talking about OSX.

GNU/Linux, always! :)
(It only miss voice recognition to be perfect!)

Generally, I use both hardware and software. Usually, (Dell or HP) and XP.
All encompassing answer,
Hardware: PC, Mac, AS400, Linksys WRT-54G, HP LaserJet 5, Lego NXT
OS: Windows XP, Windows NT, Windows 98, Windows 2000, ...; OSX, ???, Linux (Ubuntu and ???), PCL, NXT-G, RoboLab

Of course, that ignores the cell phones, cars, mp3 players, calculators and various other electonics laying around the house that must have software/firmware/hardware.

Nevermind.

PC

xp
i'm not the design guy of vista
i hate mac because they say they're better than windows but why do they keep conditioning to windows?
linux is a cool idea but it's way too complicated even though my notebook runs on linux

you should try ubuntu. It's linux for human beings.

I run Ubuntu on my laptop and love it.

I'm thinking of picking up this laptop with mandriva (linux) on it. I don't really have any experience with linux platforms though. Where can I learn more about ubuntu, mandriva, and all the other linux os's?

There is so much info out there that is impossible to give you a single suggestion in terms of site for getting documented.

I would however strongly, strongly, strongly suggest ubuntu as your first system. This is not to say this is the best GNU/Linux distribution around in terms of performance... but it certainly is in terms of user-friendliness and support.

At the end of this month the new version of ubuntu should come out, so - if you are not in a hurry - you might wish to wait still a couple of weeks before starting experimenting.

Best luck!

Speaking as someone writing this on Hardy Heron, Linux does not have the polish that Mac or Windows does. Windows has other, more serious issues. But to say that "Mac's don't have the functionality" seems pretty uninformed. The fact that OS X is a Unix makes it possible to do pretty much anything you can do on Linux.

Linux may not have the polish of other operating systems, but there are many things on Windows and OS X that I do find annoying. I find that both OS X and Windows treat you like an idiot. With Linux, at least you learn something about the way your computer works as you use it.

I guess it depends on what you want out of your operating system. If you want to play games, go for Windows. If you want user-friendliness, go for OS X. If you want stability and control over your system, go for Linux. I wouldn't say that one is better than the others. I would have thought it depends on your requirements.

I think Ubuntu is probably the most user-friendly distribution of Linux. I use Fedora myself. However, the great thing about Linux is, if you hate one of the distributions, you can just uninstall it and try another one. In fact, there are even distributions that look like Windows and OS X.

Quite...

And I would strongly recommend against any system that requires the user to input about as much time maintaining it as they do creating original work. I am an end producer and need reliability as well as ability in my machines. My Macs give me that in bucket loads.

The above type of post from mac [!] says it all for me with, "experimenting". I get paid for what I do on my machines, they are essential to me. I am not in the least bit interested in joining a community to help develop yet another system and nurse it through development.

I need ability and reliability. Once a system offers me all of what I need and in a way that does not slow down my own work, I am happy to stick with it.

I even have a machine that runs a massive version of Ventura on a stripped-down DOS platform for typesetting: it is rocket fast because every single line of code is dedicated to running that one program. I produce documents on this on a regular basis and have down for yonks. Nothing else on the market comes close. It also boots and shuts down in less than five seconds each way.

@mps247 While I agree that it's a question of needs, I would say that the mac (desktop) is at least, if not more, stable than linux. Server is a whole different issue (in all respects).

As to control over the system, I agree, there's really no competition here (except maybe on the BSD front).

But really, I don't really care as long as the system has bash (no, cygwin doesn't count).

Having used PC's for about 20 years I shifted to an IMac just for internet as I was fed up with all the viruses. For the past two years I have used this IMac and maybe I am a dolt, but I find the Mac very user unfriendly. I hate that the structure of the files, I detest that they do not have a double click mouse, I distain the delay everytime I would otherwise use cut and past with the mouse and instead have to use the keyboard.
Thunderbird or whatever they call their email program is clunky, slow and user unfriendly.
The only reason I tolerate it is that it is not attacked constantly by viruses.
I have a PC which I keep unattached to the net for the real work/files/etc
and the all important games that I play.

The Mac/PC distinction really grinds at me, PC stands for personal computer, and Macs and PCs are exactly the same thing. Why not just say Windows vs OS X?

I could use any of the 3 choices of OS, I like Windows and UNIX, but I wouldn't want an overpriced Apple PC so that removes OS X, and I find Windows can run all the stuff you can run on Linux plus some Windows only stuff too, so Windows it is.
Right now I'm on XP, because my laptop is old and I'm familiar with it. I use FreeBSD on my development server though, and have Cygwin,MinGW etc running on my laptop too

kestas, what do you use for your production server (if you feel like divulging that)?

My personal laptop is a dual boot XP/Debian box that spends 99.9999% of its time in Linux. At work I have one of each and manage a hodge podge of Linux with a handful of Solaris 8(!) machines thrown in for good measure.

