Admit it. Your first OS is your favorite.

[btiffin]

I look back with fondness, but I'm not sure if the TRS/80 Model I's CLOAD cassette loader counts as an operating system.
MS/DOS 2, not looking back fondly, not a favourite, but at least it had subdirectories.
Lost my Microsoft fanboy card back in the Window 3, DOS 5 days, I blame them for the (near-)demise of OS/2 Warp. "Wait for Chicago, wait for Chicago", my arse.
Currently a GNU/Linux fan; Debian, Fedora, Slackware, most distros in use somewhere or other.

So short answer is No, I won't admit it. My last OS is my favourite OS. (Hmm, or do I change that and say that one of the middle ones was? OpenVMS kicks 'em all to the curb).

Cheers,
Brian

[ahammel]

Mac OS 6 -- 10
Ubuntu (briefly on my personal machine and when I have to at work)
Fedora
Gentoo (gah)
FreeBSD (on a server I administer)

I have to admit that I look back fondly at System 6, mostly because of Beyond Dark Castle. Still Fedora is my current favorite. Gentoo was mostly just a pain in the ass (I never did get wifi working).

FreeBSD has a lot to recommend it if you're on a desktop machine and don't need a graphical DE.

[bmonk]

I just want to say that the first OS/programs of a given class is usually the favorite, because:

1. They tended to stay around longer, so you could learn how to use all the functions.

2. They tended to be simpler, so you could learn how to use all the functions.

3. You didn't have so many preconceptions from earlier/other systems to unlearn, that kept you from learning how to use all the functions.

In short: with every upgrade (OS, Word processor, Spreadsheet, Powerpoint, what have you) I am able to do less and less before it gets replaced, and I have to start over.

[Jplus]

bmonk: In my case, generally the opposite seems to be true.

[sesnir]

My last OS is my favorite OS, or else I wouldn't be using it

First: MS-DOS
Last: OS X 10.7

[algorerhythms]

First OS: MS-DOS 6.22
Current OS: Windows 7

I totally wanted to go back to MS-DOS, but the evil Wolfram does not support running Mathematica 8 on MS-DOS.

As for my OS history, it goes roughly as follows:
MS-DOS 6.22 / Windows 3.1
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Various versions of Linux (Mandrake, Slackware, and Ubuntu, primarily)
MacOSX (bought a Macbook)
Windows Vista (to replace MacOSX on the Macbook)
Windows 7 (to replace Vista on the Macbook, and on the HP laptop that replaced the Macbook)

[jeorgun]

Logically,surely your favorite OS should be the one you're using now (otherwise, why would you switch ?)

For my part:

Win95
WinXP (better)
Vista (worse)
Ubuntu (better)
Arch Linux (better)

So, more or less the other way round.

[Creativity-Null]

<extremely_long_post>
My first OS was windows XP (I'm a young guy and didn't start really getting into computer use until XP was relatively old)... and I preferred Windows Vista to it when I got it (I may be the one person who had this preference, but there might be other reasons than the OS for that) and Windows 7 to vista when I got it and finally got used to some of the differences (especially with my dual screen setup which had problems with the generic setup, but once I configured the nvidia settings I got it fixed)

I switch between Windows and Linux (depending on whether I'm in one of my video game moods or not most times, though tremulous is nice on linux) but generally I'm on Windows simply for the ease of use (most times) when installing and configuring applications (though that may just be because of my familiarity with the OS)

I do love (and dual boot) into Linux Mint 12 currently (because they kept a similar to classic interface with the massive switch to more "mobile" desktop interfaces and still used GNOME 3) but I find configuring it (especially software and developer environments) to be frustrating (though, configuring IDE's can be frustrating in windows too) but I do have to say that I like using linux more for some reason I can't accurately explain, but it doesn't always tend to be easier for me than windows, so I sometimes find myself going back to that (especially if some issue pertaining to my overall system comes up, I use windows, if possible, to fix it simply because of the familiarity). Though, I do LOVE using the terminal (strange for a person who grew up with a GUI for everything)

