What's new

Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.
Log in Register

Follow Us On Social Media

Experiment which OS has best user interface? windows vs Mac vs Linux(any version)

  • Thread starter Transcended Trucel
  • Start date

title

  • Total voters
    36
Transcended Trucel

Transcended Trucel

Peace & Dharma ; Vishwaguru India!
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Posts
48,728
Imo Mac has most user friendly interface then I'd say windows. Have used both for some time. I dislike Linux most, yes command line is powerful, but I like clicking on icons more than typing stuff even if somewhat slower.

I have also used chrome OS which was decent too ngl.
My personal ranking:
  • Mac
  • chromeOS
  • windows
  • Linux (have used mint,Kali, Ubuntu)
 
Also Mac looks most aesthetically pleasing
 
Linux>Windows>Mac>Shit>Aids>ChromeOS
 
Freeware rules
 
i used Mac OS for a long time but now it just feels like shit for some reason, with Linux you can customize almost everything with different desktop environments, etc.
 
crestfallencel said:
i used Mac OS for a long time but now it just feels like shit for some reason, with Linux you can customize almost everything with different desktop environments, etc.
Click to expand...
imo that's problem with Linux, when it breaks, finding fixes is often big pain.
 
Transcended Trucel said:
imo that's problem with Linux, when it breaks, finding fixes is often big pain.
Click to expand...
:yes: This is why I hate linux. Customizable my ass, try to install another DE and you are into the angry command line trying to fix your login screen or drivers.

Mac is clean but too minimal but very user friendly. Windows is good if you are a power user as it is pretty extendable thanks to a ocean of software, although no powerful command line like Mac and Linux.

Also forgot to add when I used Linux drag and drop did not even work for applications, JFL.
 
Last edited:
nazianime said:
:yes: This is why I hate linux. Customizable my ass, try to install another DE and you are into the angry command line trying to fix your login screen or drivers.

Mac is clean but too minimal but very user friendly. Windows is good if you are a power user as it is pretty extendable thanks to a ocean of software, although no powerful command line like Mac and Linux.
Click to expand...
for me in end, I prefer using Windows for general use as good balance between everything. Mac for dev work since no bs operating system. Linux almost never as my work doesn't require it, I know for some server type work it is better but Mac works well enough in my case.
 
Windows 10
KDE Plasma 5
 
Mac user interface just looks so smooth and great, apple just knows how to make a immaculate user interface
 
windows but tbf Linux can look like anything with the right DE/WM and a lot of tinkering.
 
Some linux which have windows like desktops are best imo. Windows XP was best imo.
 
Linux by a huge margin.
Why? Because you can simply customize it freely until it becomes the best one for you.
Copexodius Maximus said:
Linux>Windows>Mac>Shit>Aids>ChromeOS
Click to expand...
I believe that's the correct order.
I'm going to be honest, I never used ChromeOS but I have zero positive expectations from Google so I will take your word for it.
Transcended Trucel said:
imo that's problem with Linux, when it breaks, finding fixes is often big pain.
Click to expand...
Yeah lol nothing as infuriating about making hours of search about some random bumfuck problem when you just want to use your computer for normal shit.
Part of the reasons why I can't switch to linux in full.
 
Mac is technically more refined but it's often too streamlined at the expense of effecient use. For instance, it provides no way to right click and 'cut' a file (= copy + delete). The only way to acheive this functionality is via drag-and-drop which is a gay limitation.
 
I only really use Windows. I’m too much of a poorfag to use Mac OS and I’m too low IQ to use Linux
 
I really like late '90s GUIs ngl.
2D63EAB2 C7F7 4BDD 9E50 0557F7B5D9C0

F1F77CF0 DF42 41D6 BADC BE797FC07D3B

wmaker-matt.jpg

KDE_1.1.jpg

2B28B98A 52E4 479A 8C60 F2379AC381B5

85F79E67 764A 447B 964F 51513B9151A5

enl-dfree.jpg

90684AFE 21BB 40BE A8E2 D762E7C47FF8
 
Last edited:
Anyways I picked Linux (this applies to any *NIX or system that uses X11) since you can put whatever GUI you want with it.

KDE and XFCE have the best modern interfaces (I like XFCE better since it's lighter and simpler to use). For a classic interface that I use on my older PCs I have Window Maker, Motif WM and IceWM installed.

Trinity DE is another good one.

As for other OSes.

Windows 2000 Classic Theme is my favorite on a Windows version. I also like Luna on Windows XP and Aero on Windows 7. I don't like the modern Metro theme.

