View Full Version : What operating system do you use on your computer?
M1PFS
08-30-2005, 07:42 PM
What is the most popular OS that Hams use in their shacks?
w5alt
08-30-2005, 07:48 PM
Actually I use WinME and Debian Linux on one (dual boot) and WinXP on another.
RedHat 9.0 Linux here. No Windows on my machine.
M1PFS
08-30-2005, 07:51 PM
If that's the case. Which one do you like using for the shack?
K6BBC
08-30-2005, 07:55 PM
Tiger
w5alt
08-30-2005, 08:06 PM
Quote[/b] (M1PFS @ Aug. 30 2005,15:51)]If that's the case. Which one do you like using for the shack?
Not sure if you asked me or someone else, but I use both computers and all 3 operating systems in my shack. Which I like best depends on what I'm doing.
73,
Walt, W5ALT
depends on the computer. I run server on one, 2K on some, XP on some, and Linux on one.
I think that I have a laptop that runs DOS 6.2 or W98SE
M1PFS
08-30-2005, 08:09 PM
Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Aug. 30 2005,20:06)]Quote[/b] (M1PFS @ Aug. 30 2005,15:51)]If that's the case. Which one do you like using for the shack?
Not sure if you asked me or someone else, but I use both computers and all 3 operating systems in my shack. Which I like best depends on what I'm doing.
73,
Walt, W5ALT
Favorite?, If any?
Too bad I could'nt enter all of them.
I run 2 flavors of Linux, FreeBSD ( which is UNIX ), and WinXP pro.
The OS I use the most for Ham Radio is Winders. Since MS came out with Visual Basic it's been a lot easier to find excellent Ham Radio apps for winders as opposed to *.nix.
Yes, yes, I know there are plenty of apps out there for *.nix and Ham Radio, but they can't hold a candle to the functionality available in the winders apps.
I suppose because most Linux/BSD developers are doing their work in C++, not nearly as easy as VB, and that they're doing it on a voluntary basis.
If you compare OS's just based on their own inherent attributes *.nix kicks windows ass 10 ways from Sunday. Don't try to argue the point, you'll lose.
N5PVL
08-30-2005, 10:30 PM
I use Win98se in the "general purpose" computer in the kitchen/hamshack, and DOS 6.21 powers the N5PVL BBS there.
In the living room an XP machine is used for gaming, web-weenie stuff and SWL. The kid's computer runs XP, my XYL KB5IWT uses a Win98se machine.
All the XP stuff is 'home edition'.
I've tried out Linux several times, was not impressed. - It reminds me too much of a yucky old mainframe I used to play with. - It was that old IBM360 that convinced me that PC's were the way to go. To me, Linux feels a lot like stepping back into the dark ages.
But that's just me.
I used to think the Amiga OS was pretty nice, and I liked OS/2 Warp reasonably well, back when that was making the rounds.
Prior to that my C-128 was pretty neat because it had a Z-80 chip and would emulate a Kaypro II ( CPM ) machine. I learned basic programming on my first computer, a C-64.
KM5FL
08-30-2005, 10:46 PM
Windows ME in an old "over the counter" HP with upgraded hard drive....
KM5FL
M1PFS
08-30-2005, 11:07 PM
Quote[/b] (KM5FL @ Aug. 30 2005,22:46)]Windows ME in an old "over the counter" HP with upgraded hard drive....
KM5FL
opps!!! That's one i forgot to put down. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Well I grouped some together due to being simular in certain ways.
If it was up there it would come under Windows 95/98
kd5rpo
08-30-2005, 11:23 PM
I use Windows ME also and chose Other in the poll.
M1PFS
08-30-2005, 11:25 PM
Quote[/b] (M1PFS @ Aug. 30 2005,23:07)]Quote[/b] (KM5FL @ Aug. 30 2005,22:46)]Windows ME in an old "over the counter" HP with upgraded hard drive....
KM5FL
opps!!! That's one i forgot to put down. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Well I grouped some together due to being simular in certain ways.
If it was up there it would come under Windows 95/98
Never mind just select other for Windows ME http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
w8cbc
08-30-2005, 11:32 PM
Linux, Solaris, AIX at home. I have a machine that does windoze 2000 for stuff I haven't got working under unix - mostly video playing (it's too easy to pass on) and work-related.
None of it is ham-related though. It's all paper and pencil there. The reason for that is my personal rule, which I've stuck to for years: no computers in the bedroom. Period. Not even a laptop. And the bedroom is the only place I have room for the transmitting gear.
That's just fine with me as I really have no interest in the digital modes aside from hand-keyed CW.
