Linux

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Windows vs Linux - Home

0 helpful
68 replies

by rkuhn040172

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Scenario - Cheaper/generic components, no experience with anything but Windows, little to no support, time with job and family more important than fixing PC, ability to obtain a wide variety of software (taxes, games, office, CD-burning, DVD making, security (AV, antispyware, etc), replaces PC maybe once every 4-5 years, dialup and broadband users, etc.

Let's hear your opinions. Hey, it's the "typical" user who likes Doom, Barbie games, surfing the web, sending emails and making CD's from their MP3 collection.

68 replies

by charliespencer

The typical home user doesn't swap operating systems. Actually, he often doesn't know what the term "operating system" means. He views the computer as an entertainment device, not a tool.

He uses the OS that came with the computer; usually Windows, occasionally Mac OS. He only reloads Windows when forced to by malware or hard drive failure. He can be convinced by the Microsoft marketing department to upgrade Windows, although he rarely has applications that require it and won't check the hardware compatibility first.

He will not install a different operating system on his own initiative. A technically competent friend can often persuade him to install an alternative OS, but that friend should be prepared to provide support for the next few weeks to several months, depending on the user's skill level.

by rkuhn040172

I agree with your analysis. Quite accurate of the "real world" in my opinion.

But your analysis doesn't really stake out a position of whether or not Linux or Windows is better for the average home user.

I do like your "real world" approach though. I sort of framed the question unfairly (I suppose) in that I personally believe given the "real world" scenario, it is immaterial which OS is better for various reasons, in the "real world" Windows is probably the clear winner in light of those facts.

If you have a "friend" that you speak of, maybe Linux is better, but how many people of a "friend" like that?

I'm just trying to narrow down the debate by framing the discussion so as to possibly eliminate certain angles people take.

For example, again, someone said in a discussion that you shouldn't buy "cheap" printers (that typically aren't supported by Linux). But, people do so is that a fair argument?

by charliespencer

Whichever one comes installed on the machine and it's easiest for the user to get support help

Home users don't care about operating systems. They care about accessing their files as easily as possible. They'd prefer the apps to be the same ones as work, school, or their friends.

Right now, that OS is Windows because the major hardware manufacturers pre-install it. Why? MS has a marketing department and a goal of making money. Marketing tells the home user he needs Windows, then cuts a deal with the h/w companies to install it. Home user has used Windows at work or school (although the number of students exposed to other OSs is growing), and he's heard the ads, so he buys a computer with Windows. He can call the manufacturer for a few months to get support, and the undertrained punk at the retailer's repair desk has a half decent chance of fixing it.

The home user wants to pick up the phone and talk to somebody about his problem. He'd really rather take it somewhere and have it fixed, preferably for free under warranty but he'll pay for the convenience if necessary. Linux distributions have on-line support; some distro's are better than others, but no phone support for home customers and minimal at the big box retail level. He doesn't want to have to go on line, post a question in a forum, wait for an answer, get smacked because he didn't provide all the necessary info, provide the additional info he understands, wait again for an answer, get smacked again for not searching to see if his problem has already been answered, etc.

Right now there's just no consumer interest in alternatives to Windows, and no ad campaign to drive it. Until there is, the major hardware vendors will stick with Windows because that's what the consumers think they want.

by s.ball

Im a home user who got a freebie on a computer magazine of Mandrake Linux. I thought I'd give it a whirl so partitioned my hard drive and installed it as a dual boot machine. It installed easily and i thought it looked and worked fine, but I couldn't get it to recognise my modem or NIC (which was a built in dell laptop modem and NIC) neither love nor money could get this damn modem or NIC to work and hence I couldn't connect to internet to search for drivers.
In the end as nice as it looked and worked, I uninstalled it as it wasn't practical to have an OS that couldn't access the t'interweb

by rkuhn040172

Same here except for it was the wireless NIC and printer.

I put in about 4 hours into it and gave up. Nothing in Windows (driver wise at least) takes 4+ hours.

by jaqui

microshaft pays hardware makers to only write drivers for windows. they must or hardware makers would write device drivers for all operating systems, after all, 60% of servers do not have ms os on them, so they are losing 60 % of the market.

by rkuhn040172

First of all, we're talking about home products, not servers products.

Second, do you have proof or are you just making a statement supported by no facts?

Third, why should a manufacturer make drivers for an OS (home market) that is what, less than 10%?

by jaqui

any hardware manufacturer NOT make drivers for all operating systems for thier network cards?

currently only dlink does make linux drivers for thier network cards

ati and radeon are now making drivers for linux for thier video cards.

hp makes drivers for thier printers.

every other device is driverless until the open source community buys something with that device in it and reverse engineers a driver for it.

the real point, device drivers are not an os issue, they are a hardware manufacturer issue.

4 billion computers in Asia, of which 2 billion are running linux, that is 33% of the world computers using linux.

guess the simple fact that only in the us and europe is windows on top in the pc os market never sinks in to those who blame the os for hardware manufacturers failures.

btw, windows xp does not drive hp's all-in-one devices very well, it loses full function every 30 days, with ms supplied drivers. the hp supplied drivers for linux drive it perfectly.

by rkuhn040172

Once again, you ignore one simple fact.

This discussion was referring to home users. The average home user could care less whether or not it is an OS issue or a hardware issue.

If the product doesn't work, it doesn't work.

Windows is a "system" built around widely available and support products. They have spent years making virtually anything and everything compatible out of the box...aka, for the average home user.

BTW, we have at least 100 HP printers here at work and I have never experienced the XP full function loss that you speak of. Where are your facts or evidence?

by charliespencer

"why would any hardware manufacturer NOT make drivers for all operating systems for thier network cards? ... every other device is driverless until the open source community ... reverse engineers a driver for it."

Why SHOULD a hardware manufacture pay someone to create a driver when the open source community is willing to do it for them? No profit in writing a driver for s (currently) limited number of users, and cost savings not having to support it.

