Total Commander

-
This should be a bottom-line-answer, so factor in all aspects important to YOU, e.g.

• user friendliness
• performance/speed
• pleasant visual design
• technical capabilities (i.e. what can / can't I do with this OS?)
• hardware support
• communication with mobile devices
• stability (system crashes/hang ups)
• total range of available software compatible with the OS
• available freeware
• do your favourite software applications (e.g. Total Commander) run on this OS?
• open source?
• friends have the same OS

These are examples only. Your personal criteria may be completely different and you are free to weigh them however you want. Only exception:

Please do NOT consider:

• price (because the question is what you favourite OS is, not what you think has the best performance/price tradeoff)


Please do only select an OS you have been working on for some weeks to fully assess its advantages and disadvantages.

Thank you.

Win2K (2005-2011) - I've used it almost as long as MS-DOS (89-99), although support for it is starting to wane. There are some interesting things being done by BlackWingCat's KDW API Wrapper & Tools and OldCigarettes Windows 2000 XP API Wrapper Pack (OCW), as well as unofficial KB patches on msfn.org.

I probably had more fun with Win98 (2000-2005) though. AXCEL216 had (still has) excellent resources for Win98 -- including a very interesting merge of updated WinME files into Win98.

Although I do find it much more difficult to purge the infrequent infection (Virus/Trojan) under Microsoft's NT family (2K/XP/et al). A file that is loaded into memory cannot be deleted in the NT branch --- that was not the case with Win98 - you just find the offending files and nix them. Done. Win2K and it's siblings require booting into safemode or recovery console to nix the really persistent baddies.

I never cared that much for Linux, and some of it's design philosophies that have been carried forth from Unix just flat out annoy me. Like how everything is text/piped and each "tool" does one thing only, and each tool has it's own flags/syntax that bears little resemblance to all of the other tools. The difficultly of Escaping characters and escaping escapes with regex filters for the various tools. How you can't just get a List of filenames and deal with it as an "object" --- it is a bunch of text that needs quotes and escapes for some characters and spaces.

If I'm forced to use Linux, I'll pop open a Nano/Pico editor window, which I got well versed in as the Editor used for email under VAX. Everything I've seen of VI(M) and Emacs that I would need is doable with a decent Windows editor, and usually with less keystrokes.

I'd much rather write AHK Script and interface with a CMD.exe console the odd time that is needed than write in Linux bash and have to deal with the inconsistent GNU utilities constantly (although I do have UnxUtils, and use them as needed... at least I have other options usually).


Will likely upgrade to Win7 when I get around to it. I've had all the pieces required for my next box for over a month now. I imagine I'm dreading leaving Win2K behind, as there will be little reason to run it outside of a Virtual Machine (VM) once I build my new box --- Win2K wont be able to use more than 2-3GB of my next machine's 8GB ram.

I find the list messy. And buggy:

Linux (all flavours)
other command line OS (please post)
Google (Chrome, Chromium)

There are command line linuces. And Google OSes (Chrome OS, Goobuntu, Android, never heard about Chromium OS) are linuces.

Android is basically Java, except it's compiled with Dalvik (JIT Compiler) instead of "Java". The underlying code looks like Java, but the binaries are likely not byte compatible.

As for ChromeOS, I thought it was based on Android -- but I'm not familiar enough with that to say one way or the other.

As far as "other command line OS", I believe chrizoo likely meant, something like VAX OpenVMS, DEC, etc.

Anyone that knows anything, knows that you can strip the GUI out of any LINUX. For that matter you can strip the GUI out of Windows too, and run it from SafeMode command-prompt w/ networking. Of course without a GUI they are both pretty useless unless you are talking about servers. And the current Win servers can be completely run from the command-prompt, be it CMD.exe, powershell or what have you.

m^2 wrote:I find the list messy. And buggy

Why thank you. I don't claim to be an OS expert and neither do I think one has to be for a poll posting here. Having said that, what can be buggy about a list(!) of OSes ?? All OSes are related to one another to a greater or lesser extent (architecture, general principles guiding the usage, etc.). Where you draw the lines in the sand is inherently subjective in nature and in many aspects a philosophical question.

Also, with a little research you would have found the list to be only half as buggy as you may have thought.

@"never heard about Chromium OS": Chromium OS is the open source development version of Google Chrome OS. Chrome OS's source code was released on 19 Nov 2009 under the BSD license as Chromium OS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_OS

@"There are command line linuces.": I never said anything to the contrary. What part of "other command line OS" don't you understand? It means that in the list are one or more command line OSes explicitly specified and all unlisted ones fall into the category "other command line OSes". Not exactly difficult, right? This includes a whole range of OSes from DR-DOS, PC-DOS, FreeDOS (all of which I worked with) to those Balderstrom mentioned to others beyond scope of this poll. Also consider Balderstrom's remarks about GUI stripping. As for the order, I put "other command line OSes" directly after MS-DOS, as it is arguably the most notable one and most likely to be identified as such.