WA9SVD
08-30-2005, 11:33 PM
Windoze 98 SE. Windoze 95. WfWG 3.11. DOS 6.22, MS DOS 3.3. DOS 3.3. (OOPS, Sorry, that's Apple ][ DOS 3.3 for packet...) ProDOS for packet. RedHat Linux 5.2.
(Obviously, not all on the same machine, unless I can find a driver disk for a "QuadLink" card...)
OOPS! I forgot to mention Apple PASCAL. (That's a whole operating system, not just a language!)
you guys that are still running WinME scare me.
Windows ME is the KICK ME sign.
N1XHF
08-31-2005, 06:14 AM
I dual boot Win XP pro and Debian linux. Win is used by the XYL and I use linux.
N5PVL
08-31-2005, 08:52 AM
I've always thought the dual-boot setups were pretty neat.
Quote[/b] ]Windows ME is the KICK ME sign.
It's a virus!
The stupidest thing the boys in Redmond have ever done.
Instead of killing Win9x gracefully they try a stop gap measure which caused a lot of problems.
LB1UE
08-31-2005, 01:09 PM
The poll is misleading.
I have three computers with three different operative systems in my shack.
- FreeBSD (Server)
- Linux SuSe 9.2 (IRC / MSN / E-Mail / Office)
- Windows XP (CAT, DigiMode / AV Studio / Games)
Why ? They all serve Master. I am Master. All my computers are belongs to Master. Obey and live long.
---
Once upon a time I had Novell NW 3.12 and SCO OpenServer 5.x as well, although those fairy days are all gone with the QRM.
M1PFS
08-31-2005, 01:35 PM
They sould have polls where you can select more than one option here http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
kf6rdn
08-31-2005, 02:00 PM
Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Aug. 30 2005,16:33)]Windoze 98 SE. #Windoze 95. #WfWG 3.11. DOS 6.22, MS DOS 3.3. #DOS 3.3. #(OOPS, Sorry, that's Apple ][ DOS 3.3 for packet...) #ProDOS for packet. RedHat Linux 5.2.
# #(Obviously, not all on the same machine, unless I can find a driver disk for a "QuadLink" card...)
Good lord! You still have a quadlink card?
Wow!
w8cbc
08-31-2005, 02:32 PM
LB1UE - Ah, netware. I had a 4.11 box running for awhile. The thing was, I only used it as a server for the windoze box, and that didn't get a lot of run time. Unix is the best server for unix. So the netware box is in storage.
Other curiosities here, also collecting dust: Minix-1.7.4 on a Vaxmate (286-based), OS/2 v3 on a p120 lappie, DRDOS-7 as second OS on the Vaxmate, AIX-4.1.4 on a ThinkPad-850. I've played around with NetBSD a bit.
The operational items:
Linux-2.2.25 on the Athlon-1800 based main machine.
Linux-2.2.25 on the house everything-server (HP LH-II with twin p2-300s and 190G in the RAID).
Solaris-8 and -10 on an Ultra 5.
Windoze 2000 on a p3-750 based machine. Second-boots 98 for Audiovault (see below).
Linux-2.4.20 on the backup server - it runs once a week for a differential copy from the LH-II, otherwise I leave it off. It can't break while it's off.
More dust-collectors - these occasionally run, but:
Linux-2.2.25 on another p120-based lappie.
Solaris-9 and -2.6 on a Sparcstation 5.
AIX-4.3.2 on a 43p-150.
Windoze NT 4 server on the Audiovault server (another LH-II).
I may start messing about with the curiosities some more now that I'm out of IT and into engineering proper at work. I'm kind of burnt out on computers at the moment. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
WA9SVD
08-31-2005, 05:25 PM
Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Aug. 31 2005,07:00)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Aug. 30 2005,16:33)]Windoze 98 SE. Windoze 95. WfWG 3.11. DOS 6.22, MS DOS 3.3. DOS 3.3. (OOPS, Sorry, that's Apple ][ DOS 3.3 for packet...) ProDOS for packet. RedHat Linux 5.2.
(Obviously, not all on the same machine, unless I can find a driver disk for a "QuadLink" card...)
Good lord! You still have a quadlink card?
Wow!
You Betcha! Know anybody that wants to buy an AST "Six Pack Premium" real cheap? It has a whole 1 MB of memory... Ideal for use as a RAMDISK, and it holds almost 3 disks worth of files. (Umm, that's 5.25" disks.)
Quote[/b] ]Ah, netware. I had a 4.11 box running for awhile
Our main file server at work was a Netware 6 box.
It was the freaking energizer bunny. Went 1.5 years without a restart and that was only because of a drive controller failure.
