Windows is popular because . . . . . . . . .

pwjohnston

"Windows is a requirement because enough people grew up with it, not the other way around. If OLPC made a billion people grow up with Linux, Linux would be just dandy for business."

$100 laptop' embraces Windows XP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7402365.stm

Hurm, I grew up using all sorts of different computers. Our first was a Tandy Trash 80, then Apple IIgs, then MS-DOS.

I think it's safe to say I feel comfortable on a variety of OS' from XP to OS X to Fedora.

undomiel

Well I recall my first computer being an Epson something or other. I was sooooo excited when the family got it that I would just boot it up and stare at the disk error screen because I thought that was so cool. Eventually moved on to an Apple IIgs where I got my first introduction to programming with Apple BASIC. Then a 286 running MS-DOS. Then a 486/66. MS-DOS 6.22 came out and that was the first time I got excited about an operating system. Only for the reason that it was a new version and everybody was talking about it, not that I had any clue what benefits it would bring. I objected strongly to Win3.1 and Win3.11 though. I could stand it. Everything was much easier to do from the command line and why would I want to have multiple windows open? That shrinks the screen space! Everything needs to be full screen like in DOS! Which is probably where I've gotten my habit of having my web browser always maximized and with as many toolbars turned off as possible. I got pretty skilled at tweaking config.sys and autoexec.bat to get games running and even started learning some C, C++ and x86 assembly. Still didn't know much about operating systems or about PC hardware, just that more mhz meant faster! I would have to get my dad to put the new sound card in. Win95 was when I got excited about a graphical operating system and was right out there picking it up the same day it was released! That was when I started learning troubleshooting and sometime after Win98 was released but before Win2000 was when I finally started learning hardware. It was still all about the games though. I did grow up with access to a Unix shell though which I spent a lot of times playing MUDs on. Now I'm working with Server 2003 and Linux and I feel pretty comfortable in both environments, though of course more so on Windows since I've put in more hours on that.

My reason for this ramble about my past? I'm comfortable using an alternative to Windows because I grew up with DOS and had an interest in tweaking things back then. The shell experience helped a bit as well. Lots of my friends from back then who were exposed to similar systems won't touch Linux with a 12 foot pole. They can't stand the fear of perhaps having to touch a command line again (face it, it happens even to the best of distros) and they are comfortable with the bit of troubleshooting they know for Windows. And if Windows breaks? They are comfortable in knowing there are people (not just me) whom they can call to get things fixed. So it is all a rather complex mixing of mindset and what people gew up with, in my experience. I don't believe that a billion people with OLPC with Linux would make Linux just dandy for business. Why? The Sugar UI is very different from the more standard offerings on Linux systems and abstracts you from having to deal with any configuration and also the static hardware offering doesn't really move you into having to work with configuring anything. So I just can't really see it being a driving force. With XP on it, the tables turn, since it can offer a similar or same experience as what you could expect to see in the business world as well.

hypnotoad

I miss the days when men were men and operating systems were the abstraction between the hardware and the applications, and nothing more or less.

JDMurray

Windows is popular because of continual and aggressive marketing over the course of two decades. Windows' primary backing is from a single, world-class organization and from a champion with nerd cred and charisma second only to Steve Jobs. When has GNU/Linux had any of that? The FSF and Richard Stallman? They've still got a ways to go before they figure out how to play to the same size crowd as Windows.

marco71

windows is popular because of human indolence and stupidity, because of games and because of conservative attitude of programmers and hardware developers...
otherwise, linux is more stable and secure by default than windows and a person who never see windows nor linux until now, will have same difficulties with both (speak about recent linux desktop oriented distributions).

slinuxuzer

I agree with Jd murray they have done a really good job at marketing their products, protecting their market share, and growing their market share. Think about when service pack 2 came out for XP at that time personal firewalls were getting big because of the spyware issue, microsoft sees companys making money, that could be better spent on their products so they incorporate a personal firewall into Sp2.

This same situation with virutal pc.

But another thing to consider is computers are still pretty new, most of the workforce didn't grow up with computers, almost 100% of consumer pc's come loaded with microsoft os's.

So if your a company and you have a choice of using microsoft or linux for your workstations your gonna go with something thats going to have a lower adminsitrative cost for your users and will have a higher productivity rating.

