Discussion on:

Why is Windows the most widely used OS?

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

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

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

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

There is your reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The company everybody loves to hate.

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

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

Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS is great at marketing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

http://www.linuxcertification.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:^)

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

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

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

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

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

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

or your car will be destroyed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extra one just in case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 guess it's only simple if you are familiar with the Dell site. Red Hat Linux is available on the Dell Presicission 670.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

97% of the server market, nope not having it.

*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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'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!

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.

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!

Wait a minute. First it's a conspiracy because MS doesn't enforce their EULA, but then it's evil because they do? Is everything you dislike evil?

Not everything I dislike is evil... in this case I just think the evil is contributing to the conspiracy!

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.

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.

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.

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.

.,.

1. Marketing
2. Marketing
3. Marketing

That would be why Windows is the dominant desktop O/S.

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).

Windows is (or Was) free.
Huh? what the hell are you talking about? I'll get to it in a bit.
Look Macs are cute but if you wanted the MAC OS then you had to buy a MAC PC (talk about monopoly) and MACs have been, despite all thier PR about being "A PC for the Rest of Us" the Cadillac of machines and was always way more expensive than a comparable PC and No Clones allowed to help spread the word. (That decision alone hampered them in the market place now they need IPODs and M$ ca$h to keep them afloat.)
That just didn't apply to retail purchase of the machines butthe whole infrastructure. Back in the Day when I was first getting started in the business I wanted to learn MACs (because they were so cool you know)and how to service and repair them and all that. However the only place to get that kind of Training was the Authorised Apple Training center in Cupertino(?) and it cost Thousands of Dollars + Plane fare and a Hotel. Heck I couldn't afford to buy the freaking computer let alone the training! (I was an orderly at a mental hospital, go ahead crack the jokes)
Then I saw that the local public Vo-Tech school had a "Basic Computer repair course" down the street and it only cost $90.00 for a nine week class! It mostly covered (75%) learning DOS, and then what the basics were of the hardware and where all the plugs go. Windows 3.1 was the last thing we learned. But that was enough to get me a job testing Floppy Drives at a CLONE PC* exporter in the warehouse district of Miami @ $7.00/hour. Not bad in 1992 for someone with no practical experience.

*(see the Clones effect? I'm telling you Apple really screwed the pooch on that one!)

What about Windoze being free? Thats easy two Words:

SOFTWARE PIRACY

M$ never really put any signifcant copy protection on the OS or any of their products. This was emntioned already but I thought I would stress it. It was dead simple to copy off a bazillion copies and distro them on BBS' and to you friends. And since you could buy third party PC Parts cheap (you couldn't do that with apple/MAC) it was nothing to build a machine loaded WIndows and be done with it. Now you build a bunch of these and put these in peoples homes and thats what you became familiar with. Combine that with IBM in the early days being the No. 1 provider of PC's in the business world and you have this cycle Apple (or Commodore my fave) couldn't touch.
(Someone else commented on this in another post and called it INERTIA and he was dead right)

People wanted a system at home that was more familiar to them and like the one at work, and then later people at work wanted something that was familiar like they used @ home.

Now that Linux is out and getting easier for the average user (Sorry Peguinheads its STILL a Geek tool in the OS2 stages of friendliness but your getting there! Kepp it up!) and it is free, for the most part. I forsee a similar type of Cycle. Windows is putting copy protection (in the form of an "activation" policy.)and you really have to buy it if you want to get updates. Since harware is still ridiculously cheap (and MACS are still proprietary) and you can get many forms of Linux for free legally, you will see more and more Linux based machines @ home and then you will also see the same corporate dynamic cycle at work too (as more people use it @work they will want it @home and vice versa people are creature of habit ya know)

You can stop reading here because that really is my answer to the question however Below I digress into some of the obstacles Linux will face gaining the desktop)

There are a few flies in the ointment though:
1. So many Variants of Linux that the Home/Work dynamic isn't as strong. So many flavors which one is right for me? Sometimes too much of a good thing is not too good. If user gets confused by all the variants of Linux they will just bring their PC back to the shop, and have them load WIN XP or VISTA and be done with it. If their computer "guy" who set it up for them still tries to insist that it (Linux) is "Technically superior" and all that and the customer isn't happy they will find someone who will do what they want.


2. The Game/Entertainment Factor. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy and parents who want their machines to do double duty will go with MS as the Choices are much larger. Sure Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament are available for Linux but Linux is in the same boat as MACs as far as games are concerned. Someday..maybe but not yet. (Note this may be offset by the Xbox/Playstation factor)

3. Linux still Geeky. This is the big one. Sorry guys I like Linux but most flavors are still too techy. Even "user freindly" versions rely on the command line to change the most basic settings. (Auto/full duplex 100mbit etc)**
YAST is good start and so are some of the other Desktops (KDC comes to mind but get get rid of all the "K" spelling stuff (Konqueror et al) its sooo cheesy. Now I'm sure a bunch of will reply well the X,Y,Z varients with R-D-U interface are easily downloadable and can be installed just by using RPM to check your dependancies and recompiling your Kernal and blah blah blah. Theres lots of options you are obviously too lazy to do your research.

Uh huh Right. Next!


4. Software, people use PC's to do stuff not just play with (We do we're different). Sure there's alot of Open Source stuff out there but most of it like Linux isn't ready for consumer Primetime. (apologies to Jaqui but its true Google up Project managment software for instance. Sure theres a couple of unstable Demos and Immendio but your own your own for support..)
If you can't install it by merely clicking on Install or Setup than you have lost. Same thing with having multiple versions of the program availble for Download on the same page. Huh? Which one do I use the one that says ver 2.1.4.56b (STABLE) or 2.1.4.6a (REF, why is there an UNSTABLE version is it crazy? Whats this Source Code? What no setup? What do you mean by compile it?

(I know these answers guys for those of you who don't get my point so don't answer back with some Diatribe with links and definitions it will only ehnance my point.)



** OK fair enough thats fairly in depth for your average home user probably not good example but for a Laptop user its can be critical. Many Hotels need it set to Auto or 10/half, While in the office due to Network infrasturcture or policy it needs to be set to 100/full or whatever) Being able to Change needs to be fairly easy and that usually means a GUI. Unless you write a script that runs with Root/Administrator Access or some other method you have to devise yourself.

