Discussion on:

Why is Windows the most widely used OS?

Why is Windows the most widely used OS?
I was just reading a post about bashing Windows, and it caused me to ask Why is Windows the most widely used OS? It's found on the majority of servers and desktops/workstations around the world.

Windows is NOT found on the majority of servers. Windows does have the lions share of desktops in the workplace.

All large mainfraims are not windows.
A majority of ALL web servers are Linux or Unix.
Many of the NEW installations are linux.

Windows is used on the desktop because people don't need to know anything about computers, and can still create a word processing document and send an e-mail.

There is your reason.

Yes and any explanation would not be complete without looking back through history as well.

Whether you argue price, features, best performance, marketing, stupidity, whatever, we are left with an OS that is the most complete, idiot proof, compatible, etc.

For all the Windows bashers...what other OS fits the bill? Games, apps, price, support, etc.

And I'm not talking about corporate users...MS owns the home desktop market (and corporate for that matter) for a reason.

You can argue one thing or another, but if you look at the history combined with the complete package, there is no better OS.

Linux is confusing, a pain in the rear to a newbie, etc. And I use and like Linux too.

However, John Q Public would much rather see Windows improved upon rather than replaced...it's all about learning curves, laziness, whatever but learning a new OS isn't a top priority for them (right or wrong, it isn't).

Yes, many of the home systems are windows. windows has games that just about anyone with a heartbeat can install.

This in no way changes that MS is NOT the domanant server platform and is not what runs the internet. Remember, they were late to the party because "the internet was just a fad".

This can't be said that windows has no reputation in server field. I have seen lot of sites which runs aspx pages. like dell.com, rentacoder.com, godaddy.com leader in hosting and domains. if godaddy is hosting on windows server then i don't think that windows is too inferior.

rickk suggests that history explains Windows' "popularity." He
should go back further in history.

Microcomputers (Northstar, Apple II, etc.) were considered "toys"
by IT/MIS types. This in the age of mainframes and
minicomputers. There were multiple architectures and operating
systems and they were pretty primitive, largely the province of
hobbyists.

Then IBM came out with the first "Personal Computer" running
DOS. The project took about a year from gleam in the eye to
delivered product, and it was in part experimental. IBM wanted
to see if they could come up with a system made of readily
available components. To hold the price down, support was
virtually non-existent.

Two things occurred which IBM didn't anticipate. Corporate
America saw the IBM label on the PC and considered
microcomputers to have been blessed. Until then, the doors
were closed to micros. Now, they were let in, very slowly at first,
but when line departments found that they could buy a PC for
$10K on Monday and start solving business problems by Friday
instead of waiting 1-1/2 to 2 years for MIS to get around to
solving their problem (or maybe last year's problem), they began
to come into business en masse. Often under miscellaneous
departmental expense budgets to avoid MIS oversight.

When prices fell, people started thinking of buying systems for
themselves, and it was natural for many to buy the same type of
system they used at work. Thus the expansion into the
consumer market. Not the best product (never was), but the
obvious one. Combine that with Microsoft's predatory practices
and voila! As an example of such practices, PowerPoint was
decidedly inferior to a number of other presentation products.
But by bundling PowerPoint into Office, they essentially gave
PowerPoint away and drove the competition out of the
marketplace. (Don't get me started on why PowerPoint is
essentially brain-dead.)

The PCs got out of control, as far as IBM was concerned, once
the clones started coming from Compaq and others. Prices
plummeted. PCs were no longer a high margin business, and IBM
couldn't find a model to pay for expensive services. PCs, along
with minis, almost killed their mainframe business, and IBM
went through some tough times rethinking and remaking
themselves.

The other mistake was their contract with Microsoft. I'm sure the
skeletons of a lawyer or three are waving in the breeze from a
flagpole at IBM headquarters. Instead of writing contracts for
DOS and Windows that gave IBM ownership of the operating
system, they allowed Microsoft to retain ownership rights, which
allowed Microsoft to sell to the clone makers and exploit their
control of the operating system to support their own products
better than any competitor could.

