Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The perfect OS

Keniff

Keniff

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 21, 2008
526
1
United Kingdom
After using this website/forum for a few months now, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people seem to moan (ALOT) about different OS systems within different Laptops and desktops...

So, here's my question, can somebody just nail the perfect system?
Or will we just turn into grumpy geeky old men, and never be happy?
 
No.

Unless it's a OS capable of sentient thought and an evolving code-base that can change any aspect of itself to please it's master.
 
Why would someone want to make the perfect OS? If it was perfect there would be no reason to continue development of any software ever again. That would suck for the economy.
 
Best OS depends on what you use it for.

Windows - most popular OS in the world. everything is pretty much menu driven. most software, games, etc available. Windows xp was a huge success. But frequent maintenance(registry clean, disk defragment, adware, etc) driver issues are its drawbacks. comes pre installed in most PCs and is cheaper to begin with.

Linux - Ubuntu, Red Hat, debian...and various versions of it. Great OS. popularity is growing. very popular among self proclaimed geeks. somewhat menu driven; but requires terminal & command line knowledge to install/uninstall stuff. support is somewhat minimal; you have search your way through forums to figure out issues. driver issues are common. cheap (even free versions are there) & can be installed in a variety of PCs.

Mac OS - Great OS...again popularity is growing. used to be popular with self proclaimed geeks, but now that Macs are cool and college kids and more people are switching to it, it somewhat pisses off the old school self proclaimed geeks. But nevertheless takes all the ease of a menu driven approach with the stability of Linux/Unix based systems. driver issues are contained as hardware & OS is from same company. The OS offers lots of features not available on Windows OS & Linux natively. somewhat expensive to start with, but IMO that starting extra expense is averaged out by spending less of your time fixing issues.

I have obviously only touched the basics of the different OSes from a layman point of view. but u shud get the idea.
 
The OS offers lots of features not available on Windows OS & Linux natively
Click to expand...

Hm... what features did you have in mind? I can think of precious few that fit in this category. In fact, the only ones I can think of right now are multi-touch and CD drive sharing (ala. MacBook Air.)

Linux - Ubuntu, Red Hat, debian...and various versions of it. Great OS. popularity is growing. very popular among self proclaimed geeks. somewhat menu driven; but requires terminal & command line knowledge to install/uninstall stuff. support is somewhat minimal; you have search your way through forums to figure out issues. driver issues are common. cheap (even free versions are there) & can be installed in a variety of PCs.
Click to expand...

<facepalm>

somewhat menu driven; but requires terminal & command line knowledge to install/uninstall stuff
Click to expand...

That used to be true about 7 years ago, but now it's patently false. Many modern distros are highly GUI-driven. You don't need the terminal or command-line knowledge to install anything. You need the terminal about as much as you need Terminal on OS X.

support is somewhat minimal; you have search your way through forums to figure out issues
Click to expand...

That's a half truth. The commercial distros (think RedHat Enterprise Linux) offer phone support (which, by the way, MS does not -- at least not to individual users). Canonical (the folks that make Ubuntu) also offer commercial support services, as do many other vendors.

If you're willing to take the DIY route (as you're forced to with Windows, and as many people choose to with Macs), then yes -- you'll likely end up on a forum such as this.

driver issues are common.
Click to expand...

Used to be. Hardware support nowadays is excellent, and a modern distro supports more hardware out of the box than Windows 7.

Yes, there are still driver issues -- but what general-use OS doesn't have those? Mac OS X only runs on an extremely limited hardware set, and Windows has a hell of a lot of driver issues last I checked (about 5 days ago w/ the Windows 7 RC.)

cheap (even free versions are there) & can be installed in a variety of PCs.
Click to expand...

Most distros are free. Some are free, but require payment for the support. A very, very few are actually commercial -- and most users will never want nor need to use said commercial distros.

And yes, it can be installed on damn near anything. :p
 
sammich said:
No.

Unless it's a OS capable of sentient thought and an evolving code-base that can change any aspect of itself to please it's master.
Click to expand...

That sort of thing makes me imagine some kind of scary hybrid between Vicky in iRobot and Brainiac off smallville?

Bit too dangerous for me. :confused:
 
miles01110 said:
I'd say the perfect OS is the one that doesn't have rabid fanboy followings that refuse to admit its shortcomings.
Click to expand...

So perfection is determined by the qualities of its users (being able to admit that...) as opposed to the qualities of the operating system itself?

I think one aspect of a perfect operating system is true "plug and play" -- no drivers ever needed for new hardware devices. Another quality of such a system is that it would never go down or require a reboot (unless you happen to be moving the machine and cannot provide sustained power).
 
miles01110 said:
What? You can still like something and yet acknowledge it has faults. What does this have to do with... anything?
Click to expand...
Let me explain it to you then. If it is perfect, then no one will have any complaints. If no one has complaints, then everyone will love it a lot. You claim that the perfect OS is one that users like only a little. If users like an OS only a little, then they have complaints about it. Complaints mean that the OS is not perfect.