Thank you for articulating what I have been unable to do in these threads - explain why Linux is failing to make a lot of headway in the desktop market (your items #1-4).

I hope the Linux Enthusiasts (apotheo, jck, HAL, Col, etc.) will read this and LEARN from it. If you want more people to try and learn Linux, it helps if you refrain from anti-Windows vitriole and explain why you love Linux in terms that techies of varying experience levels can understand.

I hope People don't look at it as a bash on their beloved LINUX. I'm working with it it here at my Office and trying to get applicability but its tough slog. By the Way this is for a Desktop replacement, mostly for Knowldege workers and call centers. We already use it for some of our servers where it Makes sense. Our company does major Financial/Insurance stuff and Windows based software totally 0wns this world.

Mostly for the aforementioned points (except for games of course). No matter which flavor I've tried (Currently playing with NLD and SUSE) its always seems more hassle than the amount of effort I put into it. Of course I know it will pay off eventually, the price points will eventually be too much for our managment to ignore. But the reality is while LINUX is Cheap a LINUX guy isn't. While the Software is Cheap it doesn't always work and the standard "Check the User Groups" answer does not cut it in my world.
I like LINUX, I want it to succeed. But as you pointed out, calling me or my users lazy, inept etc. and then tell me how bad Windows is is not going to win over converts. Its the old Attracting with Sugar than Salt principle and LINUX folks I have dealt with are a rather Salty lot.

You probably have support contracts with vendors for software and hardware already? Linux is no different.

Anyone in a corporate environment that isn't a GOD on that particular Application/OS/Hardware should have a suport contract. User groups are great for the home user, but in the corporate world you need an answer NOW, not in three days. Linux support is out there.

Is that sweet enough? I guess I sometimes come across as a chinese dish. Sweet and sour pork? :^O

Peace all.

It is breaking down first the original statement of "Why is Windows the most widely used OS?".

It is agreed that it is the most widely used on the desktop.

It is not agreed that it is the most widely used on servers of all sizes.

From there it is how did MS get EVERYWHERE? Marketing, leveraging, and strong-arm tactics.

IBM had no idea how to market OS2 Warp and you couldn't just walk into a store and buy it. Dispite being more stable with identical functionality and feel, it didn't matter because you just couldn't easily get it. (big blue was a big mess back then)

The introduction of *nux to the mix is for another time, another place.

(I cencored my other post, just for you!)

Someone else mentioned Apple, and also noted their questionable marketing strategy. I don't think you can discuss the popularity of one product without mentioning why it is more popular than it's competitors.

McDonald's is the most popular burger joint (based on either net sales or number of stores), but I'm sure most of us can agree they don't have the best burger. If you're going to discuss why they are the most popular, you may have to mention Burger King and Wendy's for comparison purposes.

thinking of all those terrible "restaurants"!

Does anyone else remember a time when we ate food that tasted good without making everyone 50 pounds overweight?

1. I don't just jump in with "anti-Windows vitriole" [sic]. When someone makes inaccurate statements about Windows security, stability, or general superiority, I respond.

2. william Herrera's points 1-4 indicate clearly what some of the major perceptions are that hinder Linux adoption, and there's a kernel ('scuse the pun) of truth to each, but they're inflated and exaggerated.

3. I (and likely Col, jmgarvin, Jaqui, and others) never indicated that Linux wasn't hindered in widespread adoption by a number of factors, but the actual hindrances don't get brought up much by the Microsoftie crowd, so there's not much call to respond to them. Once in a while, though, I do address such issues as difference in documentation paradigm, marketing, ease of acquisition, and the like. The fact that I have to run damage control on FUD consumed and dutifully regurgitated by those such as yourself, however, really skews the subject matter of such discussions in the direction of explaining where your comparative inexperience with Linux has gotten in the way of strictly accurate statements.

"1. So many Variants of Linux that the Home/Work dynamic isn't as strong. So many flavors which one is right for me? Sometimes too much of a good thing is not too good. If user gets confused by all the variants of Linux they will just bring their PC back to the shop, and have them load WIN XP or VISTA and be done with it. If their computer "guy" who set it up for them still tries to insist that it (Linux) is "Technically superior" and all that and the customer isn't happy they will find someone who will do what they want."

Part of the problem is that techs generally don't understand Linux. I just got back from CompUseless. I talked to a tech and explained I needed a scanner that would work in Linux without having to jump through hoops. He then told me "scanners don't work in Linux, nothing does. You have to use Windows." What!!?? With ignorance like that it is impossible to find what works best for you.

As for the number of distros, I think the only thing a tech needs to find out is:
"What are you using it for." That decides the distro. I use FC3 because it is a jack of all trades OS. I can serve out web pages, files, email, play games, use it as a desktop, etc. What distro is right for you? I don't know. Plenty of distros come on a Live CD, so you can try them and if you don't like them toss the CD.

I would suggest for the noob:
1) Fedora
2) Ubuntu
3) Knoppix

I would suggest Gentoo and Fedora for excellent community support and Ubuntu for good developer support.

As for setting up Linux properly, it isn't hard. I can even get theme that makes it look just like XP. Most techs are Linux savy enough to set it up properly, let alone make it usable for the user.

"2. The Game/Entertainment Factor. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy and parents who want their machines to do double duty will go with MS as the Choices are much larger. Sure Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament are available for Linux but Linux is in the same boat as MACs as far as games are concerned. Someday..maybe but not yet. (Note this may be offset by the Xbox/Playstation factor)"

I'm not going to touch on the death of computer gaming because that is just a religious war waiting to happen (my console/pc/whatever is better than your console/pc/whatever).

As for gaming, most Windows games will work just fine in Linux. Cedega/Point2play are easy to install and use. Some games run native in Linux (Doom 3, UT2004, NWN, RtCW:ET, etc), but for those that don't Cedega works just fine. I play WoW, CS:Source, and HL2 just fine on my FC3 box...and ironically enough I get higher frame rates EMULATING Windows...go figure.

"3. Linux still Geeky. This is the big one. Sorry guys I like Linux but most flavors are still too techy. Even "user freindly" versions rely on the command line to change the most basic settings. (Auto/full duplex 100mbit etc)**
YAST is good start and so are some of the other Desktops (KDC comes to mind but get get rid of all the "K" spelling stuff (Konqueror et al) its sooo cheesy. Now I'm sure a bunch of will reply well the X,Y,Z varients with R-D-U interface are easily downloadable and can be installed just by using RPM to check your dependancies and recompiling your Kernal and blah blah blah. Theres lots of options you are obviously too lazy to do your research."

