wouldn't have anything being digitally distributed.".

However, they weren't the first to get to it. DRM only started going away when people *not* associated with the CD/DVD sellers started embracing pirating properly and put their digital content out there. Because they are *not* attached to the CD/DVD sellers, the actions of those corps are irrelevant. We would have gotten these people anyway. Heck, we probably would have gotten *more* if DRM had never been put on the table, because there are enough people on the fence that a significant portion would have gone straight to digital distribution without trying to muddle about with DRM and fail first.

It's only now, when *other* people have successfully navigated the waters *and* it's been shown that piracy *does* have a negative effect on CD/DVD sales that the big corps are finally, grudgingly, moving away from DRM tech.

Without DRM, we would have just missed that middle step. The CD/DVD sellers would have stuck to their guns, digital content would have come into being without them, and piracy still would have undercut the CD/DVD market. In the meantime we get to miss a decade of rootkits fucking up people's computers.

by **0xBADFEED** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:53 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:You're saying "Without DRM, the CD/DVD sellers wouldn't agree to put their stuff online, and so we wouldn't have anything being digitally distributed.".

I'm not saying there wouldn't be digital distribution. Of course there would still be digital distribution, that's a given. I'm saying the corps would never distribute "their" content without at least *trying* to control it first.

I'm saying DRM was inevitable. (As is its failure as users get fed-up with it.)

I just cannot envision a scenario where the corps would start distributing their content without at least *trying* to control it, even if it was doomed from the start. I don't doubt a lot of people involved in DRM knew it was a losing battle. But, I think it was a battle that from their perspective they thought they at least had to try and fight.

I don't think you can talk about a scenario where DRM was not put on the table because I can't realistically think of a scenario where it would not be put on the table.

I'm operating on a basic assumption that the corps will always *try* to control how you use their content whenever a new format comes into play. And in the end they usually lose. The faster we can get that over with the better.

Should this be split? As it has veered quite off topic from OS usage.

by **Red Rule** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:42 pm UTC

I got a laptop running arch at the moment (went from win vista --> win 7 --> ubuntu --> arch), it's my computer for fiddling a daily/school use.
_{Fidling on the pc you need daily is a really smart idea, I know...}
I wanna try my hand a LFS when I get the time on this one, I'll probably start over the summer holidays.

I also got a mediacenter/server running ubuntu, but I'm thinking of switching to something a little more basic.
And lastly I have a Desktop running windows 7, my gaming rig.(damn you developers, use openGL not directX :evil:

)

I love Linux because I can boot it up, look at my procces and tell exactly what everything is doing, it gives me full control of my system and the great repository/community/customizability.
I dislike windows because it's the other way around, and I've never felt the need to try any of the others.
(I tried OSX once -only for a few hours- but it just felt like a dumbed down linux)

by **yawningdog** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:16 pm UTC

I use/have used all of those listed at one time or another. But if I had to pick just one, it would be Slackware.

by **cjmcjmcjmcjm** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:43 pm UTC

I triple-boot Snow Leopard, Win7, and Ubuntu Studio

by **nyeguy** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:40 pm UTC

I primarily use Mac (10.6), though I have a Windows 7 partition on my computer for gaming. If I didn't have a my mac I would probably dual boot Ubuntu and Windows 7.

by **NotThatDork** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:40 am UTC

Today on my PC Intel Core Duo, Motherboard Intel DGR31:

Gruubed in three partitions:

1) Main 70% of time: Windows 7 Ultimate (32-bits): Best Windows ever out of the box, minimal errors, brilliant support for hardware, optimal performance. Flawed and aberrant Vista revamped, more of the same, or whatever you want. I stay put with it, plenty of games to play (come on, it doesn't need a corporate support this big to create games like Amnesia even pleasurable to play in 2011. For everything exists a program that exists in other OS and generally you can have free version wherever you go. I do not want to enter the fray here saying how reasonable is to find cracked software for one OS or the other because it's a sensible topic and this is my post Nª2. I, like any other nerd around tended to hate Windows (any prior version) and to claim it out loud. Reality is that W7 is really solid for the average Joe. For the customization lost (becoming a bit Mac OS X) I really don't care while it works. And the Office suite (2003, 2007 was some kind of a step back) is good, and I use it a lot. Just to say that at my job I almost think in Excel and SQL (mostly Access or MySQL).

