What is Digg?504 Comments
- WakeRider, on 08/18/2008, -14/+170People just take whatever it is on their machine when they buy it. They are not geeks who enjoy spending hours tweaking their machine. I'm glad the author of the article admitted his own bias, because he certainly didn't mention any of the major drawbacks of Linux like he mentioned the Windows drawbacks.
A drawback that I can think of is that you may have to use the command line. No you don't have to use it in everyday operation, and can get by without it, however if something major screws up on any distro of Linux, you are forced to use the command line to rectify the problem, which the average joe cannot do. An example of when one of these major errors happened to me, it was a few releases back of Ubuntu, and the graphics card suddenly stopped working. I had to figure out how to get the drivers from the Nvidia site onto the affected computer and install the drivers manually using the command line.
Ubuntu, or indeed any distribution of Linux will not be able to become mainstream until the GUI has become good enough that you do not have to use the command line for *anything*
I am not trying to bash any form of Linux, I just wanted to point out the other side of the coin to the author's article. I hate fanboyism and am open to using any operating system, Mac, Windows, Linux, all of them have their strengths and weaknesses. - mufffin, on 08/18/2008, -5/+147games.
- tnoy, on 08/18/2008, -6/+137I'll stop using Windows when the applications that make me money are available on platforms other than Windows.
Hardware. Linux has good hardware support, but it doesn't support everything. Even things that are "supported" aren't really supported to the level of proper usability. Support for my negative scanner in Linux is far below acceptable. The two areas I've had significant problems with in Linux with regards to hardware are scanners digital cameras. The document scanners we use at work are listed by SANE as being unsupported. The digital back we're using would require using something like dcraw, which is ass compared to the native software. No automatic lens cast corrections? Thats a deal-breaker.
Those are more specific things, yes, but they're things that are absolute deal-breakers.
As for the other questions posed:
1) I haven't had a virus since I made the switch form Windows 3.11 to Windows 95. The threat of a virus is a non-issue for me.
2) XP Pro cost me $150 for an OEM copy for a machine I built and it lasted me around 5 years. $30 a year? Please, I'll spend more than that on toilet paper.
3) The free applications (FireFox, Gimp, OOo) I'd be using are also available for Windows. No gain using Linux here.
4) More flexable. In what way? I don't need to customize my machine more than I've been able to with a Windows installation. For example, I often use BlackBox as a shell replacement. It has almost the same level of customization that I get out of BlackBox on *nix.
5) Support. I can find solutions for Windows just as quickly as I can for Linux. This is also a non-issue for me.
6) Improving at a faster rate. How does this make a difference in Windows already doing exactly what I need? Should I use Linux over windows because it might offer something new in the future that I might find better?
7) A patch is only effective if people actually patch their machines. There are several viruses that spread through MS products AFTER Microsoft released the patch. One example: The Blaser worm. Blaser.A first started making its rounds in mid-August 2003 and was exploiting the flaw that Microsoft patch (MS03-026) on July 16, 2003. The virus woud've been no more than a blip if people actually patched their machines. There are a number of people that *STILL* use XP SP1.
Until I have a real reason to switch my Windows machines to Linux, I'll keep using Windows. Most of my machines at home are Linux right now, but I definitely still have a need for Windows. - diemunkiesdie, on 08/18/2008, -12/+134I'll tell you why!
The average consumers computer came with Windows. If Windows works perfectly well, why would they even think of switching? There may be plenty of stories about people getting viruses and messing up their machines, but I have a real feeling those people are actually in the minority! If your Windows PC is working well, there is no reason to write posts and campaign for your OS, but if your machine crashes every 2 seconds you will get pissed off and tell people how much Windows sucks. For most people Windows works perfectly well so there is no reason to complain and there is no reason to switch.
Now let me give you another reason as a person who has a computer with Ubuntu and has played with different distributions (Mandrake then it became Mandriva, Red Hat, Slackware, then settled on Ubuntu after about 5 years of trying different things). The command line is annoying as hell! No one wants to have to use the command line and no one wants to waste time Googling how to fix a problem, especially via command line!