The home user often doesn't have a clue what a driver is or does. He just knows he tried Linux and some things that worked with Windows don't any more. Since it's a toy, not a tool, he has no reason to continue the attempt.

by apotheon

I can understand not wanting to produce drivers for cheap hardware on a minority OS for that hardware's use. These companies typically produce a piece of hardware based on a leased design, repackage the drivers that came with the lease, and push it out with a different label. They do not have in-house development and don't want to pay for outside development.

What gets me is the lack of willingness to provide the information to facilitate open source driver development. There's a sort of culture of spiteful secrecy that has grown up in the computer/software industry because of the market conditions fostered by two decades of predatory practices by Microsoft, such that people default to never sharing any information at all, often even when it would be advantageous to do so -- let alone circumstances where it simply wouldn't hurt to do so. As a result, open source driver writers are forced to reverse engineer interfaces before writing the drivers. This creates additional overhead for the work involved, which causes many to simply avoid fringe hardware rather than developing open source drivers for it.

Network adapter support for Linux is, of course, awesome. Running into a NIC that isn't natively supported by Linux out of the box is a rare thing these days. Windows actually has atrocious native NIC support: it only gets away with it because new NICs come with driver installer CDs, and better yet, Windows mostly comes already installed on hardware with the heavy lifting done by the vendor. This means most Windows users never get to meet the driver support nightmare boogeyman unless they decide to load an OS from scratch -- a rare thing indeed.

Linux is awesome with network printers. All you need is a network printer with Postscript support, and you're in business. If only Windows were so accomodating. Linux, in fact, is generally among the best platforms for anything medium- to high-end, and Windows tends to be lukewarm on those fronts at best. There's an important point of truth in the claims that Linux doesn't support low-end hardware as well as it might, though. Getting a cheap inkjet printer from a garage sale is not any kind of guarantee that it will work with Linux, sadly -- especially when the inkjet in question is so cheap that it actually requires its control systems to be directly manipulated by the computer to which it is connected. While I in no way think this means Linux shouldn't be used by home users, I at least understand that this means it [b]won't[/b] be used by many home users. That doesn't mean the home user shouldn't use Linux, though: it only means the home user is a knucklehead that doesn't know any better and, as a result, won't use it.

You made a much overlooked point in these debates, of course: lack of device driver support is not an OS issue.

I'm curious about where you're getting your Linux usage statistics. Can you provide sources?

by jaqui

that was given to me by a client because it wouldn't work in his windowsxp home system.. every 30 days the printer fails. only repair possible, delete and re-install.
I got a neighbor with xp pro to test it, same thing happened.

put it on my linux system, not one problem with any function.

ahh, I guess that the home computers in Asia don't count? China is 75% linux
India is 50% linux
most "3rd world" countries are using linux not windows.

the Soviet Union was unix / linux not windows, most countries from it still are.

Europe, North America, South America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan are where windows is prevailent. And a lot of Europe is moving towards linux in the business area, meaning people will be used to it and using it at home as well. [ not to ignore the fact that 70% of linux developers are living / working in Europe. ]

The area where linux is more common is 66% of the world population.

by charliespencer

"microshaft pays hardware makers to only write drivers for windows."

Jaqui, can you provide any documentation to support this position?

What part does the number of server installations play in a discussion of home users?

by apotheon

The more use there is of a given piece of hardware under Linux, the more reason there is to provide drivers for that device under Linux. It doesn't matter whether you're using a given NIC as a home user, a business user, or a government sekrit agent user: as long as it's one more instance of a potential customer that is deciding between devices based in part on driver support, there's reason for hardware vendors to provide that support.

This means that business and server use (not necessarily the same thing) both provide more reasons to develop drivers that could help the home user.

by rknrlkid

that the only reason there isnt more Linux at home is the lack of user-friendly internet applications.

Now, before you attack me, let me explain.

If America Online, Compuserve, Wal-Mart Connect, Net-Zero, etc etc ported to Linux, then Linux would be a staple at home. To the best of my knowledge, only Juno has created a Linux version, and that is to Lindows/Linspire. Its not a "generic" application.

There is a reason that AOL et al have such a market share. They are relatively painless for the average home user, and come bundled with the computer. If one of these services could get bundled with a Linux distro, then I think we would see a change in the home OS market. In the meantime, Linux will remain a "geek" kind of thing. My guess is that AOL for Linux would change things almost overnight.

by apotheon

Linux has excellent networking support. Plug a default Linux install into a DHCP network, and you're basically done. This makes things exceedingly easy with broadband Internet access and a rinky-dink consumer grade router/firewall appliance from a vendor like Belkin or SMC. Any other Internet connection setup, however, requires some notable technical know-how to get it running properly with Linux, generally. If that hurdle were overcome, or if the typical end user finally figured out that they're better off using a router/firewall appliance anyway, things would likely change greatly in the home user market.

by Former member

I'm not your typcial 'home user'. I actaully like to learn as much as I can. Always had ever since the days of using TRS-80s and Apples, when you had to really use your brain to get something to work.

These days, they want computers so easy that someone who doesn't know that the monitor isn't a "TV screen" and doesn't know how to plug in the fool thing wants to "use the computer to chat with my friends and send chain mail and jokes to everyone on my list because I thought the mail was really cool/funny" - those types want to do this NOW without having to learn. If computers were to remain where you actually had to use your head to use the computer, to actually THINK, the computer sales industry would have went bankrupt and all the other internet-related jobs along with it.

Ease of use for "dummies" is a #1 business. So Linux remains not just for the "geek" but for those who can THINK.

