Very Computer

I would be interested to see a short, unbiased summary of the major pc
operating systems.  Which ones lead in categories like (1) number of apps,
(2) stability, (3) ease of use, and so on.  I am not interested in seeing
bashing.  I know Win95 will lead in apps... I suppose what I am really
asking is which OS's are better for which tasks?  What major reasons would
a person have for running each?  Assuming I have only 1 computer, that
would probably mean an Intel platform running a partition manager with
several OS's.  And does the BE OS run on the Intel platform?  And if I use
Win95 for most tasks, then what things would I be better off using Linus
for?

Also, can you run a DOS or Windows emulator under Linux?  And:
do all of these pc operating systems run equally well when on a
partitioned hard disk, as opposed to being the only operating system on a
machine?  What about software installs that automatically reboot a
computer - how does that affect you when you are running partition
software?  Are there apps that are hands down better under Linus and if
so, why don't more people use partitioning software?  I know the MAC has a
windows emulator; does the Intel platform have a MAC emulator?  What about
Windows running OS/2 stuff - can you?  

Finally, and please don't laugh - this is a serious question - would it be
reasonably possible to write a new OS that used all the drivers that Win95
uses for sound cards, cdroms, etc - and all the video drivers as well -
but that was all it did, for a single-tasking mission: to run games.  The
idea is that game developers are turning more and more to Win95 because of
the stardards, including the 3D standards; but it used to be DOS, and for
a reason - you had basically the whole machine, and it was easy to write
for.  So I am wondering, could there be a DOS-like new OS that was not
multitasking, that used Win95 drivers, and was just for games.  Could some
subset of Win95 internal functions be identified that could serve the game
community; that set of functions be documented and basically if the gods
at Id used it for Quake III, lets say - then everyone would follow.  I
don't know enough of the behind the scenes constraints of Win95 to know if
this is possible.  I am sure that uncle Bill would probably9 have
purposely made Win9X complicated enough to make this unreasonable to try,
but it never hurts to ask.  If such an OS were reasonably possible, and
was written using the Linux-model somehow - or some kind of shareware -
then it would not be a part of the big M monopoly.

I am asking all this in the Linux group because I am hoping it contains
more people who are generally knowledgeable about a cross-section of
topics.  I think in a Win95 group it would be mostly Win95 people, etc.

Thanks, Kevin

On 17 Apr 1998 23:34:20 GMT,

For stability: I have Linux boxes that have been up for well over
a year without a problem.  (And only shutdown so that they could be
moved to another building.)

Ease of use is like apps: in the eye of the beholder, and depends on what
you're doing.  I can't even get MS Telnet to behave properly.  Linux
telnet works fine and dandy.  Remember there are places out there charging
a good chunk of money for classes on 'Word'.  If it's so easy to learn, why
are these people making money charging a couple dozen people $150 for
12 hours worth of classes?

Don't confuse easy to learn with easy to use.

Quote:> Also, can you run a DOS or Windows emulator under Linux?  And:
> do all of these pc operating systems run equally well when on a
> partitioned hard disk, as opposed to being the only operating system on a
> machine?  What about software installs that automatically reboot a
> computer - how does that affect you when you are running partition
> software?  Are there apps that are hands down better under Linus and if
> so, why don't more people use partitioning software?  I know the MAC has a
> windows emulator; does the Intel platform have a MAC emulator?  What about
> Windows running OS/2 stuff - can you?  

As for a just-a-game-engine.... you'll find that MS has pretty well
convoluted Windows into DLL hell that trying to do that would be immensely
difficult and so far the demand isn't there.  For game-only computers
get a playstation or such.  Cheaper than a PC and better games, too.

--
Brian Moore                             Kill A Spammer For Jesus
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker, Usenet Vandal

spake unto us, saying:

Quote:>I would be interested to see a short, unbiased summary of the major pc
>operating systems.  Which ones lead in categories like (1) number of apps,
>(2) stability, (3) ease of use, and so on.  I am not interested in seeing
>bashing.  I know Win95 will lead in apps... I suppose what I am really
>asking is which OS's are better for which tasks?