Microsoft's dominance is part historical accident and dumb luck,
part brilliant contract writing, and part predatory marketing.

If Longhorn/Vista/whatever-they-call-it-next-week doesn't
resolve the problems of security while remaining open to third-
party hardware and software innovation, Microsoft will go the
way IBM's mainframe business went. Microsoft has, in fact,
become what IBM once was:

The company everybody loves to hate.

That's a fantastic analysis of the history of microcomputing.

Welcome to Professor rm3mpc's CSCI 301, "History of What We Originally Called Microcomputers". This is a three-credit-hour class with a mandatory one-credit-hour lab. Extra credit if you can document how IBM lost the laptop market.

Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

i dunno i've seen some pretty kickass power point slide presentations, to include one that was setup and worked like a jeapordy game.. great functionality... i guess my point in that is it all depends on perspective.

now i wasn't around for the "good presentation programs" that rm3mpc brought up in his post

i'll admit it my first computer was a c64/128 with a C/PM OS conversion package to go with it..

but i've used both linux and MS proprietary systems and crossplatform systems... and with X window.. there isn't really alot of difference between them other than linux isn't as well supported by the market.. but such is the downfall of open architecture... look at firefox... it's capable of becoming better and more stable than IE will ever be.. but most corporations won't use it because

1> it's still too young,
2> they give away the source code and invite hackers to play with it,
3> there's no marketing for it.

but on one issue i do agree with the rest of the thread... if microsoft doesn't make vista 300% better than XP or XP Pro, and more affordable, they're going to price themselves right out of the market. $189 for a one site license OEM version of XP home (starter price) was ridiculous.

simplyshaman allows as how he's "seen some pretty kickass
PowerPoint slide presentations." No doubt true, BUT...

PowerPoint has been part of MS Office for how many years? But if
you want tables, use Word or Excel and import them or struggle
with PowerPoint's lame version. Word has had style sheets
forever. PowerPoint? Next case! Even something as simple as
tabs are a struggle. You can make the hidden characters visible.

Graphs? You can do all kinds of cool stuff, 3-D, etc. But talk to
the purists and they'll tell you that graphs can be made to
distort reality very easily. Simple graphs without all the frou-frou
stuff convey information much more accurately.

Luckily, I haven't had to use it for some time, so maybe they've
improved its stability. Aside from the usual "save early and
often" that applies to any program, I found it essential with
PowerPoint. The first warning used to come when you found it
grinding more and more slowly: Beware! Crash is imminent, with
loss of work!

I'll try to restrain myself and leave it at that. My original point
was that better programs died because they stood by themselves
and had to be priced accordingly. By being bundled as
essentially a freebie in MS Office, Microsoft used predatory
tactics to drive the competition out of business. An inferior
product remains, but one which is indeed capable of "kickass
presentations" in the hands of someone sufficiently skilled - and
patient with a feature-poor product.

The internal wars at IBM during this time frame also had an impact on this. The chairman of IBM wanted his "apple" and was told by the heads of the manufacturing plants that IBM couldn't build a PC (huh??), but the head of the Boca Raton plant said that he thought he could do it and was given the task. Beacuse of the time alotted and budget a small software company was hired to write the OS (BIG MISTAKE), As was letting them keep ownership.

When the IBM PC came to market it was a novelty. No one would consider buying one except as such. What brought the PC to acceptance was the "killer app". Maybe you guys were not around when corporations began buying PCs to do one thing and one thing only: Lotus 123. The finance manager's dream come true. And since the finance managers in large part have control of the purse strings and they WANTED lotus do finally be able to do a financial spreadsheet on something better than a 13 column pad, they were buying PCs like hotcakes.

Lotus was the killer app that made the PC attractive to corporate buyers.

As far as the clone market, IBM countered it with micro-channel architecture. IBM's gambit to keep some propreitary control in the marketplace. IBM, in their usual arrogance, was counting on the IBM logo to maintain dominance in the market, failing to realize the commodity aspect of the clone PC market. No one cared what the logo was as long as it ran Lotus 123 and they could buy it cheaper, which made it even easier to get PCs into the hands of managers who would be able to provide finance with their spreadsheets.

