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.
Discussion on:
Why is Windows the most widely used OS?
View:
Show:
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.
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And for those of us that like more than CSR jobs with irate customers... the choice is Linux.
Linux offers a company the opportunity to invest far less in their software needs and put that money into the people that they need to support it.
The reason descriptions of "stuff'esque" and "vista like" and fruu fruu poofy colors with candy apple greens on top is appealing is because Microsoft is writing that crap to the end user.
Us people that make the world go round would avoid Microsoft anything for most things simply because for "most" things, Microsoft products are inferior solutions. Its all a tool box, Linux or Microsoft. The important question is which serves a corporates needs better, and at this point Linux servers do nearly everything better than anything Microsoft can drip out a day late and a dollar short.
I think its more disgust than apathy.
Linux offers a company the opportunity to invest far less in their software needs and put that money into the people that they need to support it.
The reason descriptions of "stuff'esque" and "vista like" and fruu fruu poofy colors with candy apple greens on top is appealing is because Microsoft is writing that crap to the end user.
Us people that make the world go round would avoid Microsoft anything for most things simply because for "most" things, Microsoft products are inferior solutions. Its all a tool box, Linux or Microsoft. The important question is which serves a corporates needs better, and at this point Linux servers do nearly everything better than anything Microsoft can drip out a day late and a dollar short.
I think its more disgust than apathy.
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.
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 $$, which most Linux compainies dont have.
I think alternatives to Windows are there if people seek them. People just know Windows and like what they know. You tell Joe Average that you use Xandros (or Fedora, SuSE, Ubuntu, etc.) and they have no clue what you are talking about, much less how to use it.
I think Linux just needs better marketing to gain bigger exposure. Of course, that costs big $$, 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?
:^)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)...
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.
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
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
OpenOffice is a great product, but many businesses need more than an office suite and they don't all have an IT staff. If they are looking for replacement applications, they've got several considerations. Is the output in a format my customers can read? Will it import data from my existing applications with a minimum of effort? How much of a pain is it to install and configure? Will I gain enough in new functionality to compensate for the opportunity costs involved in the change?
I don't know all the free applications available for Linux; heck, I don't know many. I assume there is something comparable to QuickBooks with a smooth import process.
I'll also assume there is an inventory program available, but I'm betting it takes some database knowledge to import from an existing Windows app. Small business people have their hands full running their business; even if they're interested in learning databases, they probably don't have the time.
If I'm running an drafting firm, is there drafting software that will output a file compatible with my customer's AutoCAD? It probably isn't included free with major distributions.
If I'm a franchisee, I'm probably going to buy whatever computer system the franchising company recommends so I know I'm compatible with them.
This isn't just an issue of an free office suite.
I don't know all the free applications available for Linux; heck, I don't know many. I assume there is something comparable to QuickBooks with a smooth import process.
I'll also assume there is an inventory program available, but I'm betting it takes some database knowledge to import from an existing Windows app. Small business people have their hands full running their business; even if they're interested in learning databases, they probably don't have the time.
If I'm running an drafting firm, is there drafting software that will output a file compatible with my customer's AutoCAD? It probably isn't included free with major distributions.
If I'm a franchisee, I'm probably going to buy whatever computer system the franchising company recommends so I know I'm compatible with them.
This isn't just an issue of an free office suite.
What you've just said is the main set of reasons the consultancy's clients have more Windows systems than Linux systems between them. In fact, Windows probably makes up 60% to 65% of the systems we support at client sites.
That's not to say that Linux can't do all the same jobs, or even that Linux can't do them as well or better, and without any additional aggravation for the end users, in many cases. It's just the case that a lot of the time circumstance favors Windows, not because Windows is better, but because of matters of migration costs and compatibility with other businesses.
On the other hand, Linux use is growing amongst our clients. It's a slow process, but it appears to be irreversible.
That's not to say that Linux can't do all the same jobs, or even that Linux can't do them as well or better, and without any additional aggravation for the end users, in many cases. It's just the case that a lot of the time circumstance favors Windows, not because Windows is better, but because of matters of migration costs and compatibility with other businesses.
On the other hand, Linux use is growing amongst our clients. It's a slow process, but it appears to be irreversible.
billballew makes an excellent point about the need for Linux to
integrate with other platforms and applications.
I used to work for DEC. I remember when they came out with
their first million dollar-class computer which put them in the
same performance range as IBM's top of the line systems. They
were elated, and thought they would quickly invade the IT "glass
house." They didn't seem to understand why they ran into sales
resistance.
Very simply, they had a product which was in many ways
superior, but IBM owned that segment of the business. In order
to compete with them, they needed to offer seamless integration
so that work could be migrated to the VAX over a period of time
while continuing to work transparently with existing systems.
That meant being able to talk to CICS and IMS and a bunch of
other things.
Moving from one IBM operating environment to another could
easily take a couple of years (e.g., DOS/VSE to MVS), during
which time IT would be converting like crazy and not doing
much else for the business. Such a move would have been
forced on the customer by outgrowing the existing environment.
DEC didn't grasp that it would take at least as much to migrate
to such a radically different platform, plus everyone in IT would
need to be retrained, and resistance from the top down would
have to be overcome. And you can bet the IBM sales team would
be end-running IT to discuss the dangerous, runaway behavior
of IT management with the company executive team.