I have a strong preference for Linux, but I think that may be influenced by the fact that I spend most of my time in a terminal (coding) or a web browser (phpdip) or watching movies/shows I've downloaded, and Linux does all of those admirably. Back when I had a Quake/StarCraft addiction, I used to boot into Windows more often, but since the terminal in Windows is weak and the development tools for Linux more accessible (in my mind) and web browsing pretty uniform on either platform, Linux has my heart. Of the distributions, I'm partial to Debian, my only real problem with them being the culture of open source...whoops, I mean "free" (not as in free beer) software nazis led by the great RMS (an impressive hacker but an aggravating zealot). I'm sure Ubuntu is nice and all, but I'm old school and like the idea that unstable means pretty stable and stable means "I will not crash until 2038" (or for the next 239 billion years, depending on if you have a newer kernel).

That said, I feel that anyone who claims Linux is a competitive desktop OS is selling you snake oil. Linux stands out in two arenas: as a server OS and as a development platform. Because of design choices (e.g. unlike Windows and MacOS, the Linux GUI is separated from the kernel...not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does affect the user experience) and a general immaturity of the OS and available packages for desktop applications/needs, Linux is not a real desktop OS competitor. On the other hand, Windows and OSX focus on that market...at the expense of server concerns (stability and reliability at high load and better fault tolerance (one errant application can crash the OS more easily)). So really, the best OS for the job really depends on what it is that you want to do with it. Despite having UNIX under the hood, OSX turns me off due to the proprietary hardware (read: $$) and hermetically sealed innards that you are not to touch (I'm a geek, I like to tinker) and Vista seems rife with problems and has excessive hardware requirements for good performance, so if I were looking for a true desktop OS I'd likely pick XP.

I'm a man of simple needs. I want my games to run well and i want to check my email/newspapers/blogs/forums/etc.
So for me Windows is fine(Vista for my desktop, xp for my older laptop). Of course if i can i want to replace all the windows add on programs with better free ones- winamp and VLC for media player, Open office for office and firefox of course.

Windows...I tried a Mac somewhere else, and I found the control absurd.

My first computing experience was in 1978 at high school. The computer had no monitor and used a paper tape drive. I have used, sold, programmed, toyed with, and played on many computers since then. For all it's faults, MS Dos/Windows it what brought the world of computers together. Both through compatibility and through commoditization of the pc thus lowering the cost so "everyone" can afford one.

If you want to play games on your computer, then it's Windows you will want to use. If you want to do business apps, it's Windows you will want to use. Graphics apps, once the domain of Apple, has long since crossed over except at the extreme high end on special dedicated systems. What I am trying to say is, I prefer Windows. However, I do love the Mac vs PC ads. I also love how inaccurate they are about how good Macs are.

@kestasjk
If your pc is getting viruses, stop watching the porn (joke). Use Firefox (free) and run Hitman Pro (free) once a week. But mostly Firefox will take care of the virus issues.

Katsarephak: We use shared hosting at Dreamhost, they run Debian linux if memory serves

TheMasterGamer: You must be talking to someone else, I've had the same XP installation on this machine since 2006 and haven't got a virus once. You should add to your list "run as a user account, not an admin", because if you ever do get a virus that'll make it much easier to remove

@thewonderllama

I cannot really follow your post when you get into explaining why GNU/Linux is not a competitive desktop OS... I got your claim, but I can't see how you would support that.

FEATURES: I can't think of one single typical desktop application of common use that is not present in the world of free software, bar voice recognition (yet... one could argue of how "common" this software is).

SECURITY: Much, much better. Absence of viruses, very difficult to gain access to the machine as root, unless you have physical access to the console (yet, this is the same than in Windows or OSX).

TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP: Lower than any of the commercial competitors when used for productivity purposes, extremely lower than competitors when using it for recreational purposes and personal use.

And these are just technical aspects.

One thing that this thread has not touched yet (apart your rant about RMS) is the social/political aspect of free software. You might not care about it, but in countries like India, South Africa and so on... the possibility to build their technological know-how and infrastructure without being bond to royalties and licensing costs is of primary importance. Even in "developed" countries, a growing number of people is realising the importance of this and are gradually shifting. Of course this does not make GNU/Linux performing any better, but if you are not simply a "mainstream consumer" but a "responsible consumer", this is something you would consider in choosing your platform.

@TheMasterGamer

I do not fully agree with your claim that DOS/Windows brought the world of computers together. I see what you mean, but what it really did is the adoption of open standards. Hardware wise, this was something IBM understood pretty early, hence the "IBM compatible" architecture. Macintosh converted to it gradually (with the powerpc years ago and more recently with the conversion to the intel architecture). Software wise, the DOS standard are long past. When talking about OS's, then the POSIX standards (common to unix, linux, BSD, etc...) had a much bigger role in bringing the world of computers together and in fact POSIX, differently than DOS is alive and kicking.

That said, I reckon that Bill Gates's vision of "one computer per each home" had a massive importance in making computers become an everyday commodity and that his OEM philosophy created a base of users large enough for companies to undergo the development of complex pieces of software and manage to release them at competitive prices.