Not saying MS is better than *nix, but most of the workforce is going be Far more familiar with MS.[/quote]

RussS

3 words .............. Ease Of Use.

If *nix was half as easy to use for the general user it might have grabbed a decent toe hold, but not everybody wants to be a propellor-head.

pryde7

Why should Windows not be popular?
You can only challege someone (or something) that is ahead or perceived to be ahead of you.
I prefer resources should be channelled to make what is popular better and more secure, rather than questioning its popularity. MS was, is NOW, and EVER shall be.

Its the same attempt in the world of politics to question American foreign policy in the ME. What is the role of the others? Criticism! They lead where most shy away, they offer help and seek peace in their own way even standing up for those for rebuke them. At the end of the day, wearing the statue of liberty T-shirt, under oppression someone will shout "down with america"

What a world!

Project2501

pryde7 wrote:

Why should Windows not be popular?
You can only challege someone (or something) that is ahead or perceived to be ahead of you.
I prefer resources should be channelled to make what is popular better and more secure, rather than questioning its popularity. MS was, is NOW, and EVER shall be.

Its the same attempt in the world of politics to question American foreign policy in the ME. What is the role of the others? Criticism! They lead where most shy away, they offer help and seek peace in their own way even standing up for those for rebuke them. At the end of the day, wearing the statue of liberty T-shirt, under oppression someone will shout "down with america"

What a world!

Competition is good and *nix is making its way into the market. It's not just for those with a computer background its much more accessible that it used to be. In saying that though I'm quite happy with my macbook running Leopard 10.5.2. I mean don't Sun Micro Systems have a desktop OS based on GNU unix or something like that?

pryde7

Project2501
You're right...I like competition which is out of respect for a formidable product of another competitor. Mac, linux, unix and windows are all great products in every respect. Just that a leader must exist.
With all the barshing and lawsuits against MS, the flaws of the others are being neglected or not even noticed.

royal

RussS wrote:

3 words .............. Ease Of Use.

If *nix was half as easy to use for the general user it might have grabbed a decent toe hold, but not everybody wants to be a propellor-head.

+1

JDMurray

royal wrote:

RussS wrote:

3 words .............. Ease Of Use.

If *nix was half as easy to use for the general user it might have grabbed a decent toe hold, but not everybody wants to be a propellor-head.

+1

Are you people aware that there are many graphical shells for *nix and not just the command line? You perceive that Windows is easy to use only because you've already used it for many years and the Windows Explorer shell has become quite familiar to you.

dynamik

What does *nix have to offer that compares with things like Active Directory, Exchange, Sharepoint, etc.?

If users were equally competent with *nix and Windows, could you implement an *nix solution that would provide equivalent functionality?

Those are genuine questions; I honestly don't know. I'm not that familiar with *nix, but I'm not aware of anything. I'm not saying that makes Windows an overall superior solution in any circumstance or anything like that, but it just seems like a lot of people who bash Windows aren't aware of the enterprise side of things (or maybe people who say things like this aren't aware of the enterprise side of *nix ).

RTmarc

JDMurray wrote:

royal wrote:

RussS wrote:

3 words .............. Ease Of Use.

If *nix was half as easy to use for the general user it might have grabbed a decent toe hold, but not everybody wants to be a propellor-head.

+1

Are you people aware that there are many graphical shells for *nix and not just the command line? You perceive that Windows is easy to use only because you've already used it for many years and the Windows Explorer shell has become quite familiar to you.

While this is true, the vast majority of apps still must be installed via command line.

Schluep

Any Operating System would be usable by most of the people on this board. You could create a new one tommorow that is completely different from any that currently exists and most people here could figure out a way to do what they needed with it. That is FAR from the average user however.

Most typical PC users want it to do what they need to do and get away from it and back to their live as soon as possible. I still get calls from my parents with things like "My bar on the bottom with the start button dissappeared and now I can't use my computer anymore." My parents don't want to learn how to do anything with a computer beyond the few things they need it for (paying bills online, going to websites for various needs, sending/recieving e-mail). Could they be taught to log into Ubuntu and perform these same tasks? Of course. Do they want to learn however? Not at all. They struggled to barely learn on and probably couldn't find Solitaire if you asked them. Learning another is out of the question. And these are users who aren't even installing programs.