I agree to an extent it is too geeky, but there are options and you no longer have to recompile your kernel for everything. Linux has come a LONG way in just a few years. Yum, up2date, aptget, yast, et al are all very easy to use and all have a GUI of some sort available for them.

As for almost all system tasks you can do them in the GUI now. Most tools Apache to Zebra have a nice handy GUI and you don't have to touch a command line.

Also, now you can just double click on an RPM and it will install. Installing stuff in Linux has become QUITE easy and less command line oriented. While you can still use the command line, you don't have to any more.

I can't argue with the cheesy K stuff.

"4. Software, people use PC's to do stuff not just play with (We do we're different). Sure there's alot of Open Source stuff out there but most of it like Linux isn't ready for consumer Primetime. (apologies to Jaqui but its true Google up Project managment software for instance. Sure theres a couple of unstable Demos and Immendio but your own your own for support..)
If you can't install it by merely clicking on Install or Setup than you have lost. Same thing with having multiple versions of the program availble for Download on the same page. Huh? Which one do I use the one that says ver 2.1.4.56b (STABLE) or 2.1.4.6a (REF, why is there an UNSTABLE version is it crazy? Whats this Source Code? What no setup? What do you mean by compile it?"

Typical "desktop" packages come in RPM (or whatever flavor) format that simply need to be double clicked in the GUI to have them install. While some packages are hard to find, yum/apt-get/yast/et al will grab all the dependencies for you. Gone are the days of ./configure && make && make install && make clean...Not much stuff is compiled from source (although it is still out there as an option)...

I agree the pages are confusing and the package naming convention for the average user is hard to understand, but I think that will come along as Linux becomes more friendly. Plus, you don't have to go to the pages anymore, you can just use your updater to get them!

Back around 1995 or so I used the FVWM or FVWM2 window manager in XFree86. It looked exactly like Windows 95. It seems that those two X themes changed since then. I wanted to use them to show to people using M$ that Linux can look familiar to them but I haven't been able to do that.

Are you talking about FVWM or FVWM2, or are you talking about another window manager?

FVWM has a Win9x theme that looks very nice, although it is clunky (I like to use a "clean" FVWM)
http://fvwm-themes.sourceforge.net/ (then choose Redmond98 as your theme)

Gnome and KDE both have "XP" themes for them...
IIRC this is for Gnome: http://art.gnome.org/themes/gtk2/637/

IIRC this is for KDE:
http://www.xptheme.info/resources_view.cfm/hurl/specific=90/VisualStyles=/rnam=KDE%20XP%20Beta%201/

Also can be found (for both)at:
http://themes.freshmeat.net/projects/experience/?branch_id=53380&release_id=201881

If anyone has better themes please post a link...Thanks!

If more Linux Users responded like that it would go far to shed some of baggage that Linux has been carrying. I would like to make a couple of comments.
Your definately right about Some of the Techs at Comp*** or Best***. I'll pose this question though (Rehtorically)if the techs that your avg user consults can't help then what is the Avg user to do? Other than go outside conventional Channels, or pay through the Nose and buy a MAC so it works with the their IPod (Joke)
Note: This is a marketing opportunity for the LINUX crowd. Quit preaching to the Choir and know your audience.

Point 2: Agreed no Holy Wars here! I have both a PC and an XBOX and am just fine with that. I have not tried the Cedega/Point 2play option so I can't comment. But now that I know I will check it out! Thanks

Points 3 and 4. True Linux has come a long way in ease of use. But in terms of sheer variety you make my case for me. the Savvy Tech can figure this out but your Average user can't. YAST/ YUM ? etc etc. Whos to know the difference? And I've found that for some of these the GUI is an afterthought or far more complex than it needs to be. I know variety is the Spice of life but conme on guys pick a team and play! And that Pesky Command line is still around Even for RPM Distros.
Case in Point. VMWARE for Linux Certainly not a Bedroom operation but its still not as easy as its Windows Counterpart. Its an RPM Install but it really isn't finished unitl I Drop to a terminal Session and run some Magic there and even then it still doesn't make an icon/shortcut for me! OK Call me lazy or whatever but I don't have to do that in Windows. (or Mac and thats BSD under the hood right?) In any case the variety is mixed and so is the Quality. Sorting Through that mess can be Daunting even for a technical user like me.
Anyways, All in all LINUX and its flavors are getting better,like I said its in the OS2 stage of Friendliness (ok maybe a little better). But while the products are getting better the people side still needs work. (Hide the ZZ-Top look alikes with Penguin Tatoos and Death to Bill Gates t-shirts that look like they need to be washed--more than once, when the press comes around OK?)

Here is where marketing Magic $$ make the Difference. Getting info out to regular users in popular trade publications. Get Professional reviews of software. Not Esoteric stuff but real day to day stuff. I can't say it enough - know your audience! Many Linux Rags and sites preach to the choir and rag too much on Microsoft or the "the Establishment" Its OK to call Bill gates the spawn of Satan on Slashdot but guess what, that doesn't play well in Peoria. they should make it a policy to ban the use of M$ and just be mature about it. The Community has to grow up, quit name calling and start focusing on the Positive Aspects of what your trying to sell. And make no mistake you are selling! Maybe some of it is free but you still to convince people of the worth of the product, not the worhtlessness of the competition (or your users).

Your post was excellent because it did just that I applaud you and thank you for it, I only hope more follow that example.

(Win those hearts and Minds you know!)

1) There are groups out there to help the noob, but typically your noob only knows about CompUseless and Best Buy. The LUGs are out there, but I don't know if an average user can find them. Also there are your local Linux service centers (if they are in Albuquerque, the must be everywhere). Sure, they are mom and pop, but they typically know their stuff.

2)www.transgaming.com is where you want to go. It will cost you $15.00 to get it, but it is so worth it! cedega is the command line and Point2Play is the GUI.

3/4) Part of the image are the few bad apples. I call them Linux Nazi's (Godwin invoked?). They tend to make the whole Linux community look like tin foil hat wearing unibombers. I don't know HOW to part with that image, but there has to be a way the quiet majority that can squelch it.

