kenada,
that quote is an opinion. however, i think it is the prevailing one. if you look windows is still the dominant desktop os. not only do more people use it. but there is more software availiable for it, and its easier to use, and its still considered the standard.
there are defintaly a few contendors in the wings. i personally like kde 2. but for the time being i think its safe to say that windows is still the dominant. (this is a whole different thread by itself).
OK, I don't get this (minor rant)
-
tyler_durden
- Senior Member
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 2:20 am
- Location: AGGIELAND: College Station, Texas
I know it was an opinion, which is why I started off admiting as much. <strike>Nonetheless, it would still be silly to ignore the flaws in the Windows UI simply because it has the most market share or to use something simply because it has the most market share and not because it is the environment in which one is most comforatble.
I think I shall go make a thread about this in the OS forum (where it belongs).
It'll take a bit of time to write up the entire thing, but I'll edit this message with a link to it when I'm done.</strike>
Update: Bah, it's too time consuming to write a decent critique of various UIs. <img src="http://www.pcabusers.net/forums/images/icons/bonk.gif"/>
[Edited by kenada on 01-07-2001 at 10:19 PM]
I think I shall go make a thread about this in the OS forum (where it belongs).
It'll take a bit of time to write up the entire thing, but I'll edit this message with a link to it when I'm done.</strike>Update: Bah, it's too time consuming to write a decent critique of various UIs. <img src="http://www.pcabusers.net/forums/images/icons/bonk.gif"/>
[Edited by kenada on 01-07-2001 at 10:19 PM]
I think you have to recognise the market for what it is and realise that it is pointless taking sides. You just have to go for the best deal at the time. I used 3DFX when the V2 was out because it was best at the time when the TNT2 outclassed the V3 I went to straight to Nvidia. At the moment AMD makes sense to me; faster chips & cheaper prices, someone else offers me a better deal I'll stop using AMD, brand loyalty is just dumb.
The same is very much true for OS's, I think most people who use Linux are just making a fashion statment with their computers. "Look at me, I'm different I don't need Microsoft!" it's just silly. Microsoft pretty much made the market what it is today and if you actually want to really USE your computer you will use a Microsoft OS because thats what most of the useful apps are written for. Is Office the worlds most popular suite because it was MS or simply the best package ? I think definatly the latter, Word 6 cr*pped on everything out their when it was released as did Excel 4 & 5.
I don't think you can critise the people writing Linux too much for being late as they arn't being paid to work to a deadline so they will do it when they have time, and why not? On the other hand I do think a lot of pundits eulogise over Linux far too much. Until their are actually really useful applications on Linux and decent driver support then apart from some percieved kudos what is the point?
I think MS also gets a rough ride on their useability and OS intuitiveness. I know a couple who had a IMAC for 3 months before realising how to quit applications. Having trained up a good number of people on diffferent Windows versions over the years I'd say it's pretty easy to use. Most people can get their fundamentals down in less than an hour and usually work the rest out for themselves. I've yet to see something that actually hands down slams the MS approach.
I'd say if you want to play games, work or run a business you use MS if you want to look cool then ok experiment with whatever you like.
Darkheart
[Edited by Darkheart on 01-08-2001 at 06:11 AM]
The same is very much true for OS's, I think most people who use Linux are just making a fashion statment with their computers. "Look at me, I'm different I don't need Microsoft!" it's just silly. Microsoft pretty much made the market what it is today and if you actually want to really USE your computer you will use a Microsoft OS because thats what most of the useful apps are written for. Is Office the worlds most popular suite because it was MS or simply the best package ? I think definatly the latter, Word 6 cr*pped on everything out their when it was released as did Excel 4 & 5.
I don't think you can critise the people writing Linux too much for being late as they arn't being paid to work to a deadline so they will do it when they have time, and why not? On the other hand I do think a lot of pundits eulogise over Linux far too much. Until their are actually really useful applications on Linux and decent driver support then apart from some percieved kudos what is the point?
I think MS also gets a rough ride on their useability and OS intuitiveness. I know a couple who had a IMAC for 3 months before realising how to quit applications. Having trained up a good number of people on diffferent Windows versions over the years I'd say it's pretty easy to use. Most people can get their fundamentals down in less than an hour and usually work the rest out for themselves. I've yet to see something that actually hands down slams the MS approach.
I'd say if you want to play games, work or run a business you use MS if you want to look cool then ok experiment with whatever you like.
Darkheart
[Edited by Darkheart on 01-08-2001 at 06:11 AM]
You better tell those relying on UNIX for servers or even workstations that they better drop everything for Microsoft because they're making a fashion statement and not using the solution which is best for them.I'd say if you want to play games, work or run a business you use MS if you want to look cool then ok experiment with whatever you like.
To say that Microsoft is the only solution for a workstation is absolutely absurd. Yes it might make sense for an environment where Office is needed, but it doesn't make as much sense for graphics—correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that MacOS still has better color management support—or other areas. I'm myself have in fact worked at a place that used a mixture of platforms. In my department, we used Solaris based workstations.