In Windows, I never need to Google because the GUI always has every option I could think of to fix any problems that occur. Though to be honest I haven't had a Windows problem on my computer in years. The only reason I've re-installed has been because of hard-drive failures and/or motherboard failures. I've never even once had a problem with drivers on my machines when I install new hardware. In Ubuntu I had too much trouble installing and getting everything running! Once I got 7.04 running I was happy, but then 7.10 came out, then 8.04 and I decided it was time to upgrade. Sadly the new upgrades made my computer run slower than molasses and I couldn't do a damn thing. Sometimes Ubuntu would boot up, sometimes it would get stuck, and I couldn't figure out how to explain it! I ended up installing the 64 bit version (I had been running the 32 bit Ubuntu) and I was able to get back up and running to my full capacity.
Oh and another reason I prefer Windows, the arrangement of the folders! Windows is in "WINDOWS", programs are installed in "Program Files" my settings are in "Documents and Settings" It just makes sense. In Linux there is a "bin" directory for programs, what retarded naming system is that? At least spell out the whole word, it's "binaries" why use a short form? That is one of the most annoying things about Linux!
As far as the killer application thing goes, I'd say my killer app would be "Turbo Tax"! I like to use what I am used to and I like it's interface. But, even if there was a version for Linux I still wouldn't make the full switch because I like my Windows and I know it works perfectly! - murderklok, on 08/18/2008, -46/+120Uh... can it play Crysis?
- inactive, on 08/18/2008, -20/+79Because it's just better.
- sirhomer, on 08/18/2008, -14/+63(1) Ignorance: Ask an average non-computer illiterate what Linux is and they probably couldn't answer. This hampers adoption.
(2) Games: Hardcore gamers often like to tweak out their PCs, so they favor customization and would be a natural fit for Linux. Unfortunately very few "hardcore" native Linux titles are published per year, and virtual machines don't run these games - so they must rely on Wine which doesn't work with many games.
(3) Killer app: Killer apps I'd say is the least reason, if the app is not a game it's likely you could run it on a virtual machine and tuck it away when you don't need it.
(4) Can you say “monopoly”?: Probably the biggest reason. The first three really stem out of this one, Microsoft's domination of the market means (1) few people will know about Linux (2) game developers won't release games for Linux (3) many apps don't get released for Linux.
So Microsoft's domination of the market is what seriously hurts Linux adoption. Even if Microsoft doesn't get split or dissolved by legal means, I think Linux will slowly grab marketshare away from Windows in the way it's doing, and maybe in a few years get a sizable marketshare in it's own right. When this happens, almost all the other reasons for not using Linux will fade away. The adoption is happening already with UMPCs, which are proving to be wildly popular and often Linux based. - mrblue182, on 08/18/2008, -2/+45Because to most people, it doesn't matter. Most people browse the internet, email, IM, and use a word processor. So what do they do? Get something they can afford (that takes out macs, seeing as how the cheapest mac is $599, and no monitor).
- Jforsyth89, on 08/18/2008, -4/+47Compatibility. Both with gaming and with my current PC hardware.
- Darksider, on 08/18/2008, -13/+54I think murderklok brings up a very valid point, games. Although the common consensus is that PC gaming is dead, there are plenty of gamers out there who use PCs. One of the first things I noticed after switching to Ubuntu was the lack of games (And I'm not talking about Tux Racer, True Combat Elite or the wealth of other opensource gems). I kept going back to windows to play my games, then suddenly I realize I was spending more time in windows instead of my beloved Ubuntu.
Another reason is the command line. My experience with the command line ranges from really good to a ***** covered ice cream. Most people don't want to learn an OS they just want to use it. Some aspects of Linux still require that you do the command line and its throwing novice users through a loop. - JonGalt, on 08/18/2008, -6/+47Ill tell you why!