Then again, I've really only used ubuntu based distributions, and with GNOME (and compiz in most cases)

in chronological order of use (and I'm omitting my experience with windows 2000 because I was 6):
Windows XP (eh... got annoyed at it)
Windows Vista (like the interface, POWER HOG)
Ubuntu Studio (had numerous problems with its install, and was new to linux)
OpenArtist (good, but WAY too many preinstalled applications, and developer has an odd way of organizing software and custom scripts and additions for them. For example, once everyone lost lots of custom Blender 3d scripts because he had them in a dropbox anyone could access by default and anyone could change, and some "nice guy" decided to delete them all, he then updated it so the scripts were on the machine itself, instead of in dropbox, he did things like this, and scripts to install after the fact, lots of them, because the install size is/was about 12 GB)
Ubuntu (various versions, used it because I was tired of variants)
Windows 7
Linux Mint (various versions, liked the interface)

Ubuntu 10.04 for my netbook (asus t91mt) tried to use the netbook remix, but my netbook uses the infamous intel GMA500 (which is why I'm now regretting buying it, but it's still good for college)

lucid puppy linux (recovery, on flash drive)

Windows 7 and Linux Mint 12 "Lisa" (started with 9) are what I currently have and use (using MGSE with LM12, the GNOME shell hates my dual screen setup, and while GNOME 2 and X11 never really liked it, they dealt with it, now GNOME 3 seems to dislike it when switching desktops and treats it like the person you're giving the silent treatment, but is still there trying to interact with you) and I like Lisa, but MGSE (and GNOME 3) needs some fine tuning before I completely accept it (still prefer GNOME 2) but I do like it, and I'm a sucker for the graphical flare it has because it's nice, sleek, not overbearing, and smooth most of the time (compiz seemed more thrown in and unnecessary much of the time, like animated fire graphics for no reason in a crappy youtube video showing a thermite reaction). I have tried cinnamon, but it seems more unstable (and therefor, more unusable) than MGSE (which may be due to the fact that it's still under development) and honestly, I like the GNOME shell's use in MGSE (and I missed it in cinnamon), but I don't like how it's used in interfaces like unity or the base GNOME 3 interface, so I won't be using that anytime soon.

yes, I ran VM's of other linux OS's with other interfaces such as KDE 3 (and did try out unity, hated it) and I could like KDE 3, but I don't want to take the time to get used to it (call it ignorance if you want, but I do like to stick with the familiar)

like I said earlier, I prefer windows for it's software compatibility (with most things) and my familiarity with it and some ease of use, and I like linux because of the general freedom I get with it and some ease of use with software (software repository is GREAT, but only if the software you want is in there, I can't stand installing packages otherwise)
</extremely_long_post>

[AtreideSardaukar]

My first was AmigaOS when I was like 7, but I haven't used it since. I've got MacOS and Windows 7 loaded on my MacBook, but I barely use Windows.

[sd7668]

obviously not.
1st OS=winXP
2nd OS=winVista
3rd OS=win7

and i love windows 7 most..

[userxp]

There is something about the Windows XP theme (the "look and feel" as they say) that makes it feel much more comfortable to me than any other OS I have tried (which are quite a lot). It's probably that I'm more used to it. But most modern operating systems feel too glassy and blurry, there's f*****g reflections and shadows everywhere. And they're too damn dark too. I don't like the older styles either. The Luna theme in XP instead feels more plasticky (but not cheap plastic ) and is a bit more colorful (edit: matte, the word I was looking for is matte).

For reference here are default wallpapers for most modern operating systems (light lines, light lines everywhere). Compare with the Windows XP one (as long as it's not autumn ).

As for actual OS features... well, as long as it has Windows 7-style window snapping (which was not invented in Windows 7, I know), a searchable start menu that lets you type the name of the program to launch it, and can run Opera, it's alright to me .

[Dobblesworth]

Hahahaha.

First Win 95
Second Win ME
Third Win XP
Fourth Win Vista
Four-and-a-half-th Ubuntu (on the side, long since cast aside)
Fifth Win 7

I definitely consider 7 my favourite. XP > Vista > Ubuntu.

[sd7668]

as far as i have seen windows 7 is the most common and preferred choice of all the peoples.
and same here...love windows 7..

[Jplus]

There is something about the Windows XP theme (the "look and feel" as they say) that makes it feel much more comfortable to me than any other OS I have tried (which are quite a lot). It's probably that I'm more used to it. But most modern operating systems feel too glassy and blurry, there's f*****g reflections and shadows everywhere. And they're too damn dark too. I don't like the older styles either. The Luna theme in XP instead feels more plasticky (but not cheap plastic ) and is a bit more colorful.