Unfortunately, those who CAN think, Linux still falls short. I can get into it, and have set up an apache web server for local offline web development. But I haven't put linux back in my system because I simply haven't needed it yet. I have IIS 5.1, WinXP Pro and do my web development from there. Then when I'm not working I like games like Pogo and Second Life (which is a Windows only software client), iTunes, browsing the internet, working on my own web sites, maybe some time I want to make video movies and animation using Blender (which I have for Windows). I use Paint Shop Pro 8.1 as I found it easier to use than Gimp 2.2 (which I have for Windows as well). PSP 8 doesn't work in Linux. So if I were to do web development, I'd be stuck with Gimp and it'd be kinda hard to do. Also, where I work they use ASP for stuff and I never got to figuring out how to get Apache to support ASP.

Linux is good to learn from and some things for work I could use Linux for, and for home a little, but primarily WinXP Pro is quite adequite, easier to use and set up, and has everything I need right there without having to switch OSs to run something because WINE wouldn't even load it.

I don't have a ton of time to learn things like I used to. Between work, keeping up with family and friends, and taking care of other important life issues (house cleaning, car repair, shopping, etc.) there's no time to spend four 8-hour days trying to get something to work in Linux to find that it just "isn't supported right now". :( I been down that road too. Along with "dependancy he-double-hockey-sticks" meaning you try to install something, you have to compile it in a C-Compiler. Then it needs another libarary that doesn't come with your distribution or yours isn't the latest one that's required. So you have to download that and compile it and install it because there's no package for it for your distribution. Then it too needs another library and so on and so on. Often I came up with dead ends, meaning libraries that just don't work in the distribution I was using. And the new distros available on CD didn't have it supported either.

That's another thing, Linux and the distributions change so much that you have to keep upgrading almost the entire package almost every month or less. Where with windows, Windows Update automatically downloads stuff and installs it, not the whole entire OS. And I don't think it needed to update every month either. Maybe once every couple months.

So I stick with Windows because it's easier and saves me time. I wish Linux would catch up to this. Linux is good for servers. But for a home/office computer, it still has a lot of developing to go yet.

by rkuhn040172

So, Jacqui's sample size of HP driver issues is 2!

A client and a neighbor, therefore, that justifies his conclusion.

Hey, I'm no HP fan myself, but their printers are typically one of the best. Their drivers are huge file sizes, they typically cost more (though reasonable), and the ink cartridges are outrageously expensive. But they are pretty good.

But cmon Jacqui, please start providing more proof and less personal conjucture. TechRepublic is hopefully about IT professionals and not personal opinion with facts to back them up.

by deadly ernest

I have three older HP printers and two older scanners than I can get Windows drivers for Win 98 or Win NT4 but can not get working Windows drivers for Win 2K or Win XP as HP say that they are not writting drivers for the older hardware for use in the new systems and tell me to buy new gear. Windows is so written that the drivers for the earlier operating systems rarely work in their latest oeprating system - in these cases the equipment is not usable in Windows XP at all.

Yet a basic load of Fedora Core 4 allows me to use all the hardware as it has drivers that are backwards compatible. What is different, the operating system coders thought about users and the fact that many use older equipment until it decomposes.

by apotheon

I don't blame HP for not wanting to keep up with the rat race in Windows support-land for their older hardware that they aren't even selling any longer. The fact that Microsoft keeps changing the interface for drivers ensures that when the next Windows release cycle happens, a bunch of hardware becomes "obsolete" by Windows standards.

This doesn't happen with Linux because, simply put, Linux has sane and stable device interfaces. They don't go mucking with everything every couple of years for no good reason. Yes, Microsoft has a reason -- squeezing money out of consumers by planned obsolescence -- but that's not a good reason.

Well, maybe it's a good reason to use something other than Windows.

by warhog73

Jacqui is a female, woman, girl. It's hard to believe that so many in the forum don't recognize this, but then that ain't the issue, is it? I dig your headings, they'll make for long line of posts and a lot of controversy.
Das Kriegschwein

by jaqui

My wife would be suprised to hear that I have suddenly become female.
[ she expects to be notified if I'm going to have major surgury you know ]
:D

by deadly ernest

The messages are posted by JAQUI (no C - commonly pronounced without the 'i' sound on the end) which is a male name of French heritage, or was last time I looked, the female equivalent is JACQUI (with a C, commonly pronounced with the 'i' sound on the end) They usually translate into English as something like Jack (Jaqui) and Jackie (Jacqui).

Regardless of that the comment you make is totally irrelevant to what Jaqui posted regardless of gender.

by charliespencer

I understand your confusion; I made the same mistake myself. However, what does a poster's gender have to do their comments? I sure hope I'm around when mae or girli read your comments.

by charliespencer

(I think HP's drivers suck like a 15-amp Oreck vacuum. They're bloated with unnecessary apps and tray icons, but that's beside the point.)

For conversational purposes only, I'll accept your world usage figures at face value. Here's what I don't understand:

If Linux is so widely used in third world countries, and is available for free, why do people in those countries keep loading bootleg copies of Windows and compatible proprietary apps? Apparently they perceive either some shortcoming of open source, or some advantage to Windows and proprietary apps that make it worth paying for what they could get for free.

by namco

Unless they have an interest in computing then an OS and any software is a means to an end. For many home users, getting results from a PC is about listening to the mp3, experiencing the game, booking the holiday online. Not the OS and software in between.

Same goes for business - we have a linux server for ERP solution, does anyone apart from me know it's Linux? no. do they care? would they understand? no. It's about results.

Ease of use, learnability, support and reliability are therefor paramount.

I therefor recommend windows for the novice home user if they are not interested in computing. sheer pervasiveness means information is plentiful, accessible (supermarket mags etc).

by apotheon

You make some good points -- then screw the pooch with your conclusions.

The key points for the home user are ease of use, accessibility, support, reliability, and security. You came up with a slightly different, in my opinion less accurate, list. Your list was pretty good, though. Props for that. You're definitely in the ballpark.