Many applications for Linux still do need to be unpackaged, configured, compiled, and installed by the user. Most users want to be able to pay someone to set up their computer initially and plug everythiing in. Once it is set up if the need new software they want to walk into a store, find a live person, and say "I need this". That person will give them a box with "this" or a few choices of boxes with "this". The user will pay for a "this" that will automatically install when they stick a CD in the drive. They go home and have exactly what they needed. Until such an option like that exists for Linux you will never capture these type of users. If you did a TechExams Man on the Street segment like is common on the radio and ask people "What is a compiler?", "Do you know what Linux is?" and "What is an Operating System" you will probably find that most users can't answer any of those questions. They don't want to even have to learn where to look for free software and have a checklist to follow in order to verify the hash, decompress, configure, and compile the software. They want to stick a CD in an click "Next" using an interface they are already familiar with.

Now let's look at another user group. The teenagers. For the most part they mainly want to be able to use things like Instant Messenger, myspace/facebook, and play games. They grew up with a variety of options that were all GUI based if they area teenager at this point. They could easily learn to use Linux if they knew they could get stuff for free, and they could use their precious Instant Messenger still. The first problem where you the large majority of them is that the game they like frequently don't work or only work within the capacity of something to run Windows software (and even then takes some work). The rest that could get by without their games or aren't interested in the games as much probably never heard of Linux or never had one of their friends they didn't view as a "computer geek" explain the benefits of considering it.

What about corporate users? You could tell them they have to use Linux and they wouldn't have a choice? First problem is the most of the company software was already written for Windows users and nobody wants to waste time/money re-creating it. Second, you want to be able to hire someone and have them working on their full capacity as soon as possible. As indicating by the above examples almost all of them are used to using Windows (or possible Mac) at home. This means that there would be a MUCH larger learning curve to teach all of your new users how to use Linux then setting them up on a PC with Outlook and Office that they are familiar with. There is no incentive for a company to put their individual users on Linux either as the costs outweight any benefit.

As it looks to me Linux options presently have no way to capture any of these user groups. Unles that changes it will never expand much beyond the techies. It is nice to talk about all the things we may like Linux for, but you have to look at it from a marketing perspective and the audience that makes up the majority of the users. RussS's (too many letter s when you add the possessive to that) three words summed it up best.

royal

RTmarc wrote:

JDMurray wrote:

royal wrote:

RussS wrote:

3 words .............. Ease Of Use.

If *nix was half as easy to use for the general user it might have grabbed a decent toe hold, but not everybody wants to be a propellor-head.

+1

Are you people aware that there are many graphical shells for *nix and not just the command line? You perceive that Windows is easy to use only because you've already used it for many years and the Windows Explorer shell has become quite familiar to you.

While this is true, the vast majority of apps still must be installed via command line.

Exactly. This and what dynamik said. Nix just can't compare to what the Windows Infrastructure brings. Active Directory, Exchange integration, integrating Exchange with products such as Sharepoint, Office Communication server for a Unified Communications platform. Then managing it with Operations Manager, rolling stuff out with Configuration Manager. And Office integrates nicely into all the product lines. Don't want people forwarding your stuff? No problem, deploy AD Rights Management Services? Need to integrate that with another company? No problem, integrate AD RMS with AD Federation Services.

I'm not talking about just a desktop operating experience. I'm talking about the vast integration with their product lines.

Then MS' vast support infrastructure. PSS, TAP, the tons of MS blogs out there, the never ending knowledgebase where you're almost guaranteed to find your issue and how to resolve i,. Webcasts all over, Virtual Labs, Etc...

*Nix has a long way to go if it really wants to take away quite a bit of away from MS in the business/user world. Not saying it's not possible. But it'll take a ton of effort and time.

Also, I used to use Redhat, Fedora, and I dabble a bit in Ubuntu and Kubuntu. So I do know a bit about Linux.

Daniel333

Confusion, stick with what you know...

There are just too many factors to make these discussions useful, but I always have the urge to chime in because they are fun.

Preference, one vendor end to end solution, existing infrastructure, economics, easy of use, training, specific business need, Microsoft Office and even your hobbies are key factors of Windows' success.