1.) I prefer FULL graphical user interface. I don't care for command prompt tweaking like its 1987! Windows can do this for me, generally.
2.)I play games. I don't want to wait 8 years for a game to be ported to a system.
3.)Hardware adoption, while faster than game/software adoption, generally, is still slow and not up to my standards. I'm not waiting months for a patch when i can get windows and its done in days or even hours.
My own personal reason.) Generally I've found that those that use linux are fart smelling anti-capitalist ass rags that complain about corporations wrecking all life while collective community driven gang bang software companies creating a cluster ***** of an operating system are what is going to save us from this irrationally perceived threat. Go ***** yourself hippies. - andypop481, on 08/18/2008, -1/+41At what point does he say anything remotely close to program files predating bin? He just says its easier, and he's right. Why would knowing about their history 10 years ago have anything to do with what is easier to use now. If anyone has an attitude, its you and the irrelevant counterpoints you just brought up.
- redfred18t, on 08/18/2008, -3/+39The proper question should be: Why would I choose Linux over Windows?
Honestly, there's no benefit for me to switch over to Linux. - JasonCox, on 08/18/2008, -8/+41Windows: It just works.
- wassim2k, on 08/18/2008, -3/+34On Windows, I can easily install software, my fixed and portable storage are always mounted and ready to use, my network settings adjust themselves automatically when I switch from one interface to another, I don't have to be a geek or have three "how-to" books ready to do simple tasks, and I'm not an angry fanboy who will digg this comment down.
- Hortnon, on 08/18/2008, -5/+35Common consensus is PC gaming is dead? What?
- MasterPain, on 08/18/2008, -3/+31I like to play computer games.
- yessuz, on 08/18/2008, -1/+27Who cares about history? If I want to reach my program files, my intuition tells me I should look for them in PROGRAM FILES not in some bin, etc or whatever.
I you want to look deep at the history, so call your PC ENIAC and use Arpanet FFS - fani, on 08/18/2008, -7/+32I use Linux, MacOS X and Windows. Why do I use Windows over Unix/Linux ?
+ because it works for games the best
and
+ because the freaking thing just works and I happen to like it as well.
Thats it. Now ***** off. - fandyboy, on 08/18/2008, -3/+25I'm a music producer, Protools, Cubase and all the other production packages don't work in Linux. My m-audio soundcard doesn't have any drivers either.
Also most enterprise class client BI, HR and financial applications (Oracle, Microstrategy, SAP) are not supported under Linux. - Pssdoff, on 08/18/2008, -3/+25We will see how dead the PC is once Starcraft 2 comes out...
Blizzard and Valve will be keeping PC gaming alive and well long after the 360 and PS3 are obsolete.
The only reason why I haven't switched to Linux, is because Wine doesn't yet support most of the games I play. - Darksider, on 08/18/2008, -3/+25Nice post!!!
- Splicernyc, on 08/18/2008, -2/+23You have pointed out the major hurdle going from Windows to Linux. It's not that I could not learn to use the command line, it's just that I would prefer an automatic over a standard transmission.
- KampfGherkin, on 08/18/2008, -1/+22I would dig you up twice if I could.
The shell and Linux's truly alien file structure (and file naming conventions) are my little pet hates. I don't see any noob wanting to deal with those things. - DontEatTheFish, on 08/18/2008, -37/+58you phrase that as if they had a choice, they choose not to choose, get it? the majority of computer users are unknowledgeable about how a computer works. therefore just use what the computer comes with. and if they can access facebook, then they don't care(ok maybe more than that like MS word and other things..). and yes Linux would be great for them, but why switch when they already had to take hours to learn "how to open internet explorer and get to facebook", and now they must relearn it when they switch to Linux, and then they get angry because they cant find the "start" bar.
tl;dr people are lazy. also another very good reason they stick with windows is because they are gamers(although... I believe that PC gaming is nearly dead... with the exception of WoW) - SurlyDuff, on 08/18/2008, -4/+23What "great advantage to Linux" will gamers see exactly? Not being able to play any of their favorite games?
