h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, you basically have three or four different operating systems. Note that this is very important. First off: Macintosh X (might be slightly higher now, as I don't spend much time on macs) OS. Macs are quite nice, stable, but only have a small percentage of the software/hardware market and are generally incompatible with PCs. I think you have to order a Mac directly from Apple--at least, I think Apple's the only manufacturer of Macs. Avoid the iMac at all costs, but the G4 looks pretty nice.

Next: Linux. Linux is an open-source OS (meaning you could download a free copy off the internet, though I don't recommend it) that is used a lot by programmers, Microsoft haters (hey aren't we all?), and other anarchists. (It's a joke, come on). There are several companies that distribute professional-quality Linux--RedHat being the first that comes to mind--and it is a very stable OS. Note that Linux has a very small share in the software market, although I think Linux can use the same hardware as a PC, if there are the correct drivers for it.

Finally (boo): Windows 9x/ME, NT, 2000, and XP. The newest, XP, was just rolled out. It is basically a castrated version of 2000, with a very annoying product-activation scheme, in-your-face tactics to sign up for a Passport account (don't!!!), and a pretty GUI and software that's not hard to find somewhere else, preferably free. Very stable (as it's built on the NT kernel) and a memory hog. I do not recommend it. 2000 (otherwise known as NT 5) is just an upgraded version of NT. Very stable, though there are conflicts with some drivers and software programs. Not a bad choice as you get the same stability as XP, XP has the same conflicts, if not more, and you aren't being bullied by Microsoft to get their spyware. NT 4 is an earlier version of 2000. Finally, 9x/ME. DO NOT get Me. I have it, I hate it, and I keep meaning to go down to 98 SE. In fact, that's what I would suggest getting if you have a choice, Win 98 Second Edition. There is also of course, 98 (but go with the second edition), and 95 (rather dated, although it was a huge difference from 3.1 at the time). So, Asterion's suggestions for your OS: Mac, Linux, Win 98 SE, Win 2000.

that's a relief - 98SE came with my comp!

P.S I've heard tale of Microsoft skewing the new XP OS to not work after 6 months a year or something so you have to keep purchasing the license agreemt. - Blummin' cheek!

Is this true?

I have Windows Me... so far no problems--But, should I be worried?

Don't forget BeOS!

Yeah I saw that...and it wasn't that bad at all.

I heard it called "FreeBe Os" cuz it was free (I don't know if it still is though).

There's a free version, with various limitations (512MB HDD max. etc.) and a "commercial" version with lots of spiffy bundled multimedia studd...

studd = stuff

Most magazines reckon Windows XP is the best windows operating system yet, and it will soon become pretty standard, so for a future-proof PC I recommend getting that...

Frankie

I'm sticking with 98SE! We tried ME, but the drivers available were extremely limited, and the ones we need weren't available at all!

Basic rule with Micros**t...don't "upgrade" your OS until it's been out for at least 6 months!

ME had a series of "idiot-proofing" features which might be of use, say, in a shared PC in a school environment for example. If you play with the settings, it changes them back without telling you. For a real user, this is *not* a Good Thing.

Also, ME is devoid of a real DOS environment, without any of the compensating factors of NT and 2000 which might make this acceptable. If you've never used a computer before, or have been coddled by a Mac, then ME is the OS for you - everyone else should follow this simple rule:

If you need to run Windows, first count how many processors are in your machine...
One CPU: Windows 98 SE
Two CPUs: Windows NT4 Workstation or Windows 2000 Professional
Four CPUS: Windows NT Server or Windows 2000 Server.
Six to eight CPUs (): Windows 2000 Server Enterprise edition.

I haven't heard of that one--rest assured, if I had, it would've been in there with what I know about it. Oh, one more clarifaction: I know Linux is based on Unix, but I can't remember if it's a significantly different OS or if it's primarily the same thing with a GUI.

As I said, I got stuck with Win ME from Dell. At least all the drivers came preinstalled to work with Me, so that wasn't a problem. But the lack of real DOS or compensation is. I see XP this way: XP is built on the same kernel as 2000, so any incompatibilites XP has 2000 has. I don't know how much a 2000 Workstation program costs, but I'm sure as hell am not going to buy three copies of XP just to upgrade the OSs in all the computers at 200 bucks a pop. That's why I say just go with 2000: no activation (trust me, I've had to deal with it with Office XP, another buggy and annoying piece of software Dell stuck me with, and activation sucks, that's why I use an old copy of Office 95), no in-your-face marketing tactics, a decent DOS compensation, and no software I'd just delete off the hard disk anyway (Windows Media Player, anyone?). Okay, that's my rant.

Windows XP has an "activation" feature (it is present in Office 2000 too) that requires you to contact Microsoft within 14 days of installing it, otherwise it refuses to do anything but contact Microsoft. Once done, it never asks again (unless you need to reinstall).

