14 ms·

Over the last couple of years I've been coming round to the fact that microsoft aren't necessarily a major problem now, compared to google and amazon at least.

Over the last couple of years I've been coming round to the fact that microsoft aren't necessarily a major problem now, compared to google and amazon at least. Doesn't take much to put the shields back upto full. I just don't understand why people run windows. Maybe I just use computers wrong, having been on linux for the last 20 years, but my family (who I refuse to help with IT needs) are all far happier on chromebooks than on windows

alxlaz 7y ago
> I just don't understand why people run windows. I've used Linux for about the same time and honestly, I understand it completely. I would switch, were it not for muscle memory and for the fact that at least 50% of my work involves systems-level development for Linux (mainly embedded stuff, so a lot of cross-compiling). In the last five or six years I've come to dread the Linux desktop and its constant churn of rewrites and UX "improvements". I have a Windows machine that I use for work the other half of the time and honestly... it's great. Yeah, the occasional update breaks some fringe feature. But the chances of something like waking up to the announcement that Microsoft is removing desktop icons in the next update and you can just install this third-party application for it (which will break with every update) are practically zero. Microsoft puts out a lot of broken stuff (some of which slowly morphs into non-broken, useful stuff over time, e.g. Powershell), but you can mostly be assured that, if something works today, it'll work ten years from now, modulo some registry hacks. That's incredibly valuable. I really don't care about things like UI consistency and whatnot -- what I do care about is stability and functionality. Edit: tbh, the main reason why I'm not switching today is that I don't really trust this whole OS-as-a-service model. If it were Windows 2000 instead of Windows 10, I wouldn't think twice before switching, but these are different times. (More edit: please realize that I'm the same person who posted this reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22288917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22288917 , yeah?)
- smabie 7y ago
  Or you could just use a window manager that doesn’t change? I’ve had the same desktop env for over a decade and nothing has changed at all. In contrast with windows and osx where we literally cannot opt out.
  - alxlaz 7y ago
    I do, but that doesn't help much. I don't really have a choice about GTK applications, for example -- I'm going to get the GTK 3 open file dialog and the colour picker with every GTK 3 application.
  - sergiosgc 7y ago
    I entirely understand alxlaz's position, buy my solution was exactly sticking to better window managers (in terms of long term support). My workstation is Linux since '98 or '99, and since then I've used GNUstep for about a decade, then i3 and now sway (basically i3 for Wayland). I'm free from the breaking changes alxlaz describes. I just checked, and GNUstep is pretty much alive. Even that change was caused by me wanting to try tiling window managers, not support failure.
    - alxlaz 7y ago
      Ah, I'm in a similar-ish boat, I use WindowMaker :). This isolates me from most, but definitely not all dubious changes. I've been down the tiling WM rabbit hole a while ago but it's just not for me, I like the mouse, I like icons... It's a little unsettling that there are two ways to get a stable experience: using window manager from 1998 (OK, ok, WindowMaker is still maintained-ish, in fact a very tiny portion of the code written after 1998 is mine :-) ), or getting used to a workflow akin to that of Windows 1.01 (i.e. a tiling WM). On the bright side, though, yeah, at least we have a choice!
      - sergiosgc 7y ago
        > (...) getting used to a workflow akin to that of Windows 1.01 (i.e. a tiling WM) Not really, unless it's a tong-in-cheek remark. Tiling window managers use virtual desktops and programmable positioning of windows to produce a predictable layout. Windows 1.01 had neither of those. Add muscle memory to it and, if you can endure the learning/customization curve, you get a very efficient window manager. Whenever I'm alt-tabbing in search of windows in Windows or OSX I feel I'm using old software.
- simion314 7y ago
  Then don't use that DE that is targeting at clearly other people (I agree it sucks that most distributions use that DE but as power user you can install the distribution or DE that fits you better).
  - wott 7y ago
    Unfortunately the triplet DE--GUI-Toolkit--Applications is often intertwined or at least evolves in the same manner. For example, I don't want GTK-3, I only have GTK-2 installed. It could be all fine and dandy if, one after another, year after year, applications wouldn't give up their GTK-2 backend to only maintain/develop their GTK-3 one. The set of (up-to-date) applications I can run decreases, despite the fact that, as Alxlaz, I still run WindowMaker :-) On Qt side, there are applications which requires an exact version of Qt (not only the main version Qt-3/4/5, but the point version), or require KDE, or require an exact version of KDE. If you want to install a new application, you have to go back in its history and find a version of the application that matches your installed library version. Or install another Qt version and hope it doesn't break other programs. --------- A bit different, but many years after my last try, I tried to use Scribus. I quickly remembered why I had not really used it long the previous time: text input is still convoluted and not WYSIWYG, which is a bit annoying (understatement) for this kind of program where you precisely want to see how text flows. So I gave a try to the new branch (which BTW required a new version of Qt, if I am not mistaken), hoping that they finally did something about it after all those years this program exists. Alas! Apart from the underneath Qt version change, the visible changes were: icons are now flat and monochrome (i.e. you cannot recognise one from another), keyboard shortcuts have been slightly and viciously modified (what was F3 is now F4, stuff like that... but why, oh why? what is the freaking point of doing that?), and it crashed on me after 5 minutes. --------- So basically, even if you'd just wish to have a few bugs fixed, and possibly a long-time missing feature finally added, by getting the new version that does this, you are forced to follow the crazy flow of adding or updating all libraries/toolkits/environments, because maintainers have decided it was way more interesting to rewrite their stuff for the umpteenth time with a different/new back-end (toolkit, environment), rather than polishing their existing, mostly fine for the job, code base. It is exhausting, I am, too, really tired with that churn and constant breaking.
- TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
  > I really don't care about things like UI consistency and whatnot -- what I do care about is stability and functionality. I was on Linux for about 20 years, and now I've been on Mac for 6. Of course, I've had to deal with Windows all this time, too, for gaming and work. (I was even certified on NT.) Anyway, I've no doubt that Windows is pretty stable by now, but the glorious configuration that my company sets up on their laptops starts bugging us to reboot after 5 days, just because it's been "a long time." I blame Microsoft for making their software cater to people who cut-and-paste from Google results to create IT policy, and creating an ecosystem which leads companies to do things like this, and, say, locking the desktop background, of all things. And you can keep Powershell, along with WSL. Sure, Apple doesn't play well with enterprises, because they start with the fundamental assumption that the device is PERSONAL, and you're not using someone else's loaned device. I'm very glad for this. (And I'm never giving my company permissions to remotely wipe my devices with Mobile Iron.) I'd really love to see OS usage percentage numbers with corporate use factored out. My gut feeling is that Windows has absolutely nosedived for personal use over the past few years, and it's only corporations that are keeping the numbers in the air. Half the people I know don't even have a computer, and are just using their phone or an iPad.
