General Question

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

65 Answers

iwamoto's avatar

whatever i feel like, but the core is OS X 10.5.4

eambos's avatar

Windows XP, and attempting to get Ubuntu as a virtual OS.

swimmindude2496's avatar

@iwamoto wwas that linux or ubuntu in the middle??? I really couldn’t see.

jlm11f's avatar

Windows XP. i like it, i really don’t want to switch to Vista. I hope that OS gets better and soon.

swimmindude2496's avatar

@PnL I don’t like Vista either!!!

waterskier2007's avatar

OSX all the way

and swimmingdude, isnt ubuntu a form of linux

eambos's avatar

Ubuntu is a distribution of Linux. Iwa’s desktop pictures shows Ubuntu Hardy Heron, the newest distro of Ubuntu Linux.

PupnTaco's avatar

Mac OS X 10.5.4 and running.

boffin's avatar

Ditto @PnL

El_Cadejo's avatar

Ubuntu Hardy Heron and lovin it.

XCNuse's avatar

Vista, and love it.

Of course I’ve taken pure advantage of vista unlike most people who get a PC and just add firefox and some games to it, not much of this is vista anymore, stick my machine up to what it was when I got my laptop and nothing is the same anymore.

Vista want 64 bit, but either way.. I’m not going back XP.. Vista will destroy XP one day, just watch.

Speaking of OS’ anyone hear about what the maker of Linux said the other day? How he believes by what was it? 2010 or 2012 Linux will be the best looking OS out there.

I’m curious to see what OS’ will look like in a few years, heck.. you can still buy and run Windows 3.1!

robmandu's avatar

Win XP, Win Server Ent. Ed., Leopard, Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX.

Been a while since VM/CMS.

crunchaweezy's avatar

Leopard and XP with Boot Camp.

XCNuse: Yeah, the founder of Ubuntu said they’ll pass Apple, epic lulz

willbrawn's avatar

Leopard. And wanting to try Ubuntu.

joeysefika's avatar

OS X and Linux Hardy Heron

chaosrob's avatar

Home: Mac OS X Leopard, Ubuntu Hardy, Win XP, Debian, Suse.

Work: Win XP, 2K, Vista, Server 2003, Mac OS X Leopard, Ubuntu Gutsy & Hardy, Solaris, Ultrix

Skyrail's avatar

Ubuntu 8.04, Gentoo 2008.0 and Windows XP Professional. I’d like to install Fedora 9 or openSUSE 11.0 next. I’m still deciding. Actually I’m still working on Gentoo. hehe.

chaosrob, if you don’t mind me asking, what do you do for a job? That’s a wide range of stuff you get to mess with there and seems like a brilliant learning experience. Oh plus your home setup is cool to. I used to use Debian but then switched to Fedora then to Ubuntu.

chaosrob's avatar

@Skyrail I’m the Director of IT for a printing company, the Creative Director for a pharma marketing firm and principal in a small systems consulting company. I touch a lot of different systems every week.

Skyrail's avatar

@chaosrob: That’s pretty awesome and must keep you on your toes, certainly beats using the same OS day in, day out.

iwamoto's avatar

yeah, on the picture i was running the new ubuntu distro on the 2nd space and XP on the 3rd space

by the way swimmerdude, what’s wrong with vista ? i used it a bit, wasn’t bad really

El_Cadejo's avatar

@iwamoto oh yes it is! Egh you couldnt pay me enough money to install vista on this comp and use it. Vista is the slowest piece of junk ive ever used. There is no reason for an OS to ask permission before every single task it does. Thats just retarded. Seriously you can have a nice new comp with 2GB of RAM in it, and it will go slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Thats not right.

fryedoats's avatar

Windows Vista. Unlike many people, I find that Vista is a great OS. Personally, I got less viruses on Vista then on my previous computer using XP. Plus, the design and the them looks so much better too.

Vista is also pretty fast for me. But it could also be my computer.

swimmindude2496's avatar

@uberbatman I agree with you. Vista is a piece of crud and it’s so slow even with 2 GB of Ram and I would never use Vista again. I setup my relative’s computer (it had Vista pre – installed) and was not good at all. Like uberbatman said it asked you aboutg every thing it does. I would never use Vista, ever!

XCNuse's avatar

I love my dell e1705 with vista, soon i’m going to upgrade to 4GB of ram though (well.. technically 3.25)

I mean I know that my desktop was a Pentium 4 with 1GB of ram, speed doesn’t even compare with this, and the tweaks i’ve made make vista run for sure faster than any desktop machine with the same specs.