@"Google OSes are linuces": Again, I never said anything to the contrary. It was a personal choice of mine to list it separately due to its
major difference from most if not all other Linuxes for PC which should be obvious to you (i.e. works exclusively with web apps). Again, where is the problem? Is Chromium not allowed to be listed because Linux is already listed? I think a Chromium fan will be capable of picking "Chromium" from the list despite Linux being listed as well. For that matter, would I not have been allowed to list Macintosh because OS X is Unix based, which also has been listed already ?? As for the order, I put Chrome/Chromium last, because it's not a classical full fledged OS due to its web based nature.

OSes constitute a hierarchy and regroup in OS families. But polls are bull point lists, not hierarchical trees. And its no their objective either. I didn't write a doctoral thesis on OS hierarchy but a poll (see forum title).

Balderstrom wrote:Android is basically Java, except it's compiled with Dalvik (JIT Compiler) instead of "Java". The underlying code looks like Java, but the binaries are likely not byte compatible.

Nonononono.
It's a regular Linux, you can code for it in C++ or any language you like. Dalvik is just a program running on this Linux, just like JVM is a program on your OS.

Balderstrom wrote:As for ChromeOS, I thought it was based on Android -- but I'm not familiar enough with that to say one way or the other.

I've heard that on Ubuntu, but I'm not sure.

chrizoo wrote:

m^2 wrote: @"never heard about Chromium OS": Chromium OS is the open source development version of Google Chrome OS. Chrome OS's source code was released on 19 Nov 2009 under the BSD license as Chromium OS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_OS

Thanks for the link. I couldn't believe in BSD, and it appears to be just a publicity stunt, I followed their links to the code and landed here. It says:

This page describes how to modify your Chromium web browser source code tree so that it includes the bits needed for running it on Chromium OS.

So it's not about OS, not at all, just one application code.

chrizoo wrote:@"Google OSes are linuces": Again, I never said anything to the contrary. It was a personal choice of mine to list it separately due to its
major difference from most if not all other Linuxes for PC which should be obvious to you (i.e. works exclusively with web apps). Again, where is the problem? Is Chromium not allowed to be listed because Linux is already listed? I think a Chromium fan will be capable of picking "Chromium" from the list despite Linux being listed as well. For that matter, would I not have been allowed to list Macintosh because OS X is Unix based, which also has been listed already ?? As for the order, I put Chrome/Chromium last, because it's not a classical full fledged OS due to its web based nature.

Actually the argument was that it's not "all flavours", not against your feelings that they are different.
And no, Mac OS is Unix-like OS, but not a Unix, so formally your list is correct here, though everybody abbreviates such OSes to Unices.

chrizoo wrote:OSes constitute a hierarchy and regroup in OS families. But polls are bull point lists, not hierarchical trees. And its no their objective either. I didn't write a doctoral thesis on OS hierarchy but a poll (see forum title).

It's OK that you did, but I find the results messy and not fully correct. That's just it.

Good thing I didn't say that on slashdot then. Woulda been ripped to shreds for not checking and quoting Wikipedia. And good to know, I can't freaking stand Java, wordiest most restrictive piece of crap I've ever dealt with, and I've coded in LISP and Prolog.

m^2 wrote:Actually the argument was that it's not "all flavours"

So it turns out that after all the hullabaloo your only grievance is that I didn't write "Linux (all flavours except Google [Chrome OS, Chromium OS])". Srsly, what's the added value of this? Every human being capable of logical thinking would see that this is automatically implied when subsequently Google is listed separately.

When a poll offers you (among other things) "sweet dishes" and "ice cream" do you honestly need a wacky explanation like "sweet dishes except ice cream"?

Not to mention that it doesn't even have any practical implications whatsoever given that people who like sweet dishes can choose this and others who prefer ice cream just pick that. And those who like both just take one, whatever is more important to them. So where is the problem?

chrizoo wrote:

m^2 wrote:Actually the argument was that it's not "all flavours"

So it turns out that after all the hullabaloo your only grievance is that I didn't write "Linux (all flavours except Google [Chrome OS, Chromium OS])". Srsly, what's the added value of this? Every human being capable of logical thinking would see that this is automatically implied when subsequently Google is listed separately.