On the surface, Linux is the same as Unix. Technically, Linux is just a "kernel" or the bit at the center of the OS, while all the stuff you use is GNU, so the correct technical name for the OS is GNU/Linux. One without the other is pretty useless. Also it does not have a graphical user interface of its own, instead it uses something called XFree86. Fortunately companies like Red Hat and Corel put this all together so you don't have to worry about it. There is another free Unix, known as BSD (several varieties, FreeBSD being the most common) which does not use the Linux kernel, but does run all the GNU software. Neither is better than the other, but they do have different strengths. None of these is easy to use, and should only be installed by people who like to spend lots of time tinkering with their computers, compiling their own software, and learning about the internal workings of the computer and the OS. Many people install one of these along side a version of Windows so they can switch to Windows when they need to.

Macintosh currently has two operating systems. Mac OS 9 is the "classic" one that has been in use since 1984 and has been copied to death by Windows. Mac OS X (that's the Roman numeral "10") is the newest one, and that too is a Unix (based on FreeBSD). In traditional Apple fashion they made it extremely easy to use, so anyone who wants to use Unix *AND* have an easy to use home computer should go with Mac OS X. It has its own graphical user interface, but it can run XFree86 and all the GNU stuff so you can make it look like a traditional unix if you are a real .

"Macintosh is incompatible" is Microsoft marketing hype. Macintoshes can use Windows-formatted disks of any type (floppy, zip CD, etc). Any common word processing documents, images, spreadsheets etc can be shared by both computers provided you use Windows-formatted disks or transfer the files over a network. It is actually Windows which cannot read disks formatted on a Macintosh, and this helps preserve the myth that the *other* computer has the problem.

Windows ME is horrid, and Windows 98SE is much better but is starting to show its age. I've been playing with an early version of Windows XP for a few months, and it is the best option for most people choosing Windows. It crashes less than Windows 98, adding new hardware just by plugging it in finally works correctly, and I think the only reason you might want to stay away from it is compatiblity issues with games or old hardware.

So which to choose if you are buying a new computer, and are not already married to one OS? Ask yourself who you will turn to when the computer does not work right (out of friends and family, don't count the guy who sold you the computer or the technical support number). Buy what that person uses. When it is 11 PM and you are desperate to get the thing to work, you don't want to call your friend and have him or her say "I don't know how to fix Macs" or "I told you not to buy Windows."

The next consideration is the software that you need to run. Most productivity software has both Macintosh and Windows versions or there are equivalent competing products on the other OS. Many games do not have Macintosh versions, but the most popular ones generally do, and there are some games that do not have Windows versions. However a few people will have a need to use a specific program that only runs on Mac or only runs on Windows, and you need to consider if you have something like that.

You may also have industry considerations if you are using the computer for work. Many businesses standardize on Windows, and if you accidentally bring a Mac-formatted disk to work you will be stuck. On the other hand, companies that work in graphic design, advertising, publishing, printing, web design, and other arts are often standardized on the Macintosh.

If none of the above is helpful, buy a Macintosh. They are not perfect, but they do crash less often, are still easier to use than Windows, and have not been targeted by as many computer viruses (a couple dozen Mac viruses compared to tens of thousands of Windows viruses over the last 15 years).

Yes, I will admit Macs are nice. And I know I didn't make it very clear in the beginning that the problem is that PCs won't read Mac discs and not the other way round. I truly did not know that OS X was built on Unix (really, I don't follow Macs all that much) or I would've said that as well. I guess we disagree on XP, I still say take Windows 2000 over XP, but that's me. Yes, Macs are especially good for the things you mentioned, but I guess I unconciously assumed that most of the people that would use this information would wind up buying PCs. I would agree that Linux is probably not a viable option for the beginner user.

The one advantage that XP has over 2000 is that it is *FAST*. It starts up in half the time that 2000 takes. Other than that, I have found that they are near equivalents. Microsoft made lots of changes to the user interface, and I think the beginning user will find XP easier to use than 2000. My own preference was to turn off all the new window views and go for the "classic" look, since I already know where to find everything.

Asterion, despite what you imply, I'm afraid Windows 2000 doesn't have a "real" DOS either...

d'Elephant, "Macintoshes can use Windows-formatted disks of any type" - I've got a couple of boxes of 5.25" disks you could try...

(Now, if you could run the Mac OS on an original 5.25" "Lisa"... )

Lately it's getting tough even for the 3.5" floppy. And don't even mention punch cards!

It really does depend on what you want to do with it - and if you want Linux, the choice of distribution is also very important. Red Hat and Mandrake are fairly easy to use and install, Mandrake perhaps slightly more so, with a huge user base for both of them. SuSE is a little more technical but quite similar and quite popular in Europe (it's made by a German company). Debian and Slackware are the ultimate technical hands-on distributions and are great fun for people who like maximum control. I've tried Mandrake, didn't like it, and have now vowed never to stray from Slackware again - until the next tempting distribution comes along.

It is free, after all.

And definitely never, ever, use Windows Me. It's absolutely awful.