Eww. That theme looks so much like children's toys to me that I can't escape the feeling Microsoft is not taking users serious at all. I always switch to the classic Windows theme as fast as I can.

[Copper Bezel]

I do think 7 (along with 8's desktop app) looks better with the transparency turned off, though. I like rounded edges and subtle gradients and things, to the point that the "Classic" Windows look kinda hurts to look at, but glassy and plasticky aspects just seem like clutter to me (whether that's XP or 7 plastic.) I'd rather see the windows being straightforward about their being graphical elements (something I really like about Metro, and I wish they'd accomplished it on the desktop side, too.)

Then again, I've become unhealthily attached to a certain vaguely OSX-like style, mostly thanks to a Gnome theme called Orta, and anything else feels like someone else's computer. Having the wrong selection color makes me a little nervy.

[Jplus]

Apart from the menu bar at the top of the screen and the close/minimize/maximize buttons at the top left corner of a window, ORTA doesn't look OSX-like to me. I do agree that the menu bar at the top of the screen is a good idea though.

[Copper Bezel]

Oh, I just meant the style of the windows - the curvy gray - and I meant "vaguely OSX-like" in a broad sense (and in the very broad sense, the fact that they're both more graphic design than skeumorphy.) The layout of the UI on Linux systems is generally independent of the theme (although I do like the system panel + dock arrangement, too.)

Only meant in reference to the glass / plastic / retro conversation.

[Iranon]

Now we're talking more about interface than the OS itself... I'm definitely nostalgic for an older approach there.
Most interfaces that see common use today, even those claiming extensive customisability, expect you to tick the right checkbox for a "feature". If the designer didn't think of what you're after, you're lucky if you can download some buggy third party extension. There's no real attempt to make things open-ended.

The more powerful old-school window managers make it comparatively easy to steal good ideas and improve on them.
I liked Windows 7's AeroSnap feature... 6 lines added to my FVWM configuration and I had it (both drag-to-edge and hotkey). 50 straightforward lines added and I had expanded the functionlaity considerably - dozens of different sizes/layouts available on mouse gestures on the titlebar. Apple's Exposé/Mission Control inspired another set of additions... less flashy than the originals, but imo more useful. Fullscreen mode, full-blown tiling, extensive macros, freely definable buttons or keychains? No problem.
And instead of a dock or taskbar, I get easily definable/themeable thingies to put easily definable thingies on, with easily definable interactions. Oh, and the interface is stable as a rock and wouldn't overtax a 386.

Sane configuration also implies easily themeable, so if I have to care about the defaults that'd be a problem in its own right. I don't want bling to get in the way, soft gradients in neutral gray are easy on the eyes and a few subtle cues like drop shadows are nice... Apple is doing something right when things aren't swooshing around the screen in an attempt to dazzle me or sacrificing consistency in an attempt to anticipate what I want.

[Copper Bezel]

Most interfaces that see common use today, even those claiming extensive customisability, expect you to tick the right checkbox for a "feature". If the designer didn't think of what you're after, you're lucky if you can download some buggy third party extension. There's no real attempt to make things open-ended.

This is fairly unique to Linux, though. You don't have that scriptability on Windows or Mac in any version, since they've always been more "integrated" (so that in Windows, say, the taskbar, desktop wallpaper, and windecs are all provided by the same process, and there's very little you can do to script and configure them in any version.) So I don't really see a huge, across-the-board shift. I admit I don't know a great deal about some of the older OSs no longer with us, though I understand that some, like OS2, put a real premium on scriptability. But while something like FVWM might be "nostalgic," it's not genuinely "old", either. It certainly doesn't predate the leading Linux desktops, and neither does the paradigm.

Within Linux, I've had a very a la carte and tweaked-up DE in the past under Gnome 2, with search-and-launch and an alternate panel and dock and all sorts of odd Compiz configuration and scripting and the whole bit, but I didn't have to script much of anything. There's been a lot of resistance within the Gnome user base to the changes in Gnome 3 and Ubuntu's Unity, which reduce the amount of point-and-click tweaking a person can do, but for the small minority of users who can handle Javascript, Gnome Shell is scriptable through its extension base (though it might take a few more lines of code for a particular behavior than FVWM.)

Scriptable desktops have had a tiny niche since they started existing, and they still have it; they weren't "first" and there's no migration "away." If anything, within Linux, it's probably fair to say that they've gained something, in that the leading DE recently became much more scriptable.