I love vista, XP is gaudy nowadays, looked okay back then (way better than the windows 9x serie), and despite some things just to bother you in vista (UAC), if you actually are smart you’ll learn to get over it and turn that crap off as I did, that and DPA I believe it’s called, anyways.. with some tweaks vista can go a far way.

And it’s only going one way too…forwards.

For those XP lovers, you’re stuck in a ditch now, there won’t be many if any XP updates, while vista is getting speed and code improvements each week.

chaosrob's avatar

We’re holding off on Vista until some of those “speed and code improvements” manifest themselves. Maybe next year.

edgibson's avatar

OS 10 Tiger, Windows XP Pro.

I bought Leopard when it first came out but it only booted after the 5th install. It was up and running for about a week but crashed after that. I’ll wait till I can get an OS 10.5.2 or newer install and try again. It was good while it lasted. I tried Vista on my PC (Centrino Duo) laptop but it was too slow so I’ll stick to XP

robmandu's avatar

Going by this comparison of call graphs between IIS and Apache, I’d say that MS absolutely does have a lot of improvements they can put in the code.

And I personally don’t see how anyone can’t be furious at a “modern” OS that cannot correctly address all of the physical RAM attached. 32-bit limitations are so 1990’s.

iceblu's avatar

Im using XP Media Center & Ubuntu 8.10

Games and Complete Customization

busse's avatar

OSX 10.4.11 on an Intel MacBook Pro. Resisting the jump to Leopard, but feeling the magnetic pull of its fancy new features.

swimmindude2496's avatar

@iwamoto Must be a long one.

swimmindude2496's avatar

@iwamoto are you almost done???????

XCNuse's avatar

@robmandu what is that, the roadmap to nowhere? hahahah

That is pretty bad lol

as for the RAM, just remember Vista uses it totally different from XP and other prior Windows systems, which makes it look like it’s using a lot of it, but it is using it in a totally different manner (fyi)

benseven's avatar

OS X 10.5.4 with a Windows XP SP2 Virtual Machine through VMWare Fusion, and a tin foil hat to keep swimmindude’s stupidity rays out of my head.

robmandu's avatar

@XCNuse, the 32-bit version of Vista can only make use of up to ~3.4GB of RAM. It’s a physical limitation. With only a 32-bit address space available, Vista will not ever be able to “see” more than that limit. Anyone else remember the bad old days, running Microsoft’s FAT 32-bit filesystem that you could buy a 4GB hard drive, but had to partition it into two 2GB partitions to use all the space? Same thing here. They saw this problem coming years ago.

If you’ve installed the 64-bit version of Vista (not most home users), then you might be able to address more RAM depending on chipset.

Of course, Microsoft will fix the address space limitation one day by defaulting all Windows installs to 64-bit… probably just a matter of working out that pesky backwards compatibility problem.

On the other hand, one can navigate to today and build a Mac Pro with 32GB of fully usable RAM right now today. That’s because Apple already worked out the problems migrating from 32-bit to 64. Mac OS X is a 64-bit operating system and it can seamlessly run 32-bit applications. That’s not a minor accomplishment.

iwamoto's avatar

am i always done what ? i suddenly see 2 questions f i’m always done…with what ?

swimmindude2496's avatar

I said if you were almost done because I saw that you were about to answer and you never did for like an hour. You probably just left your computer and were about type and it came up as iwamoto is crafting a response.

iwamoto's avatar

i guess i just left it open while i was working on other stuff, so anyway, got around to installing ubuntu ?

Vincentt's avatar

Xubuntu 8.04 from USB drive at the moment, when I’m at home I use a real installation of Xubuntu 8.04. And I believe the university I’ll be going to in a month uses Macs, so that means I’ll almost never use Windows… WTF :P

iwamoto's avatar

and that’s a good thing, i always feel like refusing to help ipod customers who use windows…

stratman37's avatar

Leopard – it came preloaded (YESSSSS!!)

XCNuse's avatar

@Robmandu: Do you mean 3.25GB?
I haven’t heard of 3.4GB, I typically see 3.25, but apparently the other .75 or .6 is actually used for hardware, but the OS doesn’t take it into account.

Also ..supposedly.. I heard today that 64 bit Vista on specific notebooks also only read 3.25GB of ram, even if you do have .. some absurd quantity of ram.

