Forgot your password?

I typically run Windows ...

Displaying poll results.
98
  539 votes / 1%
2000 or ME
245 votes / 0%
XP
  6442 votes / 16%
Vista or 7
  16408 votes / 40%
8
309 votes / 0%
Some version (like NT) not here listed
245 votes / 0%
Multiple versions on different machines
  4043 votes / 10%
No, I do not.
  11904 votes / 29%
40135 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I typically run Windows ...

Comments Filter:
  • I use XP at work due to reasons beyond my control and I use 7 at home.
    • by jedidiah (1196)

      I run whatever the corporate overlords allow me to.

      Occasionally, that's Linux. Usually, it's some form of Windows NT. These days, it's XP.

      • by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Thursday October 06, 2011 @01:54PM (#37628926) Journal
        At work, it's Windows XP and a plethora of anti-virus, anti-spyware, policy enforcement, net-nanny, VPN, and other corporate crapware which cripples a fairly new 3GHz core2duo laptop, often slowing it to a crawl. It is potentially a nice laptop, but ruined for the greater glory of the corporation.

        At home, it's Linux all the way, with a mix of Ubuntu 10.04 and Lubuntu 10.04 on the PCs, and Synology's Linux on the server. Even our 8-year-old laptop with a 1.7GHz single core Celeron is far snappier than the work laptop.
    • by mikael_j (106439)

      I use several server versions of Windows at work, and Vista on my laptop.

      At home it's a mix of Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Debian and Ubuntu (I also have Slackware and Plan9 installed on a machine that I never use and a virtualized Windows XP installation that I boot up about once a month).

  • I run Windows 7 on some machines, but NEVER Vista. They look similar, but most of the show-stopping problems with Vista were fixed in Win 7. I disapprove of that option. No one (including Microsoft) wants to remember that Vista ever existed.
    • Re:NOT Vista (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rary (566291) on Thursday October 06, 2011 @02:22PM (#37629422)

      They look similar, but most of the show-stopping problems with Vista were fixed in Win 7.

      Actually, all of the show-stopping problems in Vista were fixed in Vista service packs a long time ago. I use Vista at home and 7 at work, and have no problems with either.

      • by leathered (780018)

        Actually, all of the show-stopping problems in Vista were fixed in Vista service packs a long time ago. .

        Yes I believe that service pack was called Windows 7, and Microsoft had the nerve to charge for it.

        • by raehl (609729)

          I'm still on XP. I figure when Windows 8 comes out I'll have been on XP for a decade and it'll be time to switch, mainly because of driver annoyance with XP-64 and lack of DX11 support.

          I won't feel bad having skipped 2 major service packs.

      • I used Vista for 2 years with no problems at all. Most of the issues with it at launch were due to under powered hardware and obviously tons of bugs. Service Pack 1 fixed it up and it ran just fine after that (and some minor tweaking obviously). The only reason I switched to 7 was because I got a free license from someone through their work for the 64-bit version, otherwise I'd still be using it.
  • I even was running 95 this year!

    I love MSDN and VMWare!

  • Since I use test PCs (XP to 32-bit/64-bit 7) in both VMs and real machines. :)

  • No I do not and Win 7 both valid.

  • When I search for something in Windows 7, it's great because it happens rather quickly, but it will list all the things that match, but it's hard to know the file location. You have to right click it and select "Show file location" instead of just clicking on the thing and this most obvious point of information being instantly available.
    • by mcmonkey (96054)

      What's wrong with Windows Search?

      Everything.

      Results are returned quickly because of the indexing service. But recent (and even not so recent) changes won't be reflected because the index is out of date.

      I recommend Agent Ransack. Not as quick, but much more reliable and useable.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        They will be reflected, just longer to return those results. I don't even use the indexing service, and my results are fast enough.

        Clearly you heard 'indexing' and then just made a wild assumption.

    • by Zumbs (1241138)

      but it's hard to know the file location

      Alt+V to open the View menu. Pick Details. Shows the entire path, as it should per default.

  • Where are all the linux users? Are we going to let windows out vote Linux, the one and only true OS??? The time is now, we need to stand up and let our voice be heard!
    • well, technically the only way you could write no is if you *never* use windows.

      Even if you run linux at home and OSX work and only rarely use windows when you have to borrow your girlfriend's computer with win7, that still means that your typical windows use is with win7.

      I would actually say I am surprised at how many could respond "no" but then I remembered that this is slashdot so most of that 26% probably don't have girlfriends to borrow computers from (but its cool, I respect that your mom's baseme

    • by rubycodez (864176)
      We're here, but similar to many have to use Windows once a year for taxes, and on laptop for those clients with vmware esx/vsphere. Yes, I hate Microsoft and Windows very deeply, that bloated dysfunctional crap doesn't even deserve to be called an operating system.