[Iranon]

Well, it is the great-granddaddy of window managers... created years before before KDE or Gnome in 1993, and a version from 1994 had been ridiculously long-lived. The window managers of Enlightenment and XFCE are legitimate grandchildren, Windowmaker and Afterstep are notable bastards.
The descendants mostly appear less open-ended to me.

KDE and Gnome are mostly unrelated projects, but I think something similar applies too... they've become a little complicated for easy playing around beyond the standard GUIs. And Gnome sometimes went out of its way to hide/remove functionality... I recall this stirring up quite a bit of controversy in the switch from Sawfish to Metacity.

Yes, everything is still possible in the free world... but I prefer consistent and (mostly) stable syntax in a single file to mucking about with extensions, external scripts and little helpers for extremely basic functionality.
As for recent trends towards more power to the user: power and extensibility sometimes, simplicity and frugality rarely. As Randall put it, someday we'll have xmonad as a Firefox extension.

[Copper Bezel]

Wow, I honestly didn't realize that FVWM was a direct twm derivative like that - so it's definitely legitimately old. = ) I see what you're saying, and I think it does come down to complexity - the Gnome folks especially seem pretty convinced that every option has a cost, so less-often-used options do tend to disappear as new features roll in. (Otherwise, of course, the set of configuration features would more or less need to grow geometrically.) So the simpler a thing is, the easier it is to keep it open to tweaking.

[Karkasmolen]

My first OS was DOS. I did not care for it. Going to Windows 3.11 and getting a GUI was downright thrilling to my little kid brain by comparison, and I've not gone back.

I tinkered with Fedora back in my computer-building days, but eh...I've always been one of those lazy Windows people who wants more than Macs offer for cheaper but with less time and effort than open source avails for the same amount of the few intuitive toys I use.

So I still use windows. Still does what I want it to do. Only regret is that so much of my computing power is sucked up by antivirus.

[Anaximander]

First OS was the OS that booted with the TRS-80...my Pop got brought it home for Christmas in 1982 (or maybe 1983...I can't remember). We hooked it up to the TV in the basement. You had to load and save software to a tape recorder.

Spoiler:

Yea, yea...I know it's just a shitty "Trash 80" computer, but I spent hours and hours playing with this thing. Learned how to program in BASIC...my first language. Goddamn...shit was simple then...It had this crappy "Dinowars" game that my brother and I used to play. It was super dumb, but we used to have a lot of fun. I used to code out games from the examples in the manual. One time my Uncle came to visit and spent six hours writing several lines of code for this car racing game. My Pop wrote a program for getting people's biorhythms. Weird, goofy shit, but what else could you do with 64K? So strange to think about it now. Anyway, enough with the mushy, teary-eyed stuff...
This is sorta how it looked:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Coco2boot.png
And this is sorta how it worked:
http://www.vavasour.ca/jeff/level1/simulator.html

[AvatarIII]

Just wondering, does anybody but me still use the default classic grey win95 theme in every version of windows since? I've used 95, 98, XP, Vista and 7 and I've used the Windows Classic theme in all of them.

[Jplus]

Well as I stated above I do switch to classic in XP, but in newer versions I usually don't bother because aero doesn't annoy me enough.

[Endless Mike]

I did on XP, but finally gave in when I realized there was a silver taskbar theme that wasn't a bad compromise. Never bothered with Win 7.

[jendral_hxr]

It was MS-DOS 3.x (do you expect 4 years old boy to recognize what OS is running on his dad's box?), irc.
It's not my favorite, I'd rather have dosbox (if I have to). The only good thing from my early experience with computer is pacman and such, and dosbox emulates it just fine.

The last OS I tried out (with no permanent installation) is absolutelinux, and I just love it--another Slackware flavor.
I am currently employing Salix64 which I intend to keep it on the -current edge and WindowsXP which I turned off the Windows Update (you know the reason, don't you?)

[Odd_nonposter]

ME: My parents bought it, alright? We kept getting error messages with windows software, so we bought another machine with
XP, which my parents still use.
Win 7
Playing around with Ubuntu. I'll convert my parents' machine over to it when XP support vanishes. That is, if it doesn't die before then.

[nxcho]

My first OS was win 3.11 and the first one I actually installed was DOS 6.<something>. By then windows xp was already out but i've found an old 486 in the basement wich I experimented with.
Back in the days I was a huge windows fanboy but when I got my first own real computer, it took about three weeks before I decided to try dualbooting slackware on it. About another week later I broke the install and I had to reinstall it, then I tried gentoo...