Then along came cheap PC based word processors, compared to dedicated word processing machines that were still costing 12,000.00. So buying a 3,000.00 PC with 500.00 word processing software became killer app number 2.

PCs represented computing independence from stuffy, "Big Iron", centralized computing control IT departments, allowing management to get their hands on something that worked, right now.

So, partially your history is correct. But the reason PCs dominate the landscape is not becuase of Microsoft or IBM, but the credit has to go to Mitch Kapor at Lotus for marketing the "killer app" that made it economically attractive.

Forget about the fact that VisiCalc or SuperCalc may have been "superior" products in the spreadsheet arena. Marketing still wins every time.

back in the days of MS DOS and Win 3x you needed the same level of tech expertise to install hardware and software on a PC be it with MS or Linux or Unix. With Win 95 MS started using softwrae that any moron can load - so of course they did - and have ketp it up since. Thus meant that people could now load their own software without paying for a tech. Unix and Linux did not follow this path for many years.

However, the latest versions of Linux and some Unix distributions are such that they are as easy to load and set up by non techs as MS Windows is - in fact some are now getting better at this as they allow you to turn the wizards off whilst MS does not.

With the difficulties that people are now meeting with the use of MS software re activation and reactivation following system changes and the higher costs you can expect to see a more educated general user moving away from MS to Linux for ease of loading anc ahcnging and lower costs.

but the thing is that any moron that reads up on the unix/linux command set or dos command set could load their own software too. that trend only survived because of human nature and the tendency to be lazy and let someone else do it for me if i don't understand it.

for instance.. i wrote my first piece of program code at age 7.. was a sprite race car game that i found in a book that came with the CP/m Proprietary upgrade that my dad purchased for our C64/128 machine. i took the original code from the book.. and added to it and modified it.. till i gave it controls and usability..

but i do agree with you.. i can see most of the market moving back to unix and linux over the course of the next 5 years as microsoft continues to overprice itself right out of business

Here in Taiwan, there are very few Mac users. The serious Mac users are all graphics professionals, but the business and academic users are about 99.99% Windows users. I am almost required to have a Windows machine and OS to be compatible with everyone else.

I've tried Linux, Open Office, Star Office, and whatever that program is that makes MS Office for Windows compatible with Linux (it's been a couple of years), and they just don't work as well as MS Office for me. Making macros without having to write them in a programming language is easy using MS Word. But they don't convert to Open Office or Star Office macros.

I'm a medical editor most of the time, and most medical journals around the world ask for manuscripts in MS Word DOC format or RTF format -- that means they'll take WordPerfect files in RTF but not WPD format. I don't know why, though, because they usually turn them into PDF format.

And almost all the add-on software I have is Windows-compatible only. Why would I want to spend a few thousand dollars more to buy Mac or Linux versions?

There's nothing I need or want to do on my PC that I can't do with Windows or can do better with a Mac or a Linux machine and software. Except, of course, hyperbolically bitch about how bad Windows is.

Finally, since XP, Windows has become a stable and reliable world-class OS. It's taken 15 years for Windows to catch up with Mac, and now that it has, there's no longer a reason for me to switch -- especially now that Mac is supposed to be switching to Intel platforms. I'm happy with Windows XP Pro.

Windows became the in thing when 3.0 hit the stores
back when the old 8088 cpu was in. At that time it
use most of your memory but people still had to have it becauce it was new. Nine generations later windows owner can say what os system will work for
you and his windows

Macintosh actually fits the bill a little better than Windows. A lot of windows technology was taken from Macintosh. It is also far more user friendly then Windows. Microsoft was able to take advantage of the market by offering its OS to other hardware manufacturers. Mac failed due to its proprietorship in not allowing other computer manufacturers? access to their OS.

A similar problem is happening to Microsoft currently. Linux is taking some of Microsoft?s technologies and incorporating it into the Linux OS. And the same hardware manufacturers (such as HP, IBM, and others) that helped Microsoft become the largest OS are supporting Linux. Microsoft is also currently looked upon as the most proprietary OS as well.

There is also the underlying mind set for the vast majority that price carry's quality or at least quality control.

I've heard many say that they refuse Linux because its free. Avoiding any consideration to its consistency, stability, security, etc. In most people's mind, you get what you pay for and since Linux is free its too good to be true or it won't last long because someone else will steal the model and go mainstream with it so why bother.

Have you tried to find information for running Linux, installing software, where to find drivers for it. For a newbie it is extremely difficult. You try to search for it on current search engines you are lucky if you find anything. You have to use curtain searches to find the information you are looking for and if you don't know what to type in you can't find any information. I know this because it took me almost a year to finally figure out what words to use to find any information on Linux. Laziness is not always the case. The information on searching should for anything Linux should be listed on all the websites you download linux from this would help some people who are not lazy to learn to use linux, it would also help people get drivers and programs for linux. When this starts to happen you could be surprised and find a much larger linux user base. Most people will give something a week to get set up and then start using it. If setup and using takes longer than a week regardless of what you can use it for and do with it most people figure if it takes to long to set up it is a waste of time. Because the information for everything linux is not easy to find linux is nothing more than a hobby to be figured out then if something changes as far as setting up you have to relearn everything. To most people this i just a waste of time.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but, "people who dont need to know anything about computers, etc." could do as well (better really) with a Mac than a Windows pc. Yet, for some reason Windows still dominates Mac by a huge margin.

I am not saying that Windows is a better product (in fact, I dont believe it is), but, someone somewhere must believe it.

Most apps and hardware are made to run on Windows, so another reason (besides ease of use) may be versatility and compatibility.

Visability could also be another reason: M$ pours incredible amounts of money into advertising. I think you can also find more people who can work on the Windows platform than the alternatives. So, finding someone to fix Windows when it's broke (and, I know it breaks from time to time) would be easier than finding someone to fix your SuSE install (or your Mac).

A new Windows pc is also cheaper than a new Mac, so, cost may also be a factor. The only caveat to this would be that Linux is WAY cheaper (free, even...if you can take the time to download it) than Windows. I think if Mac's were as cheap as a Windows box that M$ would start loosing market share in a big way.

I would love for another OS to come along and give Windows a run for it's money on the desktop, but, I just dont see it happening anytime soon. It's too bad, really.

MS is great at marketing.

People know the name. And with the leveraging they have done over the years REQUIREING manufacturers to include Windows preinstalled helped this happen.

If you can walk into Best Buy and get a computer, what is available if I want something inexpensive? You got it. Windows.

Is does windows functionally do ANYTHING better than MAC os? No, but MAC has always be terrible at marketing. Between that and the decades of proprietary hardware is why MAC is not a real threat to windows.

" ... you can also find more people who can work on the Windows platform than the alternatives."

This too. Used to be that you could take five fairly easy tests after some diligent reading, get a MCSE, and get a raise, better job, foot in the door ... what-have-you.

I've always thought that Linux will develop critical mass when someone figures out how to make five fairly simple tests lead to a certification that will get the below-average IT schmo a raise, better job or foot in the door.

http://www.comptia.org/certification/linux/?nav=quick

or

http://www.linuxcertification.org/

2 short exam sets for linux certification.
this doesn't include red hat's own certification.

Windows, popular and easy. Popular because of marketing and most third party software will work on it. Easy because most anyone can use it with little instruction. The best? Not by a long shot. That is what keeps people like us in business.

It is the dominant platform, why would you market your product to 5% of computer users, when you can market to 95%? Not a hard decision, it doesn't matter if you like windows or not, they own that market space, and will continue to do so for the next who knows how long.

Hardware isn't made for Windows. OSs are made for hardware, and peripheral drivers are made for OSs.

Intel- and AMD-compatible processors, the ones most frequently found in Windows boxes, will run other operating systems quite happily.

Most hardware peripherals come with Windows drivers, but unless the device is way out on the bleeding edge, drivers for other operating systems are available either from the manufacturer or on the web.

I agree that people who don't know anything about computers
would be as well off - better! - with a Mac. But most people get
their introduction to computers at work, and most businesses
outside of the graphics field use PCs, so that's what people learn
and buy because they follow the path of least resistance.

Apple's marketing leaves something to be desired. They've made
a bit too much out of the "Macintosh - the computer for the rest
of us!" point of view. Microsoft advertising doesn't really say
much, but Apple's tends to be very stylish and without a point.
I've always felt they lacked "relevance," i.e., what does it do for
ME? Why should I go to the trouble of learning something new?

Windows PCs are cheaper than Macs - out of the box. Once they
have a problem, especially the current crop of viruses and
spyware, the savings disappear in a flash. This is how I make
(too much of) my living: spending 2-3 hours trying to clean up a
PC, then advising the client that they need to back up their data,
followed by either a reformat and reinstall of their current
computer, or a new box with the OS and standard software
preinstalled.

Not to mention the loss of time. Nor the time spent on a weekly
basis trying to keep Windows alive (Windows updates, virus and
spyware scans).

I've seen one significant virus on a Mac (Autostart worm), and
that was around 1996-97, and it didn't do any lasting harm. The
last virus I had to remove from a client's system was a Word
macro virus last summer. She didn't have any anti-virus
protection at all on her system. Spyware? Non-existent!

The Mac OS pre-OS X had some serious flaws, including a near-
total lack of security and a poor multi-tasking environment. It
tended to crash too much. But, to be honest, so did Windows.
That's one reason it didn't sell well to corporate America. OS X is
a different critter altogether, and the move to Intel opens up a
whole new (you should pardon the pun) vista for multi-OS usage
on the same box.

jdclyde's comment about Apple's proprietary hardware raises
some interesting points. Apple tried licensing clone
manufacturers, and they almost put Apple out of business
because they ate into Apple's market instead of creating new
ones. OK, so computers can't be marketed like soft drinks.

Another aspect is quality control. PCs can be made cheaper
because you can buy the components cheaply and you can cut
corners in the process. Apple sits on top of the quality of the
entire system, including components.

It's been argued that Apple thinks of itself as a hardware
company, and that that's a mistake, they should think of
themselves as a software company. I think that mindset
sometimes works for them - think of their design innovations -
and sometimes works against them. As their prior experience
with clone makers showed, licensing the Mac OS to other
manufacturers carries risks, but just imagine if doing so could
double or triple their market penetration in the short run. And
imagine what it would do for them to sell systems that booted
into the Mac OS and hosted Windows, with Windows accessible
with a keyboard command, a la Virtual PC.

As to certification, it's interesting that anyone can buy and use a
computer, but you need a major education and regular
recertification to deal with it when it gets a tummy ache. Is that
the model we want for a successful product that we live with?
Would it be tolerable with any other product? What's the
equivalent of opening the refrigerator only to be presented with
the ice blue screen of death?

As Deejay54 put it: "Windows, popular and easy. Popular
because of marketing and most third party software will work on
it. Easy because most anyone can use it with little instruction.
The best? Not by a long shot. That is what keeps people like us
in business."

My problem is that people like us should be earning an honest
living providing training, helping to install new hardware and
software, and developing new stuff. The care-and-feeding
trough should be shut down in favor of robust software with
self-healing capabilities. I sometimes feel guilty handing clients
their bills. But it's not my fault they can't pass the cost on to the
real culprits.

At one point in time Apple PCs and IBM PCs( or clones) cost about the same. Then as the cost of techonolgy came down the price of IBM PCs (clones) came down, But Apple keep thier prices high ( and profits) as this trend continued more PC were sold than Apples. Remember this was back in DOS days no windows yet. And if you bought a PC of any kind you had to install the OS and get it work.
Enter Windows for MAC, soon after Windows for the PC. M$ pushed (forced) PC vendors to PRE install Windows on EVERY PC they sold, penalties if they didn't. Keep in mind the cost of PCs still comming down, Apple prices the same.
"I think if Mac's were as cheap as a Windows box that M$ would start loosing market share in a big way"
I will be interesting to keep an eye on the MAC Mini.

attributable to retailers.
very few of whome obey anti monopoly laws and make sure there are os options in the stores.

if people saw new linux workstations in the stores then they would likely be trying them and buying them.