I also agree with the short-cut creation and installation of some programs. While many have made an install script (like webmin), some are stuck in the stone age. 'Course now many users are creating RPMs and uploading them to various repositories. Hell, getting the lastest video driver is even easy now (magic!). It is coming along, but it still has a few features to catch up to...

I also agree with the marketing. I think Red Hat has done a bang up job in the corporate sector. Now if only we could find a distro that did the same thing for desktops.

I'll do it, but I need a VC and about $3 million in invenstment capital for marketing and desktop support

1) I attended a couple of meetings of my local user group, but I came away disappointed. The group was based at the local university so most of the members were in the academic community, and most of the topics struck me as either theoretical or impractical (writing diagnostic software, debugging statistical programs, etc.) I realize LUGs in bigger cities are probably more diverse and have a larger percentage of members from the "real world".

I did a quick scan of the Columbia SC yellow pages, but found no ads that mentioned Linux; there was a Mac specialist!

1 / 3) There is another LUG a couple of hours away, but since their URL included something like "windowssucks", I decided they were another group of evangelists trying to convert me.

Stupid question from the Linux-illiterate guy: do any of the major ISPs (either dial-up, cable, or DSL) support Linux? Most of these companies have CDs that do the installion for you, making it easy for the average non-technical home user. The software on these CDs usually requires Windows. Do any of the national ISPs offer something similar for Linux?

After you find your VC, alert us all when you go public.

Ah, sometimes it is hard to find a good LUG. Sometime you just have to keep trying. The Linux Nazi's can take over a LUG if they aren't careful.

Strange that there aren't any Linux shops, esp around a university...

As for ISPs:
This is a loaded question that comes with a yes and a no answer. Some ISP software is just a PPP script that can be copied and used (eg Earthlink). Some ISP software is a little more complicated than that, and you have to jump through a few hoops (eg AOL).

For most broadband providers it is a non-issue as their software does nothing more than install a toolbar in IE

Check out:
http://www.knowplace.org/ppp.html

There are ISP dialer programs you can use for dialup access where you don't actually need the ISP software to connect. For broadband, usually all you really need to do is plug in the network cable and open a browser. If you've got DHCP networking set up on your Linux system, which is usually the default, you're probably good. If you're running multiple systems off one broadband connection with an off the shelf router, your router is handling the uplink anyway, and all you have to do with your Linux system is plug into the network.

As for LUGs:
http://www.linux.org/groups/

Okay, I'm confused. The first sentence in your reply says "techs generally don't understand Linux." Your last sentence in point one says "Most techs are Linux savvy enough to set it up properly." Which is it?

Speaking as a non-Linux-savvy professional, I am confused by the number of choices offered by the open source movement in general and Linux in particular. Yes, there are a number of distros available as Live CDs. It's fine to tell a hobbiest "Try one; if you don't like it, try another." The average home user isn't interested in test driving operating systems. He wants to buy the box with as much of it as preconfigured as possible. That usually means a Windows machine from a retailer.

Linspire is the Windows of the Linux world. So, for the non-interested person, I'd highly suggest that distro.

My comment I meant this:
The computer techs at various retail and computer stores don't understand Linux.

Most techy people (people who are tech savvy enough to understand computers and OSs) can deal with the few curve balls Linux may send them.

It's helpful to keep in mind that technically proficient people savvy enough to understand computers and OSes aren't working at CompUSA. The people working there, or Best Buy, or Circuit City for that matter, are generally barely competent enough to install Worlds of Warcraft on their store-bought Windows gaming systems.

in US a large percent and in many other countries, majority of windoze installs are pirated. combine this with a wish to conform; and nice visual OS make it easy to use. novell went down the tubes even tho it was more stable as they didn't want to redo their utils visually.

(this is a marvelous book that explains m$ success and failures of dbase, wordperfect, novell despite -at times- good product):

In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing Disasters


by Merrill R. Chapman
Apress ? 2003 (268 pages)
ISBN:1590591046

Don't forget illegal contracts and illegal linking of advertising dollars to good technical reviews (both were adjudicated in the late 80's and mid 90's). Most people don't remember, for example, that the original working name of IBM OS/2 was Windows 4 and when IBM rolled it out they were bashed for shipping buggy software. MS shipped Windows 95 two years later and it was hailed as a gret leap forward with ten times the bug list.

Before everyone starts trashing back - I do use and support Windows but also have used most of the alternatives at one time or another. Each has some strengths and weaknesses. We now choose to accept the weaknesses of Windows.

Well, to all of you window bashers or lovers..

In 70's there was a new tool for consumers, called VCR. Had two options, VHS and BETA. Even Beta's quality was much better then VHS, VHS won the war. All windows bashers had one VHS vcr at home. WHY?....MARKETING!....Windows did better marketing at the right time so they rule the world. So be it and keep it quiet even if you don't like it. If you feel sorry for yourself then go to your mom's basement(where you are still living) and watch "Star Wars" or "Nepoleon Dynamite". Bur god's sake stop being stop being a pseudo-geek.

Beta was proprietary to Sony and was too expensive because there were no clones. Similar to Apple....

True!!! Sony wanted $100 royalty fee per beta deck made.
While JVC just wanted a couple of $ per deck.

It's bloody simple to learn and decipher. With a reasonably sharp mind and 6 months experience under your belt, you can fix anything in Windows....that's why. (not to mention extremely good marketing)..

Windows is popular because it appeals to the end-user.
That's basically the outcome of years of advertising and marketing. Hey, why don't we include Apple in the Mix. Apple is also in the Unix family, why isn't the Mac OS as popular? Hmm... price. So why isn't Microsoft unstoppable? Because developers for the Windows OS is getting a fatter pay check than open-source developers. Compare regular pay checks to a PayPal slip. So who's winning? I think it's both.. applications developed and maintained in the Windows arena is being further enhanced by the Open-source. Fueled by the eagerness to make the best free. Open-source development is gaining mass popularity. One day... Microsoft will yield. But when that happens, Mr. Gates would have infinite resources to perhaps... buy world peace.

"Fueled by the eagerness to make the best free. Open-source development is gaining mass popularity."

I don't understand why anyone would create quality code but not want to get compensated for their labor. If the quality of your programming is so good others want to use it, and you enjoy doing it enough to do it for free, why not get paid for your efforts? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the idea of working for free, but I honestly don't understand why you would do it. Programming isn't like working with Habitat for Humanity or feeding the homeless. (I also don't understand why anyone would want to benefit from someone else's labor but feel exempt from compensating them for it, but software piracy is -really- way off topic.)