Nowadays I have a mac and a few linux boxes and haven't touched windows since xp even though i'm considering getting a gaming pc.

[cphite]

Well, my first OS was OS-9 on a TRS-80 Color Computer.... you can get an idea of how old that is by the fact that they thought it necessary to mention "color" in the name. At the time, I thought it was awesome - I was twelve years old and this machine is pretty much what led me to a life of computer programming. But I couldn't imagine actually trying to use it today for anything useful.

After the TRS-80 Color Computer, I upgraded to the Apple IIGS - which, at the time, was pretty freaking cool. It had a whopping ONE MEGABYTE of RAM, and an actual GUI desktop. It ran on GS/OS which was pretty neat and fairly impressive compared to what else was available... but again, I can't imagine trying to do actual work on something like that today.

Since then I've gone through Windows 3.11 (meh), Windows 95 (major jump forward), Windows 98 (minor jump forward), Windows XP (major jump forward), Windows Vista (minor jump forward or backward depending on who you ask) and finally Windows 7 (moderate jump forward).

Had a small detour into the land of z/OS (mainframes) several years back. Didn't really enjoy it, no plans to go back.

I don't like MacOS. Just never liked the layout, the feel, whatever.

I've never really gotten far down the linux path... I like Ubuntu; or rather, I like the idea of Ubuntu. It still has some growing up to do, in my opinion.

So honestly... no... my first OS isn't my favorite; and my last OS isn't my least favorite. There are a lot of things I don't like about Windows (any flavor) but in terms of what it does, especially in the context of what I've used in the past, it's pretty great.

[Pixyn25]

2005: Used a bit of Windows (95? 98?). Vaguely remember the grey colour theme. Learnt how to use Word, Excel.
2006-?: Windows XP.
2007 April: Obtained a laptop with Vista. Initially preferred the Windows XP theme, but gradually got used to Vista. Still using the laptop now.
2009 December: Netbook with Windows 7 Starter. Liked the theme quite much (but disliked the disability to change the wallpaper).
2011 January: Began using Virtualbox for CS classes (couldn't get permission to dual-boot my netbook). Used Ubuntu 10.10; particularly enjoyed the command-line tools.
2012 February: Installed Linux Mint; was impressed by its ease of use.
A week ago: Installed Salix 13.1 LXDE edition.

Currently I use Windows 7 on the netbook and Vista on the laptop as my main OSes, while testing out different linux distros to install when I get permission to dual-boot.

Ranking: Salix=Mint>Ubuntu>=W7>XP=Vista>>95/98

[RAKtheUndead]

First OS: MS-DOS 5.0
Last OS: Version 7 Unix, PDP-11 emulator

I liked MS-DOS at the time, but as time has gone on, I've seen how hacked together it was compared to even other contemporary operating systems. As for Version 7 Unix, I quite like it. Apart from the crappy K&R C compiler, it's quite nice to use given its age. It feels like one of the first properly "modern" Unix variants.

[lynkyn]

Admit it. Your first OS is your favorite. And you hate the last OS you tried.

You couldn't be more wrong:
First OS: Windows
Last OS Tried: Ubuntu

[Endless Mike]

Logically,surely your favorite OS should be the one you're using now (otherwise, why would you switch ?)

This is not good logic, since there's often very good reasons to continue using an OS you don't like. For instance, I was using XP up until Windows 7 came out alongside OS X. I preferred OS X, but I like to play games, so XP was on my desktop (since I can't afford a Mac Pro which is still not a very good gaming computer, anyway, Hackintoshes are really not worth the trouble - nor is dual booting - and I liked Vista even less than XP). Currently, I like Win7 and OS X about equally.

[Iranon]

The OP mostly seems to describe passive users who stuck to one line. "First version was great, last one was workable, current one ruined everything forever" is quite common

For people who gave different systems a chance, I expect them to have a preference according to philosoph: you can't easily make something that "just works but is also transparent and tweak-friendly. You also have the choice between unmaintainable cruft and occasional compatibility breaks. And sometimes between doing what's technically sweet and what is supported now. Users may stick with something they dislike because the ecosystem of the OS they do like doesn't fit their needs: vendor lock-in, software availability, someone (employer, school) may literally dictate which OS to use...