So if Linux or the Mac OS or anything else is going to displace
Windows on the desktop, the benefits have to be obvious and
the transition has to be pretty near painless. I personally believe
that hosting Windows, or at least Windows apps, is the way to
go. Something like Virtual PC, though obviously you wouldn't
want to have to buy a copy from Microsoft under the
circumstances.
integrate with other platforms and applications.
I used to work for DEC. I remember when they came out with
their first million dollar-class computer which put them in the
same performance range as IBM's top of the line systems. They
were elated, and thought they would quickly invade the IT "glass
house." They didn't seem to understand why they ran into sales
resistance.
Very simply, they had a product which was in many ways
superior, but IBM owned that segment of the business. In order
to compete with them, they needed to offer seamless integration
so that work could be migrated to the VAX over a period of time
while continuing to work transparently with existing systems.
That meant being able to talk to CICS and IMS and a bunch of
other things.
Moving from one IBM operating environment to another could
easily take a couple of years (e.g., DOS/VSE to MVS), during
which time IT would be converting like crazy and not doing
much else for the business. Such a move would have been
forced on the customer by outgrowing the existing environment.
DEC didn't grasp that it would take at least as much to migrate
to such a radically different platform, plus everyone in IT would
need to be retrained, and resistance from the top down would
have to be overcome. And you can bet the IBM sales team would
be end-running IT to discuss the dangerous, runaway behavior
of IT management with the company executive team.
So if Linux or the Mac OS or anything else is going to displace
Windows on the desktop, the benefits have to be obvious and
the transition has to be pretty near painless. I personally believe
that hosting Windows, or at least Windows apps, is the way to
go. Something like Virtual PC, though obviously you wouldn't
want to have to buy a copy from Microsoft under the
circumstances.
Yes, and don't forget that there is a wide chasm between what home users want and need a PC for, and what businesses must use PCs for.
Businesses have the option of going to the pre-Windows/pre-Mac days of "thin" clients or what was once called "dumb terminals". They're still valid technology and are used a plenty in many corporate settings where productivity is viewed with a different eye. Who needs a buggy, unscalable, unsecured desktop O/S?
Hardware and software today is sophisticated enough that the corporations together with the CIO/IT can divide their users up into those who just need access to standard productivity applications, i.e. word processing or who need full blown workstation access such as CAD/graphics. Most of it delivered by web applications (no desktop footprint required).
Yet as IT people we find it much easier to acquire a desktop PC, preloaded with, a high percentage of cases, Win OS rather than think it through both economically, strategically and tactically. We think that this will save us money and time. But how wrong we are -- proof is in the pudding as they say since we are still "bitching" and "gripping" about the single source for desktop OS.
So, for the home user, we can't say too much since the long marketing arm of the loudest hawker is what determines this venue. Just witness the home user contingent already salivating over "media centre", HDTV, LCD, PSP3, XBox, pod casting, and other entertainment convergence. So relying on a vendor such as MS or Apple or Sony is no great shake -- just as long as it all works together and is idiot proof (hark the days of setting your VCR clock over and over again due to power brownouts). Hopefully, the home consumer will keep on screaming until all vendors get it right.
However, in corporations, small, medium and large, we have the power to make the appropriate decisions regarding how technology is used and what is used. Yet we still allow ourselves to be governed by the same old "fish pod" mentality of the adage used back in the 70's and 80's "If you bought anything IBM you got to keep your job." Just replace IBM with MS and you now know "Why Windows is the most used OS" especially for businesses.
Businesses have the option of going to the pre-Windows/pre-Mac days of "thin" clients or what was once called "dumb terminals". They're still valid technology and are used a plenty in many corporate settings where productivity is viewed with a different eye. Who needs a buggy, unscalable, unsecured desktop O/S?
Hardware and software today is sophisticated enough that the corporations together with the CIO/IT can divide their users up into those who just need access to standard productivity applications, i.e. word processing or who need full blown workstation access such as CAD/graphics. Most of it delivered by web applications (no desktop footprint required).
Yet as IT people we find it much easier to acquire a desktop PC, preloaded with, a high percentage of cases, Win OS rather than think it through both economically, strategically and tactically. We think that this will save us money and time. But how wrong we are -- proof is in the pudding as they say since we are still "bitching" and "gripping" about the single source for desktop OS.
So, for the home user, we can't say too much since the long marketing arm of the loudest hawker is what determines this venue. Just witness the home user contingent already salivating over "media centre", HDTV, LCD, PSP3, XBox, pod casting, and other entertainment convergence. So relying on a vendor such as MS or Apple or Sony is no great shake -- just as long as it all works together and is idiot proof (hark the days of setting your VCR clock over and over again due to power brownouts). Hopefully, the home consumer will keep on screaming until all vendors get it right.
However, in corporations, small, medium and large, we have the power to make the appropriate decisions regarding how technology is used and what is used. Yet we still allow ourselves to be governed by the same old "fish pod" mentality of the adage used back in the 70's and 80's "If you bought anything IBM you got to keep your job." Just replace IBM with MS and you now know "Why Windows is the most used OS" especially for businesses.
Microsoft cut deals with PC manufacturers.
"If you want to buy Windows to sell on some of your PC's it will cost you $100 per license. If you buy a licence for every computer you manufacture, then you can buy windows for $5."