(1) Windows flavors (3.1 and 95) have the most shareware apps, and also
    the most generally-available retail packages.

    Linux has more high-quality free software than Windows does, however,
    at least in my experience, particularly with more recent things like
    the GIMP and StarOffice (which are fairly high-powered even compared
    with retail Windows software).  It also has a growing retail presence
    in some areas (like office software),

    OS/2 is the best platform for running DOS stuff of the lot, IMhO,
    and runs most Windows 3.1 software and some (ported) Linux software
    now (including XFree86 3.3.2, tho only a few dozen apps are ported
    so far) as well as its own native stuff.

    The MacOS still has quite a bit of commercial software, and you can
    still find Mac sections in stores, but I really think its shareware
    selction is pretty weak in some ways.

(2) Stability.  Linux leads here, and I'd put OS/2 slightly ahead of
    Windows 95 and the MacOS here (much further ahead if you use text
    apps a lot and thus avoid the input queue problem in the WPS).

(3) Ease of use.  This isn't a simple question, since I see this topic
    divided into 3 separate/unrelated categories:

    #1: Ease of setup/administration -- MacOS wins hands down here.
    Linux with a package manager scores major points in terms of
    application installation/update/deinstallations, but its added
    flexibility also translates into added complexity.  Windows 95
    and OS/2 are about equal -- but OS/2 might have a slight edge
    in terms of expected behavior (sometimes Windows 95 seems to
    *want* to do things here).  Both use binary config files (yuck).

    The *installation* of all OSes can be a *, so I'm not including
    that here at all.

    #2: Beginner-friendliness (learning curve) -- MacOS also wins here.
    Windows 95 may well be second, I don't know, as I've not seen many
    beginning PC users play with OS/2.  I'd put OS/2 ahead of Linux
    here, though a well-setup Linux box could be made to be VERY user-
    friendly.  It's the administration tasks that tend to require a
    bit of deeper knowledge, and a lot depends on the specific setup.

    #3: Expert-friendliness (flexibility/configurability) -- OS/2 may
    win here over Linux, but it's close.  Linux has X in its entirety,
    while XFree86 on OS/2 is relatively young yet, but OS/2 has very
    good DOS emulation (much more complete than DOSEMU) and also its
    WinOS2 subsystem (roughly equivalent to WABI) built in as well,
    and both have excellent command-lines, scripting languages, text-
    mode tools, and filesystems.  Both are very expert-friendly IMhO.

    Windows 95 is frustrating for me -- the desktop is inflexible,
    and it still uses FAT, but it's able to run a wide variety of
    software as well.

    The MacOS is also somewhat inflexible (at least the old version
    of 7.01 I'm using) for the same reasons (not customizable, no
    command line), but it's so elegant in some ways that it's hard
    to dislike it.  :-)

Quote:>What major reasons would a person have for running each?

Quote:>Assuming I have only 1 computer, that would probably mean an Intel
>platform running a partition manager with several OS's.

Quote:>And does the BE OS run on the Intel platform?

Quote:>And if I use Win95 for most tasks, then what things would I be better
>off using Linus for?

Quote:>Also, can you run a DOS or Windows emulator under Linux?

Linux also has Wine (an alpha-level Windows API translator that will
run some software now like Free Agent) and WABI (a $49.95 retail
package which uses a real copy of Windows 3.x and is pretty decent
at running 16-bit Windows apps).

Quote:>And: do all of these pc operating systems run equally well when on a
>partitioned hard disk, as opposed to being the only operating system
>on a machine?

Quote:>What about software installs that automatically reboot a computer -
>how does that affect you when you are running partition software?

Quote:>Are there apps that are hands down better under Linus and if so, why
>don't more people use partitioning software?

Quote:>I know the MAC has a windows emulator; does the Intel platform have
>a MAC emulator?

Quote:>What about Windows running OS/2 stuff - can you?

Quote:>Finally, and please don't laugh - this is a serious question - would it
>be reasonably possible to write a new OS that used all the drivers that
>Win95 uses for sound cards, cdroms, etc - and all the video drivers as
>well - but that was all it did, for a single-tasking mission: to run
>games.