I dont know about that. Wal-Mart offers pc's with Xandros (and, they are dirt cheap). They started offering pc's with Lindows/ Linspire back in 2002, too.

I think alternatives to Windows are there if people seek them. People just know Windows and like what they know. You tell Joe Average that you use Xandros (or Fedora, SuSE, Ubuntu, etc.) and they have no clue what you are talking about, much less how to use it.

I think Linux just needs better marketing to gain bigger exposure. Of course, that costs big $$, which most Linux compainies dont have.

because they are too [CENCORED] (you chose which) to learn anything else.

This is something I have always laughed at people about. They like something. Well, what have you ever tried other than that to know if you like it because it is good or because it is the first one you got put in front of?

WordPerfect was always a far superior word processor then MS Word. Lotus 1-2-3 ran circles around Excel. The problem was when everyone came up with an "office suite". For the money, MS office was the best. If WordPerfect and Lotus had joined together in a suite instead of fighting each other, MS Office would not be the king it is today.

##########################################

Does that make people feel better? Nice, warm and fuzzy?

:^)

Stupid? Lazy? Inept? Jiminy-Cricket Boy, are you never going to learn? Reboot your brain and let go of the anger and frustration. What is the upside to calling people stupid, lazy, and inept? What is it? Why do you do keep doing it? Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Are you too stupid, lazy, and inept to think up any other insults?

at least I made it multiple choice? didn't want to leave anyone out and make them feel badly!

If someone "likes" and uses a system for no other reason than that is the only one they have looked at, how would you describe them? As an employee OR employer, you should always be looking for a better way to either make money or save money. People who just come in and walk through the motions, are they an asset to that company?

It should be EVERYONES job in a company to look for ways for things to be done more efficently, because the better the company does the better you will do.

If someone makes an informed decision about the software that is used then it is usually a good decision.

End users are more interested in what they can do with the computer (applications) than how it works (OS). That doesn't make them lazy or stupid, they just have different interests. I'm only interested in driving my car using the engine the factory installed. Even if I could get a better engine free, I wouldn't be interested in developing the skills needed to install it. The car already runs well enough for my purposes.

or your car will be destroyed.

Dispite if you do it yourself, you still HAVE to change the oil. You CHOOSE to do this and were able to LEARN to have this done.

You have LEARNED that to drive this car, you HAVE to put MORE gas in it ALL the time.

You have LEARNED to lock the doors to keep people out of it.

You have LEARNED to have the tires replaced when they wear out.

If you CHOOSE not to do these things, your car will not contine to run well enough.

How about models. Did you research things like mileage, dependability, horsepower, handling, safety rating? Trunk space? Do you put that much thought into your computer?

People CHOOSE NOT to learn how to maintain their computer because it isn't their concern if they break it. They can just blame it on the crap computer, or on windows.

While slightly more political, would you say this is way off base?

But I suppose more of the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the non-computer people that make the computer decisions for a company?

I place the blame on the way computers are marketed, and on the ever-decreasing price.

When was the last time you saw an advertisement aimed at the consumer that showed a computer being used as something other than a toy or entertainment device? This gives the buyer the impression this device is easy to use and doesn't require much attention. Unlike computers, car ads include operational details because that's how the manufacturers differentiate between their products. Since the automobile is a very mature product, the industry has had a century to "educate" the market about the critical features. The only features the computer industry talks about in consumer ads are processor speed and drive space.

The problem with the reduced cost of computers is that it gives the consumer the impression that training and maintenance aren't important. When personal computers cost $2000 for an open-price-point system, people didn't mind spending $100 at the local tech school to learn how to use it effectively. Now that they can buy a computer for $400, why spend another $50 (12.5% of the purchase price) for anti-virus software? The industry tells them the box was obsolete before they loaded it in the car.

I'm always reluctant to use the "car vs. PC" analogy because it can be carried to far. A car costs tens of thousands of dollars, will last for years, and only does one thing. Consumers don't mind paying $20 for an oil change every few months or $200 for tires every few years. Most now learn how to drive an AUTOMATIC; don't ask them to drive a standard tranny unless you want to replace it. And I don't lock my doors, but in rural South Carolina with a rusted 12-year old Nissan, I consider the risk of car-jacking almost unmeasureable.