This practice actually started with DOS. Manufacturers could provide MS DOS on thier computers at a cost of $5. Any other operating system would cost them more than $50.
Take note that when you buy a Dell system that come with Linux, Dell still has to pay Microsoft for a Windows license for that machine.
"If you want to buy Windows to sell on some of your PC's it will cost you $100 per license. If you buy a licence for every computer you manufacture, then you can buy windows for $5."
This practice actually started with DOS. Manufacturers could provide MS DOS on thier computers at a cost of $5. Any other operating system would cost them more than $50.
Take note that when you buy a Dell system that come with Linux, Dell still has to pay Microsoft for a Windows license for that machine.
try to find linux on the dell site as os option.
I've never found it.
can't find linux option on gateway, hp, compaq either.
there is one small shop here in Vancouver that carries one distro ( mandriva ) and sells it pre-installed.
thier hardware is all generic brands, so no big name options.
it's not as simple as your post made it sound.
I've never found it.
can't find linux option on gateway, hp, compaq either.
there is one small shop here in Vancouver that carries one distro ( mandriva ) and sells it pre-installed.
thier hardware is all generic brands, so no big name options.
it's not as simple as your post made it sound.
I guess it's only simple if you are familiar with the Dell site. Red Hat Linux is available on the Dell Presicission 670.
I wasn't aware that anti-monopoly laws required retailers to carry a variety of manufacturers for each product they sell. This is going to come as a shock to Gateway when they learn they'll have to stock Dell computers in their few remaining stores. Thanks for enlightening us on this point of commercial law.
There is quite a bit of inertia when it comes to peoples computer environments. For example, you have a computer you can replace for $500, do you want to buy all new software for it? Retrain all of your employees to use the new software? Redesign your network because it is incompatable with the old network?
I didn't think so.
Microsoft is currently using inertia to its advantage to keep people using windows.
It got to this dominant position in several steps. 1) becoming the OS Supplier for IBM way back in 1981 with DOS
2) Developing Windows, working out with vendors agreements to distribute Windows, essentially for free, with all new computer purchases.(approximately 1990)
2a) making sure that all of the old stuff works with the new. So Windows didn't break all of your old software.
3) Offering software that took advantage of windows (MS Office was huge when it first hit the street. Within 2 years it wiped out almost all the competition, if for no other reason, Ashton Tate, Lotus, and WordPerfect were 2 years late with decent Databases, Spreadsheets, and Word Processors for windows)
4) Updating Windows continually, not sitting back and letting it ride. Windows NT first came out in 1993, and now it is the basis for everything that comes out of redmond.
5) Knowing when to drop the junk. When windows 95 came out, MS made it's policy of not selling DOS anymore. Windows XP came out and MS stated that they were no longer selling DOS based OS's any more. In the networking world, they have dumped NEtBEUI and other non standard systems.
6) strongarm sales tactics. It used to be, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" Now it's "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft".
Noticed none of these arguments mentioned that MS was better, faster or cuter than anything else. It was always 'good enough' and they always either responded quickly to customer needs or drove the customer need. (Note the current attention being paid to security).
This isn't meant to bash MS. Consider, they did all of this stuff and they are on top of the world. Which means, to 'beat' MS you will either have to do what they did, better (difficult now, because most of their tactics would only work once, and BillG did them all with perfect timing), slide in from a different direction (which is essentially what Linux is doing) or fill in your own unique niche (Mac OS, and many linux/unix environments).
I didn't think so.
Microsoft is currently using inertia to its advantage to keep people using windows.
It got to this dominant position in several steps. 1) becoming the OS Supplier for IBM way back in 1981 with DOS
2) Developing Windows, working out with vendors agreements to distribute Windows, essentially for free, with all new computer purchases.(approximately 1990)
2a) making sure that all of the old stuff works with the new. So Windows didn't break all of your old software.
3) Offering software that took advantage of windows (MS Office was huge when it first hit the street. Within 2 years it wiped out almost all the competition, if for no other reason, Ashton Tate, Lotus, and WordPerfect were 2 years late with decent Databases, Spreadsheets, and Word Processors for windows)
4) Updating Windows continually, not sitting back and letting it ride. Windows NT first came out in 1993, and now it is the basis for everything that comes out of redmond.
5) Knowing when to drop the junk. When windows 95 came out, MS made it's policy of not selling DOS anymore. Windows XP came out and MS stated that they were no longer selling DOS based OS's any more. In the networking world, they have dumped NEtBEUI and other non standard systems.
6) strongarm sales tactics. It used to be, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" Now it's "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft".
Noticed none of these arguments mentioned that MS was better, faster or cuter than anything else. It was always 'good enough' and they always either responded quickly to customer needs or drove the customer need. (Note the current attention being paid to security).
This isn't meant to bash MS. Consider, they did all of this stuff and they are on top of the world. Which means, to 'beat' MS you will either have to do what they did, better (difficult now, because most of their tactics would only work once, and BillG did them all with perfect timing), slide in from a different direction (which is essentially what Linux is doing) or fill in your own unique niche (Mac OS, and many linux/unix environments).
"It was always 'good enough'... "
I think you hit it here. Adequacy.
For vast quantities of what is accomplished in the world today, all you have to be is adequate.