I think a decent graphical subsystem on Linux (like GGI, perhaps) would
be a better idea.  Linux is free software (meaning the source is open
and avaialble), which means that it would be harder to remove if it
were to become popular as a * platform.

Hope my rambling makes some sense, anyway...  :-)

--

           OS/2 Warp 4 + Linux + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
                   The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

Quote:

>For stability: I have Linux boxes that have been up for well over
>a year without a problem.  (And only shutdown so that they could be
>moved to another building.)

Quote:>Ease of use is like apps: in the eye of the beholder, and depends on what
>you're doing.

Nasser

    One example that I run across frequently, and is an extreme one, but
makes the point is changing DNS servers.  In Linux one simply edits
resolv.conf.  That is it, nothing more need be done.  In Windows, one must
reboot, there is no other choice.

    When you say "new Linux OS versions" what comes to mind is new version
of the libraries and programs that also comprise a complete operating
system.  Outside of the kernel, no, one must not reboot.

--
             Steve C. Lamb             | Opinions expressed by me are not my
    http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus    | employer's.  They hired me for my
CC: from news not wanted or appreciated| skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

On 18 Apr 1998 06:15:41 -0700,

The only time I reboot any of my machines is to upgrade the kernel.

Quote:> >Ease of use is like apps: in the eye of the beholder, and depends on what
> >you're doing.

> I think with KDE, and the applications that come with KDE now, Linux is
> becomming easier to use than windows.

I've tried using Windows and end up spending more time trying to force
it to behave than actually getting anything done.

--
Brian Moore                             Kill A Spammer For Jesus
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker, Usenet Vandal

The one useful discovery I've made is that the program QVTTerm actually
handles screen sizes in an intelligent way. You can resize the window, and
it sends a resize event. You can select a scrollback buffer size
independently of the window size.

I have downloaded about 15 different telnet programs for Windows and as far
as I can tell it's the only one that isn't completely braindead.

miguel

# deletions

Quote:>Win95 for most tasks, then what things would I be better off using Linus
>for?

# deletions
about

Quote:>Windows running OS/2 stuff - can you?

# deletions

Quote:>then it would not be a part of the big M monopoly.

Quote:>I am asking all this in the Linux group because I am hoping it contains
>more people who are generally knowledgeable about a cross-section of
>topics.  I think in a Win95 group it would be mostly Win95 people, etc.

>Thanks, Kevin

Quote:> Unfortunately I have to use Windows much of the time. Happily I can mount

Quote:> I have downloaded about 15 different telnet programs for Windows and as far
> as I can tell it's the only one that isn't completely braindead.

I used it for damn nearly everything -- a lot of the time it was running (mostly
textmode, of course, although I'd startx once in a while to run things like
xdvi) I used it for news/mail stuff. I had it running 24/7 bringing down news
and mail over a UUCP connection.

And I used to do compiles, run a few raytracers (those ran fairly slow though)
and whatever other stuff.

Quote:>For what I do, it is a LOT easier.  I don't have to spend my time fighting
>with my tools.  (Try to use Windows telnet to a Unix box, and run a full
>screen app: you have to play a ton of games with the scrollback size to

Quote:>Brian Moore                             Kill A Spammer For Jesus
>Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker, Usenet Vandal

On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:05:58 -0700,

Quote:> >For what I do, it is a LOT easier.  I don't have to spend my time fighting
> >with my tools.  (Try to use Windows telnet to a Unix box, and run a full
> >screen app: you have to play a ton of games with the scrollback size to

> Indeed. I have to fight like hell on NT just to get Word and Excel or CC:Mail to
> happily coexist on the same screen side by side, and still be able to _use_
> those apps without half the data missing.

What the hell's the point of a big monitor when you've only got one
app running (unless it's something that really DEMANDS a big window like
blender :)).

--
Brian Moore                             Kill A Spammer For Jesus
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker, Usenet Vandal

I can understand you needing to go single-user, but, huh? reboot?

--Mike

Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Michael Talbot-Wilson

--

           OS/2 Warp 4 + Linux + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
                   The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.