and Mac OS should really be split into two: OS X and OS9 and earlier. They are completely different OS's. Granted, OS9 and earlier would lose. But just letting you know.

Well I'm sad to be in the position to chose between Linux and Windows...

Specially Windows XP, I love it... Is a great layout, otherwise I think is the best 'cause you didn't add Gentoo Linux...

Gentoo it is the best... I like it...

Windows XP is for look good, Gentoo is an OS for a developer or Hoster... Fast, fast, fast...

There are many factors to consider.
Windows is compatible with a lot of programs, whereas GNU/Linux has great customizability (<-- Excuse spelling).
Mac OS X on the other hand has the advantages of both worlds in being having lots of good software and having a stable UNIX foundation.
I would vote for Mac OS X.
I don't have it, but really really want it...

actually, your horrably wrong....
windows is 1) not campatable with anything 2) a nightmare to program !!!

first off, take a program sice as KDE. its a whole destop environment, grap the source code and compile it... compile it on FreeBSD, compile it on Linux, compile it on OpenBSD, solaris, whatever !... the same source code will compile on all these different operating systems,a nd work...

however with windows, nope, it will not compile. nor will windows source code compile on any other OS.

Plus,, has anyone ever tried compiling and using a DLL in windows... its a nightmare, in linux, its as simple as turning the "share" switch on when compiling, to make an .so (shared object)

SECONDLY....
and here's what annoys the CRUD out of me...

last time i tried to compile the following code in VC++, it failed with an error like "error variable array length"



that code is perfectly legal c++.

The best OS in the world will eventually be linux. EVENTUALLY. Not now. At some point, enough work will have been done to allow the user interface of linux to catch up to windows or mac. When it does, its all over for microsoft, and possibly Apple(though apple seems much better than MS at branching out into different things, in particular software like final cut pro that just won't exist for a VERY long time on linux, at least as open source). It will be an interesting time, and i look forward to it.

Linux is Just a kernel, and doesnt include a user interface. the most Popular Interface KDE is actually *nix Desktop environment.

Anyways...
comparing KDE to Windows and OSX i think KDE is easyer, this is just an opinion.

What does the Windows User interface do that KDE doesnt ?
both point and click... both have a control center for selcting screen savers, screen resolution, background image..

as far as i can tell, KDE does everything WIndows Desktop does, and more.
Audio Ripping using the file manager konqueror, optional preview on image, audio and movie files.
an encrypt with GnuPG feature.

multiple virtual desktops...

i personally dont see how KDE could possibly be any easyer.

Hey All,
check out the latest windows and linux study:

TCO study: Linux wins again
By Sam Varghese
December 13, 2004

linux/windows study
URL: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/...2786990788.html

cheers
hashbang

Last time Windows won the TCO test, we all laughed... DUDE, its a test funded and published by MS... how many MS funded test dare to tell bill he sucked ? and out of al those who told bill he sucked, how many did bill publish... none... if they even exist.. who knows...

anyways.... I believe that Linux has a lower TCO... however,
after smiting dwn the windows winning test for being funded by MS, by principal you HAVE to critisize this test for beiing done by an Open Source company.

when will there be a TCO test done by a totally unbiased source ???? like my little sister

Yes, Linux is 'just the kernal', but thats not how most people talk about 'linux'. When people mention linux they mean the whole deal, the kernal+xfree86/x.org and some windows manager like KDE or Gnome. That together is what is usually meant when a person casually mentions 'Linux'. Which is what I did.

That being said, the things that make KDE/Linux/etc 'hard' are dealing with things that don't work perfectly the first time. Sometimes, when you plug something in, if you have a nice distro then linux detects it and everything works just fine. When this doesn't happen, things can get irritating, such as messing with config files. In terms of KDE, I remember installing KDE on my laptop and having it show the screen a few pixels to the right, so that the right edge of teh screen was gone. At the time(this may have changed, this was a few years ago), there was no simple option to adjust the screen image a few pixels left to fix the problem without doing some low level config hacking. I never ended up bothering, too much work to get something simple to happen.

Other things are basic HCI issues. I remember the options/preferences/settings(whatever its called) in KDE was terribly organized, making it hard to find or do what I wanted.

Using RPM's to install programs works, but was less intuitive, or at least less familiar than the windows installer type method or the OSX 'Drag the icon to the applications folder and its installed' method. This is even more true when something goes wrong with an RPM. Apt-get is nicer, but isn't on a number of major distros.

Finally, on a personal preference level, I think KDE is ugly. I haven't played with KDE 3 though, so that may have changed. Granted, Windows is almost as ugly, but thats not a nice comparison.

I do still use Windows XP for it's easiness to use and my laziness to change to another OS. I did vote for Linux though because I know that it's a much more stable and secure OS than Windows will ever be.