However:

Linux is easier to use than Windows, when you understand it. The problem is not ease of use: it is accessibility. Linux is not as accessible to the newbie as Windows, which hurts uptake among end users. It also hurts uptake among so-called "power users", end users who think they're experts. These are the people who call themselves IT professionals, then complain that Linux is too "hard" without having bothered to examine their assumptions to see if they might be measuring Linux by the wrong yardstick.

To determine whether someone is an end user or a power user, ask them about why they don't use Linux. If they admit they know nothing useful about Linux, and that they use Windows because they're already used to it and it's just simpler to use what they already have, they're end users. If they blame Linux for being too "hard" despite never having bothered to learn the difference in basic operating assumptions between Linux and Windows, they're power users. Power users are end users who think they're powerful. What gets really scary is when these power users get into the business of pretending to be network administrators.

Support is an interesting thing to try to measure when it comes to choosing an OS. Truthfully, if you want good community support, a community Linux distribution is the way to go, and if you want good corporate support, a corporate Linux distribution is the way to go. Windows support is universally awful. When Microsoft technical support tells you that the only way to fix a problem without reinstalling from scratch is to edit the registry, and informs you that doing so voids your support contract on that install of Windows, there's a severe problem.

If you think Windows has any edge in reliability and security as compared with Linux, there's no point in continuing this discussion: I try to avoid debate with fools.

Ultimately, the one major advantage Windows has going for it (other than marketing FUD campaigns) is accessibility. This is, in large part, simply because computers come with Windows pre-loaded. There are some accessibility advantages beyond that, but they are quite minor in comparison.

If you want a PC that allows listening to MP3s, playing games, and booking holiday trips online, Linux is every bit as good as Windows. Slap a default install of some big-name Linux distribution on a machine with Cedega, and you're in business. In some ways, it might be slightly less obvious than doing the same things with Windows, but in other ways, it's quite more obvious. Add to that a preconfigured install of all the necessaries, such as provided by Dell, Gateway, and Compaq/HP for Windows, and the arguments for Windows evaporate.

by lucifer_sam_siam_cat

...and she's no compu-geek. How much easier than that does it need to be? It took about 15 minutes for the install to run. Compare that to the hours I've spent trying to get windoze to run on an old compaq i was given installing and reinstalling from the supplied compaq system restore discs because it missed a proprietary driver or it forgot to install the nic.... The only things that weren't natively figured out and supported by KANOTIX were my Echo Mia soundcard and my Midisport 1x1 USB MIDI adapter. It comes with ALSA, though, and there *is* a driver for the Mia--I just need to build it. Haven't checked for the 1x1 driver yet, but the device name shows up in the USB device list, so it's at least recognized by KANOTIX if not directly supported. It did find and install the on-mobo lame-o AC97 sound device, though. I've been busy sorting out a car issue, so the base install and my email was all I've had time to get done so far.

The bottom line: the next time my mother complains about her windoze box crapping out on her, I'm going to send her a KANOTIX disk.

I think the big issue is that there aren't ports of the more popular games coming out simultaneously with the windoze versions (along with a bunch of the other popular software like turbotax and such), which is a big minus for the "gotta have it yesterday" consumer, and the fact that the majority of end users are fairly lazy and don't want to have to learn something new--even if it is better.

Me, I'm anxious to try out Ardour, so once the car's sorted out, I'm going to be all over getting the Mia and 1x1 set up.

C ya,
Dutch

by deadly ernest

There is no 'average user', each has their own perspective, attitude and aproach. Many non-tech savvy users strongly desire to stay that way and will not switch operating system if it means having to learn. Yep that includes not upgrading from the Win 98 that they learned to later versions of Windows.

I love MS Windows as it has given me about 85% of my work over the years - users needing systems rebuilt or reconfigured or new hardware and software loaded so that it will work. Damn little repeat business from non-tech Linux users.

Recently a client was faced with changing their operating system and wanted advice on how to go - his old Pentium 133 gave up the ghost and the new gear had no drivers that would run in Win 98. He wanted a system that he could reload the operating system himself, to save on tech calls and charges.

I went over and took my copies of Win XP Pro and Fedora Core 4 - went through the process of loading FC4 and looking at how it worked, and did the same with XP Pro. He went with FC4 as it auto loaded all the right drivers for the fancy video card he had and it gave a better image than the XP. Also he could rebuild the system with FC 4 and Cedega in half the time it took to load XP and the video driver; and he could do that easily.

FC4 + Cedega = better performance and video than XP + video driver as far as he was concerned.

I know others that decide the other way - very much a personal call.

by deadly ernest

Not sure what it is like in the USA but here in Aust the tech people often get asked to recommend on what peripherals to buy at work and by friends - many of the better techs run Linux at home and make a point of only recommending peripherals that do have Linux drivers as this simplifies the after sales support that they have to give (already familiar with the hardware having usually bought it themselves) and also with an eye to buying some more when the company replaces it later.

However, on the plus side some of the latest versions of Linux come with a range of default drivers that will run most hardware. I recently installed Fedora Core 4 and found it had default drivers to run my latest video card, printer, scanner, modem etc using default drivers and also had drivers for some older equipment for which I could not get Win XP drivers for (no longer supported thus no new drivers).

Another problem you do not have in the USa that we have in Aust is that with some modems Windows does not recognise the manufacturer's Australian drivers and will kill them and load default Windows drivers for the USA, our phone systems are slightly different and thus the default drivers have to be tweaked in order to get them to work. Don't you love a system that decides the specific driver is no good and gives you one that does not work properly.

by jpb

A regular low end home user will on most cases never switch a OS unless a new computer is purchased with a different OS installed. But since this is about Linux with people who have limited IT skills lets look at it a different way. If the person is a complete virgin to IT then they have no experience using either Windows or Linux so it is all new and has to be learnt. So if you give a version of home low-end user friendly Linux like say Yopper with the basics like Open Office installed they should not have anymore difficulty learning than if the pc ran Windows.

by charliespencer

I agree with you completely, but where are you going to find these mythical IT versions?