  - krzyk 7y ago
    > Apple doesn't play well with enterprises Well, it plays too well actually. At my current job and at previous one we had a choice Mac or a Windows laptop. Mac ones were alway much more rigid with restrictions, less hackable (e.g. Installing Linux side by side was impossible on Mac, because it broke macos somehow as a result of enterprise drive encryption).
    - TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
      Well, I just had to take my laptop in to work to get the firmware updated because BitLocker hiccuped, and locked me out of the machine. I'm doubting that you're going to be any safer on Windows in this regard, unless Corporate IT is NOT turning on drive encryption for Windows. (And even I would probably advocate for this particular policy.)
- kelnos 7y ago
  I absolutely get the distaste for gratuitous UX changes. I've been using Xfce since 2004 and it hasn't changed all that much since then. Overall I'd never claim that a Linux desktop is a "Just Works" proposition, but judging from the issues my colleagues have with macOS, I wouldn't trade my Linux problems for their macOS problems. I can't speak much to Windows anymore, but I can't imagine it'd be all that much better. (Full disclosure: 2004-2009 I was a core Xfce developer.)
  - Justsignedup 7y ago
    OSX problems range from: - oh look, apple decided to change their security model. Now old apps don't work. (necessary to prevent malware). - oh look, no more 32bit programs. - oh look, you plugged in a monitor CRASH. - oh look, you plugged in a charger... CRASH. - oh look, a touchbar. - let's all pay a $1000 premium for hardware. On OSX backwards compatibility isn't a concern apparently. Windows problems range from: - Who installed this thing? And to where? WTF is it? - Why is there 2+ interfaces for all system configurations. 1 of which is pretty but incomplete, and the other hidden and terrible but complete? - Why does it insist on using edge and bing for fucking everything?
    - mr_toad 7y ago
      > let's all pay a $1000 premium for hardware. Worth it IMHO. I have a Mac mini that I bought on a whim while a Windows desktop was in the shop. I’ve had it six years now, and in that time I’ve had three Windows machines die.
      - ianlevesque 7y ago
        Yeah. Now try again with the latest Mac mini and compare :(
      - jsega 7y ago
        Yay for anecdotes. I've had the same windows desktop for 6 years without anything being replaced. I also use a Linux laptop which runs great and "just works".
- Justsignedup 7y ago
  And the occasional "we changed all network settings and turned off all network devices" system update. And then of course "if you need help go to www..." Linux desktop is a horrible UX. But is also an amazing server environment. Also windows can run on partially broken hardware and still not crash. Which is incredibly impressive.
- ladzoppelin 7y ago
  > just don't understand why people run windows. Honestly, its DPI scaling and windows management with 4K monitors. Both Microsoft and Apple are still not perfect in this area so I assume its an extremely hard problem. The other issue is not all programs, like Daws and video editors, have a Linux version.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > In the last five or six years I've come to dread the Linux desktop and its constant churn of rewrites and UX "improvements". Not like Windows is especially immune to this, either, though in Microsoft's defense they actually listened to the users somewhat and backpedaled to a proper Start Menu instead of continuing to shove Metro down everyone's throats.
- LessDmesg 7y ago
  Windows has a big ole flaw nowadays: not friendly to SSD+HDD setup where you put the OS on the SSD. It insists on storing everything on drive C:\ which is on the SSD, even the behemoth that is Visual Studio (though that can be offset in large part with junction links). I've allocated 64GB of SSD space to my Windows and it managed to fill it up already even though I make it a point to install and save everything the HDD. Now, Win10 can't install any of its stupid updates anymore. Microsoft seriously needs to stop living in the 90s where it was okay to shove all data to drive C:\...
- tripzilch 7y ago
  > But the chances of something like waking up to the announcement that Microsoft is removing desktop icons in the next update and you can just install this third-party application for it (which will break with every update) are practically zero. I get your point, but I do think this has actually occurred. Remembr when 7 updated to 8, and when 8 updated to 8.2 (I think) and when 8 updated to 10? I didn't use Windows much back then, but I really remember those three updates. I forget which, but one unexpectedly took nearly 4 hours. Like an entire morning waiting for updates to finish, unable to use that computer, which was the one computer hooked up to the beamer, but it had to be updated at some point. I actually wrote a "windows update game" during that time, where you had to play a platforming hourglass, collecting percentages of progress. If you got to 100% it said something like "Restart to finish upgrading", then it started at 0% again, and you got ONE point. I think somebody got a high score of three. And the first update completely changed the UI, removed the Start Menu (or hid it?), made icons into "tiles", some of which were "active" (?), which is to me a lot like you're describing. I was truly lost in Windows for a while. On all sides, not just the UI, but the settings, the folders. And I still don't know what I have to do in Windows to disable ALL the telemetry and advertising in menus. Is it still possible? It's probably about as hard as setting up an Ubuntu install. And it's keeping me scared away from Windows, just like setting up Ubuntu seems scary to some other users. It's not that I don't like Windows, like you say, if it were 2000 (or XP, or 7, I've also gotten used to those) ... actually you're right that 2000 might have been the last Windows that I wasn't slightly scared about (spying on me, even though what we considered "spying" in the days of XP, are like Tuesdays now). There's this one thing that will always make me go back to Linux, however. And is that (perhaps the way I use it?) Windows has a "honeymoon" period that is one or two years, after that it just degrades in quality, responsiveness, just getting slow. And I have no idea how to fix that, clean it up, or whatever, besides installing Linux. Which makes the thing run smooth again. The only thing that seems to slow Linux down after a while, is the browser because the web just keeps getting heavier. But I don't hate using Windows for those 1-2 years :) Especially now they got better command line stuff, who knows.
wgerard 7y ago
> I just don't understand why people run windows. There are many, many products that either run significantly better on windows (Office) or are completely unavailable on other OSs (many video games). That's changing, for sure. But there's still a long tail of products that semi-necessitate windows.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  How is office better than Google Docs?
  - njsubedi 7y ago
    Works completely offline?
  - t-writescode 7y ago
    For real document creation, Word and Latex are the best out there, bar none. For detailed and powerful spreadsheet use there is nothing that compares to Excel. This coming from someone forced to use Google Sheets at a former company, after having Excel.
  - zaat 7y ago
    Try using bi-directional text, or including equations in Docs. It is practically unusable. Excel is so powerful that people are doing with it stupid things and than their businesses rely on them. That stuff will never work in Docs. Office is a killer product, with extremely rich feature set that works very well. Sadly, there is nothing in the market that even close. It is the main (perhaps only) reason I still have to use a Windows VM.