Asserting that Microsoft is the One True Solution™ is as absurd as saying to use BeOS|GNU/Linux|MacOS|etc because They Are Not Microsoft™.
Asserting that Microsoft is the One True Solution™ is as absurd as saying to use BeOS|GNU/Linux|MacOS|etc because They Are Not Microsoft™.
-
tyler_durden
- Senior Member
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 2:20 am
- Location: AGGIELAND: College Station, Texas
i just one to get something straight. mac doesn't really count. if you gave any os developer (either linux, micrsoft whatever) the opportunity to develop an OS that works with a very limited amount of hardware and software. ie like mac. then you would definetly have a better system. apple cheats. if linux or windows had developmental control (beyond what they do) and only had to work on intel mobos, with pentium chips, with nivida graphics cards and sb live sound cards, then charge more for the whole package of course you would get a better OS. apple cheats.
It doesn't matter if Apple cheats if some people find the platform most appropriate for their line of work. Apple competes for desktop space with Microsoft just like GNU/Linux does.
<div style="font-size: 0.6em;">
I'm aware of Judge Jackson's ruling, and I think he's full of shit. Breaking up Microsoft won't matter because it's the apps (e.g., MS Office, IE, etc) that keep people on the Windows platform not the platform itself. But I digress.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 0.6em;">
I'm aware of Judge Jackson's ruling, and I think he's full of shit. Breaking up Microsoft won't matter because it's the apps (e.g., MS Office, IE, etc) that keep people on the Windows platform not the platform itself. But I digress.
</div>Bah, I bet we don't have even 1 forum member that even owns a Mac much less uses it full time and I bet not one person here uses any other OS exclusively other than MS either.
I still think that most people are using Linux either for interest or or try something different and look cool, none of these are bad reasons but I don't see it being taken seriously as a business platform or even a serious home user platform.
Surely not everyone can be unaware of the irony of booting a Windows PC and decrying MS using MS IE. I also agree with Kenada that breaking up MS won't do a damn thing other than hike up prices.
All you people using Linux or Beos or whatever have either Windows hiding on another partition or another machine that runs Windows and you know it...
Darkheart
I still think that most people are using Linux either for interest or or try something different and look cool, none of these are bad reasons but I don't see it being taken seriously as a business platform or even a serious home user platform.
Surely not everyone can be unaware of the irony of booting a Windows PC and decrying MS using MS IE. I also agree with Kenada that breaking up MS won't do a damn thing other than hike up prices.
All you people using Linux or Beos or whatever have either Windows hiding on another partition or another machine that runs Windows and you know it...
Darkheart
I do <i>not</i> have Windows installed because I truely have no need for it.
Here is the output from <code>df(1)</code>. I only have a single 18GB HDD (note: <code>df(1)</code> displays sizes in MiB/GiB).
<pre>Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part1 12G 903M 11G 8% /
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part2 7.6M 2.4M 4.9M 33% /boot
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part3 4.0G 342M 3.6G 9% /home</pre>
See? No Windows. There is no ‘killer app’ to give me reason to run Windows, so why would I?
Here is the output from <code>df(1)</code>. I only have a single 18GB HDD (note: <code>df(1)</code> displays sizes in MiB/GiB).
<pre>Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part1 12G 903M 11G 8% /
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part2 7.6M 2.4M 4.9M 33% /boot
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part3 4.0G 342M 3.6G 9% /home</pre>
See? No Windows. There is no ‘killer app’ to give me reason to run Windows, so why would I?
There is only one reason I run Windows... the games. Since I like my games fast, my Windows box gets the good hardware. If I wasn't a gamer I wouldn't need Windows. Everything else (from photoshop-style apps, Office apps, ICQ, and Winamp) is available for Linux, at no cost. Coupled with it's stability, customizability, and speed, I see no reason to run Windows on the desktop (besides the games). Call me a cheap bastard but if someone offers me something for free, I'm gonna jump all over it.
Another thing, according to Bill McCarty, author of Learning Red Hat Linux (O'Rielly), the number of servers running Linux and it's many distro's is rising, while the number of servers running either Win2k or NT is stagnant, if not declining.
This relates to a previous post but McCarty quotes, "Free access to Linux source code lets programmers around the world implement new features, and tweak Linux to improve its performance and reliability. The best of these features and tweaks are incorporated in the standard Linux kernel or made available as kernel patches or applications. Not even Microsoft can mobilize and support a software development team as large and dedicated as the volunteer Linux software development team, which numbers in the hundreds of thousands, including programmers, code reviewers, and testers."
Another thing, according to Bill McCarty, author of Learning Red Hat Linux (O'Rielly), the number of servers running Linux and it's many distro's is rising, while the number of servers running either Win2k or NT is stagnant, if not declining.