Mr. Gates uses part of his near-infinite resources to perhaps... buy world health (among other charitable works). Please see http://www.billandmelindagates.org

there are packages that have small price tags attached. This is usually for some form of support. It gets you from paying $180 for an OS today that is worth NOTHING in four years. You pay for services as needed, when needed.

There really are business models where you can make money with open source. If you ever get a chance, listen to Eric S Raymond talk. Read "The Cathedral & the Bazaar" for starters.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/

Most of the end users who have just say 5% knowledge of computers are comfertable with windows as the GUI of windows is very user friendly.The day Linux or for that instance any other Operating system makes its GUI as user friendly as Windows the craze of Windows is going to reduce. Maximum High end users like any servers prefer using Linux as it is an open sourse and can be modified as per your requirement and also it is much more secure than windows with it's IP tables. Moreover Windows is mostly effected by piracy then any other OS!

Please, please, please let me be the first one to post that Apple had a user-friendly GUI years before Microsoft, one many regard as friendlier than Windows. The GUI wasn't enough to overcome Apple's proprietary hardware policies and limited developer support.

Most people want to stay in their comfort zone, not daring to venture out and test new waters. Like AOL, MS preys on the not so savy and relies on marketing, bells and whistles and whatever else to keep the majority of the masses (the ones who like the comfort zone).

Comparing Windows to AOL, simply brilliant. Same martketing strategy. I love it.

When Sun introduced Unix for 386 workstations, they had a chance to pull ahead of the BSD/XENIX crowd and become the dominant desktop OS. At the time, Windows 3.0 (then 3.1) was just getting popular. When Sun dropped their 386 product because they didn't want to support a third hardware platform, they ceeded first place to MS. They had the opportunity to set a single binary API that could have been overwhelmingly popular. Bell Labs/AT&T couldn't productize UNIX successfully, Sun wouldn't, and the result was the Tower of *nix Babel.

Sun was right that the network is the system, but they forgot that clients create the need...

That's very much the case.

Of course, about the same time that Windows 3.x and BSD were hitting the PC market, Linux was as well. Frankly, I'm happy that such a vibrant and open development community has grown around it, and if it wasn't for the advantageous characteristics of Linux (such as very efficient and effective hardware polling during install and boot), we'd probably not have the open source community that now exists. If Sun dominated the 386 market as they could have, Sun would be what Microsoft now is instead, but there likely wouldn't have been the same challenge.

On the other hand, BSD might have filled the void left by the absence of a Linux if Sun had grabbed the corporate top-dog spot, because BSD would have become easier to stomach for pointy-haired bosses if the major player on the PC was another unix instead of Windows.

1.] mICROSOFT IS MORE EASILY INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED !!{2.}MORE COST EFFICINT IN THAT A NORMAL DIE HARD CAN INSTALL IT!![4]MICROSOFTS UPDATE IS MORE EFFICIENT FOR HOME BUSINESS AND PERSONEL USER'S....{5}OHH YES LET,S NOT FORGET....THEY ARE GIVING AWAY TRIALS BY THE 100'S...HEHEHE FOR PPL LIKE ME TO CRASH...PS I STARTED XP 1ST UPDATE!!!!ASK RON VAN FOSSEN!!

out, but I'd suggest sticking to the correct dosage from now on.

What happened to 3.] by the way ?

I'm very close to my screen so there's no need to shout back with an answer.

MORE PLZ

LOL MY BAD....SOAK ON THIS A MIN,IT'S CHEAP AND EASYILY,REPAIRED!!

The nerd talk about Windows vs the World seems to miss the point that users are no more interested in their operating system than their car engine. Any OS is at best a necessary evil! Only applications matter. Retraining - however 'trivial' - costs a fortune and untold miseries. Stability, possibility of running any old application (try that with the Mac!) and plenty of people to ask for help if stuck are the reasons for the dominance of Windows.

You need look no further...

You're so close to getting this right, but your string of reasoning breaks down as you hit the conclusions part.

Stability, possibility of running any old application, and plenty of people to ask for help if stuck are the reasons that Linux is gaining market share. Lack of stability, compatibility issues (many of them intentional), and the difficulty of getting competent help with real problems in Windows are the reasons that Windows is losing market share.

Interesting - You make it sound as if Linux could run people's old dBase booking systems or accounting packages or whatever still lives on in the real world. I have had customers with 20 year old DOS-based applications which will only be retired (very painfully and at great cost) when the person herself retires. Windows XP runs them flawlessly.

I imagine you haven't heard of things like DOS emulators for Linux if you think the only way to run DOS-based applications on new hardware is with WinXP.

apatheon, I'll agree with you about the stability of Linux and the increasing availability of applications, but I must differ about getting help.

On-line help via forums or newsgroups is okay but my own experience with them has been frequently unsatisfactory. Despite pre-searching the site for answers and giving as detailed a desription as I can, I often receive condescending replies even in a "Newbie" forum. I have the impression that a large portion of the Linux community still enjoys running in "High Priest" mode.

Don't ask a question on line about integrating Linux with Windows. It's guaranteed one of the first three replies will tell you to ditch the Windows system. That isn't always an option.

Just as bad is the reply "There are a number of apps / distros that will do what you want. Just keep trying them until you find one you like. See ." I frankly don't know how to measure satisfaction with an operating system, or what benchmarks to use to compare them. I suspect the average end user doesn't either. I don't think the small office / home office user wants to keep loading OS and apps. One of the advantages of the Windows / Office defacto standard is that it gives a user a firm starting point. Hopefully OpenOffice will reach that point in the next couple of years.

There's some fee-based support available for larger businesses running Suse or RH, but there's also third-party fee-based support for MS, so that's a wash.

My limited experience with local user groups was terribly disappointing, as documented elsewhere in this topic. I'm sure not all user groups are the same, but I get the impression if you aren't in a major metropolitan area with a population of several hundred thousand, you aren't going to get much help that way.

Books? The local Barnes and Noble, Book-A-Million, and Waldenbooks all stock over three times as many books for Windows OSs and apps than for Linux. Yes, there's more available on the web, but when I'm looking for a printed reference, I like to flip through several before making a decision. (Unlike an OS, I know what I like in a book.)