  - wgerard 7y ago
    FWIW, I don't think it is necessarily. But, a lot of people are forced to use office for various reasons - trying to edit a docx in Docs/Pages/LibreOffice, for example, can be really frustrating for any number of reasons (fonts, margins, etc. all sometimes break spectacularly). So if you're using office quite frequently, windows can be very appealing.
leetcrew 7y ago
support is an obvious reason. with the exception of some dev tools and mac-only creative software, pretty much everything supports windows. I can go out and buy any high end laptop and be confident it will work well with windows. similarly, if I want to throw some random hardware in my desktop, I don't have to worry about whether drivers exist for my os. all this stuff requires an additional research step with linux. in short, if you're a power user (and especially if you like choosing your own hardware) and you want your os to "just work", windows is the best of few options.
mumblemumble 7y ago
It really depends on your needs. For example, my in-laws got a Chromebook a few years ago. My father-in-law definitely liked it better. For my mother-in-law, it was an unmitigated disaster. He really only uses the computer for watching Netflix and reading the New York Times. She, a teacher, also uses it for work, and she found that most of the programs she used for classroom prep simply weren't available for ChromeOS, and didn't have any equivalent. So I ended up helping her give her old Windows desktop a nice deep scrubbing, put some more RAM in it, all that good stuff, and that's now what she uses when her iPad won't do. My own parents prefer Windows, too, though that's a more fuzzy situation. Basically, it's just that it's what they've always used. They've tried other platforms a couple times, and quickly found that it just wasn't even remotely worth the hassle of learning all the differences. That's down to differences in file sharing, printer set up, all that good stuff. Me, for a while I was thinking of switching back to Windows at home for a while, simply because I used Windows at work, and I was getting sick of having to remember two different sets of keyboard commands and suchlike. (Then I went to a shop where all the devs were given Macs, so I ended up there instead.) For my purposes, running some other OS as the host and Linux in a VM is plenty good enough.
bcrosby95 7y ago
Because everyone has their own priorities. My main priority is to give my family technical solutions they could manage if I were to kick the bucket, and to ultimately own their data they need. Between my wife and I we have 1tb of photos and videos. We could store it all in the cloud, but then if they shut her account down for whatever reason we would lose them all. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't find this acceptable. I do seem to be in the minority here, everyone I know just hosts all their files at a single cloud provide. It seems nuts to me. And I haven't found an off-site backup solution that works with Linux. CrashPlan used to offer family plans but they got rid of them. Backblaze only has B2 for Linux - not really acceptable given my requirements. So my family runs Windows. I run Linux.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Vrondi 7y ago
Chromebooks are far worse, if you have any privacy concerns.
Nursie 7y ago
> I just don't understand why people run windows. I like gaming. That's pretyty much all I do on Windows. I have a macbook for work because MacOS gets out of your way and just works. I have a linux server and a linux workstation for other stuff - the workstation for coding, experimenting etc, the server for VPN endpoint, gitlab, time-machine and various other servery things. But for games, if you're wanting to game on PC, windows is King. And that's why my workstation has windows installed too. (My mother and my brother still use it because I can't be bothered to try to teach them anything else)
NilsIRL 7y ago
> I just don't understand why people run windows I've seen so many good answers but to me, the main one is that people don't know there are alternatives. I know virtually no one in "real" life that knows what Linux is. Windows is pre-installed and people just roll with it. Some are aware there's this thing called "Mac" that it is more expensive and that's it.
apazzolini 7y ago
Video games.
ilikehurdles 7y ago
My windows computer is for goofing off and gaming. That is the only reason I keep it. If I want to get real work done I boot back into linux or use a macbook.
stiray 7y ago
> I just don't understand why people run windows I do. And just a disclaimer, I am using linux 100% on desktop (and prefer freebsd on servers). Where I run firefox, i3, terminal, evolution (as I am forced to use it due to Exchange support, while I actually prefer mutt) and this is it. I rarely run anything else that is windowed. The reason is simple. Linux desktop really sucks. Instead of whole community stepping together and make ONE well made, bugless desktop, where most of people wouldnt need to install 3rd party hacks, edit config files and do everything using mouse, you need to fight which one is better and you end up with 20+ desktop enviroments that all sucks one way or another. Linux would have edge over windows desktop if there wouldnt be higlanders fractions fighting which half finished desktop is better. And I am observing this for 20 years. Same goes with binary compatibility. Personally I dont care but for ordinary "dumb" user it is revolting. And immidiately when freebsd will give me working hw support, I will move away from linux too. As it is a mess since systemd came, where more and more non existant problems are beeing solved while you still cant clean dhclient mess from the system without killing it (-r? -x? Only in man pages.) It is a sad story of egoism and vanity where something that could be great, never was.
- AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
  As someone who uses one of the minority desktops within a minority distro (Fedora w/ Cinnamon spin), I agree that all of the trash-talking within a community is to the detriment to its spread. I almost wish we could get all Linux users to verbally agree to something like the following: "I will not trash popular Linux desktop environments to outsiders. Ubuntu is fine. GNOME is fine. I understand that for the sake of the Linux Desktop's survival, it is more important that I be helpful and supportive of people's choice to use Default Ubuntu, rather than telling them that my Arch/Xfce/i3 setup is The One True Path." Use whatever you want in private. Just shut the f--- up about trashing Ubuntu/Mint/Manjaro at every opportunity because you disagree with some decision of theirs. It makes us all look bad.
  - jmnicolas 7y ago
    I think you misunderstood : the problem is not the trash-talking, the problem is that all Linux DE are trashes and if people were only putting their effort on one it wouldn't be trash.
MadWombat 7y ago
> I just don't understand why people run windows. My use of my home computer mostly consists of making/learning music and playing games. Both of these activities pretty much require Windows. There are some ways around it, like I could be running games under Wine and use a Linux DAW and use something like LinVST to get my plugins working, but it requires a lot of effort and the results are not guaranteed (people seem to have mixed experience running Kontakt 6 under Wine and not all games run equally well). Or I could go the money route and buy a console for games and a Mac for music, but it seems like an overkill and I would be exchanging a nasty proprietary system that is Windows for two separate nasty proprietary systems of Mac and PS4/Xbox.
grawprog 7y ago