M1PFS
08-31-2005, 05:34 PM
Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Aug. 31 2005,17:25)]Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Aug. 31 2005,07:00)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Aug. 30 2005,16:33)]Windoze 98 SE. #Windoze 95. #WfWG 3.11. DOS 6.22, MS DOS 3.3. #DOS 3.3. #(OOPS, Sorry, that's Apple ][ DOS 3.3 for packet...) #ProDOS for packet. RedHat Linux 5.2.
# #(Obviously, not all on the same machine, unless I can find a driver disk for a "QuadLink" card...)
Good lord! #You still have a quadlink card?
Wow!
You Betcha! #Know anybody that wants to buy an AST "Six Pack Premium" #real cheap? #It has a whole 1 MB of memory... #Ideal for use as a RAMDISK, and it holds almost 3 disks worth of files. #(Umm, that's 5.25" disks.)
5.25" Floppies!!! I haven't seen them around for years.
They are actually Floppy unlike the hard cased 3.5" ones you get today.
Well, lets see, Win 98 S.E. actually next to my rig; Win XP on the internet and making CDs from old vinyl; Dos 3.3 on the old XT "computer on a card" machine and the Grid portable ; Macintosh Operating System 7.0 on a Mac; Win 3.1 on another 486 machine, and the list goes on and on . . . . But I don't think "other" is the right choice to make, so I didn't vote!
73, Jim
kf4lne
09-01-2005, 02:39 AM
WOW! So many choices. i thought there would be UNIX(clone) or NONE.
ka9inv
09-01-2005, 04:09 AM
Dual boot WinXP (the devil!) and Fedora Core 3 (very similar to Red Hat Linux, only with free license) on this laptop... hate using WinXP though. Microsoft OS's went to hell after Win3.1.
On my desktop right next to me, running Slackware (another distro of Linux), on which I do nothing but tinker around and occasionally get online - mainly because it's so old it can't do anything else.
Basically, I love Linux and despise Microsoft nowadays.
WA9SVD
09-01-2005, 07:15 AM
Quote[/b] (M1PFS @ Aug. 31 2005,10:34)][
5.25" Floppies!!! I haven't seen them around for years.
They are actually Floppy unlike the hard cased 3.5" ones you get today.
Then you might not remember the 8" floppies. But I no longer have a S-100 bus computer. LED's were only a gleam in an engineer's eye at that time. (No pun intended.)
kf4lne
09-01-2005, 02:38 PM
So whos running Plan 9 or OS/2?
w8cbc
09-01-2005, 02:45 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Aug. 31 2005,10:33)]Our main file server at work was a Netware 6 box.
It was the freaking energizer bunny. Went 1.5 years without a restart and that was only because of a drive controller failure.
Both my LH-IIs were netware (5.1) servers at work. One of them did Prophet (audio/automation server), was continually hammered on, and was up 786 days on its last run. I really hated to take it down.
Know what can set fire to a Netware server? Windoze 2000 sp2 clients. They'd lock files all over the place and just generally grind the thing to a halt. We found this out the hard way of course. My preference was to forgo sp2 until this problem was fixed (it was in sp3 - which proved it was in Windoze, not Netware).
Corporate's "solution" was to get rid of Netware in all but Prophet and Wireready (the news system), and go MS AD. After three years or so of dealing with AD and 2000/2003 server - well, a pretend network based on a toy operating system is about the best I can sum it up.
I just know that problem in sp2 was deliberate. MS discovered a way to further push their way into the server market. Most of the world fell for it as usual.
Quote[/b] ]Corporate's "solution" was to get rid of Netware in all but Prophet and Wireready (the news system), and go MS AD. After three years or so of dealing with AD and 2000/2003 server - well, a pretend network based on a toy operating system is about the best I can sum it up.
We had 7 servers running Win2K Adv.Server accessing the netware box. Our production boxes were Win2K Pro sp4. The office desktops were XP Pro.
If the company had stayed open the plan was to switch to Win2K3 server and AD. They'd have dragged me kicking and screaming! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
According to an IT Tech friend of mine, the Apple OS will be available as an alternative to Windows soon. It will also be quite a bit cheaper according to projections.
WA9SVD
09-02-2005, 04:53 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 02 2005,07:24)]According to an IT Tech friend of mine, the Apple OS will be available as an alternative to Windows soon. It will also be quite a bit cheaper according to projections.
I wouldn't hold my breathe; and I'd certainly ask your "IT" friend what he means by "soon."
Apple has not yet switched production to Intel based machines; that's probably at least another year down the road, as current model sales fall off.