MAN pages? Info? New users don't want to have to take a tutorial on how to use a help system. Has anyone written a GUI-based help system (for the OS, not the apps)? One of the few flaws my ignorant self sees with the open source model is that nobody wants to write clear, consise, on-line documentation aimed at an end user with no previous Linux experience. Windows help may not be everything it could be, and maybe I've just learned how to navigate it over the years, but I feel it's easier than what's offered in the distros I've tried.

Have I missed any resources? The search for quality help out here in the sticks is one of the reasons my progress with Linux is so slow and my interest level waxes and wanes.

A quick search of the local technical college's latest catalog shows classes on Windows, Office, Cisco, A+, various languages and web development platforms, and no Linux. The tech school system in South Carolina changes their offerings every few years, with input from local businesses one of the factors considered. Apparently there's no demand from the community at this time.

Formal education is a point of failure, often. It sucks. That's a failure of formal education systems, though. It boggles my mind that schools wouldn't be utterly enthusiastic about teaching principles of computer science with an operating system whose source code can be examined by students. Such is life, I suppose.

I think things are getting better in this area, though. Maybe we just need to give it time, and keep asking about it to show that the interest exists.

There are more Windows books than Linux books, true, but there's less for Windows than Linux that actually addresses complex issues in a useful manner. You can always find a book, for instance, called Microsoft Office for Dummies, but you'll have a harder time finding Windows Heterogenous Network Servers (as a hypothetical example). Meanwhile, there are several books at any given time in any credible bookstore chain dealing with Linux network servers that will include, among other things, information about setting up network services for heterogenous networks. It all depends on what you want to find.

For online help, I recommend LUG mailing lists. You don't have to be local to a mailing list, and if you join a couple and just watch for a little bit it should become rapidly clear what you can expect from each of them. Sure, you should expect the occasional "ha ha only serious" recommendation to ditch Windows entirely, since they are after all Linux User Groups and not Windows User Groups, but at the same time there are uncountable LUG mailing lists out there where help with homogenous network configuration using Samba is a trivial task, even if you're talking about Windows with people who hate it. As long as your post isn't entirely off-topic and only about Windows, you should be fine.

Meanwhile, Windows user groups tend to not only be hostile to Linux users, but the people in them are usually completely clueless about how to make Windows and Linux interoperate on a network. Even worse, try calling Windows tech support some time and asking them about homogenous networking services for Windows/Linux mixed environments. Good luck with that.

Besides, if one of the first three replies online to a question about integrating Linux with Windows just tells you to ditch Windows, the other two are likely to be helpful.

It's true that the Windows platform provides a certain amount of ease of use to beginners by removing the responsibility of making choices from the user, but ultimately that is itself a choice of the user. When you choose Windows, you're writing off everything else. The reasons you do so had better be good: doing so because it simply limits your options is not such a good reason, and it in no way ensures you're getting a good solution to your problem. Personally, I like options.

I'm not a huge fan of info pages, of course, but manpages are exceedingly easy to use. Once you open it, use the arrow keys to navigate. When you want to quit the manpage viewer, hit the Q key. Anything else is just bonus functionality, very useful but not necessary for basic use, and you can learn it at your leisure (by typing "man man" if need be). There are also GUI front-ends for manpages available, and most of the kitchen sink distributions out there provide such tools by default. These GUIs usually take the form of browser-based markup-processed manpages, so all you really need is your web browser and you'll be in business. The specific tool at your disposal will vary from distro to distro, but most often it will be something like man2html, which "just works" when you have a default httpd service on your machine (all you have to do is point your browser at the start page for the man2html system).

It -never- occurred to me to subscribe to a LUG that wasn't local. I haven't yet completed the mindshift to the whole "on line community" concept.

Don't wait on me to defend Windows user groups.

Ever go to an ethnic restaurant for the first time and been overwhelmed by the menu? That's how I feel when trying to make choices between open source offerings. If none of your friends has eaten there yet, there's no review in the paper, the waiters that do speak English criticize you for ever eating somewhere else, how do you decide what to eat? Some would say pick anything: it's all new to you and you can try something else the next time. On the other hand, I'm just buying one meal at at time, not running the restaurant. Changing OS's and apps just to try things is like requiring the cook to move all the tools and food (apps and data) to temporary storage just to rearrange the kitchen again. That gets old in a hurry. Maybe a small number of application choices is one of the reasons Windows is popular, especially if those choices are "good enough".

I have read through the entire column of responses. Some good some bad, but I believe it is simply this.

MS Windows was the first OS marketed efficiently to the masses.

It became the de facto desktop OS and therefore will remain so until beaten. To be beat Windows, Linux has to be able to replace the core services in businesses EASILY. MS Exchange and proprietary applications continue to rule. The main decision makers for accounting and sales are not easily swayed to half-ass replacements that may or may not move their data 100%. To win, Linux has to get everyone on board. This means convincing current app builders to build for linux not just try to create a free open source one to replace them. Linux needs a single standard with one marketing vessel. Now tell me if you see that happening anytime soon.

Tell me how long it will take Windows to compete in the server market where it isn't so dominate? Once they can get past the security implications they can compete.

Linux vs Windows is an interesting ride. Windows however, has the upper hand and it looks to me like it will continue to have it unless the linux community can combine to something solid.

I could go on for ever with this. I'll what for responses, though.

Finally, personally I have no preference on Windows vs Linux, I use what works best for my clients and as of now, 95%+ are MS shops.

You're absolutely right about Microsoft being the first to effectively market OSes to the masses in a palatable form. Granted, Apple and a couple others also did much the same, but didn't have the advantage of the open architecture commodity hardware on which DOS ran, and as such they fell by the wayside.

Of course, it wasn't so much Windows that captured the masses as DOS. The reason Windows came to dominate parts of the market is that Windows provided a natural upgrade path from DOS, whereas other OSes did not. Now, it's the commonality of the Windows platform and its applications that keeps many businesses wedded to Windows.

There are now Exchange replacements and Exchange-compatible clients that run on Linux to ease the transition, but a transition is still required for many businesses. As a result, a lot of IT customer base is migrating to Linux from Windows, but at the same time there's a lot that isn't migrating.

The entirety of the Windows business functionality set is facing the same circumstances. There's a great deal of inertia that makes it difficult to migrate away, but at the same time it's getting easier to migrate every day, and as such more such migrations are occurring all the time. To paraphrase Princess Leia in Star Wars: A New Hope, the tighter Windows tries to grasp the market the more of the customer base will slip through its fingers.

You seem to miss some important points of understanding of the open source development community, and the Linux community, however. Notice that Linux isn't a "product", it's a community: there's no need to "win", only to succeed. Programmers develop open source software like Linux because they want good software, not because they want to market it to the masses and close some "competitor" out of the market. Increasing frustration with the Windows platform is driving more development for and adoption of Linux platform solutions, and that will only increase with time.

Very little proprietary software, if any, need be developed for Linux. In fact, Linux is already a success, and has been for years: it's just becoming a more widely applicable success as time continues. More people are able to share in that success. Windows, meanwhile, relies upon Microsoft's market dominance: if that falters significantly, Windows (as a proprietary product) will simply cease to exist. With Windows, it's about "winning" and "losing", because Windows is a proprietarily controlled "product" of a competitive corporation. It's not just about success for Windows, it's about market share. Unfortunately, that places it at a long-term disadvantage because it must maintain market share against a "competitor" (Linux) that doesn't need market share, and as a result of that it can grow organically and evolve to suit the needs of the people who use it, rather than trying to trap them into using it.

Microsoft's fear of losing market share becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy against which it must continually struggle. Considering my distaste for market dominance business practices, this doesn't bother me one bit.

In any case, the moment enough people want a Linux-based replacement for a Windows application to warrant working on such a thing for a fair number of programmers in their off-time, the replacement will arise. It has happened before, and it will happen again. It's happening right now.

Nobody needs 100% adoption of Linux. Those of us who use Linux just want to maintain a critical mass of developers, which is easily achieved, and want to get a critical mass of developers involved with those applications we want to have available, which happens all the time. That's quite good enough for me. I don't need any centralized, cohesive marketing effort, because I don't care one whit for market share statistics, excepting their usefulness in disproving broken arguments like the usual "Windows is only more vulnerable because it's more popular!" triteness.

I currently work for an IT consultancy. Of our clients, about 20% are Windows-only shops. The rest are varying degrees of Windows/Linux mix. Some of them are looking at the potential uses of migrating desktops to Linux, wiping out "vertically integrated single-vendor solution" hostageware entirely, and one or two are pondering replacing Windows desktops with Macs. We're providing them the best analysis and advice we know how, and will support their hardware, software, and networking needs regardless of what decisions are made (within reason, of course). We'll use whatever works best for our clients as well.

We try to anticipate future directions, though, and familiarize ourselves with the technologies that might be required. As such, I'm the Linux expert at the consultancy, and a certain familiarity with the characteristics of Linux is a necessary part of anyone's job around here, and the same general familiarity with Windows is also important (where I'm also one of the experts, actually). Using what works for our clients doesn't consist of finding out what they have on-site and just supporting it. We make sure we know what to recommend to make things run more smoothly, and that often involves Linux.

Bengt does note that users care more about apps than operating system. Your mention of DOS reminded me that personal computers didn't really begin racking up corporate sales until Lotus 1-2-3 came out. (Anybody remember Lotus Symphony, one of the original suites?) The internet got a lot of academic and research use but didn't hit the public consciousness until the Mosaic and the graphical World Wide Web. Apple's market share is small but reasonably secure because they've become the standard for graphical development. Computing technologies increase in popularity much more rapidly when they offer a new killer app, not just equivilants to existing offerings.

Of course, unices are secure in their usefulness and longevity as well, including Linux. After all, unices are the corpus of the Internet. If unix disappeared tomorrow, the Internet would go with it, and Microsoft doesn't currently have anything that could fill the void. As the major open source example of unix, Linux too is secure, and is rapidly expanding to fill more and more roles, and to have a greater and greater presence within those roles it already fills.

Being both free and high-quality makes Linux very desirable.

In a very general sense, open source development essentially is the next killer app or, more to the point, the current killer app. It may be a couple years or so before a majority of the industry realizes it, but awareness of this fact on some level is growing like crazy. The more traditional "killer app" examples cropping up all over the place are just the end results of that parent killer app, the open source development model.

Look at Firefox, OpenOffice.org, MySQL, CVS and Subversion, the GIMP, BitTornado, Apache, VNC, and Perl for a few examples of "killer apps" that are open source development standards. Some have been around for years and become daily parts of the IT life, and some are reasonably fresh and new. Expect more of the same, and notice that Linux is among them.

Thanks for correcting my wording on Windows vs DOS. I unfortunatly fall into using Windows instead of Microsoft in many cases. I did mean that Microsoft won the desktop through marketing.

As for Linux being a community, i would have to say that is exactly why I believe it will fail. Until Linux is a business it will continue to be the app that people "work on the spare time". Which to me means not de facto. Linux is very popular right now and a lot of money is being funded in to it. However, as no money is made in return popularity and people working on it in the spare time will slow.

In any case, Novell is doing it right and so is Red Hat but unless the community becomes a single entity (business) I personally do not see it going anywhere.

Market share is what every OS is after. Do not let the community feel confuse you. Money is still what makes everything go round.

When you say 20% Windows then the rest Linux/Windows, how many clients are Windows only at the desktop? I thought this conversation was about desktops not servers. I would think Linux as a desktop is well below 10% anywhere. Linux is used very well as a server/security device in mnay of my clients, but as a desktop 95% compelte windows. Just clarifying my comment.

First, the original post did not specify whether it was discussing Windows on the desktop / laptop / client side, on the server side, or both. One day I'll learn to avoid these overly generic troll-bait topics, but this one has stayed more thoughtful than most (excluding joker64).

Second, I will neither agree nor disagree with your theory that Linux / open source will fail because it is a community. I've posted earlier that I don't understand why you would work for nothing when you could get paid. I will admit the term "community" and some of the rhetoric remind me of the late 60's flower children preaching how we'll all live together in peace and brotherhood once we move into the commune, start the farm, take turns raising each other's children, and stop working for The Man. Are you going to San Francisco? Be sure to wear some penguins in your hair.

I defnitly do not want this to get out of hand. You are correct in the desktop vs whatever statement. I must have assumed it from reading all the other posts. Basically, the only issue Linux has is the desktop, so my posts were based on that. I can't think of anyone who would say Windows is a better server. Well maybe Bill Gates.