Now if this was 1995 you'd probably be able to find them easily. They once roamed the plains like bison; their numbers would blacken the skies when they flew. Now most of them are in wildlife preserves.

by apotheon

Roaming the plains like bison. Blackening the skies while they fly. Hilarious.

j00 win t3h intarn3ts

by brummy21

most hardware makers know full well that 95% of their sales are for Windows PCs and they are simply not going to expend serious money writing drivers for a tiny, tiny porportion of potential sales revenue. As for servers, they do not have fancy 3D graphics cards, TV cards and the like in them. They have serious SCSI/RAID disk controllers, tape drives, high performance NICs etc. Go onto sites like Adaptec or Intel's server mainboard section and check out all the Linux driver support. When a hardware maker knows they will sell serious numbers into Linux servers, they will make the effort to write Linux drivers, otherwise, and quite rightly, they won't bother.

by apotheon

You're right, most servers don't need fancy 3D graphic adapters and TV cards. So what? That has nothing to do with anything.

Business use of high-end workstations requires more "fancy" 3D graphics use than home users. Try running Maya with a twenty dollar graphics adapter some time. You think you're running some sh*t-hot graphics adapter at home with your ATI Radeon, but the truth of the matter is that there's a whole new level of graphics adapter you're not even aware of, most likely: try using a serious workstation-grade graphics adapter like the ATI FireGL. That thing will make you sit up and take notice. It will also impoverish your World of Warcraft gamer's budget in a heck of a hurry. It doesn't matter whether you're using a Radeon or a FireGL, though, to Linux: there are Linux drivers for both, including both vendor-supplied drivers and open source drivers.

Where Linux driver support is lacking is in cheapass half-baked devices like onboard integrated graphics using shared RAM from some also-ran motherboard manufacturer using leased chipset specs and developing English-language manuals by running their Korean-language manuals through babelfish. Of course, I learned a long time ago that it's a bad idea to use that crap-end hardware for Windows as well as Linux.

Try addressing the lack of hardware support that actually exists, rather than attacking Linux for poor support of something that is actually well-supported.

by apotheon

Make up your mind. Are they loading bootleg copies, or are they willing to pay for Windows?

Frankly, unless and until I see some sources for Jaqui's data, I'm going to remain skeptical of those numbers. I know that Linux is more widely used in many other markets than in the United States, and I know that Linux usage is certain to be much more widely used than most people on TR think (because every legal copy of Windows is recorded in statistics and the vast majority of Linux installs is unknown to statistics gatherers), but it still looks like some of Jaqui's statistics are a little inflated to me.

Regardless, his ultimate point stands up: Linux is not the market nonentity as which it is painted by the Microsoft FUD shovelers. There are easily enough Linux users out there to justify developing drivers for hardware vendors, especially since greater driver support would create more such users, thus further justifying that support.

by apotheon

Providing effective driver "support" for Linux is much, much easier than for Windows. For one thing, supporting Windows means something different every couple of years when the next Windows version comes out and all the APIs have changed: once you produce a driver for Linux, it Just Works forever after. For another, the APIs are sane and time-tested. Third, you can actually get the full API for Linux systems because it's open source, whereas for Windows you get Microsoft providing partial and/or faulty information because they want to protect their information monopoly regarding Windows internals.

Finally, and most importantly, the hardware manufacturers [b]don't have to develop drivers at all[/b] to provide good support for them under Linux. All they have to do is provide information needed for rapid and effective driver development and the open source development community will write the things for them. The major reason it takes a while for open source developers to produce drivers for less than universally popular devices is simply that they have to reverse engineer the hardware's programming interface before they can write a driver. Remove that obstacle by providing the technical specs, and hardware vendors will almost certainly get better driver support in Linux than Windows every friggin' time.

There's already better driver support in many cases for Linux than for Windows. People think driver support is better for Windows because of consumer tunnel vision: buy a system with Windows already installed and preconfigured, and you think everything's easy to set up. Try installing an OS other than Windows (which means having to do it yourself), and suddenly you have issues.

If you think Windows has better hardware support than Linux, you clearly haven't done some of the consulting work I have, where you end up having to reinstall Windows for some idjit that lost all his driver disks. That's especially problematic now that driverguide.com has turned into a fat turkey that is rarely helpful at all. I suspect that happened largely because of recent intellectual property law issues.

by apotheon

I do recall running across reports of Microsoft offering the equivalent of payment for hardware vendors to produce drivers only for Windows (mostly in the form of incentives rather than direct payment), but I doubt it's a very common practice. If you have some information to the contrary, please direct me to it.

by jaqui

new reports over the last two years about the directions of it in third world countries.

press releases by countries that they are either moving to linux, or are already using linux.
[ china, around 18 months ago, press release that they will be standardising the entire country on linux including home user systems, windows will not be available as an installed os ]
south africa [ from head of it department for the power company, a mandriva cooker team member ] The entire power company is standardised on linux, Mandriva to be precise.

most news sources, are not based in the USA for accurate reporting of linux use, as the us based companies are all using ms products almost exclusively, and they want to get good rates for support.

by apotheon

That gives me some ideas of where to start looking for data. Your posts seem to provide some fairly specific statistics, though, and I don't know that I'll be able to find the same numbers on my own.

by apotheon

I have two separate responses to this question, one which favors Windows, and the other Linux. I'll start with Linux:

As far as I'm concerned, Linux is the better option. It is more stable and secure, has far better online support available, and does everything Windows does (and then some) in terms of functionality. There are different gotchas in the Linux world than in the Windows world, and people used to Windows gotchas are going to see Linux gotchas as new and frightening things that make it "harder" than Windows, but the truth of the matter is that early on it's mostly a matter of perspective, and once you know the system well Linux comes out on top, generally speaking.