But Apple has staunchly insisted that it's OS/x86 software will NOT be compatible with Wintel machines. (At least not from the beginning, and with the first release.) I'd say perhaps, 3-5 years from now, hacks will be available to allow Windoze machines to run a patched (but unauthorized) version of the Apple software.
Remember, Apple and Micros*** are business partners, and the Gates people aren't going to allow anything that would threaten Windoze XP2007. Or Vista. Or whatever they will finally call their next release.
Operating Systems:
Mac OS 9.1, Slackware 10, SuSe 9.1, Windows XP Pro
w8cbc
09-03-2005, 04:11 AM
I forgot!
MacOS-8.1 on an LC-475. Also collecting dust. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif That Mac also has Linux-2.2.19 on it. It has the real 68040 in it btw, not the LC. Linux don't like the LC - the fpu emulation barfs all over it.
Of all the various architectures I have kicking around the place, only the IBM powerpc-based machines and the Ultra 5 haven't run linux at some point. I couldn't get the powerpc port to work on the IBMs (the kernel boots but I haven't got as far as mounting the root filesystem), and I haven't tried linux on the Ultra 5 though I'm certain it'll work as it does just fine on the older sparcstations. Aye, even the 286 worked - with ELKS. It's too bad the ELKS crew dropped the project. They could probably go waaay beyond Minix. The thing is, with 386- and 486-based machines all through the landfills, programming something for the 8088 and 80286 just isn't worth the bother any more.
AD5UT
09-03-2005, 05:27 PM
I think apple OS's use the new "Untrustworthy computing" system, so they might never work on "Unaproved" hardware. I use XP Pro, Fedora 2, Debian Sarge, and I am playing with a netware 6 eval while I get my novel cert.
I had to format every XP SP1 box in the house the other day because one got infected with a virus and kept re-infecting all of them, so I just took every SP1 box down and reinstalled.
Just love Windoze now, yep. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Sep. 02 2005,11:53)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 02 2005,07:24)]According to an IT Tech friend of mine, the Apple OS will be available as an alternative to Windows soon. It will also be quite a bit cheaper according to projections.
I wouldn't hold my breathe; and I'd certainly ask your "IT" friend what he means by "soon."
Apple has not yet switched production to Intel based machines; that's probably at least another year down the road, as current model sales fall off.
But Apple has staunchly insisted that it's OS/x86 software will NOT be compatible with Wintel machines. (At least not from the beginning, and with the first release.) I'd say perhaps, 3-5 years from now, hacks will be available to allow Windoze machines to run a patched (but unauthorized) version of the Apple software.
Remember, Apple and Micros*** are business partners, and the Gates people aren't going to allow anything that would threaten Windoze XP2007. Or Vista. Or whatever they will finally call their next release.
There are still persistant rumors that Michael Dell will somehow cut a deal with Apple to license OSX for use on Dell computers. Steve Jobs is presently saying no, but this could be a situation of money marrying money in the end. If this happens, then OSX begins to gain market share and possibly become a viable alternative to Windows.
73
George
K3UD
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Sep. 03 2005,18:55)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Sep. 02 2005,11:53)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 02 2005,07:24)]According to an IT Tech friend of mine, the Apple OS will be available as an alternative to Windows soon. It will also be quite a bit cheaper according to projections.
I wouldn't hold my breathe; and I'd certainly ask your "IT" friend what he means by "soon."
Apple has not yet switched production to Intel based machines; that's probably at least another year down the road, as current model sales fall off.
But Apple has staunchly insisted that it's OS/x86 software will NOT be compatible with Wintel machines. (At least not from the beginning, and with the first release.) I'd say perhaps, 3-5 years from now, hacks will be available to allow Windoze machines to run a patched (but unauthorized) version of the Apple software.
Remember, Apple and Micros*** are business partners, and the Gates people aren't going to allow anything that would threaten Windoze XP2007. Or Vista. Or whatever they will finally call their next release.
There are still persistant rumors that Michael Dell will somehow cut a deal with Apple to license OSX for use on Dell computers. Steve Jobs is presently saying no, but this could be a situation of money marrying money in the end. If this happens, then OSX begins to gain market share and possibly become a viable alternative to Windows.
73
George
K3UD
YUCK!! Dells running Mac OS. The world is coming to an end. I hope Steve Jobs sticks to his "NO!".
WA9SVD
09-04-2005, 11:40 PM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Sep. 03 2005,11:55)]There are still persistant rumors that Michael Dell will somehow cut a deal with Apple to license OSX for use on Dell computers. Steve Jobs is presently saying no, but this could be a situation of money marrying money in the end. If this happens, then OSX begins to gain market share and possibly become a viable alternative to Windows.