Couple these facts with one sided TCO evaluations pushed out by the companies and fan boys spawn confusion, it's no wonder the enterprise has remained in Microsoft's hands.

HeroPsycho

I use what works the best. I use nix machines for SMTP smart hosts, but Exchange for internal mail servers. It simply works better than anything else available.

Completely agree with Royal and Dynamik about the infrastructure, etc. Sorry, for most infrastructure, Microsoft, despite its issues, is still the leader in many things like directory services, desktop management, messaging, collaboration, etc.

As for the desktop, you can't claim the existence of a GUI means it's as easy to use. If it did, then computers haven't gotten any easier to use since the GUI was invented, and I think we all can agree that's not the case.

The apps I want to run virtually all run on Windows, and some of which don't run easily on linux. I know you can technically get Microsoft Office to run on Linux, but is it as easy as Windows? NO! And sorry, but MS Office kicks the ever loving snot out of OpenOffice. It says something when people time and time again pay significant money to use MS Office over a free office suite, even people like me who know full well the differences.

Maybe as we transition to more web based apps, those things will be overcome, but right now, Windows is still easier to use.

I do need to comment on the above statement about Middle Eastern foreign policy. Sometimes it is not a good thing to "take the lead" in something. The US messing around in that region and taking the lead is like me masterminding cooking dinner. Just because no one else is taking an active role, it doesn't mean I should, because if I took the lead in making dinner, I'd burn the house down.

c0d3_w0lf

nl wrote:

I miss the days when men were men and operating systems were the abstraction between the hardware and the applications, and nothing more or less.

Quoted for epic win. I salute you, sir.

undomiel

I've been looking for a good drop in Exchange replacement for a while now but sadly nothing has fully qualified so far. There have been a few that are almost there, but not quite. Zimbra was fairly interesting and probably the closest thing to it but it is still not quite there.

liven

(gulping as I post this for I am sure I will get shot down)...

I totally agree with the windows as the winner for any type of office productivity stuff.

However I have seen linux and unix used for many things that windows is generally not suited for.

Databases, in my experience, they are almost always unix.
Lots of Sendmail, postfix, qmail etc...
Apache and tomcat
Websphere
Weblogic

Sure some of these applications can run on windows, but most of the time they are installed on a unix or linux platform.

And these types of applications make up a VERY big part of the internet and modern communications as we all know it.

Like I said for the typical enterprise, exchange is most likely the best for interoffice mail, and I wouldn't consider anything besides microsoft office for office productivity.

But at the same time I wouldn't install tomcat or apache on windows (unless my boss made me do it).

I know I am the odd man out on this forum when it comes to this kind of stuff. But like I said Unix/linux is a massive part of the techincal world as we know it. For instance Gmail is based off of qmail, which is run entirely on the linux 2.6 kernel (and so is everything else at google).

I know, I know it is a bad example.

Just stating things that I know and have seen over the years.

Windows will not go away, especially for end users. Yes for most folks it is easier to setup and hit the ground running. But if you took away linux and unix, even the most die hard windows user would notice that something was wrong.


LET THE FLAMING OF LIVEN BEGIN!!!!

snadam

marco71 wrote:

windows is popular because of human indolence and stupidity

care to elaborate Marco? I think your reasons that windows being popular because of lazy stupid people are uncalled for, and dead WRONG...

I'm on the same lines of dynamik and royal. Windows has some excellent features that cant be matched at the moment; and so does *nix. However, being a closed minded person limits your ability to see any potential of any operating system.

HeroPsycho

liven wrote:

Databases, in my experience, they are almost always unix.
Lots of Sendmail, postfix, qmail etc...
Apache and tomcat
Websphere
Weblogic

Sure some of these applications can run on windows, but most of the time they are installed on a unix or linux platform.

And these types of applications make up a VERY big part of the internet and modern communications as we all know it.

...

LET THE FLAMING OF LIVEN BEGIN!!!!

I got no beef with the above to be cause for flaming. I will however say that there are quite a few web servers out there running IIS, and even more database servers running Microsoft SQL Server. But, with that said, there's something to be said for the other products you listed. They're all fine alternatives.

c0d3_w0lf

We use both! We have separate Information Systems teams for Windows and Unix. I think my company kind of just went the way of "well this works better for this, and that works better for that, so we'll just use both!"

