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.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