On MacOS I like the interface of classic MacOS 7-9. Modern MacOS X does have a nice theme though.
 
Last edited:
Transcended Trucel said:
some of those do look kinda of interesting ngl. But a bit too dated for me. But I especially like the second to last one. Would be insane to have like that
Click to expand...
I really do like the aesthetic.

I know they might look "ugly" to most people especially the ones that have thicker window borders like the Motif based ones, but to me they're "ugly" in a good way.

@ordinaryotaku can relate.
 
Copexodius Maximus said:
Only problem is that they would be slow af
Click to expand...
Not at all, they would be very fast and light for their time compared to the bloated "modern" interfaces of today that focus too much on unneeded "special effects" that eat up your RAM than utilitarianism. Especially if you had a computer with decent specs of the time. Running Windows 11 or GNOME on a computer that's even a few years old is gonna run like molasses or not run at all without significant upgrades.

Even today you can use Window Maker or CDE on modern Linux, and you can make XFCE and Trinity DE to look like classic Windows or classic Mac OS.

My mid-2000s Dell with 2 gigs of RAM and 1GHz Celeron D runs IceWM and Window Maker very well and it can probably run Windows XP well too. I can't run classic Mac OS of course because that would require a very old PowerPC Mac.

Maybe unless you got a low-speced PC from the early '90s or 1980s but at that point just run Windows 3.x or an old version of Linux that can run on a 386 and run twm.
 
Last edited:
TheDarkEnigma said:
Not at all, they would be very fast and light for their time compared to the bloated "modern" interfaces of today that focus too much on unneeded "special effects" that eat up your RAM than utilitarianism. Especially if you had a computer with decent specs of the time. Running Windows 11 or GNOME on a computer that's even a few years old is gonna run like molasses or not run at all without significant upgrades.

Even today you can use Window Maker or CDE on modern Linux, and you can make XFCE and Trinity DE to look like classic Windows or classic Mac OS.

My mid-2000s Dell with 2 gigs of RAM and 1GHz Celeron D runs IceWM and Window Maker very well and it can probably run Windows XP well too. I can't run classic Mac OS of course because that would require a very old PowerPC Mac.

Maybe unless you got a low-speced PC from the early '90s or 1980s but at that point just run Windows 3.x or an old version of Linux that can run on a 386 and run twm.
Click to expand...
I have an old xp still and it runs slow af.
 
Windows 10 was amazing
11 is meh but I hate how the taskbar is centered
 
Copexodius Maximus said:
I have an old xp still and it runs slow af.
Click to expand...
Just remove whatever bloat you might still have on there (you can still backup everything you need on USB, hard drives sizes at the time weren't even that much) or just replace it with Linux or *BSD.

Maybe even try Haiku though I tried installing it on my Dell and it would constantly kernel panic.
ordinaryotaku said:
Linux by far has some of the best interfaces.

Especially some of these, like damn, they look cool!
Click to expand...
If you have an old '90s or 2000s computer lying around you should def install Linux and one of those old window managers. Even if not you can use a VM or PCem to emulate an old PC and install it there.

Also when using, listen to these songs to get the full experience.

View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaR71fpxu_SSzBQk7JFZ8UierUfO13DIW



View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL63nrUZ6-SApCEi8T5LOpzmlUhFAVfMb1


View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL72m51gbgq4G66g5jJqcjNW3aAJTOgTCB


View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhUZK4ON2ODT9opTTwVwwJloTb5Z8UeSS


View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjc_bRZfNsemVDFXHSWFulTX48PV8jgkq


View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd3uT8rfYU9Qy8aYcXpBtycpsmuwr6BGG
 
Last edited:
TheDarkEnigma said:
Just remove whatever bloat you might still have on there (you can still backup everything you need on USB, hard drives sizes at the time weren't even that much) or just replace it with Linux or *BSD.

Maybe even try Haiku though I tried installing it on my Dell and it would constantly kernel panic.

If you have an old '90s or 2000s computer lying around you should def install Linux and one of those old window managers. Even if not you can use a VM or PCem to emulate an old PC and install it there.

Also when using, listen to these songs to get the full experience.

View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaR71fpxu_SSzBQk7JFZ8UierUfO13DIW



View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL63nrUZ6-SApCEi8T5LOpzmlUhFAVfMb1


View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL72m51gbgq4G66g5jJqcjNW3aAJTOgTCB


View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhUZK4ON2ODT9opTTwVwwJloTb5Z8UeSS


View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjc_bRZfNsemVDFXHSWFulTX48PV8jgkq


View: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd3uT8rfYU9Qy8aYcXpBtycpsmuwr6BGG
Click to expand...