Not to turn this into a flame war about hiring, but the same applies there as well. Precious few companies need the best and the brightest, all they need is a guy in a seat who is adequate, and paid well enough to stay past the next development cycle.
I think you hit it here. Adequacy.
For vast quantities of what is accomplished in the world today, all you have to be is adequate.
Not to turn this into a flame war about hiring, but the same applies there as well. Precious few companies need the best and the brightest, all they need is a guy in a seat who is adequate, and paid well enough to stay past the next development cycle.
The biggest reason that M$ OSes are so prevelant is up to and including XP all of the OSes were easy to pirate, Microsoft Knows this and it was intentional, take for example the first versions of win95 where the beta test key would still work in the final version 00000-00000-00000-00000-00000 was a working key, windows 3.1 was free for all intents and purposes and DOS all you had to have was the disks, they have progressively made it harder so that honest people have to go and buy it, with XP you and 3 friends can share one copy, one key and if you need another one call M$, they will GIVE you one, if you have the balls to make the call, so for 10 years the most popular OS on the planet has been the easiest to Pirate and free to a good 1/3rd of the world. that was long before open source Linux was available OS2 and AIX were popular but who wanted them?
You know, I think someone could ask a question like "Why is there air? (apology to Bill Cosby) and the ABM group would start telling everyone what is wrong with Microsoft and Windows. If you actually read the question, the answers about Windows not running mainframes and not being the leader on web servers is not relevant.
The answer is, Microsoft was early with an OS that happened to work fairly well on a platform that was just getting ready to take off and end up in everyone's house and office. And, at least in the major growth years, priced their software to not hurt. The rest is history.
The answer is, Microsoft was early with an OS that happened to work fairly well on a platform that was just getting ready to take off and end up in everyone's house and office. And, at least in the major growth years, priced their software to not hurt. The rest is history.
as a business proposition, marketing, placement timing, no substantial competition etc. You can't argue with ms as a business. They effectively created the market and then dominated it.
First point however is relevant, the mis-conception that windows fills all niches of IT is very helpful to them , damaging to their competitors, at best a mis-aprehension and at worst an outright lie.
As for priced not to hurt go look up the cost of visual studio, then realise you are buying it because the os changed and you paid for that as well. Then realise that all your non-ms software will probably have to change and you'll pay for that, oh and by the way you need new hardware to run it as well and guess who pays.
Damn good business plan, take customer, put sensitive bit of anatomy in a vice, put some pressure on it and use the other hand for a gimme gesture.
That's why windows stays popular, it hurts less.
First point however is relevant, the mis-conception that windows fills all niches of IT is very helpful to them , damaging to their competitors, at best a mis-aprehension and at worst an outright lie.
As for priced not to hurt go look up the cost of visual studio, then realise you are buying it because the os changed and you paid for that as well. Then realise that all your non-ms software will probably have to change and you'll pay for that, oh and by the way you need new hardware to run it as well and guess who pays.
Damn good business plan, take customer, put sensitive bit of anatomy in a vice, put some pressure on it and use the other hand for a gimme gesture.
That's why windows stays popular, it hurts less.
because that is a part of the original post to falsely assert that Windows is the dominate OS for servers AND desktops.
The posts that point out that this is factually inacurate is completely relevant.
Now that we have covered the FACT that windows is not the dominate OS for servers, we can continue to discuss whey it is the dominate OS for desktops.
The posts that point out that this is factually inacurate is completely relevant.
Now that we have covered the FACT that windows is not the dominate OS for servers, we can continue to discuss whey it is the dominate OS for desktops.
one reason why it's dominant on desktops.
ceo's figured that using a pc, with the same software as people had at home, would help productivity. far more than the mainframe and dumb terminal systems they had in the offices at the time.
hense, about a year later windows for workgroups ( 3.1.1 ) was released. the first version with tools pasted on for networking in a business environment. until that version it only had networking for people to use a bbs, if they installed the software. ( telnet )
the virus /adware /spyware problems developed from the flaws caused by ms' patching onto the user interface, the networking tools. and it's only gotten worse since they won't do a complete rewrite to get rid of the fundamental flaws that cause the exploitable areas.
ceo's figured that using a pc, with the same software as people had at home, would help productivity. far more than the mainframe and dumb terminal systems they had in the offices at the time.
hense, about a year later windows for workgroups ( 3.1.1 ) was released. the first version with tools pasted on for networking in a business environment. until that version it only had networking for people to use a bbs, if they installed the software. ( telnet )
the virus /adware /spyware problems developed from the flaws caused by ms' patching onto the user interface, the networking tools. and it's only gotten worse since they won't do a complete rewrite to get rid of the fundamental flaws that cause the exploitable areas.
Server or desktop. Windows is the most widely used. More and more apps are written for windows. The government is using more and more COTS products - for windows. More and more companies are being driven by COTS products that run on windows. I love all the unix flavors out there, but 97% of my business is windows now and unix flavors are fading fast.
*nix isn't fading fast, it is actually growing in the server market. Sure *nix on the desktop isn't always viable, but in some sectors it is seen more and more. While you claim that COTS products are being favored to run in Windows, this just isn't true. I'd like to see a link or three to back up your claim.