On the other hand . . . you seem to have already decided that Windows is the "best" option for home users out of the two options about which you asked. You give me this impression by attacking any Linux-supporting argument that points out certain types of problems with Windows that most people never have to see. For instance, most people never see driver issues with Windows because they buy a computer with the OS and drivers already installed and configured, and never have to touch them again. This tends to make things seem very "easy" with Windows, and you're absolutely right: end users don't care whether it's an OS issue or a hardware issue, they just want it to work. The fact that it "just works" with Windows more often in practice for home users is entirely based on the fact that they bought a computer with Windows already installed, though. It has nothing to do with the OS having any capabilities that make things easier. So, in the end, since your restrictions on what is allowable as reasons to choose one OS over the other for home use mostly consist of "Which is already installed when you buy the computer?" the answer can only be Windows. There just aren't enough vendors selling Linux systems out there for the answer to be otherwise.

by charliespencer

"There just aren't enough vendors selling Linux systems out there for the answer to be otherwise."

Why do you suppose that is? Is it something other than consumer demand for Windows as driven by the MS marketing department? Why don't the big hardware vendors sell systems with pre-installed Linux in the big box retail stores like they do with Windows systems? Not on the web, but in the brick-and-mortar outlets?

I find it interesting that this topic has five times as many posts as it's "Business" and "IT Pro" sister topics. I don't know what the stat means, but I feel it must indicate something...

by apotheon

Among the biggest reasons are Microsoft "incentives" programs for OEMs and marketing-driven demand.

I suspect part of the reason for this thread having more discussion is that people have more difficulty coming up with business-related reasons to choose Windows over Linux, and another part is the fact that most of the people frequenting this website feel more comfortable discussing desktop systems for screwing around than server and workstation systems for getting real work done.

These three discussions could easily have been broken down into server, workstation, and desktop categories rather than business, IT pro, and home user categories.

by rkuhn040172

I tell you what, I did buy a cheap PC with Linspire pre-installed on it.

I know, probably not a good choice but I wanted a cheap PC for my kids.

It was easy as pie. OEM pre-installs are the way to go from that point of view.

However, they also included a CD with Windows drivers...equally easy as pie.

I'll stick with Windows. My 4 and 5 year olds are confused enough with PC's without having to learn Linux at home and then go to school to learn Windows.

by dgelect

We've been replacing windows with linux for our home users for some time now, use either susie or mandriva, and have found most find it simple and easier to use. 99.9% of our users use e-mail and surf the web period.

by ebjsa001

I tried to install Linspire on an old HP Pavilion with 96mgs of ram and it would not load. Tried two different ways, no go. However, I would like to put some version of Linux on it, provding it would work with 96 mgs of ram. Windows is not the end all be all. So, it comes down to which version of Linux-Mandrake, Debian, Ubuntu, etc. And, yes, I have 2 Windows PC's.
Secunia seems to come up with a lot problems with some of the Linux OS. Maybe a Mac Mini?

by charliespencer

What's driving the switch? Are they coming in with working systems and asking for Linux? Are they bringing in boxes that have problems and no Windows CD, and you install Linux instead?

by mollenhourb9

I agree that it is hard for the majority of home PC users to roll out Linux instead of Windows, UNLESS YOU DO WHAT I DID (sorry for the shouting). I bought an iMac. That is the easiest way to roll it out. I have not come across any software that I need that isn't available for the Mac, and many of the packages out are easier to use in their Mac versions. That is how a home user rolls out Linux.

by apotheon

It's possible to install and run Linux on a Mac (try that with Windows some time!), but MacOS X is not Linux. It is a unix-based OS under the hood, with a BSD/Mach kernel, which is in turn similar in many ways to the Linux kernel, but it's still not Linux.

by cave-homme

Linux is basically a geeks attempt to copy Unix and make it freely available. Very admirable and a great cause. If i were a CIO though, I'd not ignore the geat investment in linux, and the commercialisation of support around it, but i would get my customers on the security of Unix based OSX, MS Office on it, and sweat the assets for 5 years. Those few users needing Windows XP specifically, could have a second box...or these days soon a dual boot MAC and XP.

by cgbullock

I have set up many home users with linux and have had no problems. I do some home networking on the side and I have a customer who was tired of getting viruses and spyware. So I proposed Linux to him. I took one of his older home pcs, installed linux and said. Here is the Internet. Here is the software that resembles MS Office. Here is your email client. When you put in you camera flash card click here to look at your pictures. Here is the CD burning software etc. Unfortunatly, the customer has no more use for me since he no longer gets viruses or spyware, I see him often and he says that his wife and kids almost exclusively use this machine while at home.
Chris

by pchow98

Sometimes, a solution that worked too well will not get you more business (to wit, your experience). However, you should tell your client to recommend your services to his/her friends that are in the same situation and have the same desire!

by charliespencer

They are loading bootleg copies they have purchased on the black market at a price well below retail. Not everything bootleg is free.

I'm skeptical of MS's reports of the size of this problem, but I'm sure it does exist. I assume we don't have anybody in TR who can answer the question "Why buy bootleg Windows, however cheaply, when you could install Linux legally and for free?" I can only conclude it is because the user wants to run applications that require Windows.

Bill Gates probably isn't going to pursue the question too deeply, since it would make the interviewees aware of their alternatives.

by charliespencer

"It comes with ALSA, though, and there *is* a driver for the Mia--I just need to build it."

Could Grandmother have done that?

by correonewton

I live in a 3rd world country called Argentine.
Except medium-high and high class people have more need for food and clothes than computers.
Some people knows nothing about computers and os.. Some of them thinks that Windows is free, comes with a pc and there is no other choice.
Computer hardware is extra-cheap and generic. The majority of pcs sold here have mothers like PcChips or similar.
Almost no-one have more than one pc at their home (if they have at least one!) and the uses are game.. game... game.. internet (msn, mail and emule only) and maybe some scholar work.
Unless you are curious and a kind of "power user" there's on way to introduce Linux for easier the installations could be. People DO NOT WANT TO THINK !