      Debian is my desktop and laptop OS, at home and work. OpenBSD is my server OS at home. At work we use Centos for servers.
    • by Siberwulf (921893)
      Your voices may be heard, provided you write your own drivers for the sound card.
      • Your voices may be heard, provided you write your own drivers for the sound card.

        Why would I do that when Linux Mint works great out of the box on almost all hardware? (To be fair, the same is true for Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian and lots of other distributions.)

    • by sgt scrub (869860)

      I think too many people are taking into account what their employer's are running or making them run.

  • by splodus (655932) on Thursday October 06, 2011 @01:35PM (#37628524)

    I just can't be bothered to learn another version of Windows unless I have to, and I've not heard of any compelling reason to move to Windows 7.

    If and when XP is no longer an option I'll spend the time become a competent user of linux (as opposed to the barely capable user I am now)

    • If and when XP is no longer an option I'll spend the time become a competent user of linux

      Why wait?

      • by rvw (755107)

        If and when XP is no longer an option I'll spend the time become a competent user of linux

        Why wait?

        Because 2014 is the year of the Linux Desktop!

        • by rubycodez (864176)
          2014 is the year of the Linux Desktop!

          that's what they say, but you know with the End of the World and all in 2012 it's really just a way of saying it'll never happen
    • I just can't be bothered to learn another version of Windows unless I have to, and I've not heard of any compelling reason to move to Windows 7.

      That's because there really isn't one. Yeah Windows 7 does a few new tricks but I've yet to use anything in it that makes me go "wow, that's an improvement". I know there are some under the hood changes but like Vista it seems to be mostly a lot of extra eye candy and chew up a lot more system resources for little discernible benefit. Only reason I even own a system with Windows 7 is because my old XP box died. It certainly doesn't run my applications any better nor is it any easier to use for most thin

      • by sconeu (64226)

        And, actually, they took something away. If you're using an Aero compatible driver, they took away full screen console mode.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        yes there is.

        It uses new hardware better, better search, better compatibility.

        And they rewrote and changes some core kernel stuff when they went from Vista to 7.

    • by antdude (79039)

      Same here. XP Pro. SP3 works fine for me for now at home. It still gets patches/updates too. I will switch to 64-bit 7 when I am forced from support, big crash, etc.

    • Windows 7 and Vista are both more stable than XP. This might not matter to you, but it definitely matters to some people.
    • by jgrahn (181062)

      I just can't be bothered to learn another version of Windows unless I have to, and I've not heard of any compelling reason to move to Windows 7.

      If and when XP is no longer an option I'll spend the time become a competent user of linux (as opposed to the barely capable user I am now)

      At work we went from Windows 2000 to Vista two years ago or so. It took me a few hours disabling crap, and then it worked like 2000 did, i.e. pretty well. NB I don't do any serious computing on that machine; it's really just a surfing/mail thing and a way to access the Linux servers where I do my work.

  • by DigitalSorceress (156609) on Thursday October 06, 2011 @01:39PM (#37628600)

    I run Server 2008 at home. Keeping a full domain up is a good way to keep my sysadmin chops in shape ever since I went off to Software Engineering.

    Window 7 at work and on my main gaming rig, XP on my lil' netbook, and Snow Leopard on my main laptop.

    Centos for my web servers.

    Wow, I guess I cover the bases.

    • Similar to me, but mine is older - XP for desktop and laptop, 2003 for servers and Debian5 in a VM for network monitoring and other stuff that runs better on Linux.

  • ...and the first Slashdot question after his death assumes that everyone runs Windows?

    Either there's something screwy going on here, or Slashdot is trolling us again...

  • I voted "other", but do have a small XP VMWare VM on the MacBook for running windows apps when needed. You can do a lot with a little 1GB ram, 20 disk, 1CPU XP VM.... fast (5-10 sec) boots and resumes on a 4-core, SSD MacBook Pro.

  • by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Thursday October 06, 2011 @01:57PM (#37628982) Journal
    at work because I have to. I also have a Mac at my desk running OS 10.6 for whenever I want do do anything truly useful. :-P
  • My office PC is XP, my gaming machine is 7, everything else runs Linux...I guess I spend the most time on Linux machines so that's how I voted.

  • I'm actually posting this from Windows 95 OSR/2 (On real hardware, not a VM!) with a custom compile of SeaMonkey 1.1 for 95/NT 3.51 modified so it can actually render Slashdot somewhat correctly. You might be surprised what all Windows 95 can still do.

    Why? Because I can!

  • I read my email on an XP box at work. Company standard, y'know. I do actual development on Linux. The company prefer CentOS for production work, but my personal Linux box is Slackware. We have legacy products on Solaris, but they aren't under active development, just maintenance.

    I have a company laptop that runs XP, but 99% of the time I run Slackware under Virtual PC on it. Linux as a Virtual PC guest runs better than native XP. Go figure.

    My computer at home, the one I spend my own money on, is a Mac.