These are absolute bangers!
 
TheDarkEnigma said:
I really like late '90s GUIs ngl.
View attachment 646830
View attachment 646832
wmaker-matt.jpg

KDE_1.1.jpg

View attachment 646835
View attachment 646836
enl-dfree.jpg

View attachment 646837
Click to expand...
On one hand I appreciate simplicity.
On the other hand these look super clunky and clustered in(maybe due to low-res). Also the fact that many different sections are colored in the same grey blob when they should have different color outlines.
TheDarkEnigma said:
(I like XFCE better since it's lighter and simpler to use).
Click to expand...
Based XFCE bro.
Copexodius Maximus said:
I have an old xp still and it runs slow af.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it runs slow due to being XP and not due to it being an old toaster though?:waitwhat:
 
TheDarkEnigma said:
Not at all, they would be very fast and light for their time compared to the bloated "modern" interfaces of today that focus too much on unneeded "special effects" that eat up your RAM than utilitarianism. Especially if you had a computer with decent specs of the time. Running Windows 11 or GNOME on a computer that's even a few years old is gonna run like molasses or not run at all without significant upgrades.

Even today you can use Window Maker or CDE on modern Linux, and you can make XFCE and Trinity DE to look like classic Windows or classic Mac OS.

My mid-2000s Dell with 2 gigs of RAM and 1GHz Celeron D runs IceWM and Window Maker very well and it can probably run Windows XP well too. I can't run classic Mac OS of course because that would require a very old PowerPC Mac.

Maybe unless you got a low-speced PC from the early '90s or 1980s but at that point just run Windows 3.x or an old version of Linux that can run on a 386 and run twm.
Click to expand...
gnome 2.0 was honestly pretty badass, then they ruined it with gnome 3.0. I can tolerate gnome 4 as it's, at least, less bad than windows or even mac are now
 
HyperVersager_4EVER said:
On one hand I appreciate simplicity.
On the other hand these look super clunky and clustered in(maybe due to low-res). Also the fact that many different sections are colored in the same grey blob when they should have different color outlines.
Click to expand...
Yeah, especially CDE looks pretty clunky. But you can still customize your own theme.

This site got different screenshots of those old interfaces:

Window Managers for X

A guide to window managers and desktops for the X Window System and Linux/UNIX
www.xwinman.org www.xwinman.org

Same with Toasty Tech's site:

Graphical User Interface Gallery

toastytech.com toastytech.com
HyperVersager_4EVER said:
Based XFCE bro.

Are you sure it runs slow due to being XP and not due to it being an old toaster though?:waitwhat:
Click to expand...
Ever heard of Serenity OS? It's a UNIX-like OS (not Linux, the entire system is built from scratch) with an interface inspired by Windows 2000.

It's mostly the creation of one guy, but there are many people contributing as well. This is his YouTube channel.
 
proudweeb said:
gnome 2.0 was honestly pretty badass, then they ruined it with gnome 3.0. I can tolerate gnome 4 as it's, at least, less bad than windows or even mac are now
Click to expand...
There's MATE which is the continuation of GNOME 2, but unfortunately they're phasing out of GTK 2 and moving to GTK 3. I still like GTK 2 because it still maintains its classic interface.

At least Trinity DE forked Qt 3 and not using modern Qt like KDE.

There is a fork of GTK 2 at least called STLWRT:
github.com

GitHub - thesquash/stlwrt: A library which emulates many versions of GTK and visually resembles GTK+ 2

A library which emulates many versions of GTK and visually resembles GTK+ 2 - thesquash/stlwrt
github.com github.com

And there are DEs made from other toolkits like Equinox DE which is based on FLTK.

EDE - light and fast desktop environment

Light desktop environment for UNIX operating systems
edeproject.org edeproject.org
 
TheDarkEnigma said:
Ever heard of Serenity OS? It's a UNIX-like OS (not Linux, the entire system is built from scratch) with an interface inspired by Windows 2000.

It's mostly the creation of one guy, but there are many people contributing as well. This is his YouTube channel.
https://youtube.com/c/AndreasKling
Click to expand...
I think I might give this a shot, looks half-interesting.
But how is hardware support? I don't expect too much from a small-scale project like this.
Maybe I will try it in a VM, hopefully it works there.
 