>Over the last couple of years I've been coming round to the fact that microsoft aren't necessarily a major problem now, compared to google and amazon at least. Yet, a large majority of computers are running an operating system that spies on you and serves ads to you. Not just personal computers, but most businesses too. Buying a computer that doesn't come with windows on it is difficult for the average person who isn't trying, I don't mean Chromebooks or those system76 type computers, I mean walking through best buy or something the way a lot of non tech people end up buying computers. I mean i've had windows restore itself on my hardrive after a boot issue despite formatting it away years ago. Or at least try to, I was really confused when the windows recovery prompt popped up. As far as I.knew it had been gone since the day I got my laptop. Not to mention, thanks to Microsoft, I now essentially need their permission to install anything other than windows on modern hardware(I know it's not quite that simple and kernel modules can be self signed etc.), but effectively, at least from the issues i've dealt with...and continue to deal with, the most recent being with virtual box and having to self sign kernel.modules to make it work, uefi really feels like Microsoft trying to keep whatever bit of control they can over every computer whatever you decide to do with it. I'm not trying to start a uefi debate, I know there's work arounds and other things ways to deal with it, but since it's existed, it's been nothing but hassles for me and it's something I never asked for or wanted in my computer.
zentiggr 7y ago
Because I work in a Windows-only facility, at least where my level of dev work is done. And I live in a house where the only other person has only ever user Windows, and hates change. Like even desktop icons shouldn't relocate unless she does it herself. She fights every application update unless there's a clear reason, then there better not be any more differences than the ones indicated.
- starik36 7y ago
  > She fights every application update unless there's a clear reason Unless you are in the IT industry or at least an enthusiast, this is a rational approach.
  - iso1631 7y ago
    I'm in the IT industry, and it's my approach. I changed my desktop from fluxbox to xfce about 10 years ago, but have much the same keyboard shortcuts as I did 20 years ago, and the occasional icon has appeared in the dock as time progressed (namely volume, battery, wifi). I still use xplanet as my desktop for the rare times I see it, and I certainly don't have any icons on the desktop.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Actually the opposite. Unless you work in IT, you likely don't understand changelogs or release notes very well. Unless you can assess the risk of not updating, the safe approach is to auto update everything. Yes, it may be annoying and you may run into new bugs. On the other hand: Your USB ports stopped working? You should've been updating the bios. You got breached via the browser or email app? Should've been updating them.
    - overgard 7y ago
      Kind of sad that our industry standard is: you need to put up with us changing shit on you all the time so that things can keep working. If I were a marketer, which clearly I am not, I would think it would be bad marketing to have your computer constantly be telling you "HEY, you need to drop what you're doing to apply this fix for me at random, because if you don't someone is going to install ransomware. Oh and by the way, we're going to install Candy Crush Saga with this, because fuck you." Maybe the person not updating isn't rational, but if every update is fucking candy crush I couldn't blame them for saying "maybe microsoft is worse than the hackers"
Mirioron 7y ago
>I just don't understand why people run windows. For me the main reason is games. Dual booting is really annoying and jumping through the 15 hoops it takes to run games on Linux doesn't seem worth it considering how poorly games seem to run natively on Windows already. It's not a question of "there are no games for Linux" but rather "the game I want to play is not on Linux". This one point is basically the anchor that all the other usage is centered around for me. Linux simply doesn't offer something amazing enough over what Windows does to warrant all this trouble for games. If the games I wanted to play ran decently on Linux with few problems then I'd probably switch over. But considering that MS is now doing that Xbox game pass subscription even on Windows, I think the chance of switching is becoming less and less likely.
- sslayer 7y ago
  Steam with Proton and ProtonDb was a game changer. What runs native in Linux vs using Proton is like night and day
  - xnyan 7y ago
    Proton is fantastic, but you’re still saying I am going have to accept less compatibility and more work than on windows windows. Not worth it for me, especially with an nvidia GPU. I understand that’s mostly to blame on Nvidia but it’s still the reality of the situation.
- jjdredd 7y ago
  Same reason for me. If not for games, I would have switched a long time ago. My favourite game runs only on windows and requires an anti-cheat that runs only on windows. So I just dual-boot.
overgard 7y ago
I switched over to running desktop linux a couple months ago because I was so fed up with these things, but the truth is... it's just pretty bad. Like if I let my laptop go to sleep my touchpad will never work again. I had to do a bunch of weird kernel hacks to keep my wifi working when the device goes to sleep, and even then it's a hack (I had to enable the airplane mode button, and then make sure to hit it twice any time I open the screen. Come on!). And the lock screen breaks if I'm plugged into a monitor, it shows this weird low resolution version and a high resolution one on top of it. Everything is just incredibly sloppy and either outright broken, or kind of broken. This is Kubuntu btw! I tried Fedora and it crashed every two minutes if I booted X windows so, that didn't work out. Also the main thing with Fedora was it couldn't recognize my sound card, which is like the main intel thing built into every laptop. Maybe it's a winmodem thing again or something, but overall it just does not work at all. So the reason people are still using Microsoft: You HAVE to unless you explicitly buy hardware for Linux. It's just unusable otherwise and the trajectory is getting WORSE, not better.
- WanderPanda 7y ago
  Exactly my experience! In addition to that, it kills your battery in no time
- slgeorge 7y ago
  Yes, you MUST buy certified hardware [0], preferably with it pre-loaded with Linux [1]. Ultimately, Linux didn't make enough of a dent in the desktop hardware space in the 90's/00's. The level of interest from hardware vendors (ODM/OEM/component manufacturers) has gone down - that's why things are worse. If you don't use non-preloaded hardware you are NOT signalling to anyone that desktop Linux is important. This reduces overall interest - vendors think that no-one uses Linux - over the long run this reduces the amount of work done. The take-away is please buy a DELL Sputnik with support - you are signalling to the market you want desktop Linux - and if it breaks you can complain! I confess I only partially practise what I preach - I'm on a thinkpad =-) [0] https://certification.ubuntu.com/ https://certification.ubuntu.com/ and there are other sites [1] https://www.dell.com/support/article/uk/en/ukbsdt1/sln310507/ubuntu-based-developer-and-engineering-systems-project-sputnik?lang=en https://www.dell.com/support/article/uk/en/ukbsdt1/sln310507...
neycoda 7y ago
"I just don't understand why people run windows." Because not everyone wants to get things to work through command-line especially Broadcom drivers.
drngdds 7y ago
I use Windows because: - Chromebooks don't meet my needs and Macs are incredibly expensive. - There's a lot of software I care about which is Windows-only and doesn't have a good Linux alternative, especially games. - I have not had great experiences using Linux. I still run into lots of dumb little issues that make me feel like I'm back in the Windows XP days, except this time I have to enter mysterious terminal commands I found on Stack Exchange to make things work right. - You can easily avoid this kind of nonsense in Windows 10 with like half an hour of setup after your initial install.
mycall 7y ago
> I just don't understand why people run windows. Software that doesn't exist elsewhere (maybe OSX).