    • by rvw (755107)

      I have a company laptop that runs XP, but 99% of the time I run Slackware under Virtual PC on it.
      Linux as a Virtual PC guest runs better than native XP. Go figure.

      I do the opposite, but then I can do whatever I like at work. So I use Ubuntu since beginning of last year. Before that I used Vista at work, and W7 for several month. Ubuntu is much easier for development. I run XP in a VM if I need it. At home Lion, plus an Ubuntu desktop that operates as server as well.

  • The only time M$ is allowed to even come close to my machine is when it's run through VirtualBox. And, come to think of it, I can't remember the last time that happened.
  • The Least Interesting Man in the World says: "I don't typically run Windows. But when I do, I run XP."

    Stay nerdy, my friends.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Thursday October 06, 2011 @02:46PM (#37629808)

    I'm a Mac user; but if I need to run Windows it's usually XP in a virtual machine of some sort - VirtualBox, VMware, Parallels depending on where I am.

    However there is one "missing option" that I really do use for some games - Crossover/Wine.

  • I strive to remain current on numerous OSs, including Android, Linux Client & Server (current fave Xubuntu) & Windows Client (now just XP - 7). Hands-on experience is the only way to remain familiar and current. Just don't have a need, the money, time or inclination for iOS, Lion or Windows server. That's what friends are for!
  • I run windows XP at home and at work. At home, I run it in Parallels on my 2007 iMac. At work, I run it in VM Fusion on my 2010 iMac.
  • I treble-boot XP, W7 and Ubuntu on my desktop, you insensitive clod!

  • ...is like associating Slashdot with AOL.

    2000 is a fine OS, (for Windows), and is even better than XP in at least one way. ME wasn't better than anything - it and Vista are in a tie for last place.

    ME should have had its own category of shame, but if it had to be lumped together with another version of Windows, it should have been with 98.

  • by sootman (158191) on Thursday October 06, 2011 @05:01PM (#37631972) Homepage Journal

    I worked with both Windows (9x and newer) and Mac OS (7.5.5 and newer) starting in 1995. I preferred Windows PCs because Windows actually was faster (multitasked better, for example--on Mac OS at the time, file copies would run slowly unless they were the foreground task) and Intel PCs were cheaper. I *loved* Windows 2000.

    XP came out and I didn't like it as much so I never upgraded any of my own machines past W2K. Then the XP service packs came out and actually made some things worse (on 3 different machines, the ability to stay connected to a wireless access point went from "always works" to "always disconnects and reconnects randomly") and at the same time OS X started getting better and better and better. Eventually the lines crossed, OS X was (for me) much better overall than XP, and now the only time I run XP now on any computer I own is once in a great while through VirtualBox. Work is a big company and we're still on XP, and the only time I touch it there is in Parallels. :-)

  • Win3.1 on DOSBox for classic win16 gaming.
  • My Upper Layers of TCOM class requires Windows. So, my MacBook has a VM of WinXP. Don't worry though, I cancelled out the bad joojoo with a VM of Linux.
  • I used Windows 2000 until a few weeks ago. Rock stable. Ran everything I wanted. I just recently built up a new system (Phenom II X6 1100T / 8GB / SSD) to replace my Athlon XP 2000 system and bit the bullet and put Windows 7 on it. I got a 12 year run out of Windows 2000. Not too shabby.
     

  • I have, personally, three computers. Two run the OS they came with - one runs XP, the other Vista. The other runs OpenBSD, which isn't really relevant.

    The school computers run 7. I do have an MSAA license, so I could, technically, install 7 on both of my home computers, but I can't be assed to. I rarely use the XP one, and 7 isn't enough of an improvement on Vista to justify the hassle of installation.

    As part of extra-curricular activities, I help run several servers. The two I set up run Arch and Red Hat;

  • Server 2008 R2, both physical and virtualized on top of vSphere 5 in the data center.

    OSX on the laptop.

    And XP on the corporate laptop that lives in the trunk of my car for emergencies that I rarely turn on.

  • ... off my lawn at the business end of a pointy stick.

  • I've been running W2K Pro since before SP1 until last January when I moved into a new laptop and Windows 7 HPE.
  • 7 on my main desktop machine at home, XP on my (company-provided) work laptop. Would install 7 on that if I could, though.

    Other than those two, no other Windows machines. The other machines in my house are 3x Linux, 1x Mac OS X and 2x iOS (if you count iDevices as 'machines' rather than appliances ... which is dubious at best).

  • Why lump the two operating systems together? A lot of people got Vista jammed down their throats, and I'd like to see how many dumped it as fast as they could.

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @06:07PM (#37650550) Homepage Journal

    That's an unfair connection.

    Win2000 was the pinnacle of Microsoft Operating systems, while WinME was, um, about the worst they have ever done. It was even worse than Vista.

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle

 



Forgot your password?
Working...