I don't think it's off-base. Where I work, the computer people decide what to buy; we work with Purchasing to determine where and how to buy / lease it.

that:
ain't no wall mart convieniently located here.
the closest is an hours drive.
( transit 45 minutes )
and taking a system on transit is a pain.

I tend to think about how we have it here in the states, and in particular Texas. You cant swing a dead rat without hitting a Wal-Mart around here.

as far as I know, that's the ONLY wall mart in BC.

one, for about 4 million people, over half of which would take a week to get to it.

remember, driving to visit redmond washington is about as easy.
we are only a 3 hour drive from there.

Sure, Wal-Mart may sell computers with Linux installed, but all the programs they stock require Windows. It's the same with the other big retailers. You and I know there are apps available for free downloads, but installing them is probably beyond the skills of someone shopping Wal-Mart for a cheap, entry-level machine. I wonder how many people buy the Linux machines and are then disappointed when they can't install the new games they buy later.

You don't need to buy Linux apps at Wal-Mart. When you get a Linux system, you get access to all the apps you need for free. There are roughly 1500 discrete software packages in the Debian default apt archives alone, free of charge, an installation command away.

As for skills of shoppers . . . keep in mind that there are GUI front-ends for most Linux software management systems, and any Linux version you can buy at Wal-Mart will be one that includes such a GUI front-end. Point and click, just like Windows, except now you can use the mouse to install software without having to take a separate trip to the store to buy it first.

Games . . . well, that's its own bag of marbles. You always have to check the installation requirements for any mainstream computer game, and if it only says Windows in the list of OSes it supports, you shouldn't blame anyone else if you buy it for a Linux system and can't get it to work. On the other hand, there are a number of free games that do run on Linux, and commercial games that run on both Linux and Windows. Neverwinter Nights is a good example.

I'll mention them again (and again and again) that a simple install (Linspire comes installed with it) lets you install and play most Windows computer games.

I'll definitely defer to you on this point. I'm not really a computer gamer at all. I'm not familiar with the stuff available for it.

Nice to see things are progressing in that area, if only so I won't have to deal with people claiming that lack of computer game support translates to impossibility of using Windows as a workstation for an engineering firm.

I know most Linux distros come with apps, games, etc, depending on the distribution. I know taht additional software is available over the Internet.

Someone else raised the point that Wal-Mart carried inexpensive PCs with various flavors of Linux loaded. My point was if a user is buying a cheap machine at WallyWorld, he is probably doesn't have the skills to install anything he downloads (if he knows its available), and will want to run the same games his buddies are buying at the big box retailers.

I come off sounding like a jerk, but I swear I put a smiley in there

Extra one just in case

Anyway, DirectX "emulating" has come a long way and is getting quite good.

The computers at Wal-Mart come pre-loaded with Cedega/Point2Play. This means that they CAN play the games their buddies are playing. They just have to install them and play them

Plus some games also run native in Linux (like NWN)...

We have a small business and as such MUST interface with ALL clients. Tried Linux - stictly a geek toy system. I did have fun with the unix commands tho'. I never did get the KDIS (??) graphical interface to work. It is on ashelf somewhere in the basement now. I saw a Linux system at Goodwill yesterday with a note that said "does note work well".

Linux does not have interfaces nor compatibilities in the way of apps. It is hard enough dealing with foreign clients with the language barrier, can't imagine not being able to send them a file to read, sign, and fax back. It throws us back into the pure typewriter, paper and briedfcase days. However, geeks have fun and if you want to use it for back end stuff OK. Just don't make us try to coordinate or interface with it unless it is seamlessly compatible with anything I can buy at Office Depot.

Geeks do not understand business. We don't care - an operating system should be like children, not seen or heard.

While there may be one or two stangely incompatible windows proprietry formats that can't be dealt with.
I suggest you look at OpenOffice among others.

Bean Counters don't know IT and should stick to writing cheques out when we tell them what to buy
LOL