64 bit I believe can support up to like 128GB of RAM or something like that, not that anyone will have toooo much use for it (no typical user that’s for sure).

Maybe that is why Microsoft is rushing Windows “7” so much, maybe it could have that 64 bit reverse compatibility in the makings?

robmandu's avatar

@XCNuse, I was quoting the linked article in my quip. Same article explained that 64-bit Vista might still have RAM limitations based on chipset employed.

32 bit = 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 ==> 4 Gigabytes

64 bit = 2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 ==> 18 Exabytes

Not saying 64-bit OS’es can address 18 exabytes… but one day they might. Also, 128GB of RAM isn’t all that uncommon in the enterprise.

robmandu's avatar

Oh yah… and where you say “the other .75 is actually used for hardware”, is true… but only to a point.

scotteq on Tom’s Hardware forum explains

This limitation applies to most chipsets & Windows XP/Vista 32-bit version operating systems. Again, this is a limitation of the Operating System not having enough address space to allocate to the system and the RAM. Not allocating address space to devices renders them inoperable. Not allocating addresses to RAM simply results in the unaddressed section not being used in an otherwise fully functional computer. Therefore the OS designers assign RAM last.

And he also says…

If you install a Windows operating system, and if more than 3GB memory is required for your system, then the below conditions must be met:

1. A memory controller which supports memory swap functionality is used. The latest chipsets like Intel 975X, 955X, Nvidia NF4 SLI Intel Edition, Nvidia NF4 SLI X16, AMD K8 and newer architectures can support the memory swap function.

2. Installation of Windows XP Pro X64 Ed. (64-bit), Windows Vista 64, or other OS which can provide more than 4GB worth of address space.

Note: According to the latest Change Log published by Microsoft, Windows Vista 32bit SP1 will display the installed amount of RAM. This is a display change only.

Skyrail's avatar

You say 128Gb isn’t all that uncommon, but if you’ve got that much RAM then I highly doubt that you’ll be running Windows XP or Windows Vista :) If you were to run a Windows OS you’d run the server edition, this shows the amount of RAM each version can support (X64 and X86) and with the former you can have up to 2TB of RAM (OS supported) with two of the versions.

robmandu's avatar

@skyrail… right on… Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and their ilk.

And to give credit where it’s due, Windows Server editions on certain platforms can address much more than the 32GB limit that Apple has on its Mac Pro and Xserve machines (per Skyrail‘s link, up to 2TB!!).

syntak's avatar

Solaris 10

wilhel1812's avatar

Mac OS X
but i also have XP and Ubuntu installed on other machines.

MrBlogger's avatar

Mac OS X Leopard! 10.5 Woot woot!

iwamoto's avatar

10.5 or 10.5.4 ? ;)

wilhel1812's avatar


iwamoto's avatar

looks like someone clicked around @ about this mac

wilhel1812's avatar

Haha! Well, you wanted us to be specific ;)

jkwells1's avatar

10.5.5 on a 4 year old eMac 1000 Mhz!

oratio's avatar

Vista 64 Ultimate. Had to cause I have 4 GB ram.

wilhel1812's avatar

10.5.6 on a 4 year old iBook 1333 Mhz!
(512 MB RAM)

Tobotron's avatar

Ubuntu 8.10 baby, yehhhh :)))

iwamoto's avatar

why not 9.04 ?

eambos's avatar

8.10 is a long term release. They provide updates and support for longer than 9.04.

I guess if you like what you’ve got, why change it?

Vincentt's avatar

No, 8.04 was a Long Term Release. I’m still running 8.10 as well, mostly because I can’t run the LiveCD on my current hardware. I might upgrade some time, if I find the time…

sahID's avatar

@XCNuse In response to your last question: I am writing this in December, 2014. Windows XP is still in use, but is no longer supported by Microsoft. Vista fell out of favor surprisingly rapidly and was replaced by Windows 7 in 2009. Windows 7 has now been replaced by Windows 8, which brought a smartphone touch screen interface to PC’s (the alleged advantage was that the same OS would work on smartphones and PCs. Within the last year Windows 8 was supplanted by Windows 8.1, which restores the familiar desktop to Windows. Next spring Windows 10, further enhancing the OS will be released (they skipped Windows 9).

Right now I am using Windows 8.1 on an HP laptop and, in general I feel it is the best version of Windows yet.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther