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