Also, the DOE is moving towards more *nix, not less. The DOE is starting to implement *nix desktops and *nix thin clients. So the government isn't shunning *nix. (I'm not sure the direction the DOD is taking, but I would assume it is a similar stance to the DOE)
While Windows may have 94% of the desktop market, it only has about 55% of the server market (and shrinking).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/148915_msftlinux19.html
*nix holds about 34% of the server market and Novell fills in about 9%.
Not only that but Apache is owning the web server market (not IIS and yes I know Apache runs on Windows too):
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
*nix, if anything, is eating more and more market share from MS. Don't believe the FUD from MS.
Also, the DOE is moving towards more *nix, not less. The DOE is starting to implement *nix desktops and *nix thin clients. So the government isn't shunning *nix. (I'm not sure the direction the DOD is taking, but I would assume it is a similar stance to the DOE)
While Windows may have 94% of the desktop market, it only has about 55% of the server market (and shrinking).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/148915_msftlinux19.html
*nix holds about 34% of the server market and Novell fills in about 9%.
Not only that but Apache is owning the web server market (not IIS and yes I know Apache runs on Windows too):
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
*nix, if anything, is eating more and more market share from MS. Don't believe the FUD from MS.
because with all the linux servers that do not have a registration list to show there are XX number of linux servers out there the numbers are always going to shortchange the *nix.
And when you say the term "server", MS has a way of segmenting to make their numbers look better by excluding mainframes, small web/email servers, and anything that HAS to handle large volumes of data and hits.
A few years back MS paid a company to proxy for them because of the viruses that were attacking the MS Update site. That company used linux servers to protect the MS servers. Too funny.
And when you say the term "server", MS has a way of segmenting to make their numbers look better by excluding mainframes, small web/email servers, and anything that HAS to handle large volumes of data and hits.
A few years back MS paid a company to proxy for them because of the viruses that were attacking the MS Update site. That company used linux servers to protect the MS servers. Too funny.
I knew if I posted something so blatantly outrageous that someone would provide some statistics. Well done! I especially liked the netcraft graphs and will use them in support of my upcoming 2006 budget to acquire *nix servers. I guess next time I should just ask?
Having to write a disertation and being lazy means I do a lot of searching
If Windows has 94% of the desktop and 55% of the servers, doesn't that make it the "most popular"? I acknowledge that *nix systems are gaining market percentage, but 55% is still the majority. Aren't there more desktop / client computers than servers? What definition are we using besides installations?
Keep in mind that these statistics are gathered within narrow parameters that actually favor the Microsoft business model.
Because proprietary systems have dominated the industry analysts' methodologies for so long, statistics tend to measure licensed installation base. Since there's no implementation licensing for Linux in the generic, many Linux systems are ignored.
Because Microsoft only targets certain specific use cases, and industry analysts are measuring comparative installed base for those areas Windows targets. Since Linux is implemented over a much wider range of uses, many Linux systems are ignored.
Because Microsoft's OS offerings are only relevant to specific scales of implementation, industry analysts gather statistics specific to those scales when generating comparative statistics. Since Linux can be employed in far more varied implementation scales, many Linux systems are ignored.
Because Microsoft's OS offerings are not as tolerant of high loads, for the same implementation cases and the same needs a company may need to employ anywhere from two to ten (wild guesstimate based on personal experience) times as many individual servers to handle the same loads in enterprise deployments. Since many companies are somehow locked into Windows platform solutions (by corporate policy, migration resistance, specialized application needs, et cetera), there are a lot of companies that could trade in several Windows servers for every Linux server if they weren't locked into a Windows solution, and thus very large numbers of otherwise unnecessary Windows servers inflate the numbers.
. . . and so on.
Try comparing supercomputer installation base. How many supercomputers are there running Linux? I don't have a number off the top of my head, but I know there are literally dozens of Linux cluster supercomputers. Do you know how many Windows supercomputers there are? I'll give you a hint: Microsoft's clustering system is still in development.
The reported market share is all very dependent upon your yardstick.
Because proprietary systems have dominated the industry analysts' methodologies for so long, statistics tend to measure licensed installation base. Since there's no implementation licensing for Linux in the generic, many Linux systems are ignored.
Because Microsoft only targets certain specific use cases, and industry analysts are measuring comparative installed base for those areas Windows targets. Since Linux is implemented over a much wider range of uses, many Linux systems are ignored.
Because Microsoft's OS offerings are only relevant to specific scales of implementation, industry analysts gather statistics specific to those scales when generating comparative statistics. Since Linux can be employed in far more varied implementation scales, many Linux systems are ignored.
Because Microsoft's OS offerings are not as tolerant of high loads, for the same implementation cases and the same needs a company may need to employ anywhere from two to ten (wild guesstimate based on personal experience) times as many individual servers to handle the same loads in enterprise deployments. Since many companies are somehow locked into Windows platform solutions (by corporate policy, migration resistance, specialized application needs, et cetera), there are a lot of companies that could trade in several Windows servers for every Linux server if they weren't locked into a Windows solution, and thus very large numbers of otherwise unnecessary Windows servers inflate the numbers.
. . . and so on.
Try comparing supercomputer installation base. How many supercomputers are there running Linux? I don't have a number off the top of my head, but I know there are literally dozens of Linux cluster supercomputers. Do you know how many Windows supercomputers there are? I'll give you a hint: Microsoft's clustering system is still in development.