alxlaz 7y ago

> I just don't understand why people run windows. I've used Linux for about the same time and honestly, I understand it completely. I would switch, were it not for muscle memory and for the fact that at least 50% of my work involves systems-level development for Linux (mainly embedded stuff, so a lot of cross-compiling). In the last five or six years I've come to dread the Linux desktop and its constant churn of rewrites and UX "improvements". I have a Windows machine that I use for work the other half of the time and honestly... it's great. Yeah, the occasional update breaks some fringe feature. But the chances of something like waking up to the announcement that Microsoft is removing desktop icons in the next update and you can just install this third-party application for it (which will break with every update) are practically zero. Microsoft puts out a lot of broken stuff (some of which slowly morphs into non-broken, useful stuff over time, e.g. Powershell), but you can mostly be assured that, if something works today, it'll work ten years from now, modulo some registry hacks. That's incredibly valuable. I really don't care about things like UI consistency and whatnot -- what I do care about is stability and functionality. Edit: tbh, the main reason why I'm not switching today is that I don't really trust this whole OS-as-a-service model. If it were Windows 2000 instead of Windows 10, I wouldn't think twice before switching, but these are different times. (More edit: please realize that I'm the same person who posted this reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22288917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22288917 , yeah?)

smabie 7y ago
Or you could just use a window manager that doesn’t change? I’ve had the same desktop env for over a decade and nothing has changed at all. In contrast with windows and osx where we literally cannot opt out.
- alxlaz 7y ago
  I do, but that doesn't help much. I don't really have a choice about GTK applications, for example -- I'm going to get the GTK 3 open file dialog and the colour picker with every GTK 3 application.
- sergiosgc 7y ago
  I entirely understand alxlaz's position, buy my solution was exactly sticking to better window managers (in terms of long term support). My workstation is Linux since '98 or '99, and since then I've used GNUstep for about a decade, then i3 and now sway (basically i3 for Wayland). I'm free from the breaking changes alxlaz describes. I just checked, and GNUstep is pretty much alive. Even that change was caused by me wanting to try tiling window managers, not support failure.
  - alxlaz 7y ago
    Ah, I'm in a similar-ish boat, I use WindowMaker :). This isolates me from most, but definitely not all dubious changes. I've been down the tiling WM rabbit hole a while ago but it's just not for me, I like the mouse, I like icons... It's a little unsettling that there are two ways to get a stable experience: using window manager from 1998 (OK, ok, WindowMaker is still maintained-ish, in fact a very tiny portion of the code written after 1998 is mine :-) ), or getting used to a workflow akin to that of Windows 1.01 (i.e. a tiling WM). On the bright side, though, yeah, at least we have a choice!
    - sergiosgc 7y ago
      > (...) getting used to a workflow akin to that of Windows 1.01 (i.e. a tiling WM) Not really, unless it's a tong-in-cheek remark. Tiling window managers use virtual desktops and programmable positioning of windows to produce a predictable layout. Windows 1.01 had neither of those. Add muscle memory to it and, if you can endure the learning/customization curve, you get a very efficient window manager. Whenever I'm alt-tabbing in search of windows in Windows or OSX I feel I'm using old software.
simion314 7y ago
Then don't use that DE that is targeting at clearly other people (I agree it sucks that most distributions use that DE but as power user you can install the distribution or DE that fits you better).
- wott 7y ago
  Unfortunately the triplet DE--GUI-Toolkit--Applications is often intertwined or at least evolves in the same manner. For example, I don't want GTK-3, I only have GTK-2 installed. It could be all fine and dandy if, one after another, year after year, applications wouldn't give up their GTK-2 backend to only maintain/develop their GTK-3 one. The set of (up-to-date) applications I can run decreases, despite the fact that, as Alxlaz, I still run WindowMaker :-) On Qt side, there are applications which requires an exact version of Qt (not only the main version Qt-3/4/5, but the point version), or require KDE, or require an exact version of KDE. If you want to install a new application, you have to go back in its history and find a version of the application that matches your installed library version. Or install another Qt version and hope it doesn't break other programs. --------- A bit different, but many years after my last try, I tried to use Scribus. I quickly remembered why I had not really used it long the previous time: text input is still convoluted and not WYSIWYG, which is a bit annoying (understatement) for this kind of program where you precisely want to see how text flows. So I gave a try to the new branch (which BTW required a new version of Qt, if I am not mistaken), hoping that they finally did something about it after all those years this program exists. Alas! Apart from the underneath Qt version change, the visible changes were: icons are now flat and monochrome (i.e. you cannot recognise one from another), keyboard shortcuts have been slightly and viciously modified (what was F3 is now F4, stuff like that... but why, oh why? what is the freaking point of doing that?), and it crashed on me after 5 minutes. --------- So basically, even if you'd just wish to have a few bugs fixed, and possibly a long-time missing feature finally added, by getting the new version that does this, you are forced to follow the crazy flow of adding or updating all libraries/toolkits/environments, because maintainers have decided it was way more interesting to rewrite their stuff for the umpteenth time with a different/new back-end (toolkit, environment), rather than polishing their existing, mostly fine for the job, code base. It is exhausting, I am, too, really tired with that churn and constant breaking.
TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
> I really don't care about things like UI consistency and whatnot -- what I do care about is stability and functionality. I was on Linux for about 20 years, and now I've been on Mac for 6. Of course, I've had to deal with Windows all this time, too, for gaming and work. (I was even certified on NT.) Anyway, I've no doubt that Windows is pretty stable by now, but the glorious configuration that my company sets up on their laptops starts bugging us to reboot after 5 days, just because it's been "a long time." I blame Microsoft for making their software cater to people who cut-and-paste from Google results to create IT policy, and creating an ecosystem which leads companies to do things like this, and, say, locking the desktop background, of all things. And you can keep Powershell, along with WSL. Sure, Apple doesn't play well with enterprises, because they start with the fundamental assumption that the device is PERSONAL, and you're not using someone else's loaned device. I'm very glad for this. (And I'm never giving my company permissions to remotely wipe my devices with Mobile Iron.) I'd really love to see OS usage percentage numbers with corporate use factored out. My gut feeling is that Windows has absolutely nosedived for personal use over the past few years, and it's only corporations that are keeping the numbers in the air. Half the people I know don't even have a computer, and are just using their phone or an iPad.
- krzyk 7y ago
