Most Votes
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 12418 votes
Most Comments
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 40 comments
Well, half and half. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Well, half and half. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank's that's the option I was looking for. I voted for "no, I don't", just because I couldn't remember my work computer runs Windows. It is so easy to get my personal latptop everytime I wat to do something that isn't sponsored (like split a pdf, read some weard file, do some calculations, you know, usefull stuff that aren't paper documents) that I often forget that I have a desktop.
I remember it exists when I need to type a paper document. Ah, the keyboard is really nice, like the ones I have at home, bu
Re: (Score:2)
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).
NOT Vista (Score:2)
Re:NOT Vista (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that Vista is the right tool for every job, anymore than I would say anything is the right tool for every job. You've described a specific situation that applies to a particularly small subset of computer users. If it's not the best tool for that subset, then so be it. That doesn't make it, overall, the horrible disaster that people so frequently make it out to be.
By the way, I have no problems with my TASCAM US-122 Mk II on Vista. My old Creative E-MU 0202 had issues, but it also had problem
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how Win8 will even be useable on a legacy (non fondleslab/touchphone) device.
WTF? launch the desktop app, click the start button or windows key and off you go back to the touch interface frontend, not the menu you expected.
The UI on 8 is so bad and whatnot. The "desktop" experience is remarkably bad, and the power management interface is braindead.
it has Win ME written all over it. almost the opposite problem that vista had.
Re: (Score:2)
I still have the 200+ page PDF of the emails going on at Microsoft over the compatibility issue with Intel graphics chips. Utterly flummoxed how MS got away without being milked by a massive class action suit on that one.
Still on XP on one machine and using Win 7 on the other -- which I've spent no small amount of time on the internet trying to figure out how to turn off some of the most idiotic and irritating behavior -- Someone tell my why Microsoft always ships a product with _every_ bell and whistle en
Re: (Score:2)
Vista was a great idea with horrendous execution.
Win 7 was the extra few years of planning and execution that Vista needed.
True, but how many years had Longhorn/Vista already been delayed by the time it was released? Don't get me wrong, I think 7 is by far the best OS to come out of Redmond. But I have to wonder how much better it looked after the abomination that was Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
Fully patched Vista doesn't have a clever WM tiling option.
However; Vista is NT 6.0 and 7 is NT6.1, so based on that it's technically the same OS, just missing a bit of UI and scheduling options.
XP, 7, various server versions (Score:2)
I even was running 95 this year!
I love MSDN and VMWare!
Various. (Score:2)
Since I use test PCs (XP to 32-bit/64-bit 7) in both VMs and real machines. :)
A little bit of both? (Score:2)
No I do not and Win 7 both valid.
Re: (Score:2)
uhhh... English please?
What's wrong with Windows Search (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I am windows free and proud (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
I think too many people are taking into account what their employer's are running or making them run.
XP - can't be bothered to change (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
If and when XP is no longer an option I'll spend the time become a competent user of linux
Why wait?
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
There is no practical difference (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
And, actually, they took something away. If you're using an Aero compatible driver, they took away full screen console mode.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So basicaly you should move to 7 when you buy a new system, (and you will probably have to since thats what it will come with)
If your machine came with XP there is no point in upgrading to 7 (unless you replace the Mobo, CPU and get more RAM
Server 2008 Standard R2 (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wait, Steve Jobs dies... (Score:2, Insightful)
...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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need my username. (Score:5, Funny)
You need my username.
Only on OSX and iOS now (Score:2, Informative)
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.
I typically run Windows 7... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno how to vote (Score:2)
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.
Windows 95! (OSR/2) (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
That rocks!
Just the kind of hack I like.
Work and home, Linux/XP/Solaris and Lion (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Linux, Linux, and more Linux (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Boring Dos Equis commercials (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume "in a VM" qualifies (Score:3)
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.
Semper Flexibilis! (Score:2)
On a Mac! (Score:2)
Multiple on the same machine. (Score:2)
I treble-boot XP, W7 and Ubuntu on my desktop, you insensitive clod!
Associating 2000 with ME... (Score:2)
...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.