- inactive, on 08/18/2008, -2/+21Windows works well enough for most people including IT departments. Why change when thinks are getting along well enough?
Plus Linux still has a lot of issues that people don't like to talk about. Driver support is always a problem, although it has gotten much better.
Lastly, people don't care. Most people could care less about their OS, they just want to use the damn machine and get on with life. Not everyone wants to tweak their machine into the wee hours of the morning. - Ju1c3, on 08/18/2008, -12/+30from now on i am throwing the Mac and Linux fanboys all in the same boat. they are all annoying as *****. ive said it before and ill say it again, if your OS was installed on 90% of the computers in the world, you would be in deep *****. who is going to go after the little guy, when they can try and fight the big giant? i hope linux and Mac become huge, so i can laugh in their face when they "lose countless hours" from viruses. the fact is, she wouldnt have gotten a virus if she wasnt on myspace. THE END
- diadem2, on 08/18/2008, -3/+21Liability. If your cooperate account runs on an open system, who do you have to sue when it breaks?
Also, .net development. And exchange servers. Free monthly seminars next to my house. Also, with so small a market share, why would yo focus on developing for something that would give you a smaller ROI than you could get elsewhere? And do you see your grandmother using linux? I don't see linux supporting many drms either. Netflix, itunes.....
And I don't recall hearing about a linux version of Spore. - lovesujoy, on 08/18/2008, -3/+20why would anyone bother who uses what? I believe everyone has their own reasons for whatever they use.
not aware of alternatives, not willing to accept a drastic change, there can be many factors.
what matters to me is that my zenwalk,arch and debian systems are working perfectly, so i am happy :)
peace! - Ovalteen, on 08/18/2008, -0/+15Has the article writer been living under a rock? All the arguments as to why Windows is chosen over Linux have been done to death for over a decade. Some of them are no longer relevant, some are. Anybody who hasn't already heard them can find them with about 2 seconds of Googling.
It seems like more of the "I've got a controversial title with minimal content, gimme page views!" syndrome. - worminater, on 08/18/2008, -1/+16As the local "geek" I was once tasked with fixing a neighbor (friend of family's) PC.
600mhz pc bios overclocked by the local pc shop to 800mhz; which caused it to have random crashing issues. Was also running windows 98 and had dozens of viruses due to limewire.
I spend 3-4 hours saving their precious photo's (took ~5 minutes once you clicked "start" before it would open, after a 40+ minute boot), whiped the drive; removed useless factory oc; installed XP with an extra licence I had around from a laptop; and performed numerous optimization tweaks.
Quick boot; stable machine; very responsive; I wsa happy and had put way too much time in to get them to such a state for a "freebie" job. I bring the box back to the neighbor; plug it in; boot it up, and leave. When I get home my mother is on the phone with the neighbor; being verbally lambasted for my "destroying" their computer.
She couldn't find solitaire (start->programs->accessories->games->solitaire on xp; start->programs->games->solitaire on 98, or something similar).
Do you really want to even try and move people like that to linux? I refuse to do probono work anymore after that. - NipsMG, on 08/18/2008, -3/+18Because, since XP, windows has become a stable system.
Things just work.
All the software I need works on windows.
There are drivers available for anything I need.
The word "COMPILE" should never have to be spoken when it comes to getting a system up and running.
That said, I choose OSX over windows any day.
But over Linux? Windows takes the cake.
No matter how many "Linux is ready for the desktop" posts there are, it's not quite there yet. It's BETTER, but not quite there. - raptorGT, on 08/18/2008, -0/+14I bought a new 64-bit processor, new hopped-up Gigabyte board, nVidia 8800GT and a few other goodies for my new home computer. After taking an hour to install my 64-bit distro of Linux, it was quick to inform me it was running in some retarded compatibility mode. Why? Because it didn't have the necessary drivers to make anything work right. Mouse reaction was choppy at best, desktop looked like ass, and my patience was the only thing being tested.