  > Apple doesn't play well with enterprises Well, it plays too well actually. At my current job and at previous one we had a choice Mac or a Windows laptop. Mac ones were alway much more rigid with restrictions, less hackable (e.g. Installing Linux side by side was impossible on Mac, because it broke macos somehow as a result of enterprise drive encryption).
  - TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
    Well, I just had to take my laptop in to work to get the firmware updated because BitLocker hiccuped, and locked me out of the machine. I'm doubting that you're going to be any safer on Windows in this regard, unless Corporate IT is NOT turning on drive encryption for Windows. (And even I would probably advocate for this particular policy.)
kelnos 7y ago
I absolutely get the distaste for gratuitous UX changes. I've been using Xfce since 2004 and it hasn't changed all that much since then. Overall I'd never claim that a Linux desktop is a "Just Works" proposition, but judging from the issues my colleagues have with macOS, I wouldn't trade my Linux problems for their macOS problems. I can't speak much to Windows anymore, but I can't imagine it'd be all that much better. (Full disclosure: 2004-2009 I was a core Xfce developer.)
- Justsignedup 7y ago
  OSX problems range from: - oh look, apple decided to change their security model. Now old apps don't work. (necessary to prevent malware). - oh look, no more 32bit programs. - oh look, you plugged in a monitor CRASH. - oh look, you plugged in a charger... CRASH. - oh look, a touchbar. - let's all pay a $1000 premium for hardware. On OSX backwards compatibility isn't a concern apparently. Windows problems range from: - Who installed this thing? And to where? WTF is it? - Why is there 2+ interfaces for all system configurations. 1 of which is pretty but incomplete, and the other hidden and terrible but complete? - Why does it insist on using edge and bing for fucking everything?
  - mr_toad 7y ago
    > let's all pay a $1000 premium for hardware. Worth it IMHO. I have a Mac mini that I bought on a whim while a Windows desktop was in the shop. I’ve had it six years now, and in that time I’ve had three Windows machines die.
    - ianlevesque 7y ago
      Yeah. Now try again with the latest Mac mini and compare :(
    - jsega 7y ago
      Yay for anecdotes. I've had the same windows desktop for 6 years without anything being replaced. I also use a Linux laptop which runs great and "just works".
Justsignedup 7y ago
And the occasional "we changed all network settings and turned off all network devices" system update. And then of course "if you need help go to www..." Linux desktop is a horrible UX. But is also an amazing server environment. Also windows can run on partially broken hardware and still not crash. Which is incredibly impressive.
ladzoppelin 7y ago
> just don't understand why people run windows. Honestly, its DPI scaling and windows management with 4K monitors. Both Microsoft and Apple are still not perfect in this area so I assume its an extremely hard problem. The other issue is not all programs, like Daws and video editors, have a Linux version.
yellowapple 7y ago
> In the last five or six years I've come to dread the Linux desktop and its constant churn of rewrites and UX "improvements". Not like Windows is especially immune to this, either, though in Microsoft's defense they actually listened to the users somewhat and backpedaled to a proper Start Menu instead of continuing to shove Metro down everyone's throats.
LessDmesg 7y ago
Windows has a big ole flaw nowadays: not friendly to SSD+HDD setup where you put the OS on the SSD. It insists on storing everything on drive C:\ which is on the SSD, even the behemoth that is Visual Studio (though that can be offset in large part with junction links). I've allocated 64GB of SSD space to my Windows and it managed to fill it up already even though I make it a point to install and save everything the HDD. Now, Win10 can't install any of its stupid updates anymore. Microsoft seriously needs to stop living in the 90s where it was okay to shove all data to drive C:\...
tripzilch 7y ago
> But the chances of something like waking up to the announcement that Microsoft is removing desktop icons in the next update and you can just install this third-party application for it (which will break with every update) are practically zero. I get your point, but I do think this has actually occurred. Remembr when 7 updated to 8, and when 8 updated to 8.2 (I think) and when 8 updated to 10? I didn't use Windows much back then, but I really remember those three updates. I forget which, but one unexpectedly took nearly 4 hours. Like an entire morning waiting for updates to finish, unable to use that computer, which was the one computer hooked up to the beamer, but it had to be updated at some point. I actually wrote a "windows update game" during that time, where you had to play a platforming hourglass, collecting percentages of progress. If you got to 100% it said something like "Restart to finish upgrading", then it started at 0% again, and you got ONE point. I think somebody got a high score of three. And the first update completely changed the UI, removed the Start Menu (or hid it?), made icons into "tiles", some of which were "active" (?), which is to me a lot like you're describing. I was truly lost in Windows for a while. On all sides, not just the UI, but the settings, the folders. And I still don't know what I have to do in Windows to disable ALL the telemetry and advertising in menus. Is it still possible? It's probably about as hard as setting up an Ubuntu install. And it's keeping me scared away from Windows, just like setting up Ubuntu seems scary to some other users. It's not that I don't like Windows, like you say, if it were 2000 (or XP, or 7, I've also gotten used to those) ... actually you're right that 2000 might have been the last Windows that I wasn't slightly scared about (spying on me, even though what we considered "spying" in the days of XP, are like Tuesdays now). There's this one thing that will always make me go back to Linux, however. And is that (perhaps the way I use it?) Windows has a "honeymoon" period that is one or two years, after that it just degrades in quality, responsiveness, just getting slow. And I have no idea how to fix that, clean it up, or whatever, besides installing Linux. Which makes the thing run smooth again. The only thing that seems to slow Linux down after a while, is the browser because the web just keeps getting heavier. But I don't hate using Windows for those 1-2 years :) Especially now they got better command line stuff, who knows.

wgerard 7y ago

> I just don't understand why people run windows. There are many, many products that either run significantly better on windows (Office) or are completely unavailable on other OSs (many video games). That's changing, for sure. But there's still a long tail of products that semi-necessitate windows.

heavenlyblue 7y ago
How is office better than Google Docs?
- njsubedi 7y ago
  Works completely offline?
- t-writescode 7y ago
  For real document creation, Word and Latex are the best out there, bar none. For detailed and powerful spreadsheet use there is nothing that compares to Excel. This coming from someone forced to use Google Sheets at a former company, after having Excel.
- zaat 7y ago
  Try using bi-directional text, or including equations in Docs. It is practically unusable. Excel is so powerful that people are doing with it stupid things and than their businesses rely on them. That stuff will never work in Docs. Office is a killer product, with extremely rich feature set that works very well. Sadly, there is nothing in the market that even close. It is the main (perhaps only) reason I still have to use a Windows VM.
- wgerard 7y ago
  FWIW, I don't think it is necessarily. But, a lot of people are forced to use office for various reasons - trying to edit a docx in Docs/Pages/LibreOffice, for example, can be really frustrating for any number of reasons (fonts, margins, etc. all sometimes break spectacularly). So if you're using office quite frequently, windows can be very appealing.