Your perfect OS is one that is not perfect by definition.
 
Keniff said:
So, here's my question, can somebody just nail the perfect system?
Click to expand...
I don't think that making an OS is "just" that simple.

can somebody just create the prefect car ? plane ? train ? tv ? engine ? perfect propulsion energy ? perfect economic system ?

Why can't students just make perfect exams ?

I don't know if I miss something in your question but I think the answer is obvious. All OS's developers ARE trying to make "just" the best OS ever ... but things are not that simple otherwise we would live in a perfect work.
 
ppc750fx said:
Used to be. Hardware support nowadays is excellent, and a modern distro supports more hardware out of the box than Windows 7.
Click to expand...
LOL.

Yeah, it supports more hardware. Like everything from last year, and before. So the largest part of its hardware support is completely irrelevant, and if you dare buying the latest and greatest, be prepared to do your own work. If you buy/have mainstream hardware, it is indeed just fine. But please, get off the cool-aid. Hardware support for the stuff you can actually buy today is still and will always be better with Windows than it is with Linux. Unless there is a big mentality change with the hardware manufacturers and they start releasing drivers for Linux when they release them for Windows, or they release the specifications so the smart linux dev people can develop their own.
 
mags631 said:
So perfection is determined by the qualities of its users (being able to admit that...) as opposed to the qualities of the operating system itself?
Click to expand...

Yes.

MisterMe said:
You claim that the perfect OS is one that users like only a little. If users like an OS only a little, then they have complaints about it. Complaints mean that the OS is not perfect.
Click to expand...

Right, thus the paradox. And you're just incorrectly making an assumption (using subjective terms like "a little") about what I said in the first place.

BTW: I kind of miss your annoying formatting. Whatever happened to all of the bold words distributed throughout your posts? :-(
 
ppc750fx said:
That used to be true about 7 years ago, but now it's patently false. Many modern distros are highly GUI-driven. You don't need the terminal or command-line knowledge to install anything. You need the terminal about as much as you need Terminal on OS X.
Click to expand...

I know Linux supporters like to *say* it's false now, but just because the GUI is improving doesn't mean you don't still NEED the terminal in Linux. Cause honestly, you do.

I installed Ubuntu on a laptop and desktop computer in the last 12-6 months (depends on the machine). On both of them I had to do some terminal work to get it to work properly, wether it was manually adding the proper resolutions because it didn't detect my monitor's capabilities properly or adding wireless drivers or proper video drivers.

Not to mention a friend of mine installed Ubuntu just a few weeks ago and I had to help him use the terminal to fix his wireless card, 3G and I had to install NTFSFix using the terminal to mount his external hard drive.

I mean, Linux has lots of positive points, but I'm so over Linux supporters saying you can use it without using the terminal now. Cause it's just not true. The only way you could possibly "use" Linux without using the terminal is if someone else installed the OS and all applications you need for you, so that you don't have to yourself. Then you could "use" Linux without using the terminal, however you definitely can't "install" Linux and all the required applications and fixes without using the terminal.
 
DaSal said:
I know Linux supporters like to *say* it's false now, but just because the GUI is improving doesn't mean you don't still NEED the terminal in Linux. Cause honestly, you do.

I installed Ubuntu on a laptop and desktop computer in the last 12-6 months (depends on the machine). On both of them I had to do some terminal work to get it to work properly, wether it was manually adding the proper resolutions because it didn't detect my monitor's capabilities properly or adding wireless drivers or proper video drivers.

Not to mention a friend of mine installed Ubuntu just a few weeks ago and I had to help him use the terminal to fix his wireless card, 3G and I had to install NTFSFix using the terminal to mount his external hard drive.

I mean, Linux has lots of positive points, but I'm so over Linux supporters saying you can use it without using the terminal now. Cause it's just not true. The only way you could possibly "use" Linux without using the terminal is if someone else installed the OS and all applications you need for you, so that you don't have to yourself. Then you could "use" Linux without using the terminal, however you definitely can't "install" Linux and all the required applications and fixes without using the terminal.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Did I say you could do the initial setup of a Linux box without using the command line?

No. I didn't.

Likewise, I'd never say that you can setup a Windows machine without mucking about with its internals, because for the most part that's just not true.

I do, however, stand by my assertion that a properly configured Linux install won't require the average user to use the terminal at all. I say this because I currently administer a couple dozen Linux machines, all of which are used by non-technical users.

I know, I know... someone will come forth with an anecdote about how "Linux isn't ready for the desktop because my mother can't get two monitors configured with a pair of HD 4850's in Crossfire mode", etc... but the reality is that once the install and configuration is done, it's more than usable by average users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back