The reported market share is all very dependent upon your yardstick.
This is usually based off of POS (eg Dell, Gateway, et all) installs and reports from various companies that do support.
However, we don't really know how many *nix servers are really out there because the statisics favor the MS licensing scheme.
However, we don't really know how many *nix servers are really out there because the statisics favor the MS licensing scheme.
Where did that number come from? How was it determined? Is that of ALL servers or just small servers? Is that just NEW installations or again ALL servers?
Remember that the numbers that can be counted are the UNIX that you pay for. The linux servers do not have a registration to activate and is free to download and use. How do you count this?
The servers in the internet were ALL unix, so in the last five years your going to tell me Windows took over 55% of ALL servers?
Remember that the numbers that can be counted are the UNIX that you pay for. The linux servers do not have a registration to activate and is free to download and use. How do you count this?
The servers in the internet were ALL unix, so in the last five years your going to tell me Windows took over 55% of ALL servers?
1. What Windows is good for and where it is or is not used is quite relevant when someone starts trying to claim that Windows is the most popularly deployed OS with implications of universally applicable use. The original question needed to be redefined because it was factually inaccurate.
2. Windows' early success had a lot more to do with the migration path from DOS than any comparison with other OSes in early availability, ease of use, price, or functionality. In fact, on all four scores it often came up short.
2. Windows' early success had a lot more to do with the migration path from DOS than any comparison with other OSes in early availability, ease of use, price, or functionality. In fact, on all four scores it often came up short.
That's really why I take time to learn new new windows operating systems, software, what ever microsoft comes out with asap. They were really the first to get into the door of the business market, that's what causes them to be propular. I don't know about you, but I'm going to follow the money.
"Microsoft was early with an OS that happened to work fairly well on a platform that was just getting ready to take off"
I guess you know very little about PC computer history.
I guess you know very little about PC computer history.
I've heard from a number of sources that one of the reasons MS got so big so quick is because Microsoft made it relatively easy for DOS and Windows to be "shared" between users, and never really enforced the anti-pirating language found in all its EULAs. MS didn't (at least not visibly) encourage people to share their install disks... but it didn't do anything to stop it either. Because PC-compatible computers were and are so relatively inexpensive and therefore prevalent, it's not hard to see how DOS and subsequently Windows ended up on so many desktops.
Because of this attitude, MS basically allowed much of the home PC market and a fair share of the commercial market to get hooked on Windows... so now we're all (well not all, but a large number!) jonesing for our cheap PC with a flashy OS so we can download music and play games. Interesting thought...between Windows (MSRP $299 full install, $199 for an upgrade) and MS Office (MSRP $499 for the full Pro install, $329 for an upgrade), the OS and productivity software costs as much, if not more than the hardware needed to run it! Apparently many PC vendors are giving away a lot of their hardware, and charging only for Windows, and extra for Office!!!! Chew on that!
Global domination conspiracy or simply evil marketing....I'll let you decide!
Because of this attitude, MS basically allowed much of the home PC market and a fair share of the commercial market to get hooked on Windows... so now we're all (well not all, but a large number!) jonesing for our cheap PC with a flashy OS so we can download music and play games. Interesting thought...between Windows (MSRP $299 full install, $199 for an upgrade) and MS Office (MSRP $499 for the full Pro install, $329 for an upgrade), the OS and productivity software costs as much, if not more than the hardware needed to run it! Apparently many PC vendors are giving away a lot of their hardware, and charging only for Windows, and extra for Office!!!! Chew on that!
Global domination conspiracy or simply evil marketing....I'll let you decide!
Assume MS didn't do anything to stop people from pirating their OSs (something I'm not willing to concede at this point), effectively allowing users to share disks without making additional purchases. How does this differ from giving away Linux distros for free? If one is a conspiracy, why not the other?
Why is effective marketing "evil"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Why is effective marketing "evil"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Open source (GNU) licensing is structured so that the EULA explicitly states that software may be freely copied and distributed. With open source you can't copy and resell the software without paying for a additional licensing. The difference between that and the traditional MS EULA is that the MS EULA says that you can only make one copy of hte software for backup purposes only...you can't distribute/ transfer/ sell the copy.
I say evil because of the seemily polar shift in the MS attitude towards their licensing... going from an rather open (ie not enforced) licensing scheme to a very strict, closed licensing scheme requiring authentication/authorization to prove legitimate licensing in order for the OS or software to work. I certainly understand why MS has made the shift... it's good business sense. Nothing says I need to like it though!
I say evil because of the seemily polar shift in the MS attitude towards their licensing... going from an rather open (ie not enforced) licensing scheme to a very strict, closed licensing scheme requiring authentication/authorization to prove legitimate licensing in order for the OS or software to work. I certainly understand why MS has made the shift... it's good business sense. Nothing says I need to like it though!
Not everything I dislike is evil... in this case I just think the evil is contributing to the conspiracy!
