5 ms·

The simple reality (IMHO of course) is that people have always used Windows because it was "what everyone uses" and "what the office uses" and "what my software

by ynniv 18y ago

The simple reality (IMHO of course) is that people have always used Windows because it was "what everyone uses" and "what the office uses" and "what my software runs on". If you see it from this perspective, the people who wanted something different have already left to some flavor of UNIX or Mac, so those remaining are looking after their cognitive investment in having learned XP. When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all. Software is free to copy (should the medium break) and never wears out, so if you have purchased and operating system and are happy with it, why should you ever pay for another one? I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders (fan boys? lackeys? towel boys?) for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo (except for those whose job is subsidized by Microsoft). So, that everyone has bought a copy of Windows XP, why Microsoft should continue to make revenue? Also, can we please make Linux (or maybe Haiku) a viable desktop OS? While I don't mind paying Apple a premium for their OS, it must be more efficient overall to have a non-profit develop a free OS once. Most new OS features at this point are marginally useful eye candy.

graemep 18y ago
Personally I think Linux is a viable desktop OS for many people. It has been my desktop for about seven years. I have moved two very non-geek users to it in the last two years and they are both quite happy too. MS defenders vary. Some have invested time learning MS technologies. Others worship wealth and success. Others have simply had bad luck with other OSes and have lost interest in trying again.
- twopoint718 18y ago
  I've had a lot of luck moving "non-geek" users to Linux. For those that cite these (once valid) points: * Driver support * Running windows applications (and here I'm including their equivalent, or under Wine/Crossover) * Ease of use/installation I'd be interested to hear what distro they tried and when they tried it. My last few installs of Debian/Ubuntu, even on non-x86 hardware has been a breeze and certainly much quicker than installing a fresh copy of XP.
Gilson_Silveira 18y ago
I think it is not so simple. It is not enough to have a good OS. In my opinion, what Linux needs from now is: - a stardardization of APIs (drivers, UI, etc...) - stardard technologies (such as C#, C++) - a very good development environment such as Visual Studio - very good documentation - show the world how to earn money using this The wide audience needs straight ways to do things because most people like to execute, not to decide.
trezor 18y ago
Windows has been built to be easily and centrally managed for sys-admins since the days of NT. Linux on the other side has been built modularly and to be absolutely hackable to anyone with a root/admin-account. There is no question what I would prefer to manage. You underestimate the power of Active Directory and Group policies.
- ynniv 18y ago
  This is the "what the office uses camp". Interestingly, you like Windows primarily due to the manageable power that it gives you over other people ('s computers). Fixing the user experience at the expense of centralized control would not be an improvement to you (but it probably would be to your users). BTW, having worked IT I fully agree with you. Mac OS X has a good notion for how one might manage groups of computers (NetInfo), but it isn't as pervasive at the application level and so it isn't as powerful.
Goronmon 18y ago
I am somewhat of an MS fanboy, I guess, because the work they put into their operating system allows me to game. Which is a significant hobby of mine. Makes it hard for me to develop too much of a bias against them, that is, unless someone comes up with a viable alternative.
- ynniv 18y ago
  I think that this use falls into the "my software works on it camp". Am I correct in saying that a new Microsoft OS that is orders of magnitude easier to use would be useless to you if your games didn't run?
wizlb 18y ago
"...people have always used Windows because it was \"what everyone uses\"" That doesn't make any sense. Obviously there was a time when nobody used Windows, so what made them buy it before it was "what everyone uses"? "When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all....why should you ever pay for another one?" You're amazed at this? Really? After thinking about it? Do you ask yourself things like "why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough"? Obviously, improvements are made and that's why people buy new versions of things. "I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders...for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo..." And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit. The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise. Other outfits have a few pieces of the puzzle, but Microsoft's got them ALL (good desktop, good server, good developer tools and API's).
- pavelludiq 18y ago
  "Obviously there was a time when nobody used Windows, so what made them buy it before it was "what everyone uses"?" It just came with their IBM compatible PC. Oh yeah, and it ran their software.
- ynniv 18y ago
  Your comment reads like a troll, but you have some good points. "what made them buy it before it was 'what everyone uses'?" The quick answer is that the IBM PC became popular and brought MS-DOS with it. Its popularity of the IBM PC in general was heavily based on IBM's brand and software compatibility of business applications. When other companies wanted to get into the PC market, they found it hard to sell hardware that didn't have well known software written for it (which of course is because the hardware wasn't popular, leading to a natural monopoly for the IBM PC). Because of the clone market and the deal Microsoft had signed with IBM, the growth of the clone market meant the growth of MS-DOS, and eventually the transfer of monopoly power from IBM to Microsoft. From MS-DOS 1.0, Microsoft has always been a "Me-too" player, adding only the features necessary to prevent people from switching platforms. This trends towards a culture of letting others do the innovating. "Do you ask yourself things like 'why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough'?" Well, thats a good question, but I'll answer it with another one - how much does the Horse and Buggy cost? Because, if I am 10 times more productive with the car, and the car cost me less than that, yes, I should have a car. So yes, Windows XP is much better than MS-DOS 1.0. I would be more productive with XP, and it costs less than the productivity gain. When Vista came out, and it costs more than XP, and there is no "upgrade" discount, the question was very different. Businesses did not upgrade (if they weren't forced) to Vista because they didn't get their money back. Now Windows 7 is due, and we'll ask ourselves once again whether its worth the additional money. "And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit." I think that everyone should... your much better off believing your own bullshit than someone else's. Still, I think that you might not understand the world as well as you think you do. "The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise." Ah, and now you hit the nail perfectly. Microsoft is alive because they have the best system for people in power to control those that they employ. Its smart catering to the basics of human nature, and control is one of them. Wouldn't we all be happier if we could control the lives of others? The deep question is who is this better for, and who makes the decisions. I believe that Personal Computing should be, err... personal. The success of software should be derived from how much more personally efficient it makes each of us. This means that I value features like ease of use (more learning means less efficiency for non-repetitive tasks), low cost (less effort I have to expend to get the gain), organization and consistency (the opposite of which is needless stress to me), and stability (downtime is not productive, nor are interruptions). My original comment on this submission comes from my inherit distaste for mouthpieces who defend companies against their own consumers. If Jason says that he dislikes the organization of Windows 7, then to an extent, the organization of Windows 7 is wrong. If the OS has to be customized to be useful, then it is wrong (every new Windows box I have to use gets the classic theme, hidden files visible, and a list of things that grows the more I have to use it.) When Microsoft runs an ad campaign instead of fixing Vista bugs, they have failed. Please, everyone, stop defending their failures. Defend what is worth defending and you'll feel better about yourself. In my opinion, the goal of this article is for Ed to show that he is a better consumer than Jason, and in the end tells me that Microsoft has failed again. Amusingly, the first comment in the article's page is "I am 100pct with Jason.". The second is "Loving Windows XP". What if Windows 7 is a step backwards from XP? Have we forgotten Windows ME? How does your horse and buggy metaphor apply then? [ http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm ] [ http://www.pbs.org/nerds/ http://www.pbs.org/nerds/ ]