2) My hobby: Ubuntu 10.10 (20% of the time): I like Gnome (and always had my reservations with KDE), I like Linux, I know it to a degree where an average Joe (if at Linux that exist) should be. I'm really not in compiling anything, even less Kernels. It's just I love GNU and alike philosophy and I wish them my very best. Tested before Red Hat (not appealing to me), SuSe, dindn't like it. Mandriva (the installer lags 5-8 years in terms of PnP). Some people spoke me about Mint... I'm just not in the mood of testing anything new right now. If only Ubuntu would have versions of Windows games and a serious Office pack, my choice would be already made.

3) Mac OS X 10.6.0 Snow Lepoard via Hackintosh... let's start saying there's no reasonable way to access an Access database in OS X, and that the system resulted me somewhat dull. I forgive it because it wasn't designed for PC hardware and therefore maybe I am losing something. But in general it was a good exercise of hacking to make it work, or sort of.

Also tested Solaris (in WMware) once and OS/2 Warp... ah... those old gone days!...

by **cjmcjmcjmcjm** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:34 pm UTC

What's wrong with Open Office?

by **NotThatDork** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:04 pm UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:What's wrong with Open Office?

I do not want to start a religious war (another, I just sell the weapons to both sides, you know?

) but the fact is that it is a bit inferior to Microsoft Office for the purposes I give to it. Maybe someone comes after me and says "hey, for doing multiple regressions to define criteria for blah blah blah is better... and blah blah blah". Fact is that, for me, mainly DB analysis, pivot tables, dynamic tables, presentations and more or less the general stuff MS-Office is somewhat better in most areas. Still Open Office has some strong points, specially at graphics, buts that not my love. Compatibility with Excel is glitchy, but this is a tricky comparison, because I don't remember to ever opened an Open office file in MS-Office, but i guess the results...

The other aspect is that, at my jobs, it's a matter of "we use Ms-Office or go home" attitude, so everything must have a correlation with a perfect compatibility. After ten years of using MS, I've, as expected, developed the ability of using shortcuts a lot (if not almost exclusively)... and being different in Open Office (at least, versions I've tested, but I guess it is the last) I find it uncomfortable...

That's a change I didn't like from MS-Office 2007: Alt-e-e-r (in my language) meant copy, special paste, only values... in 2007 suddenly (and I don't know how) I delete entire sheets without undo... Ouch!

It's not bad, but for me it's always a case of still 5 cents to a dollar thing with it.

by **c0smic** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:59 am UTC

On my PC I'm running Windows 7 Home 64-bit
Running Debian on my old Dell laptop

I'm most likely going to start dual-booting Windows and Debian on the PC, when I get around to it

by **Tanegashima_** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:17 pm UTC

MacOS X, the OS of your dreams.

by **flying sheep** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:12 pm UTC

Tanegashima_ wrote:MacOS X, the OS of your dreams.

what is one’s wet dream is the other’s nightmare

Ubuntu, since distro-hopping is stupid, paying enormous amounts of money for macs is it, too, and trying to use windows even more so.

(disclaimer: maybe some other linux distro or some *BSD would fit me better, but it is always better to stick with what you know, as long as it has no systematical flaw. the business model of apple and the usability of windows are such flaws)

by **mameha25** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:32 pm UTC

i use windows 7 right now..

by **Meteorswarm** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:06 am UTC

mameha25 wrote:i use windows 7 right now..

Only a windows user would post in eye-searing pink.

by **brakos82** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:05 am UTC

Meteorswarm wrote:
mameha25 wrote:i use windows 7 right now..

Only a windows user would post in eye-searing pink.

And possibly not realise it.

ubuntu 11.04 beta (tried Unity, switched back to classic GNOME in an hour), with XP in Virtualbox.

by **Giant Speck** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:13 am UTC

ASUS laptop: Windows 7 Home Premium, Ubuntu 10.10
Dell Mini 10v: Mac OS X 10.6.7
Toshiba laptop: Windows 7 Home Premium (I don't really use this laptop much anymore)

I'd like to try to build a desktop that I could use all three operating systems on.

by **sje46** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:48 pm UTC

I don't know when I voted on this (most likely 2009...) but I changed my votes from XP and Vista to Other Windows and Ubuntu. That's misleading though. I actually use Mint and Windows 7, but I only use Windows 7 like, 1% of the time. I'm a full on Linux convert.

by **woddfellow2** » Mon May 09, 2011 10:04 pm UTC

My only PC runs Arch Linux i686. I used to dual-boot with Windoze XP, but I rarely used it, and I uninstalled it in December 2010.

What operating systems do you use(or want to use)?(2 max)

Who is online