You mention Windows95 as if it were the first version of Windows, with a casual mention of Windows3x. What came BEFORE Windows 3? Sorry to take you so far back, but there was even a Version 1.0 of Windows back around 1989. It's competitor at the time was a graphical interface called "Gem" that came with Amstraad PC's. Microsoft was only a very small company then, but their Marketing Division was EXTREMELY aggressive in demanding that software developers' tailor their products to work with the "magical" MS Windows interface. They also bought up software developers' who came out with viable competition, and snuffed out those they couldn't buy (eg IBM's OS/2 Warp) - a practice they have CONTINUED to follow. They also forced all other O/S's (DR DOS, Novell DOS etc) to make too many changes so that Windows (when established) would not run properly on competition O/S's.....thereby creating an unfair advantage for MS DOS. This generated enough $$$ to stay at the top of the heap. So here we are, stuck with the most inefficient, the most insecure and bloated bit of software under the sun...as a tech, I wouldn't have it any other way. Why, Microsoft's unstable products keeps my business going STRONG!
One reason would be administration and support people. Finding an employee qualified to administer windows is easier than finding an employee qualified to administer Unix.
Why windows?? I started with what INTEL called
its ABOVEBOARD memory expansion. A card that
held 2 megabyte of ram and came with a program
called TABWORKS that ran on that ram. Very similar to windows, but prior to and not as
prolific. I've worked with all versions of
Windows, from WIN1.0 to 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 and the came NT next 95, then 98, then SE, ME and
onward. Upward compatablity is the key, and
with similar look and feel, it was a natural fit.
its ABOVEBOARD memory expansion. A card that
held 2 megabyte of ram and came with a program
called TABWORKS that ran on that ram. Very similar to windows, but prior to and not as
prolific. I've worked with all versions of
Windows, from WIN1.0 to 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 and the came NT next 95, then 98, then SE, ME and
onward. Upward compatablity is the key, and
with similar look and feel, it was a natural fit.
Where have you been living?
Upward vague similarity if you squint would be nearer.
Functional similarity if you only use off the shelf ms packages and you are prepared to amend all your existing files yes.
Upward vague similarity if you squint would be nearer.
Functional similarity if you only use off the shelf ms packages and you are prepared to amend all your existing files yes.
Just like the guy with the bashing-Windows post, you're just trolling. How are you enjoying it?
my thoughts are this , Windows is easy to use for the public it has a GUI that is user friendly.. how ever MY thoughts are also that people do not want to see change .. why try something new when you have the old stand by/
because it has what we call in the industry killer apps, killer software, killer games. Windows appeals to the bigger crowd and for good reason! Shear amount of cool software and hardware support. Find me another platform with the same software and hardware support (mainly video)and I am there.
if this:
"Find me another platform with the same software and hardware support (mainly video)and I am there"
was true you would be using linux already.
far more software for it, with far more capabilities in the software.
at far less cost.
"Find me another platform with the same software and hardware support (mainly video)and I am there"
was true you would be using linux already.
far more software for it, with far more capabilities in the software.
at far less cost.
It's hard to beat MacOS X for video editing software. At the moment, nobody short of the major movie studios are beating it with video editing, and when they've got something on another system it's on Linux these days.
Most people just want an OS to perform whatever task they have in mind (web surfing, gaming, word processing etc) which modern versions of Windows do admirably well. Most (if not all) of these people want to install their apps as quickly as possible and then use them. If something goes wrong, they know someone who can give advice or can find an "expert" to help them.
In the case of servers, when all is said and done the end users care about availability. If the management of any organissation decides that they can provide the highest availability with a particular NOS using the skills they have available, then this will affect their choice.
Personally, if I was looking for an easy life, then I'd choose Windows, but I prefer to be challenged and therefore use Linux wherever I can.
In the case of servers, when all is said and done the end users care about availability. If the management of any organissation decides that they can provide the highest availability with a particular NOS using the skills they have available, then this will affect their choice.
Personally, if I was looking for an easy life, then I'd choose Windows, but I prefer to be challenged and therefore use Linux wherever I can.
There it is folks. The real reason that people like Linux. They can be more challenged, smarter, cooler, more exclusive, more technically savvy and just plain better than the stupid people who administer anything running Windows.
He said "challenged", not "challenging".
Linux has a higher initial learning curve. That's a negative. That's only the case because most people are used to Windows, though -- these days, starting from utter ignorance, each is about as easy to get started on as the other. As long as Windows dominates the desktop market, this will continue to be the case, to some degree.
Learning the more powerful functionality of either one can be challenging. So too can learning the quirks and problems of either.
Once you get past a certain point, however, you start looking at settling back to be a "power user" with all these nifty skills, fighting to learn more about how to solve the myriad frustrating problems that begin to arise when you surpass a certain level of expertise with Windows, or seeking to learn yet more that you can do with a Linux system.
Wanting to be challenged by Linux isn't about trying to be the cool kid on the geek block. It's about learning. There's always something more to learn. Short of getting a job at Microsoft as a kernel development engineer, that's not true with Windows. There is a legal and technical limit to what you can learn with Windows, and even if you get a job developing Windows kernel code you'll still be limited to learning what your employer tells you to learn. With Linux, meanwhile, you can change things for your own purposes, get into embedded systems in your free time, write kernel modules for fun, adapt the system to new physical architectures, and so on. The possibilities are effectively endless.
Your post reads like a big ol' bag of bitterness. Linux is anything but exclusive. Anyone with the desire can join this club. Open source developers tend to be pathologically helpful (to misquote Randall Schwartz a little bit). If someone walked up to me and said "I'm a computer dunderhead, I want to become a Linux guru," I'd probably bend over backwards to give this person the help and tools needed to make a better Linux expert than I am (and will become better myself, in the process: teaching is a great way to learn).