With New Linux distros (I am using Ubuntu) drivers it's not a issue anymore. In fact, I have more hardware recognized and working out of the box with Linux than Windows XP, where I had to look for generics drivers for me tv-tunner, and my agfa scanner simply won't work with WinXP because it is "obsolete" (but fulfills my needs and have no money to buy another). (in fact I got two old tv-tunners as "gifts" because they won't work in winXP but I found Linux drivers)

But.. this is mi expertise. Reality is, argentinian's pcs are far more generics than mine and there's no support for winmodems nor some nics nor the usb adls-modem that telephone company distributes here. (and a router is out of budget)
As far as I know there's no support for such usbmodems in Linux and without internet people can not live... here Windows is "free"... so.. with windows I can have internet and Doom3 and HL2 then, Windows is the only choice. (besides the fact that most people do not know that there's a choice called Linux)
As they don't actually know how to use a windows pc, I spend most of my free time removing spyware, viruses, etc from friends pcs.
Another reason against Linux.. they won't install cedega (because every install in Linux makes you think) and even with cedega not every new game will work so.. If my HalfLife2 And Civilization4 doesn't work there's no use for my pc.
Similar happens with office applications. They do not want the OpenOffice.org spreadsheet, they want EXCEL.

As a semi-reasonable person, I think that windows, if used right, is secure and stable enough for home users, but it is not used like that (if I do everything as root in Linux, it will crack too, for example). If I don't give him Admin access to windows, will have complains about not being able to install the latest fancy game.

If, in countries like mine, legal software laws were applied rigourously then I have no doubt that Linux should be the number 1 operation system for home use.. simply because not even half of the people will have money to buy licenses of everything and if they could buy a Windows Licence for the Home Edition of XP (the most common here is Professional) they won't be able to buy neither Office, Photoshop, nor games.

If they were forced to use free software except for the OS. Free software which is available in Linux too, then would be no reason to not use Linux at all.

But as i said, a short mind and a sohrt budget make buy cheap hardware, cheap new hardware is bad supported for windows.. and worst for Linux (old cheap is a little better on Linux), the use of a pc is gaming and leisure, the less you think the better, everything is free, everybody "knows" windows... windows is the only winner and the only candidate.

Except at my university where made us use Linux and there's some geeks that thinks that the life is meaningless without Vim I know NOBODY who uses other OS than Windows.

But then again.. it is here, where TFT monitors are a dream, SLI is a weird idea and all software is free.

Sorry about my English.. As I said I am argentinian and speaks Spanish.

by deadly ernest

Non-perfect English is highly acceptable for someone who uses English as a second language and does not need it on a daily basis, the content of your message came across well. Hey many of the people born to the language mess it up terribly.

I think you really hit the nail on the head in the big problem with the Linux vs Windows arguement with the two comments:

People do not know - very true in many countries and areas people have not heard of any personal computer system but Windows.

They think Windows is free - it comes with the system so they think it is a freebie with the computer, not knowing that buying the same system elsewhere without Windows will save them lots of money (over A$200 here and can be as high as A$600).

The sadest part is that most of the people discussing this issue are from North America and raise points that are only relevant in North America. For example cheap PCs from the big 5 companies - not so cheap here in Australia and only a fraction of the models and options available; same with all hardware, not as much available; cheap ISPs like AOL etc, AOL here is dearer than many others and does not have the same level of support as in the USA (different company same name).

Another point is the Total Cost of Operation for software here in Australia is very different from that in the USA - a support phone call to vendors can costs hundreds before they even get around to sending you a bill, as few provide International phone support that does not require you to pay for the international call; then wait on the line for 30 or 40 minutes at those rates.

I recently had a case where the USA based corporate management could not understand why we could not make support calls to the technical HQ during their business hours once their finance managers started to refuse to pay overtime for our Aust based people to ring up during our night to match the USA business day. Seems they cannot see any part of the world beyond Hawaii or Mexico or the USA east coast.

by charliespencer

Your English is good enough we can understand your thoughts and ideas. Some TR members who speak English as their first language don't use it as well as you did.

It looks like Argentine users are like U.S. users. U.S. users also want to use the computer for games, music, and the Internet, and also don't want to think about the computer as a tool.

by stress junkie

You seem to have a good view of the situation where you live. People want Microsoft Office, not a substitute. People are not interested in viruses unless some email virus is slowing down their Internet connection by sending thousands of spam emails. I haven't been able to get my next door neighbor to switch from Windows to Linux.

And ... I agree with Palmetto's opinion about your command of English. First, your command of English is very good. Second, I wish that I could understand any other language as well as you understand English, but I'm an American so I expect everyone to learn English so that I don't have to learn their language. :D

by rkuhn040172

Thanks again for adding your comments.

We all benefit from different and varied points of view.

Isn't that really the point of this discussion anyways?

It would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.

But if we ever get to that point, ya'll better just come to terms with agreeing with me, hahaha.

by fcometa

Thanks for the reply. I am also from a third world country (Dominican Republic), and there is practically no difference between our situations. I couldn't have said it better: people believing windows is free, and that there is no other choice, not wanting to think... Hey, I could say that in our countries, piracy is precisely Microsoft's best friend: it's what let's us have Windows on our desktops!

by cave-homme

You are spot on.

I have personally used various OS and hardware professionally and at home since 198x.

I love linux for various reasons. I love MAC and OSX for similar and other reasons.