Schluep

liven wrote:

(gulping as I post this for I am sure I will get shot down)...

I totally agree with the windows as the winner for any type of office productivity stuff.

However I have seen linux and unix used for many things that windows is generally not suited for.

Databases, in my experience, they are almost always unix.
Lots of Sendmail, postfix, qmail etc...
Apache and tomcat
Websphere
Weblogic

Sure some of these applications can run on windows, but most of the time they are installed on a unix or linux platform.

And these types of applications make up a VERY big part of the internet and modern communications as we all know it.

Like I said for the typical enterprise, exchange is most likely the best for interoffice mail, and I wouldn't consider anything besides microsoft office for office productivity.

But at the same time I wouldn't install tomcat or apache on windows (unless my boss made me do it).

I know I am the odd man out on this forum when it comes to this kind of stuff. But like I said Unix/linux is a massive part of the techincal world as we know it. For instance Gmail is based off of qmail, which is run entirely on the linux 2.6 kernel (and so is everything else at google).

I know, I know it is a bad example.

Just stating things that I know and have seen over the years.

Windows will not go away, especially for end users. Yes for most folks it is easier to setup and hit the ground running. But if you took away linux and unix, even the most die hard windows user would notice that something was wrong.


LET THE FLAMING OF LIVEN BEGIN!!!!

I run a LAMP and use sendmail and agree that there are those and many other benefits to using Linux for various situations. It is great when I am travelling or need some tools on the fly to quickly boot with a Linux live CD even if I don't have a distribution installed. People could go on for hours listing reasons they like it depending on the situation or argue the opposite as to why they like any other OS.

None of these opinions however changes the fact that nothing has changed recently for it to get a much larger foothold like so many people desire. The important thing however is the marketability aspect of it. You often have a lot more control in terms of customization if you so choose and many more options available. This is not the problem however, the problem is that in terms of service for average users/organizations it can't compete. Unless that changes it will never expand much beyond the high tech folks, which was the whole point of this discussion after the reading the bold premise that people only use Windows over Liux because they grew up with it, and that if it were the other way around everyone would use Linux because it is implied to be far superior. These type of assertions can not be made because every person/user has different needs.

Pash

Schluep wrote:

liven wrote:

(gulping as I post this for I am sure I will get shot down)...

I totally agree with the windows as the winner for any type of office productivity stuff.

However I have seen linux and unix used for many things that windows is generally not suited for.

Databases, in my experience, they are almost always unix.
Lots of Sendmail, postfix, qmail etc...
Apache and tomcat
Websphere
Weblogic

Sure some of these applications can run on windows, but most of the time they are installed on a unix or linux platform.

And these types of applications make up a VERY big part of the internet and modern communications as we all know it.

Like I said for the typical enterprise, exchange is most likely the best for interoffice mail, and I wouldn't consider anything besides microsoft office for office productivity.

But at the same time I wouldn't install tomcat or apache on windows (unless my boss made me do it).

I know I am the odd man out on this forum when it comes to this kind of stuff. But like I said Unix/linux is a massive part of the techincal world as we know it. For instance Gmail is based off of qmail, which is run entirely on the linux 2.6 kernel (and so is everything else at google).

I know, I know it is a bad example.

Just stating things that I know and have seen over the years.

Windows will not go away, especially for end users. Yes for most folks it is easier to setup and hit the ground running. But if you took away linux and unix, even the most die hard windows user would notice that something was wrong.


LET THE FLAMING OF LIVEN BEGIN!!!!

I run a LAMP and use sendmail and agree that there are those and many other benefits to using Linux for various situations. It is great when I am travelling or need some tools on the fly to quickly boot with a Linux live CD even if I don't have a distribution installed. People could go on for hours listing reasons they like it depending on the situation or argue the opposite as to why they like any other OS.

Quoted for the truth

This is the real beauty of Linux. Even a fool like me can use the wonderful technotes made by mr. sparkymark and creat a full LAMP, point my domain to it and say "Yeh I just setup a webserver".