[Laserdan]

1. MS-DOS
2. Win95
3. Win98
4. Win2000
5. WinXP

(I exclude Linux because all I did with it is playing around. I'm a professional developer, my company is Microsoft Gold certified and I've got all the MSDN licences and I almost exclusively work with Visual Studio and Notepad++ for pure coding and stuff so my professional curiosity for Linux asymptomatically approaches zero and in my private environment, I want my stuff to simply work most of the time without doing configuration. I also love gaming)

I stopped there. I switched to Win2k very quickly and stayed with it until Win XP SP2. Vista never appealed to me. Windows 7 looks great but my XP installation is sooooo old and runs smoothly and I don't want to make the transition with the risk that my important applications don't work anymore. So XP is my favorite OS - and you can make it look like Win2k (I hate the fluffy candy stuff because I don't care for the looks - I like it minimalistic and efficient).

[villadelfia]

1. Amiga Workbench 1.3
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Redhat 6 (?)
5. About 20 million distros of linux.
6. Windows XP
7. Ubuntu 6 or 7
8. Vista followed by 7
9. Now I use OS X 10.7/Windows 7/Mint 12 due to crossplatform development.

Honestly, I think they all suck.

Windows is a hell to develop on, unless you use Microsoft tools and Microsoft languages, file management is somewhat lacking and the terminal is truly horrible.
Linux does everything well but not great, there's always the nagging feeling of "Wouldn't it be great if x was possible with tool y?"
OS X superficially works great, it has the best terminal ever made (iTerm2), has lots of potential for development and has great file management. But the operating system is missing some fairly basic features, like being able to turn off the internal screen of a MacBook when using an external display*.

In the end they all have their failings, and instead of obsessing about the perfect os, I just use all three. Also, having an OS on each monitor, and having synergy installed to control it with one mouse/keyboard is fun to confuse people :p

*To elaborate on the mac, I got one from a friend for free since the screen cracked and I needed one anyway, so I set out to look for ways to disable the internal screen, and I found no real solutions without having to pay for it. You can close it and attach an external mouse and keyboard, but then it gets hot, you can put a magnet in just the right place to trip the sensor, but that's just silly. In the end I had to buy a simple tool to disable the internal screen, think something like powerstrip for os x.

[brakos82]

I started really young with Win 3.11 (don't think I ever tampered with DOS) - it did what any 5-year-old would want it to do.
Win98 - worked pretty well, not ashamed to admit I kinda miss IE5. (ok, yes, I am... )
Win95 (yes, in that order) - definitely a downgrade because the first 98 machine crashed
Back to 98 again
WinXP - When it first came out I loved it... but then things started bugging me about it. I think it was because grandpa installed a Christmas theme, which none of us could figure out how to disable. But then my laptop I got in '07 wasn't any better
Ubuntu 8 - tried it out, looked great but I couldn't get the wifi to work on that laptop. Stupid Dell.
Back to XP again
Vista - I broke Vista within 6 hours of getting a new computer. And by broke, I mean even more broke than it should have been.
Ubuntu 9 - Wifi worked! Been my primary OS since. Dragged my feet on getting Unity though, finally did with 11.10
Win 7 - dual-boot with ubuntu for games and photoshop (sorry gimp, you're strange). My favorite Windows OS on newer machines, though it is... bulky especially with AV.

At the moment, using Lubuntu on a loaner 9-year-old iBook. Mostly because nothing else will run on it.

[TylerGriffiths]

First OS - XP

Second OS - Vista

EVENT: FIRST HEARD THE WORD LINUX

Third OS - Arguable. Either Ubuntu or Fedora, probably Ubuntu.

Fourth OS - Debian (dualbooting with various others, usually Ubuntu)

Fifth OS - FreeBSD (again, dualbooting)

Sixth OS - Haiku (guess whether I'm dualbooting or not?)

Seventh OS - Gentoo (triple boot)

CURRENT OS - Ubuntu

Three through seven can be taken in any order or combination you like. Currently I only use ubuntu. Not my *first* OS per se, but the first I ever chose. And I love it to bits, despite all its faults^H^H^H^H^H^H quirks .

[siosilvar]

My first OS was NT 4.0; I suppose it was okay. I'm using Win7 now, though I really would prefer to go back to XP (or even switch over to Linux if I could get any of the UIs to work exactly like I want them to).