4 ms·

> Why do you think it still has a long way to go? Have a play around with keyboard shortcuts and try to get WindowsKey+E to open your home folder. The bugs in

by cturner 19y ago

> Why do you think it still has a long way to go? Have a play around with keyboard shortcuts and try to get WindowsKey+E to open your home folder. The bugs in keyboard shortcuts has been an exercise in balloon squeezing for as long as ubuntu has been around. Another - audio. On a default install to my laptop sound didn't work at all, and now I can only play from one device at a time. I don't have these problems on my Apple. Much as I love my ubuntu, it simply doesn't compare to the level of polish in XP, Vista and OSX. > I don't think Windows itself is the big moneymaker, anyway Why do you think that? I think that Windows is an spectacular moneymaker. > Rather, I suspect they tend to pay people for using it, so they > could save money by moving away from it. Not sure what you mean by this. Can you rephrase?

Tichy 19y ago
Can't comment on your hardware problems, as I don't have them. Windows: maybe I am wrong, but I would suspect that Microsoft pays PC vendors to put Windows on their machine.
- cturner 19y ago
  If Microsoft were paying people to take its product then it wouldn't have a business model :) What causes you to think that they pay other people to distribute it?
  - Tichy 19y ago
    They sell lots of other stuff, for example Office. I think if Microsoft were not paying the vendors, more vendors would offer PCs with Linux or without any OS at all. Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the Windows variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)?
    - cturner 19y ago
      I think if Microsoft were not paying the vendors, more vendors would offer PCs with Linux or without any OS at all. They're totally not paying the vendors to install Windows. The reasons the vendors don't offer linux is because in the past when they've done it they've done a really half-assed job of it, and as a result sales have been bad, and they've been burnt. Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the Windows variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)? I remember that. This is all speculation: perhaps their OEM agreement with Microsoft said that they had to pay costs for Windows for each machine they shipped (regardless of whether it had Windows or not), OR maybe they paid RedHat a per-license deal for the linux and the margin on redhat installs was greater.

by cturner 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago

Can't comment on your hardware problems, as I don't have them. Windows: maybe I am wrong, but I would suspect that Microsoft pays PC vendors to put Windows on their machine.

cturner 19y ago
If Microsoft were paying people to take its product then it wouldn't have a business model :) What causes you to think that they pay other people to distribute it?
- Tichy 19y ago
  They sell lots of other stuff, for example Office. I think if Microsoft were not paying the vendors, more vendors would offer PCs with Linux or without any OS at all. Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the Windows variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)?
  - cturner 19y ago
    I think if Microsoft were not paying the vendors, more vendors would offer PCs with Linux or without any OS at all. They're totally not paying the vendors to install Windows. The reasons the vendors don't offer linux is because in the past when they've done it they've done a really half-assed job of it, and as a result sales have been bad, and they've been burnt. Weren't the first Linux PCs by Dell even more expensive than the Windows variants (I am not sure if I remember correctly)? I remember that. This is all speculation: perhaps their OEM agreement with Microsoft said that they had to pay costs for Windows for each machine they shipped (regardless of whether it had Windows or not), OR maybe they paid RedHat a per-license deal for the linux and the margin on redhat installs was greater.