This relates to a previous post but McCarty quotes, "Free access to Linux source code lets programmers around the world implement new features, and tweak Linux to improve its performance and reliability. The best of these features and tweaks are incorporated in the standard Linux kernel or made available as kernel patches or applications. Not even Microsoft can mobilize and support a software development team as large and dedicated as the volunteer Linux software development team, which numbers in the hundreds of thousands, including programmers, code reviewers, and testers."
As the old adage goes "There's always 1...".
Even you Kenada must acknowledge that you do have to pick your software carefully to make sure it will work. Wheras all high distribution packages (and even most medium and low) will have a Windows version if not Windows only.
As far as using Linux in a business enviorment I've looked at it and rejected it for Enterprise use. One of the main problems is that no-one IS responsible for the whole thing which generates lots of problems with support and development projects. If you have a problem with MS or Netware you can go to them or any of their certified companies and they have a responsilbity to solve the problem. If you use Linux then you can simply be told "Yeah, we'll fix that when we can get round to it, hey it was free what more do you want ?". Also large scale use of linux as a server is still in it's infancy and most people (like me) don't want to be in the first wave.
Maybe 1 day linux will be feasable all across the workplace but I still think that's a long way off and I can't see it overtaking any of the big server providers in the next couple of years.
As far as using killer apps for Windows:
Well PC Gaming is best suited for the Windows PC at the moment Direct X being a pretty big gun these days.
Office is also another big gun, everyone is already trained on it to some extent and most companies already own it.
Drivers and Hardware support is another big area, Windows works with EVERYTHING that's it's biggest advantage. You don't have to worry about your machine configuration, there will be windows support for it and you won't have to wait till 6 months after launch or when the manufacturer gets time.
10X More applications than any other OS.
Lots of certified trainers/support/techs all over the world.
High distribution all over the world, Linux may be increasng in the US but UK it's much slower and most other countries I think.
I'm not saying Linux is bad but it's not much more than a novelty item yet without any Windows beating apps I don't think it will ever fly.
Darkheart
Even you Kenada must acknowledge that you do have to pick your software carefully to make sure it will work. Wheras all high distribution packages (and even most medium and low) will have a Windows version if not Windows only.
As far as using Linux in a business enviorment I've looked at it and rejected it for Enterprise use. One of the main problems is that no-one IS responsible for the whole thing which generates lots of problems with support and development projects. If you have a problem with MS or Netware you can go to them or any of their certified companies and they have a responsilbity to solve the problem. If you use Linux then you can simply be told "Yeah, we'll fix that when we can get round to it, hey it was free what more do you want ?". Also large scale use of linux as a server is still in it's infancy and most people (like me) don't want to be in the first wave.
Maybe 1 day linux will be feasable all across the workplace but I still think that's a long way off and I can't see it overtaking any of the big server providers in the next couple of years.
As far as using killer apps for Windows:
Well PC Gaming is best suited for the Windows PC at the moment Direct X being a pretty big gun these days.
Office is also another big gun, everyone is already trained on it to some extent and most companies already own it.
Drivers and Hardware support is another big area, Windows works with EVERYTHING that's it's biggest advantage. You don't have to worry about your machine configuration, there will be windows support for it and you won't have to wait till 6 months after launch or when the manufacturer gets time.
10X More applications than any other OS.
Lots of certified trainers/support/techs all over the world.
High distribution all over the world, Linux may be increasng in the US but UK it's much slower and most other countries I think.
I'm not saying Linux is bad but it's not much more than a novelty item yet without any Windows beating apps I don't think it will ever fly.
Darkheart
I have <code>/etc/apt/sources.list</code> setup only to download Free Software from a Debian mirror. The availability of proprietary, commericial (or even freeware) software isn't relevent to me. The reason I use GNU/Linux is because I prefer the software available for it to that which is available for Windows.
For those who are gamers, they'd be silly not to have Windows (and a few consoles) handy to play games. The same goes for those who need Office as well. I myself am not much of a gamer. more interested in programming, an area in which GNU/Linux offers more to me than Windows. Office is something I've never needed because it's overkill for typing up papers for school.
Windows has good <i>X86</i> support; Windows NT 4.0 was the last version of Windows available for other platforms. If I wanted my next system to have dual 733MHz G4s, I would just install the PPC version of Debian and be good to go.
Is GNU/Linux the solution to everyone's problems? No, but neither is any other platform.
For those who are gamers, they'd be silly not to have Windows (and a few consoles) handy to play games. The same goes for those who need Office as well. I myself am not much of a gamer. more interested in programming, an area in which GNU/Linux offers more to me than Windows. Office is something I've never needed because it's overkill for typing up papers for school.
Windows has good <i>X86</i> support; Windows NT 4.0 was the last version of Windows available for other platforms. If I wanted my next system to have dual 733MHz G4s, I would just install the PPC version of Debian and be good to go.
Is GNU/Linux the solution to everyone's problems? No, but neither is any other platform.