XP, and even then, only virtually. (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
Rarely... (Score:2)
Windows 2000 (Score:2)
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.
Three (plus some non-Windows) (Score:2)
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;
Win7 on the desktop (Score:2)
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.
I run Windows ... (Score:2)
Finally migrated from Windows 2000 Pro (Score:2)
Multiple versions (Score:2)
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).
"Vista or 7" (Score:2)
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.
2000 *or* ME? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Win2K was the best OS MS ever shipped. ME was the worst.
Vista with patches is basically 7 though.
Re: (Score:2)
I have installations of both Windows 3.11 for workgroups and MSDOS 6.22
Re: (Score:2)
"I have installations of both Windows 3.11 for workgroups and MSDOS 6.22"
Me too. In fact, that machine is my second most used machine behind an XP Pro box. (I'm still hooked on the original Master of Orion).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No 3.1, but I do have an install of NT 3.51 server on one of my machines (486 DX4 100).
SQL Server running on it is still plenty fast for small databases and most applications.
Ah progress. The same basic set of capabilities, but needing orders of magnitude more machine.
Re: (Score:3)
I run Linux, (currently Kubuntu, Debian and Archbang), plus one BSD box (their FreeNAS version). However, I do have a dual boot 2000 or Me box. It amazes me sometimes that Slashdot's polls are so prescient - How did they know? .
Re: (Score:2)
Very different user experience... it does deserve differentiation.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I agree... lumping Vista7 together is like having the following poll.
I usually drink:
Water
Coffee
Soda
Beer
Hot Tea
Iced Tea/Urine
It is just rediculous- the Urine drinkers would be offended to be linked in with Iced Tea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know, I know -- tried a few different divisions / groupings, but ... also wanted to get in all the categories I could fit. Where NT really could have been squeezed in differently, and "8" could have been under "other versions."
However, we like people to submit poll ideas, so if you have any good ones welling up inside, please pass them along ;)
timothy
Re: (Score:2)
Grouping ME and 2000 together implies you need to have a look at the Windows family tree.
A computer running 2000 is very usable (although there is a security risk due to no recent patches) and 95% of current Windows software will install and work just fine. None of that is true for ME.
Having 95, 98, and ME together as one option would have made more sense. The Vista/7 grouping is OK, because those two probably have more in common than 2000 and a fully patched XP install do.
Re:yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
I know: "Don't complain about lack of options."
But vista/7 should be in two separate options...
ME and 2K even more so. ME was the bastard stepchild of 98. 2K was a rewrite of Windows. XP was just 2K with added window dressing (OK a little more than that, but it was basically 2K) and DRM added. If they're going to lump Vista and 7 together then 98, 98SE and ME should be as well as 2K and XP.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'm still using NT3.51 and I don't see it there as a separate option either...
Re:Windows 95 (Score:5, Funny)
No! Windows for Workgroups 3.11! You just had to check the hidden box for 32-bit disk access mode, tweak the BIOS to make sure your disks were being accessed in DMA instead of PIO mode, tune your pagefile, load the right ISAPnP audio drivers in autoexec.bat and config.sys, turn on himem and emm386, and hell, not even load the Windows shell at all so you could launch your game right from DOS and have more of that sweet, precious 8MB of RAM devoted entirely to your activity.
Re:Windows 95 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate having to run Sketchup in an XP VM. Such a pain to export too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BSOD was probably one of the reasons some people ran Linux and it has basically vanished.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Windows Me wasn't feasible back then either :-)
Re: (Score:2)
1. fragile
2. inflexible
2. breaks really easily
3. hurts you badly if you touch it after it breaks.
4. can't be used alone to construct things
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people are probably not even sure what OS their iPad or Kindle or smartphone is running.
Shouldn't the question be: 'I typically browse with...' and just leave out the whole OS/hardware thing?
Yeah that will result in better answers: browser? what is that??? I use the Internet!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dual boot Win 7 and Ubuntu (classic gnome) on my desktop and laptop and they're working great. I will never use Windows 8 if they keep with the idea of forcing metro on us. It may be fine for a tablet but NOT a PC. I happen to like start menus and I will keep them.