At the end of the day, life is too short with too many things to do and get on with that i have stopped farting around and put up with XP and its fairly extensive problems....but at the end of the day it works very well, its maintenance with AV and anti-spyware is not cheap but it cannot be beaten on range of applications and compatability with work apps, etc, etc,

I have even become so lazy (or is it actually more appreciative of real-life outside of IT and nerd-world?) that i surprised myself immensely to getting myelf, wife and kids on MSN Premium recently ! My God, i thought, for a moment i felt like i was Luke Skywalker jumping allegiance to Darth Vader.

But you know what? MS make it far simpler (despite issues) for the majority of people. With a PC installed with MSN premium costing a mere $60 a year for upto 10 mail accounts, encarta premium, kids homework, kids paental controls, mail / calendar / task synchronisation, Outlook connector, photo editor, etc, etc, and even McAfee security suite thrown-in !

Jes H Chr!st, that's value for money, and ease of use! Why would i spend the rest of my short years playing around with something far worse than $60 a year ?

While i will inevitably still play with Linux etc, i would be mad to ignore the obvious ROI of using MS and MSN. Life's too short, and MS Marketing may have caught me....but hey, give them some credit.

by ball5ball5

I have to agree with what you said here, Palmetto. As much disdain as I have for MS product and their ill-gained monopoly, they are the only real solution for the average home user. Even Macs have somewhat of a learning curve as OS X and above seems to be based in the Linux kernel nowadays.

Windows has pandered to the lowest common denominator for years- the guy who wants to walk into his den, turn the computer on and have it access his email, porn and Word docs easily. For this, MS has lost a lot along the way, mostly sacrificing stability and security for ease of use.

Linux, however, is getting damned close. Install the latest Mandriva distro and you?ll get an inkling of how close Linux is to being a real force for the home user. The new distro has the best of both worlds- you can turn it on and surf, type, copy the pics off your digital camera, listen to tunes then shut it off and go away. Or you can sit there and tinker to your heart?s content with all the cool stuff in there. Open up a Terminal and ?su? yourself into geek heaven. It?s close. Damned close.

by paul.ivans

I have to agree in the greater part with this statment. Microsoft do have the home PC market almost exclusively to them seleves and human nature being what it is "People are most content with familiarity" Microsoft operating systems are by far the most widley known and used. However, in fainess to microsoft windows is very easy to use, modify, and install new software into.

Personally I like LINUX and most distrobutions have improved greatly over that last few years and I hope that this continues in the future. I would love to see linux take it's place as another reasoable choice of operating system on a par with the choice of hardware. However, if LUNUX is to make it into the home and small busines it needs to be "simple to install and simple to remove new software." Software also needs to be more readily available. Cost does not come into it really. If the cost is reasonable, and the product is good. people will be prepaired to pay for it.

LUNUX (major distributions) are very reliable and do not seem to crash once installed. The instalation is now as easy as windows possibly even easer. However, this is no consolation to the average user who simply wants to be able to buy at a reasonable price the type of software he wants to run, then take it home and install it and run it.

BUT if the user can't install the software with a minimum of fuss mr average will simply give up and probably never consider trying again.

This as I see it is the last hurdle that LINUX has to overcome before it takes its place as the operating system of the future.

by apotheon

Several times in any busy discussion thread comparing Windows and Linux, someone will come along and claim that the real problem with Linux is that it's not easy to install and remove software, and/or that there is not enough software available.

Debian has more than 18000 software packages available in the main repositories, at your fingertips. All it takes to install is a shell command like "apt-get install package" where "package" is, of course, the name of the software package you want to install. To remove, use a command like "apt-get remove package".

There's no money spent. There's no trip to the store. There's no waiting for something to be shipped. There's no fifteen-step installation wizard. With a package manager, it Just Works.

If you don't realize that it's much, much easier to install and remove software in Linux than Windows, you aren't paying enough attention.

by fcometa

What I see here is not a simple decision of 'Windows vs. Linux'. It would be more like 'Continue with Windows vs. Linux'. Not that the scenario isn't realistic, because it is. But the 'no experience with anything but Windows' is a pretty heavy factor.

In another post, I mention my two younger kids. They have been exposed to both Linux and Windows, in roughly equal terms. They are not 'migrating' from one to the other. They have grown knowing how to boot in either OS, and they know what they can find in each. And I may be a Linux devotee, but I also know that knowing Microsoft products will probably serve them a lot in the future, so I have reasons for wanting them to use both. That would be more like 'Windows vs. Linux' (by the way, in general I don't see any noticeable preference).

So let's see:

Cheap, generic components. It all depends if they are 'designed for Microsft Windows'. Chances are Linux will support it (maybe even that winmodem). Some winmodems have given me a headache even in Windows. Of course, Windows has it easier here.

Little to no support: as someone else posted, Windows works because it already comes working on your PC when you buy it. Windows may not win per se on this one, but it has that advantage. But if you are determined enough to install an OS, both very probably result to be a no-brainer, depending on the distro.

Little to no support. This is difficult. Support has to come from somewhere, and at least here in the Dominican Republic it usually does ('hey, call your Cousin Joe... he knows computers!'). Each come with adequate help systems for those users that like to read. But for "non do-it-yourself-ers", Cousin Joe probably knows Windows and not Linux. Online resources exist for both cases, although by philosophy Linux is more into the "forum thing".

Time fixing a PC. Linux may have it's hardware issues and all, but Windows users suffer from it's security issues. As long as you get the Linux box up and running, it will pretty much keep on ticking without 'breaking'. A Windows box will be easier to get up and running, but will more often 'break'.

Variety of software: if it's variety you want, Linux wins. Hey, you have variety even for the desktop you want (KDE, Gnome, ICEWM...).

If you take into consideration 'experience only with Windows', a change to Linux will take time to get used to. To somebody who hasn't had experience at all with computers, Linux would do beautifully (as long as you get it installed ok). After all, it was harder to use that free OS with the black screen and the weird commands you eventually had to memorize, wasn't it? (no, not Linux, MS-DOS)

I don't say "Linux!". I say "Why not Linux?"

This discussion is closed to new replies.