I just got out of high school, and for the summer I'm working on the district network with five other tech people from my CISCO Networking Academy class. Over the summer we've been doing the most exciting thing I've ever seen on this network.

Six hundred of our thousand or so machines are now Linux Thinstations using Citrix to log on to our Windows server farm. Next summer the department will work on converting to OpenOffice instead of the Microsoft Office Suite. The only thing stopping us now is our dependence on Outlook (which is our biggest security risk, too, btw), but my boss says he'll have that worked out by next summer.

Buying Microsoft licenses for all our programs on just 18 servers instead of 600 workstations is saving our district hundreds of thousands of dollars, and centralizing activity is increasing security exponentially (examples: I lost count of how many times I had to run SpyBot at a workstation, and kids' - and teachers' - use of peer-to-peer downloading programs had been quickly increasing over the last five years). And for the few programs the schools use that cannot run from the servers, we still have several WinXP labs.

This setup works so well for this district because everything has been Microsoft from the beginning (except for a few Macs back in the day, but we don't like to talk about that disaster), so that's what the teachers are used to. All the arguments here that people like what they know are valid - I spent an hour each day for two years at the high school's help desk, so believe me, neither students nor teachers want to learn any more new stuff than they really have to, and I've discovered that a high school is a rather humorous expression of society as a whole...

Anyway, to the point - we've got a weird setup. The servers are Windows and the workstations are a stripped-down Linux. You just don't see that a lot. After implementing it, I don't see why it isn't done more often. Through this thread I saw but one mention of thinstations, and I lept at it, but it seemed that no one else did. I suppose most people are small biz/home office users and wouldn't need to think about hundreds of thousands of dollars and a thousand workstations, but the so-called "popularity" of Microsoft products (how about "abundance" anyone?) is most prevalent in corporate America and school districts, where this kind of a setup would make the most difference.

I'm off to University in a month, and at my new school they are also trying out Linux Thinstations to decrease their dependency on Microsoft. I anticipate having a great time learning more about this crazycool OS scheme.

Glad to see a civil discussion on this, everyone!

Abby

Congratulations on a very interesting contribution - without tiresome attacks right and left. That's professional! I wish you the very best of luck in your future studies!

We've talked for a couple of years about doing this where I work, and the idea may get more of a push after we complete an NT-to-AD upgrade this year (please, no anti-MS comments). We're already running Citrix for some apps that just don't function well as local clients across the WAN or VPN. One of the nice things about thin clients is it really cuts back on the end user's ability to screw up the configuration, load unauthorized software, etc.

Your use of the term "University" leads me to believe you aren't in the U.S. (most of us say "off to college"), but your profile doesn't say. Regardless, your school district has two things to be proud of: a great client-server setup, and a recent graduate who clearly and logically expresses her ideas in a professional forum. Best of luck!

I say bring back DOS! Once u knew how to use it it worked fine! The only reason they got rid of it is because of people so nieve of computers and saying I cant do that! Windows is based for the simple!(house wifes,kids ect) (no offence!) minded just click this and wha-la! Give me the roll my own system where i was in charge and did what i wanted! If i wanter a verson of windows on ther then so be it but i could use both system and games even flew faster in DOS with LESS HD space! Bring back DOS.......Joe

So boot Windows to the command prompt instead of the GUI. But I don't know where you're going to get applications ...

DOS was an OS. The Command prompt is not (anymore).

Why is DOS gone? Because you had to actually REMEMBER commands, and then type them in. This took a more time to do the same thing.

Also, the applications DO turn out better with a gui wyswig screen. Anyone remember making a WordPerfect document back in DOS?

The problem is to get people to buy the next version of Office, they NEED to add all kinds of bells and whistles that have little to no value to the majority of the users. Feature bloat.

That is a big part of the problem of windows and the bloatware that runs on it.

Make it clean, make it simple, make it work.

I shouldn't NEED 50 times the compter I had five years ago to do word processing, damnitallanyways!

I shouldn't NEED a few GIGS of diskspace to load an office product, damnitallanyways!

because the MS management say you do - so that they can make more profits.

Nothing says you can't run DOS, WordPerfect, dBase, Lotus 1-2-3, and Harvard Graphics. Bill Gates has never held a gun to someone's head and forced them to buy a new version of Windows. Yes, Microsoft discontinues support for products, but that doesn't mean those products quit working. It means new hardware and software probably won't run your old OS, but if you're happy with your old apps, that shouldn't be an issue. Your skill set will get out of date, but that's also beside the point.

Don't buy the new bloatware; lots of companies haven't. Feature creep isn't unique to Windows software; it's basic marketing. How many people used their VCR to record 12 programs over 21 days, can adjust the timer on their sprinkler system, or use the "Reheat" setting on the microwave? "If you're happy with it, why upgrade?" asked the man who works where Office 97 is still the default suite.

1. In the business world, you have to use something that can interoperate with others' systems. Given time, you'll find that Word documents from other businesses won't open in Word from Office 97. That's just the beginning. If you're standardizing on Windows 98 because you have it already, and your network grows, you'll have some interesting luck trying to buy new copies of Windows 98 for the new machines.

2. With the advent of "product activation", in time the end of support for an old OS will come to mean the end of the legal "right" to use it.

I'm also not the one wanting to "Bring back DOS".

1. I wasn't speaking from a business viewpoint. It appeared ka1cft and jdclyde were expressing personal preferences in hardware and software. There's no -technological- reason you can't still run the way they say they want. Incidentally, I'm told you can buy a new machine with the license for a current OS and still legally install an older version, although I've never had reason to confirm this.

2. Enlighten me. Is this educated speculation or have you seen evidence of this potential marketing strategy?

>>Given time, you'll find that Word documents from other businesses won't open in Word from Office 97.

Do I understand you to say you think future versions of MS Word will create documents that cannot be opened in Word 97? Evidence, please, or is this just another one of your high-fallootin', rootin'-tootin' theories?

Your statement is actually false. MS Windows may be the most widely used OS "on the desktop", but if you prefer to count overall installed base or number of users, then the Japanese TRON is the most widely used OS in the world - it's just it's pressence isn't as obvious as MS Win's one, as it's an OS designed to be embedded into appliances such as cell-phones, hand held translators, electronic agendas, public phones, teller or vendor machines, etc.