leetcrew 7y ago

support is an obvious reason. with the exception of some dev tools and mac-only creative software, pretty much everything supports windows. I can go out and buy any high end laptop and be confident it will work well with windows. similarly, if I want to throw some random hardware in my desktop, I don't have to worry about whether drivers exist for my os. all this stuff requires an additional research step with linux. in short, if you're a power user (and especially if you like choosing your own hardware) and you want your os to "just work", windows is the best of few options.

mumblemumble 7y ago

It really depends on your needs. For example, my in-laws got a Chromebook a few years ago. My father-in-law definitely liked it better. For my mother-in-law, it was an unmitigated disaster. He really only uses the computer for watching Netflix and reading the New York Times. She, a teacher, also uses it for work, and she found that most of the programs she used for classroom prep simply weren't available for ChromeOS, and didn't have any equivalent. So I ended up helping her give her old Windows desktop a nice deep scrubbing, put some more RAM in it, all that good stuff, and that's now what she uses when her iPad won't do. My own parents prefer Windows, too, though that's a more fuzzy situation. Basically, it's just that it's what they've always used. They've tried other platforms a couple times, and quickly found that it just wasn't even remotely worth the hassle of learning all the differences. That's down to differences in file sharing, printer set up, all that good stuff. Me, for a while I was thinking of switching back to Windows at home for a while, simply because I used Windows at work, and I was getting sick of having to remember two different sets of keyboard commands and suchlike. (Then I went to a shop where all the devs were given Macs, so I ended up there instead.) For my purposes, running some other OS as the host and Linux in a VM is plenty good enough.

bcrosby95 7y ago

Because everyone has their own priorities. My main priority is to give my family technical solutions they could manage if I were to kick the bucket, and to ultimately own their data they need. Between my wife and I we have 1tb of photos and videos. We could store it all in the cloud, but then if they shut her account down for whatever reason we would lose them all. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't find this acceptable. I do seem to be in the minority here, everyone I know just hosts all their files at a single cloud provide. It seems nuts to me. And I haven't found an off-site backup solution that works with Linux. CrashPlan used to offer family plans but they got rid of them. Backblaze only has B2 for Linux - not really acceptable given my requirements. So my family runs Windows. I run Linux.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Vrondi 7y ago

Chromebooks are far worse, if you have any privacy concerns.

Nursie 7y ago

> I just don't understand why people run windows. I like gaming. That's pretyty much all I do on Windows. I have a macbook for work because MacOS gets out of your way and just works. I have a linux server and a linux workstation for other stuff - the workstation for coding, experimenting etc, the server for VPN endpoint, gitlab, time-machine and various other servery things. But for games, if you're wanting to game on PC, windows is King. And that's why my workstation has windows installed too. (My mother and my brother still use it because I can't be bothered to try to teach them anything else)

NilsIRL 7y ago

> I just don't understand why people run windows I've seen so many good answers but to me, the main one is that people don't know there are alternatives. I know virtually no one in "real" life that knows what Linux is. Windows is pre-installed and people just roll with it. Some are aware there's this thing called "Mac" that it is more expensive and that's it.

apazzolini 7y ago

Video games.

ilikehurdles 7y ago

My windows computer is for goofing off and gaming. That is the only reason I keep it. If I want to get real work done I boot back into linux or use a macbook.

stiray 7y ago

> I just don't understand why people run windows I do. And just a disclaimer, I am using linux 100% on desktop (and prefer freebsd on servers). Where I run firefox, i3, terminal, evolution (as I am forced to use it due to Exchange support, while I actually prefer mutt) and this is it. I rarely run anything else that is windowed. The reason is simple. Linux desktop really sucks. Instead of whole community stepping together and make ONE well made, bugless desktop, where most of people wouldnt need to install 3rd party hacks, edit config files and do everything using mouse, you need to fight which one is better and you end up with 20+ desktop enviroments that all sucks one way or another. Linux would have edge over windows desktop if there wouldnt be higlanders fractions fighting which half finished desktop is better. And I am observing this for 20 years. Same goes with binary compatibility. Personally I dont care but for ordinary "dumb" user it is revolting. And immidiately when freebsd will give me working hw support, I will move away from linux too. As it is a mess since systemd came, where more and more non existant problems are beeing solved while you still cant clean dhclient mess from the system without killing it (-r? -x? Only in man pages.) It is a sad story of egoism and vanity where something that could be great, never was.

AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
As someone who uses one of the minority desktops within a minority distro (Fedora w/ Cinnamon spin), I agree that all of the trash-talking within a community is to the detriment to its spread. I almost wish we could get all Linux users to verbally agree to something like the following: "I will not trash popular Linux desktop environments to outsiders. Ubuntu is fine. GNOME is fine. I understand that for the sake of the Linux Desktop's survival, it is more important that I be helpful and supportive of people's choice to use Default Ubuntu, rather than telling them that my Arch/Xfce/i3 setup is The One True Path." Use whatever you want in private. Just shut the f--- up about trashing Ubuntu/Mint/Manjaro at every opportunity because you disagree with some decision of theirs. It makes us all look bad.
- jmnicolas 7y ago
  I think you misunderstood : the problem is not the trash-talking, the problem is that all Linux DE are trashes and if people were only putting their effort on one it wouldn't be trash.

MadWombat 7y ago

> I just don't understand why people run windows. My use of my home computer mostly consists of making/learning music and playing games. Both of these activities pretty much require Windows. There are some ways around it, like I could be running games under Wine and use a Linux DAW and use something like LinVST to get my plugins working, but it requires a lot of effort and the results are not guaranteed (people seem to have mixed experience running Kontakt 6 under Wine and not all games run equally well). Or I could go the money route and buy a console for games and a Mac for music, but it seems like an overkill and I would be exchanging a nasty proprietary system that is Windows for two separate nasty proprietary systems of Mac and PS4/Xbox.