HyperVersager_4EVER said:
I think I might give this a shot, looks half-interesting.
But how is hardware support? I don't expect too much from a small-scale project like this.
Maybe I will try it in a VM, hopefully it works there.
Click to expand...
From what I've heard it doesn't have ISOs yet so you are going to have to compile the entire system from source.

It's still in active development and it's more of a hobbyist project that anything professional. The guy creating it was an Apple Developer once upon a time though.

You should check out his YouTube channel since he gives updates on Serenity OS, plus on how he learned programming and his passions for computers and his inspiration for the system.
 
TheDarkEnigma said:
From what I've heard it doesn't have ISOs yet so you are going to have to compile the entire system from source.

It's still in active development and it's more of a hobbyist project that anything professional. The guy creating it was an Apple Developer once upon a time though.

You should check out his YouTube channel since he gives updates on Serenity OS, plus on how he learned programming and his passions for computers.
Click to expand...
Yeah lol I just glanced through BuildInstructions.md
It functions as a VM by default.
Might give compiling this a shot when I have more time.
 
HyperVersager_4EVER said:
Yeah lol I just glanced through BuildInstructions.md
It functions as a VM by default.
Might give compiling this a shot when I have more time.
Click to expand...
Would probably take ages though.
 
Windows XP had the best UI. I used it till 2017
 
Linus is a kernel, not an operating system.
 
HyperVersager_4EVER said:
The whole OS is 140mb in total.
Shouldn't take too much imo but we'll see.
Click to expand...
I tried compiling the Linux kernel by itself and creating an image with ISOLinux boot manager and Busybox userspace, but I had trouble figuring out how to create an initramfs specifically for it.
 
Zhou Chang-Xing said:
Linus is a kernel, not an operating system.
Click to expand...
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
 
Zhou Chang-Xing said:
Linus is a kernel, not an operating system.
Click to expand...
You are technically correct but it's used as a catch all term for all distros so what's the point of being pedantic here?
TheDarkEnigma said:
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
Click to expand...
Been a while since I saw that pasta
 
TheDarkEnigma said:
I tried compiling the Linux kernel by itself and creating an image with ISOLinux boot manager and Busybox userspace, but I had trouble figuring out how to create an initramfs specifically for it.
Click to expand...
Maybe hit up their discord and ask devs?
I hate Discord myself but if you have it you can try that.
 
HyperVersager_4EVER said:
You are technically correct but it's used as a catch all term for all distros so what's the point of being pedantic here?
Click to expand...
Yes, Linux is just the kernel which is why most operating systems based on the Linux kernel with GNU userland are collectively called GNU/Linux. A Linux distribution is really just the kernel bundled with additional software, and how they're packaged and updated is based on the distributions.

Some Linux distros aren't GNU-based, most notably the Android operating system but also Alpine Linux which uses Busybox userland + musl C libraries and compiler.

There are also GNU-based systems that do not use the Linux kernel, there's an alternative kernel called Hurd and there are distributions that use it like Debian GNU/Hurd. There's also Debian GNU/kFreeBSD which takes the FreeBSD kernel on top of GNU.
HyperVersager_4EVER said:
Maybe hit up their discord and ask devs?
I hate Discord myself but if you have it you can try that.
Click to expand...
I was mostly just searching for and reading documentations online on how to do it. My goal was to make a small Linux distro that can boot on an emulated 486 with 16 megs of RAM.
 
elementaryOS Linux is basically FOSS macOS so I'd still say Linux all the way tbh
Transcended Trucel said:
Imo Mac has most user friendly interface then I'd say windows. Have used both for some time. I dislike Linux most, yes command line is powerful, but I like clicking on icons more than typing stuff even if somewhat slower.

I have also used chrome OS which was decent too ngl.
My personal ranking:
  • Mac
  • chromeOS
  • windows
  • Linux (have used mint,Kali, Ubuntu)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

barcacel
LifeFuel why we will have non-sentient female android robots in 2032 and reverse aging in 2052. Thread version 2.0
2
Replies
92
Views
7K
JamesMLM
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (Incels: 0, Bluepillers: 3)

Follow Us On Social Media

542,947Threads
12,584,755Posts
25,283Members
EventyNew Lost Soul

About Us

Incels.is is a community for men that struggle with or are unable to get into romantic relationships with women despite trying. We welcome men from all walks of life, and from all cultural and racial backgrounds, as long as you are an incel.

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
2,359
Total visitors
2,547
Totals may include hidden visitors.
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top