When a poll offers you (among other things) "sweet dishes" and "ice cream" do you honestly need a wacky explanation like "sweet dishes except ice cream"?

Not to mention that it doesn't even have any practical implications whatsoever given that people who like sweet dishes can choose this and others who prefer ice cream just pick that. And those who like both just take one, whatever is more important to them. So where is the problem?

I wrote already what's the problem.
No, I don't *need* further explanation, but still I don't *like* that it's inconsistent.

Ok, so currently I am the only one preferring Linux (all flavours)

Hm, it is not even really true, I do not perfer Linux (all flavours) , stress on all flavours, I prefer one particular Linux flavour, Debian based and named U....u.

• • user friendliness: Gnomes are always friendly, aren't they, in particular if they wear Mint coloured clothes.
  • performance/speed: fast machine, fast Linux, as simple as that
  • pleasant visual design: it is in the beholder's eye.
  • technical capabilities (i.e. what can / can't I do with this OS?): so far, I can do everything which I can do on Windows as well
  • hardware support: might be a problem if you buy the most recent hardware, because as a rule hardware vendors are not too keen on providing their specifications or current drivers for Linux
  • communication with mobile devices: no smart phone available
  • stability (system crashes/hang ups): no system crashes for the past 12 months, i.e. since the day of installing it
  • total range of available software compatible with the OS: tons of ...
  • available freeware: is there software out there that is not free?
  • do your favourite software applications (e.g. Total Commander) run on this OS? after feeding enough Wine to them, some of them do.
  • open source? you bet, it is.
  • friends have the same OS: <sigh>

It's ok karlchen, I'm gonna be the only one that prefers Win2K

Balderstrom wrote:It's ok karlchen, I'm gonna be the only one that prefers Win2K

I would be interested in your reasons for prefering 2k to later Windows versions. Are there things you can do with 2k but couldn't otherwise? Or is it rather that the subsequent versions didn't bring any added value for you?

Games: Any of the games that I periodically play run fine under win2K --- as I am not a big gamer, and usually run/use games that are years++ old.

Software: While I have run into some software issues (program wont launch) --- after testing the program in a WinXP virtual machine - they were not applications I would use (am very picky), nor pay the price that was required for them.

Otherwise, everything that I use on a regular basis works just fine,

• The slew of freeware utilities/accessories that I use; some dating back to Win98, all work with their current versions.
• (current versions): Opera, TC, EmEditor, Notepad2, Ted's Notepad, Codelobster PHP Editor, Putty, IrfanView, XNView, Media Player Classic, locate32, etc.
• (older versions): VMWare 5.5.9, VirtualBox 1.5.6, WinAmp 2.95 (I believe 5 will work, but it's in no way better than the classic version).

Dating back to Win98, I used Tiny Personal Firewall, which became Kerio Personal Firewall, which became Sunbelt Personal Firewall -- when I had switched to Win2K. I even have licenses for SPF and vipre, and I haven't even bothered to install either this time around.

The productivity losses from filtering all internet traffic and all file access through a software bottleneck isn't worth it. If something bad happens that can't be resolved in SafeMode or Recovery Console, then I reinstall --- and within the hour my system is back and running. My OS is kept separate from my UserData and Program Installs. Most programs will rebuild their registry requirements upon launch - they don't actually need to be installed.

In fact, the only reasons I've ever reinstalled my system were due to hosing by Symantec and to get a clean registry/system (I slipstream all the required patches into the OS System Install Disk).

System Requirements: Out of the box Win2K minimum requirements are 128MB of RAM, recommended 256MB --- vs --- WinXP's 256MB min; recommended 512MB. Win2K runs less than half as many services and background processes than WinXP.

System Uptime: Under Win98, I usually got 3-5 weeks uptime. Under Win2K, I generally only reboot when required to for Application Installs. Prior to physically moving my machine my last uptime was 3 months or so.

System Stability: Periodically will run into graphic stack corruption that locks up the system, or whitescreens - lose toolbars, etc. This occurs 2 or 3 times a year maybe. Most times I can resolve that (if I am able to get the task manager running) by closing everything down --- otherwise reboot. I haven't had a BSOD since I got rid of that piece of crap (NVIDIA based) ASUS K8N-E DELUXE NFORCE 2.5 motherboard --- replaced a $160 Mobo with a $20 one (ASRock K8Upgrade-NF3 Socket 754) and all of my system problems went away.

Hardware Support: My sony mp3 player couldn't do playlists without Windows Media Player 10/11. I didn't care much, but when I had to replace it due to an ocean accident, I got a fully functional Sansa Fuze 8GB (with a micro-SDHC expansion slot). Sony: $200, 8GB ... Sansa $40, 8GB + $25: 16GB micro-SDHC card.