by ynniv 18y ago

graemep 18y ago

Personally I think Linux is a viable desktop OS for many people. It has been my desktop for about seven years. I have moved two very non-geek users to it in the last two years and they are both quite happy too. MS defenders vary. Some have invested time learning MS technologies. Others worship wealth and success. Others have simply had bad luck with other OSes and have lost interest in trying again.

twopoint718 18y ago
I've had a lot of luck moving "non-geek" users to Linux. For those that cite these (once valid) points: * Driver support * Running windows applications (and here I'm including their equivalent, or under Wine/Crossover) * Ease of use/installation I'd be interested to hear what distro they tried and when they tried it. My last few installs of Debian/Ubuntu, even on non-x86 hardware has been a breeze and certainly much quicker than installing a fresh copy of XP.

Gilson_Silveira 18y ago

I think it is not so simple. It is not enough to have a good OS. In my opinion, what Linux needs from now is: - a stardardization of APIs (drivers, UI, etc...) - stardard technologies (such as C#, C++) - a very good development environment such as Visual Studio - very good documentation - show the world how to earn money using this The wide audience needs straight ways to do things because most people like to execute, not to decide.

trezor 18y ago

Windows has been built to be easily and centrally managed for sys-admins since the days of NT. Linux on the other side has been built modularly and to be absolutely hackable to anyone with a root/admin-account. There is no question what I would prefer to manage. You underestimate the power of Active Directory and Group policies.

ynniv 18y ago
This is the "what the office uses camp". Interestingly, you like Windows primarily due to the manageable power that it gives you over other people ('s computers). Fixing the user experience at the expense of centralized control would not be an improvement to you (but it probably would be to your users). BTW, having worked IT I fully agree with you. Mac OS X has a good notion for how one might manage groups of computers (NetInfo), but it isn't as pervasive at the application level and so it isn't as powerful.