The reality is, windows is a very competitive OS. It is secure as ever, infact I think from recent studies some open source products had more security flaws than the average Microsoft product. Yes it cost's a bomb even for the home user but the percentages do not lie.

liven

Everyone has some very valid points.

I guess I am just a loaner in my little linux/unix world!!!

But out of curiosity can anyone tell me why so many companies use unix? And why many companies are employing linux?

I live in the midwest and I know for a fact that all of these major corporations:

Anheuser Bush,
Monsanto,
Wachovia
Scott Trade,
Express Scripts,
Savvis
AT&T
Charter
Mastercard
Department of Defense (Currently I am a contractor for the D.O.D)
Raytheon
Martiz


Use unix and linux. Not exclusively, but for large calculations, processing mass quantities of data etc...



There has to be a reason why? I know unix and linux can't touch microsoft business wise. Many versions are free and will never have the marketing push behind them that windows does. I know it was mentioned before that most end users use linux because of word of mouth, or other reasons like that.

Yet all the above companies unix/linux infrastructure continous to grow.

Just seems interesting to me.

liven

I probably shouldn't have written that last rant.

I need to realize that this board has a higher percentage of windows users that linux (much like the rest of the world).

So if I am coming across as combative I apologize.

Thanks

Mishra

liven wrote:

I probably shouldn't have written that last rant.

I need to realize that this board has a higher percentage of windows users that linux (much like the rest of the world).

So if I am coming across as combative I apologize.

Thanks

What are you trying to argue/debate?

liven

Mishra wrote:

liven wrote:

I probably shouldn't have written that last rant.

I need to realize that this board has a higher percentage of windows users that linux (much like the rest of the world).

So if I am coming across as combative I apologize.

Thanks

What are you trying to argue/debate?

What are you trying to argue/debate?[/quote]

I dunno, just that I think/like linux more!!!!

Its a dead horse and I need to leave it alone... But I am procrastinating from this massive perl project that I need to fix...

Claymoore

Windows is popular because it's cheaper...

Cheaper than free? Yes - because licensing is just one of the costs that you must consider. Hardware is also a cost factor, but staffing and support cost more over the lifetime of the product than the hardware and up front licensing.

Supporting Windows applications just costs less:
1. There are plenty of available Windows administrators, driving down labor costs. It's a supply and demand thing...

2. There is a large, documented body of knowledge for MS products driving down vendor support costs. My company spends over $100k a year in vendor support for our HP-UX systems and we also have support contracts with EMC, Cisco and an application-specific Linux box. Our Windows 'support contract' consists of the 5 support incidents that come with our Technet subscription.

3. Complex products still have relatively standardized installations, driving down knowledge-worker retention costs. For example, if I left my company tomorrow, an admin with a decent knowledge of Exchange could walk in to our single-server installation and keep things running with little or no interruption. A Linux implementation that would achieve the same functionality of Exchange would be so highly customized that the company would have to pay a lot of money to keep the tech who built/manages the product around or risk a severe interruption.

4. There is a large user base familiar with the product, reducing or eliminating user training costs. Everyone has used Microsoft Office, but few users have ever even heard of Star Office.

When you start considering flavors of Unix, Windows really starts to seem cheap.

1. A NIC for one of my Windows servers costs $90 - the same card for one of our HP-UX servers costs $900. WTF? Depending on the part (memory, CPU, etc) we may have to schedule and use some of our pre-paid CE time to perform the install or risk problems with our support contract. Meanwhile I can trust my helpdesk tech to successfully install hardware in a Windows server.

2. Oracle is licensed per processor, but you have to count each core as .75 of a processor and round up. A dual-core processor is 1.5 processors which gets rounded up to 2 processor licenses. MS SQL is licensed per-processor regardless of how many cores the processor has. SQL DBAs are also cheaper and easier to find than Oracle DBAs.

Finally, you have to understand the psychology and needs of corporate managers. There is an old adage that says 'Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM'. Now the same thought goes into buying Cisco, EMC and Microsoft - even if it's not the best choice, it's a safe choice. Managers also need to forecast budgets one or sometimes several years in advance. Microsoft announces product release dates years in advance so people can forecast when they need to buy new licenses and servers. Linux kernel releases seem to be more inspirational and that makes it difficult for the budget folks.