Open Source: No, but that doesn't stop people from hacking it to make it do what they want. Granted Open Source would be better

User Friendliness: Say what you want, but it is easier to setup Network cards, etc in Network Neighborhood under Win2K than WinXP's legoland interface. And Win7's interface is even worse, most of the stuff you need is hidden behind a pretty display and GUI that doesn't tell you much of anything at all when things don't "just work".

Pleasant Visual Design: No. And I like it like that.
Technical Capabilities: What can't I do with this OS? I can't run some of Microsoft's latest software and the odd .DotNet 3.0/4.0 app. But neither can karlchen under linux

Total Range of Software: As much or more than is available for linux. And almost all of the software actually has professionally written documentation. Note, many apps written for linux will also run/compile for Windows. And many Windows apps will run (with Wine) under linux.

Scripting Support: AutoHotkey, AutoIT, PowerPro, Dos Batch, Linux Bash. I can run Cygwin shell under win2K and get linux in a box when I need it without the overhead of a virtual machine.


Note, as I stated above: I will be upgrading to Win7. As I don't expect my newest hardware purchases to work properly under Win2K, and software compatibility is going to get worse over time as more devs switch to MS Visual C 2010.

But this poll is what is your favorite. Not what is the latest oooh shiny. I've used WinXP, Vista, Win7. People that claim "productivity gains" with the latter... are likely Explorer users - as Explorer under Vista/Win7 blows Win2K and WinXP's out of the water. For myself, Total Commander is my program launcher, and system interface along with AHK and command prompts for the most part. Win7 isn't going to make that better. The UAC system will technically be more secure, but it certainly wont be more streamlined than Win2K was.

Balderstrom wrote:System Requirements: Out of the box Win2K minimum requirements are 128MB of RAM, recommended 256MB --- vs --- WinXP's 256MB min; recommended 512MB. Win2K runs less than half as many services and background processes than WinXP.

That's stock. With much hacking I got XP running with 18 MB of RAM and the lowest I could get with 2000 was IIRC 24 or 26.

Balderstrom wrote:Hardware Support: My sony mp3 player couldn't do playlists without Windows Media Player 10/11. I didn't care much, but when I had to replace it due to an ocean accident, I got a fully functional Sansa Fuze 8GB (with a micro-SDHC expansion slot). Sony: $200, 8GB ... Sansa $40, 8GB + $25: 16GB micro-SDHC card.

Yeah, I have very bad experiences with Sony too. Their player didn't work at all with my XP x64 and I didn't manage to contact their support. With 32-bit XP I could put songs on it, but management was very bad. Both problems were caused by their wish to be cool that made it install not as a pendrive but as a Walkman. Crap.

Balderstrom wrote:User Friendliness: Say what you want, but it is easier to setup Network cards, etc in Network Neighborhood under Win2K than WinXP's legoland interface.

Yeah, I don't like it either, but you can switch to the old interface. Or have it in the start menu. Very comfortable.

Balderstrom wrote:And Win7's interface is even worse, most of the stuff you need is hidden behind a pretty display and GUI that doesn't tell you much of anything at all when things don't "just work".

Agree.

Balderstrom wrote:Technical Capabilities: What can't I do with this OS? I can't run some of Microsoft's latest software and the odd .DotNet 3.0/4.0 app. But neither can karlchen under linux

Wrong. Mono in mostly .net 4.0 compatible. Except that apps that use unmanaged components too don't work. And few parts of .NET are not implemented.

I have some sentiment for Win2k. Actually I consider it just as good as XP.


But currently the number one for me is FreeBSD - yeah, I'm the only one too.
There are 2 things that set it apart from competition:
-ZFS is by far, really by far the best filesystem for me. I have a collection of hard drives, each one is different and putting them in a single pool with automatic redundancy management is a hugely cleaner, safer and more productive solution than doing it manually.
-BSD family (though OpenBSD more than FreeBSD) is the closest to what I call Free Software. I don't like the Linux license because I find that it tries to force people into freedom - which is inherently inconsistent.

Getting the benefits is not free. The biggest problem with BSD is compatibility - especially the software side of it. Yeah, there is Java, Wine, Mono. Many Linux apps work on it too. Yet I still find it lacking. Total Commander works on Wine, but since it can't start BSD programs it's almost useless for me and muCommander just doesn't cut it.

I voted Windows XP 32 bit. I also have a PC with Windows 7 64bit, but I feel much more restricted with that OS, and I still have some DOS and 16 bit programs, that I miss not being able to run under Windows 7 x64.