73
George
K3UD
Remember, Apple and Micro**** are business partners, and if it comes down to money, who would win out? Dell or Micros***?? And as business partners, MS DOES have some (probably a LOT) of say in Apple's business dealings.
I believe EVENTUALLY the Apple OS/x86 (v.whatever) will work on Wintel machines, but MS will not allow an easy transition, and Apple will have to make it difficult in the beginning. (At least make it appear so.)
Let's face it: If Apple and MS are partners, even reluctant partners, would Apple be able to release a competing (and arguably better) operating system if MS has anything to say about it?
(Then again, I'm almost convinced Micros*** has a version "Microsoft Office for Linux" just waiting to be released.)
w8cbc
09-05-2005, 07:57 AM
If they did, it would only be in response to openoffice, which works fairly well with o2000 documents. I think they're still oriented more toward getting rid of Linux as serious competition. Witness the recent SCO patent-infringement predation attempt. There was Microsoft money behind it. That was pretty much proven.
KC0KBH
09-05-2005, 06:23 PM
A lot. 4 distros of Linux, 95, 98, NT, 2000 pro, XP, MS Dos, Free Dos, and Palm OS. I have too many computers.
WA9SVD
09-05-2005, 06:47 PM
Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ Sep. 05 2005,00:57)]If they did, it would only be in response to openoffice, which works fairly well with o2000 documents. I think they're still oriented more toward getting rid of Linux as serious competition. Witness the recent SCO patent-infringement predation attempt. There was Microsoft money behind it. That was pretty much proven.
While Micros*** may wish to "get rid" of Linux, (and similar clones of UNIX) it remains to be seen...
MS STILL isn't the most predominant operating system (IMHO) on the Internet; last I knew, "Apache" didn't run on MS servers!
But with Windoze XP2006, "Wronghorn" or "Vista" or whatever they finally call it, it's being pushed further and further back as to release date.
And the legacy of the multitudinous flaws and security holes in MS software has left a bad taste in the mouths o many, just waiting for an operating system "for the rest of us."
And while MS prevailed (sort of) in the case of "Lindows," it did NOT succeed in eliminating it from the market, just in requiring it to change it's name to "Linspire." But a rose, is a rose, is a rose. And an operating environment by any other name... Is STILL Lindows, by another name.
MS may not like it, but LINUX (especially due to it's free source code and open architecture) in it's various forms may eventually be a significant threat (at least) to the MS empire.
And of course, MS would jump in almost immediately with an "Office for LINUX" offering (yes, as an alternative to openOffice, WordPerfect, or any present LINUX offerings) and proselytize about the "compatibility" and "ease of use " and "ease of transition" and "LOOK AND FEEL" from the former MS versions, and of course, provide conversion programs to allow MS documernts to work on LINUX. (Regardless of any compatibility that already exists...)
If the MS operating system environment were endangered, you can BET they would then try to hold the application arena hostage to their dictates. And the mass market would believe...?)
Quote[/b] ]MS STILL isn't the most predominant operating system (IMHO) on the Internet; last I knew, "Apache" didn't run on MS servers!
Yes it does. Linkage. (http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi)
Linux has a long way to go to threaten MS on the corporate desktop, let's be honest here people, that and the consumer market are MS's bread and butter.
Until Linux shakes off the "Geek" OS mantle and some of it's idiosyncrasy's it'll always be known as a good server and a far distant second to Winders on the desktop.
Standaridzation would go a long way to achieving the goal but the word wrankles the short hair of all self respecting geeks. How long's it been since the last good flame war over .deb, .rpm, or compiling from source ports, couple of hours? There seems to be some sort of perverse pride in the fact that it's not a user friendly OS. With that kind of disharmony in the Linux community MS hasn't got anything to worrry about for the forseeable future.
AB8UU
09-05-2005, 09:29 PM
Linux/XP Home dualboot.
I only boot windows to watch DVDs.
For ham radio applications:
Linux with jLog, and hopefully soon, KPSK and some SSTV program
W*****S apps do have functionality, but most are not free.
I didn't say all, just most.
KD6NIG
09-06-2005, 02:04 PM
XP, but not by choice. Its simply the OS the machine came with, and I'm too lazy to switch. Besides, my packet radio program works perfectly on it. Thats about all I use the computer for, operations wise. I, of course, use it to update my website, etc also, but thats not totally operating related in itself.
XP isn't too bad vs some of the older windows versions, but they definetely need to make updates mandatory so the average user who doesn't know much will get updated on the fly. It would probably put a good dent in antivirus to equip it with mandatory antivirus also. These settings, of course, could be disabled by 'power users' or those who like to take thier chances http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif