Community poll forum: Poll: Which version of Windows are you running?

I went from XP to Vista Home Premium (unwillingly) when I bought a new laptop, but I've never had any problems with it. I use IE8, and Norton 360 keeps the laptop clean and "lean."

Google Chrome was the only program that gave me any trouble ( couldn't open some attachments or links ) but that was resolved once I uninstalled it made IE my default again.

I've always been quite happy with Vista.

Although Windows 2000 is largely unsupported by software developers and is soon to be abandoned by Microsoft, it is the most stable OS ever to have come from Redmond. I maintain a 2000 machine for certain legacy hardware and software applications because they just work better than anything else available for my needs. If Windows 2000 could be "service packed" by an independent group so Microsoft didn't screw up improvements, and developers still programmed for it, it would be head and shoulders better than ANYTHING since.

Hi Lee,
If Mac or Linux were capable of running Microsoft Simulator X, I'd have jumped out of windows way back in 2005. Sadly they don't so my "Good Ole Reliable" XP Pro remains my favourite OS. That said, if I can find a decent laptop that doesn't have a pre-installed weak version of Windows 7 and all the attendant 'bloatware/garbage' on it,
I would willingly buy Windows 7 Ultimate or Professional, as my new preferred OS.

PS. Now that we have started a new decade Lee, how about a new photo of you, your first one was a 'Stunner', the eyes and black waistcoat had a very definite 'je ne sais quoi' appeal to it.

My main box runs XP; I have Win 7 as my secondary unit, waiting til the XP machine starts acting up before I go to 7 full-time. I tried Ubuntu Linux on a laptop, but the fabled "easy network setup" did not work for me. As soon as I upgrade my wifi router to "N" I will try the Ubuntu again.

I do not use IE8 - I HATE IT! - except for the occasional site that won't respond without it. Firefox is beginning to bug me with too frequent updates, but it is my main browser. At least the updates are quick and nearly painless. Likewise, Thunderbird is my email program of choice, but it is flakier than my favorite, Netscape 7.2.

I also avoid Outlook/Outlook Express like the plague; have not touched it/them except briefly back in '06. Maybe if MS had given it a meaningful name, I would not be so negative, but just what the h--- does "outlook" have to do with communications?

My main computer uses are email and Quicken. I got Windows 7 for future use with home video/DVD, so it is overkill for anything else. I'd love to find an alternative to Quicken at half the price, and with a product that doesn't change file format every 3 years; I can't see having to go back to my 199x Quicken files to convert them everytime a new version comes out. I've tried Moneydance - are there other alternatives I should look at?

I retired early, in early 40's, so have a lot of time and interest in new OS, etc., to play all day with them. Received free upgrade to 7 from a new HP laptop with Vista back in October 09. It took a good couple/three hours to load, but it was easy. Comes with free McAfee Suite and all the cute little extra's you see on commercials. Other than 'fun with the screens' and new user features, I haven't seen a big difference between 7 and Vista...or XP for that matter. But this is from an intermediate home user's experience, not technical reporting.

I cannot stand using IE as a browser and never could since it's the slowest most frustrating thing I ever saw. So use Firefox which is amazing for customizing and speed in my experience. There are still printers and other hardware for sale that do not seem to have drivers for 7 to this day...ridiculous. You'll have to adjust to some slight changes in the way the files are set up in 7, like under my docs/my music, but the Media Center that comes with 7, I think WMP 14, would be extremely sweet if not for the critical, common problem with getting it to upload your music files. ARGH!

Other than the frustrating intrusions already mentioned, which I think comes from just being connected to the web and should be outlawed, Win 7 gets an overall rating of 'very good' from me. Cheers!

I recently purchased a new "upper-end" PC that I use for audio and graphics editing. The new computer came with Vista Ultimate and it sucked so bad that I replaced the original (new) hard drive with a new one and installed Windows XP Pro. The manufacturer would not help me with XP drivers and such so I had to get drivers on my own.
Once I got the new machine up and running, it was a real pleasure to work with.

My machine has 8G of memory and Intel dual-Core2-Guad 2.40GHz CPU's but with Vista everything ran so slow that I couldn't work. When I replaced the system with XP Pro, even heavy graphics processing goes as fast as I can click a button.

Vista has been out for several years and MS still hasn't got it together. I'm going to wait and see how Windows 7 goes.

My next machine is going to be a Mac Pro Intel dual boot machine.

I use Mandriva Linux. It is free to download, just burn to disk and Install.Have han no major problems with it. It is secure, runs multiple desktops, comes with manual pages as standard. The only thing it has problems with is running Microsoft games, but as a programmer not a gamer this is no problem to me. And when a new distro is out then this is also free. Any minor problems encountered there are people on a worldwide forum willing to help out newbies and experienced if a question is posted in the forum.I have tried various Microsoft Windows O/S snd found then lacking in many areas like succeptibility to virus etc which linux os not. Linux / Unix user for several years.

Hi, I am running 3 different computers and ergo 3 different operating systems. Win98 SE, Win XP Pro and Win7.

Actually, my main desktop is set up to multi-boot Windows Vista Home Premium (32-bit), Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit), and Kubuntu (64-bit). Windows Vista is still the default on the multi-boot, but I plan to make Windows 7 the default, as soon as I can get Windows 7 compatible versions of a few more programs.

WindowsXP and am embarressed to admit I don't know to much about the operations. penchris

My first IBM PC was DOS and I stuck with that until my PC was hopelessly obsolete and 95 was mature. Loved 95. I stuck with 95 until it was demonstrated that 98 was mature. Loved 98. Stuck with 98 until my PC was hopelessly obsolete and XP was mature. Absolutely loved and still love XP. My main PC died unexpectedly and had to switch to an early version of Vista. Absolutely hated Vista, but over somewhat more than a year it evolved to a usable and kind of pretty OS. Now I like Vista. My netbook and some older PCs I use have XP on them and when I use them I have this warm, pleasant 'you've come home' feeling. I still love XP. Not until Vista and XP or my PCs become so hopelessly obsolete (or burn up) will I even consider 7.

Lucky76 makes some excellent points, actually.

"I don't understand why anyone would keeping using 98 or Vista
and complain about Windows 7."

I suspect the answer is that Microsoft has priced Windows 7, as
it previously priced Office, almost out of reach for most people.
I decided it was worth it, to me, to pay the price for Windows 7
Ultimate, the retail clean-install edition, and I haven't been
disappointed; it is magnificent. Still, I could buy or build a
fairly decent desktop PC for less than I paid for my Windows 7
Ultimate.

"I've used them all and Windows 7 is the best ever, you can't tear
it up and believe me, I try something new every day. I haven't had
to reload yet."

Like most if not all versions of Windows, Windows 7's Achilles
heel is the registry; so you CAN break Windows 7, but not unless
you work at it deliberately, and who would want to?

"Now as for Linux, I've worked on Unix since the early 80's, and
I've tried Linux on my Pc's. It can't do what a good Windows system
can unless you want a server or something."

I have to agree. Linux Mint is beautiful, and Ubuntu and Kubuntu
are both awesome. In general, linux does what an OS should be
expected to do. Windows does more, much more, and the reason why
there's no console or genuine command-line in Windows is that in
Windows--unlike linux--you'll virtually never need one.

"Most people don't understand the way it works or the commands
required to administer it. They just think it's free and it's
wonderful. Ha."

Actually, it IS free, and it IS wonderful. There are so many
different distros (flavors) of linux that by the time you
download all of them, burn all of the ISOs, and try them all
by running them "live" from your CD drive rather than installing
them, there'll be a whole crop of new linux distros for you to
check out.

It's a whole new, magical world, and the computing universe would
be poorer and less colorful without it.

But Lucky76 is right when he says that no linux distro can do what
Windows can do, and most of them don't even try. Windows, whether
98, 2k, XP, Vista, or 7, has created a whole generation of computer
users who have never even seen a command-line, don't want to, and
wouldn't know what to do with it if they did see it. Linux users learn
fast how to use a command line--or else they migrate to Macs
or quietly just go back to Windows.

I love linux! But I suspect I'll never run linux alone, not while
I can still load Windows XP, Vista, or 7.

"Spend a few bucks and get Windows 7 and you'll be in sync with everyone else."

And that's it in a nutshell, even though it's a lot more than
"a few bucks". If you want to be in sync with everyone else,
stick with Windows--it's worth the high prices; no one else
makes an OS that does everything for you, like Windows does.

But if you'd rather carry heavy rocks through hip-deep mud
INSTEAD of being in sync with everyone else, linux may be
just what you want.

Regards,
Jim

"The registry is a hack that is the Achilles heel of all versions of Windows. But, it's not that hard to break. Simply ignore it and leave it alone for long enough, and it will eventually break under its own weight."

Well, we've had time to know that about XP, and maybe even Vista, but not Windows 7. Yes, it *probably* has the same weaknesses, but nobody's had time, yet, to find that out.

"I've been running Windows for both personal use and as a business necessity ever since Windows 3.0."

I was either lucky enough or smart enough to avoid Windows 3.x completely, using Desqview running on DR_DOS, instead. It was a far better experience, based on the problems clients brought to me to fix.

"I still have a Windows (XP MCE) machine, along with multiple Linux machines. In addition to my own machine, I maintain Windows machines (XP, Vista, & Win7) for both friends and family. However, since the rise of Linux GUIs, I've never run across the "much more" you speak of Windows doing that Linux won't. Please enlighten us."

That's not my job, so I'll leave it to others, should they want to take the time and make the effort to enumerate all the little extras that come bundled with Windows or come merely from the fact that the overwhelming majority of hardware manufacturers write their drivers and other software for Windows, and not for linux. To set up my multifunction Epson Workforce 500, for example, I simply had to run the installation disk. Can you tell me where to get drivers for all the functions of the Epson Workforce 500, written for linux? If so, which distro of linux? You can regard that question as rhetorical, if you prefer.

"The only arena where Linux falls short is in games. Folks looking for a specific game may not find a direct Linux equivalent. Otherwise, almost anything you need is available."

Okay, where do I download the linux equivalent of the Cisco/Linksys "Network Magic" software? Again, you can treat that question as rhetorical, if you wish.

"Finally, I've been running selected Linux GUI distros for several years now. My favorites (Mint, Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, Puppy, Mandriva) never require me to drop to the command line (although some times I do as a matter of choice since I'm used to running Debian Linux on my server)."

I'm willing to stipulate that, in Mint, Ubuntu, and Kubuntu, at least, nothing *requires* you to drop to the command line. Of course, you may *want* to drop to the command line, when it's a "matter of choice" between doing something you want to do or going without.

"Nonsense! I haven't needed to resort to the command line on any of my Linux desktop machines in years. The programmers and maintainers of Gnome, KDE, and the other desktop environments always have obsolescence of the command line as a goal and they've pretty well achieved it. PCLinuxOS and Mint, in particular, have been obviously written with Windows refugees in mind."

That last is certainly true. But if you will visit the forums of any of your favorite distros, and look at how many problem-fixes involve dropping to the command line, you'll see what I meant.

"However, the true measure isn't what I need, but what the average Windows refugee can live with."

Aha! There is precisely my point. Anyone "can live with" many if not all the "desktop linux" distros. If you need equivalents to Windows programs, there are a vast number of them out there, and with minimal risk of "dependency hell", you can get them, load them, and use them on your favorite linux distro. But can you find a linux replacement for the "Endnote" program, that will run on "OpenOffice Write" the way "Endnote" runs on "MS Word"? Again, you can treat that question as rhetorical, if you wish.

"I've helped numerous such folks with Linux (and, no, I didn't need the command line to set up their machines) and they quickly acclimated to Linux. The only feedback I get is usually, "Wow, this is great!"

I don't doubt that for an instant, since the vast majority of people just want to read and write emails, surf the net, maybe write snail-mail letters, balance their checkbooks, and maybe play some games. Linux lets them do all of that--even the games, if they're not looking to play a specific favorite game they played on Windows. Again, in case you missed it, I previously stated that all of the linux distros I've used can let you do all those things and more, because they do what an OS is supposed to do. In addition, if you're using linux, you'll never have to clean up your registry, because there isn't one--a major plus.

"I plan on keeping my sole Windows machine for the immediate future just for the sake of running some legacy apps (all software development and EDA tools which would never be an issue to average users). Otherwise, I can run almost everything I ever need on my Linux machines. Even some Windows apps I keep on hand can be run on Linux by using either Wine (free) or CrossOver Linux (commercial)."

Yes, and *some* of them even have 100% of the functionality they have when run in Windows. Of course, many others don't....

"What does "[being] in sync" mean?"

The context is in the message to which I was replying, so if you have some burning need to know, you can find it there.

"It can't mean interoperability since I can easily achieve that with Linux."

"Easily"? Oh, come now--let's get real, here.

"It can't mean multimedia, since Linux can do that, too. With Linux, I can sync with an iPod or with a Windows Mobile device, so that can't be it.

"Does it simply mean the perceived security of being one of the herd?"

Well, that's essentially how it took it, but the fact is that, if you are running Windows, and run into a problem, there's a good chance that one or more of the people you work with have had the same problem and can tell you how they fixed it. If you're running linux, the chances of that are somewhat reduced.

"A sense of belonging perhaps? If so, is that feeling worth the extra money? Is it worth having to reboot for most trivial updates?"

My experience has been that the trivial updates don't require a reboot, just the major ones. That's certainly been the rule in my experiences with XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Are they still issuing updates for Windows 98?

"Is it worth the additional time and money required to maintain it with defragging, malware security, and registry maintenance? Is it worth it that you have to pay for something every time you turn around?"

Whereas with linux, you can run "Wine", which is free but probably won't work; or you can run "Crossover", which will probably work (at least to some extent) but which isn't free by any stretch of the imagination.

"True anecdote... One friend I recently helped migrate to Linux has been out of work for a while. His PC was a mess since he couldn't afford to renew his security software, plus he'd always been lax about defragging and other necessary Windows maintenance tasks. He is now running Mint 8 and feels like a chump for waiting so long. He now runs this computer without ever having to reboot, without malware, without ever having to defrag. He has loaded all of the same sorts of applications software he was running under Windows and is able to use all of his old Windows data files. He has even found enough similar games to keep his family happy. So, what is he missing out on?"

Nothing, obviously. But that's just one example. For me, it's a different story. For example, my backup strategy is based on the
"True Image" program, by Acronis. Acronis doesn't write a version of that program for linux, or for OS X, for that matter; and supposedly similar programs, whether for Windows or for linux, are nowhere near as fast and as reliable. I have a friend for whom the "Endnote" program is essential to what he does. That program is written for Windows, not linux. SSee where I'm going with this?

Regards,
Jim

Windows 7
and Windows Vista on my laptop.

"It's a moot point, but I think Vista's most vocal critics were people who have never used it, or who have never used the SP1/SP2 version. I certainly don't see what all the negative fuss was about."

I've used Vista and I'll agree that many of the complaints were ameliorated by SP1/SP2. However, my chief complaints about Vista (Windows in general, actually) involve bloat, resources, and stability. In all of these aspects, Vista was a worst-case scenario.

My primary Windows machine runs WinXP MCE with an Athlon 64x2 CPU and 2GB of RAM. It runs OK. I briefly owned a Vista notebook with similar specs (except for 3GB of RAM) and it was noticeably slower. After considerable tweaking, I could coax it into running almost as fast as my WinXP machine, but why should I have to? {I eventually gave it away to my granddaughter.) Even then, I had all the usual Windows hassles to deal with - the necessity of security software, needing to defrag to maintain performance, rebooting with most software updates, BSOD, registry corruption, etc.

I contrast that with my daughter's machine. It's an old IBM (i.e. pre-Lenovo) ThinkPad T41 with 512MB of RAM. After keeping WinXP up-to-date on it (each new patch slowed it down incrementally), it was was really showing its age and still exhibited all the usual Windows problems. So, after a major crash, I installed Linux Mint on it and it's like a new machine. Linux doesn't mind running with restricted RAM and it doesn't require the additional layers of software that Windows does to keep it healthy.

Based on my limited experience to date, I'll agree that Win7 is a step in the right direction, but Windows' fundamental flaws (the registry, the archaic file systems, etc.) remain.