grawprog 7y ago

>Over the last couple of years I've been coming round to the fact that microsoft aren't necessarily a major problem now, compared to google and amazon at least. Yet, a large majority of computers are running an operating system that spies on you and serves ads to you. Not just personal computers, but most businesses too. Buying a computer that doesn't come with windows on it is difficult for the average person who isn't trying, I don't mean Chromebooks or those system76 type computers, I mean walking through best buy or something the way a lot of non tech people end up buying computers. I mean i've had windows restore itself on my hardrive after a boot issue despite formatting it away years ago. Or at least try to, I was really confused when the windows recovery prompt popped up. As far as I.knew it had been gone since the day I got my laptop. Not to mention, thanks to Microsoft, I now essentially need their permission to install anything other than windows on modern hardware(I know it's not quite that simple and kernel modules can be self signed etc.), but effectively, at least from the issues i've dealt with...and continue to deal with, the most recent being with virtual box and having to self sign kernel.modules to make it work, uefi really feels like Microsoft trying to keep whatever bit of control they can over every computer whatever you decide to do with it. I'm not trying to start a uefi debate, I know there's work arounds and other things ways to deal with it, but since it's existed, it's been nothing but hassles for me and it's something I never asked for or wanted in my computer.

zentiggr 7y ago

Because I work in a Windows-only facility, at least where my level of dev work is done. And I live in a house where the only other person has only ever user Windows, and hates change. Like even desktop icons shouldn't relocate unless she does it herself. She fights every application update unless there's a clear reason, then there better not be any more differences than the ones indicated.

starik36 7y ago
> She fights every application update unless there's a clear reason Unless you are in the IT industry or at least an enthusiast, this is a rational approach.
- iso1631 7y ago
  I'm in the IT industry, and it's my approach. I changed my desktop from fluxbox to xfce about 10 years ago, but have much the same keyboard shortcuts as I did 20 years ago, and the occasional icon has appeared in the dock as time progressed (namely volume, battery, wifi). I still use xplanet as my desktop for the rare times I see it, and I certainly don't have any icons on the desktop.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Actually the opposite. Unless you work in IT, you likely don't understand changelogs or release notes very well. Unless you can assess the risk of not updating, the safe approach is to auto update everything. Yes, it may be annoying and you may run into new bugs. On the other hand: Your USB ports stopped working? You should've been updating the bios. You got breached via the browser or email app? Should've been updating them.
  - overgard 7y ago
    Kind of sad that our industry standard is: you need to put up with us changing shit on you all the time so that things can keep working. If I were a marketer, which clearly I am not, I would think it would be bad marketing to have your computer constantly be telling you "HEY, you need to drop what you're doing to apply this fix for me at random, because if you don't someone is going to install ransomware. Oh and by the way, we're going to install Candy Crush Saga with this, because fuck you." Maybe the person not updating isn't rational, but if every update is fucking candy crush I couldn't blame them for saying "maybe microsoft is worse than the hackers"

Mirioron 7y ago

>I just don't understand why people run windows. For me the main reason is games. Dual booting is really annoying and jumping through the 15 hoops it takes to run games on Linux doesn't seem worth it considering how poorly games seem to run natively on Windows already. It's not a question of "there are no games for Linux" but rather "the game I want to play is not on Linux". This one point is basically the anchor that all the other usage is centered around for me. Linux simply doesn't offer something amazing enough over what Windows does to warrant all this trouble for games. If the games I wanted to play ran decently on Linux with few problems then I'd probably switch over. But considering that MS is now doing that Xbox game pass subscription even on Windows, I think the chance of switching is becoming less and less likely.

sslayer 7y ago
Steam with Proton and ProtonDb was a game changer. What runs native in Linux vs using Proton is like night and day
- xnyan 7y ago
  Proton is fantastic, but you’re still saying I am going have to accept less compatibility and more work than on windows windows. Not worth it for me, especially with an nvidia GPU. I understand that’s mostly to blame on Nvidia but it’s still the reality of the situation.
jjdredd 7y ago
Same reason for me. If not for games, I would have switched a long time ago. My favourite game runs only on windows and requires an anti-cheat that runs only on windows. So I just dual-boot.

overgard 7y ago

I switched over to running desktop linux a couple months ago because I was so fed up with these things, but the truth is... it's just pretty bad. Like if I let my laptop go to sleep my touchpad will never work again. I had to do a bunch of weird kernel hacks to keep my wifi working when the device goes to sleep, and even then it's a hack (I had to enable the airplane mode button, and then make sure to hit it twice any time I open the screen. Come on!). And the lock screen breaks if I'm plugged into a monitor, it shows this weird low resolution version and a high resolution one on top of it. Everything is just incredibly sloppy and either outright broken, or kind of broken. This is Kubuntu btw! I tried Fedora and it crashed every two minutes if I booted X windows so, that didn't work out. Also the main thing with Fedora was it couldn't recognize my sound card, which is like the main intel thing built into every laptop. Maybe it's a winmodem thing again or something, but overall it just does not work at all. So the reason people are still using Microsoft: You HAVE to unless you explicitly buy hardware for Linux. It's just unusable otherwise and the trajectory is getting WORSE, not better.

WanderPanda 7y ago
Exactly my experience! In addition to that, it kills your battery in no time
slgeorge 7y ago
Yes, you MUST buy certified hardware [0], preferably with it pre-loaded with Linux [1]. Ultimately, Linux didn't make enough of a dent in the desktop hardware space in the 90's/00's. The level of interest from hardware vendors (ODM/OEM/component manufacturers) has gone down - that's why things are worse. If you don't use non-preloaded hardware you are NOT signalling to anyone that desktop Linux is important. This reduces overall interest - vendors think that no-one uses Linux - over the long run this reduces the amount of work done. The take-away is please buy a DELL Sputnik with support - you are signalling to the market you want desktop Linux - and if it breaks you can complain! I confess I only partially practise what I preach - I'm on a thinkpad =-) [0] https://certification.ubuntu.com/ https://certification.ubuntu.com/ and there are other sites [1] https://www.dell.com/support/article/uk/en/ukbsdt1/sln310507/ubuntu-based-developer-and-engineering-systems-project-sputnik?lang=en https://www.dell.com/support/article/uk/en/ukbsdt1/sln310507...

neycoda 7y ago

"I just don't understand why people run windows." Because not everyone wants to get things to work through command-line especially Broadcom drivers.

drngdds 7y ago

I use Windows because: - Chromebooks don't meet my needs and Macs are incredibly expensive. - There's a lot of software I care about which is Windows-only and doesn't have a good Linux alternative, especially games. - I have not had great experiences using Linux. I still run into lots of dumb little issues that make me feel like I'm back in the Windows XP days, except this time I have to enter mysterious terminal commands I found on Stack Exchange to make things work right. - You can easily avoid this kind of nonsense in Windows 10 with like half an hour of setup after your initial install.

mycall 7y ago

> I just don't understand why people run windows. Software that doesn't exist elsewhere (maybe OSX).