Maybe you've just been told RTFM too often, and decided all Linux users are mean old meanies. I really don't know what prompted your response, or what's up with your apparent attitude, but it sucks. Next time someone tells you to RTFM, though, consider the fact that what they're really telling you is that they respect people who want to learn, not people who just want everyone else to do everything for them. It has nothing to do with being a "better Linux guru", or any other such elitist attitudes.
Actually, you probably haven't even dealt with Linux users enough to have a good idea of what they're like or what motivates them. I'm guessing this is more of a personal problem that has nothing to do with anyone else.
Maybe you're just a troll.
Linux has a higher initial learning curve. That's a negative. That's only the case because most people are used to Windows, though -- these days, starting from utter ignorance, each is about as easy to get started on as the other. As long as Windows dominates the desktop market, this will continue to be the case, to some degree.
Learning the more powerful functionality of either one can be challenging. So too can learning the quirks and problems of either.
Once you get past a certain point, however, you start looking at settling back to be a "power user" with all these nifty skills, fighting to learn more about how to solve the myriad frustrating problems that begin to arise when you surpass a certain level of expertise with Windows, or seeking to learn yet more that you can do with a Linux system.
Wanting to be challenged by Linux isn't about trying to be the cool kid on the geek block. It's about learning. There's always something more to learn. Short of getting a job at Microsoft as a kernel development engineer, that's not true with Windows. There is a legal and technical limit to what you can learn with Windows, and even if you get a job developing Windows kernel code you'll still be limited to learning what your employer tells you to learn. With Linux, meanwhile, you can change things for your own purposes, get into embedded systems in your free time, write kernel modules for fun, adapt the system to new physical architectures, and so on. The possibilities are effectively endless.
Your post reads like a big ol' bag of bitterness. Linux is anything but exclusive. Anyone with the desire can join this club. Open source developers tend to be pathologically helpful (to misquote Randall Schwartz a little bit). If someone walked up to me and said "I'm a computer dunderhead, I want to become a Linux guru," I'd probably bend over backwards to give this person the help and tools needed to make a better Linux expert than I am (and will become better myself, in the process: teaching is a great way to learn).
Maybe you've just been told RTFM too often, and decided all Linux users are mean old meanies. I really don't know what prompted your response, or what's up with your apparent attitude, but it sucks. Next time someone tells you to RTFM, though, consider the fact that what they're really telling you is that they respect people who want to learn, not people who just want everyone else to do everything for them. It has nothing to do with being a "better Linux guru", or any other such elitist attitudes.
Actually, you probably haven't even dealt with Linux users enough to have a good idea of what they're like or what motivates them. I'm guessing this is more of a personal problem that has nothing to do with anyone else.
Maybe you're just a troll.
appy, nice post.
I've run into as many "high priest" Windows admins as I have Linux "RTFM" flamers. I've also found most people in the IT field like to learn new skills. This doesn't make us elitist, it just means we have different interests from the average computer user.
Larry, replace "Linux" and "Windows" in your post with "race cars" and "sedans". Looks kinda of silly, doesn't it? But it's the same thing. Some people are just more interested in the gory details than others.
I've run into as many "high priest" Windows admins as I have Linux "RTFM" flamers. I've also found most people in the IT field like to learn new skills. This doesn't make us elitist, it just means we have different interests from the average computer user.
Larry, replace "Linux" and "Windows" in your post with "race cars" and "sedans". Looks kinda of silly, doesn't it? But it's the same thing. Some people are just more interested in the gory details than others.
You'd probably make more headway if this was posted in response to the post to which you were replying.
1. Marketing
2. Marketing
3. Marketing
That would be why Windows is the dominant desktop O/S.
2. Marketing
3. Marketing
That would be why Windows is the dominant desktop O/S.
Marketing
Marketing
Buying up anything it considers a threat or a cash cow
-and-
Marketing
Marketing
Buying up anything it considers a threat or a cash cow
-and-
Marketing
I know there's some law that speaks to this (can't remember the name - it's some extension of the 80/20 principle), but basically because Windows filled a niche better than anyone else (desktop market) to start with they gained a disproportionate share there. And it basically snowballed from there - since it was the most popular platform people designed more for it which made it more popular which drove more people to design more for it which...
Is it better security? Probably not. Better stability? Probably not. More efficient? Probably not. But is it better? Absolutely - if the perspective of comfort. People KNOW Windows because they use it at home and in the office. Right, wrong or indifferent the fact that people are used to it plays a huge roll in its continuing desktop dominance, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
For servers it's NOT dominant - it might be in the small/medium business segment (pure speculation on that), but that's probably it. The Internet is not Windows-driven, nor are mainframes (still ubiquitous in large companies).
Is it better security? Probably not. Better stability? Probably not. More efficient? Probably not. But is it better? Absolutely - if the perspective of comfort. People KNOW Windows because they use it at home and in the office. Right, wrong or indifferent the fact that people are used to it plays a huge roll in its continuing desktop dominance, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
For servers it's NOT dominant - it might be in the small/medium business segment (pure speculation on that), but that's probably it. The Internet is not Windows-driven, nor are mainframes (still ubiquitous in large companies).
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