Goronmon 18y ago

I am somewhat of an MS fanboy, I guess, because the work they put into their operating system allows me to game. Which is a significant hobby of mine. Makes it hard for me to develop too much of a bias against them, that is, unless someone comes up with a viable alternative.

ynniv 18y ago
I think that this use falls into the "my software works on it camp". Am I correct in saying that a new Microsoft OS that is orders of magnitude easier to use would be useless to you if your games didn't run?

wizlb 18y ago

"...people have always used Windows because it was \"what everyone uses\"" That doesn't make any sense. Obviously there was a time when nobody used Windows, so what made them buy it before it was "what everyone uses"? "When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all....why should you ever pay for another one?" You're amazed at this? Really? After thinking about it? Do you ask yourself things like "why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough"? Obviously, improvements are made and that's why people buy new versions of things. "I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders...for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo..." And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit. The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise. Other outfits have a few pieces of the puzzle, but Microsoft's got them ALL (good desktop, good server, good developer tools and API's).

pavelludiq 18y ago
"Obviously there was a time when nobody used Windows, so what made them buy it before it was "what everyone uses"?" It just came with their IBM compatible PC. Oh yeah, and it ran their software.
ynniv 18y ago
Your comment reads like a troll, but you have some good points. "what made them buy it before it was 'what everyone uses'?" The quick answer is that the IBM PC became popular and brought MS-DOS with it. Its popularity of the IBM PC in general was heavily based on IBM's brand and software compatibility of business applications. When other companies wanted to get into the PC market, they found it hard to sell hardware that didn't have well known software written for it (which of course is because the hardware wasn't popular, leading to a natural monopoly for the IBM PC). Because of the clone market and the deal Microsoft had signed with IBM, the growth of the clone market meant the growth of MS-DOS, and eventually the transfer of monopoly power from IBM to Microsoft. From MS-DOS 1.0, Microsoft has always been a "Me-too" player, adding only the features necessary to prevent people from switching platforms. This trends towards a culture of letting others do the innovating. "Do you ask yourself things like 'why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough'?" Well, thats a good question, but I'll answer it with another one - how much does the Horse and Buggy cost? Because, if I am 10 times more productive with the car, and the car cost me less than that, yes, I should have a car. So yes, Windows XP is much better than MS-DOS 1.0. I would be more productive with XP, and it costs less than the productivity gain. When Vista came out, and it costs more than XP, and there is no "upgrade" discount, the question was very different. Businesses did not upgrade (if they weren't forced) to Vista because they didn't get their money back. Now Windows 7 is due, and we'll ask ourselves once again whether its worth the additional money. "And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit." I think that everyone should... your much better off believing your own bullshit than someone else's. Still, I think that you might not understand the world as well as you think you do. "The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise." Ah, and now you hit the nail perfectly. Microsoft is alive because they have the best system for people in power to control those that they employ. Its smart catering to the basics of human nature, and control is one of them. Wouldn't we all be happier if we could control the lives of others? The deep question is who is this better for, and who makes the decisions. I believe that Personal Computing should be, err... personal. The success of software should be derived from how much more personally efficient it makes each of us. This means that I value features like ease of use (more learning means less efficiency for non-repetitive tasks), low cost (less effort I have to expend to get the gain), organization and consistency (the opposite of which is needless stress to me), and stability (downtime is not productive, nor are interruptions). My original comment on this submission comes from my inherit distaste for mouthpieces who defend companies against their own consumers. If Jason says that he dislikes the organization of Windows 7, then to an extent, the organization of Windows 7 is wrong. If the OS has to be customized to be useful, then it is wrong (every new Windows box I have to use gets the classic theme, hidden files visible, and a list of things that grows the more I have to use it.) When Microsoft runs an ad campaign instead of fixing Vista bugs, they have failed. Please, everyone, stop defending their failures. Defend what is worth defending and you'll feel better about yourself. In my opinion, the goal of this article is for Ed to show that he is a better consumer than Jason, and in the end tells me that Microsoft has failed again. Amusingly, the first comment in the article's page is "I am 100pct with Jason.". The second is "Loving Windows XP". What if Windows 7 is a step backwards from XP? Have we forgotten Windows ME? How does your horse and buggy metaphor apply then? [ http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm ] [ http://www.pbs.org/nerds/ http://www.pbs.org/nerds/ ]