I figured I would download the drivers I needed to make everything work right... oh, you wanted a NIC with that? You have to install your motherboard drivers first. Don't have any? You're up a creek.
With that said, I thought I'd be sly and download them on my Windows laptop. Nope. Gigabyte doesn't have any drivers, so therefore, any other hardware that rely on the mainboard, are useless. Yay. Go Linux.
The following screens that appeared on my computer were decorated with: "Preparing to install Windows..."
WINDOWS - WORKS RIGHT, EVERY TIME. - FearlessFreep, on 08/18/2008, -2/+15The question was predicated on knowing the difference and having a choice
- legendxx, on 08/18/2008, -2/+15Games.
- balthisar, on 08/18/2008, -1/+13I have a Windows XP installation on my Macintosh. I chose it over Linux because it does the job that I need it to do without any hassle, fuss, or muss. Its sole reason for existence is to run Eve-Online, TeamSpeak, EFT, EveMon, and a couple of other tools. The Cider version of Eve-Online is barely stable, so I wouldn't want to run it in Linux (although I do so regularly on Mac OS). For the other apps, there are too many incompatabilities with WINE, and so, Windows is the better solution for my need.
Then there's the added bonus that I can start up the same installation in Parallels and it works completely transparently.
Of course I did mention that I primarily use Mac OS, which works in a superior fashion for my non-game needs (and really, I only boot into Windows for massive fleet ops where I need TeamSpeak command channels).
Oh, know how I keep alluding to OS's that do their job? I have my headless Knoppix box in the closet, where it serves as a massive, RAID-protected, NAS, music server, movie server, MythTV backend, torrent downloader, non-desktop machine.
I think if I were somehow forced to use Vista on the desktop instead of XP, then I might consider switching to Linux. As long as I have to reprogram my muscle memory for all the preferences, system settings, working styles, I'd take the opportunity to ditch Windows. But as long as I still have my XP, there's just no need. - ZGambit, on 08/18/2008, -0/+12diemunkiesdie has brought the most unbiased information to the table.
Microsoft has done a good job with XP and it will remain that way cause it works. It has nothing to do with not knowing enough about computers it is about what is right for the user.
If you like Linux u will stay with Linux, only Microsoft has made things easier for those who like Microsoft products due to *reliability in function.*
@Dknighton he wasn't a noob / junior for saying what he did "Sounded like he has used both Linux and Microsoft b4. I think ur just biased and a very angry man for not even supporting what diemunkiesdie said. - Yazilliclick, on 08/18/2008, -1/+12@Hortnon
Yeah i'm sure the multi million dollar industry with huge sellers is dead. Don't believe all the ***** publicity articles trying to cash in on the whole pirating debating. - MWeather, on 08/18/2008, -0/+11"The main category of games that is better suited to PC's over consoles(RTS) is also the category of games most suited to being run under wine or an emulator in Linux,"
Uh, you misspelled FPS. - fandyboy, on 08/18/2008, -4/+15I do.
- matttrick151, on 08/18/2008, -2/+13gaming and compatibility. i dont know who is worse, apple snobs (both of my computers are macs but please the apple dorks think they are part of some elite club) or ignorant linux users who think they are using the only good solution for an OS. there is a reason mac sales have skyrocketed after allowing windows to load on them as well.
- Rosco, on 08/18/2008, -0/+11Screw Crysis, can I play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky on it? Don't bother answering, I already know the answer.
- Zounas, on 08/18/2008, -5/+16I can think of 3 reasons: hardware vendors, software vendors and our past.
I have this way too old computer in use now and it has many problems with the hardware, even in Windows XP. My MAC address is nullified in the NIC (don't ask, I don't know) but I am able to change it in Windows and it stays there between boots but in Linux not. The integrated sound card is ***** up and the new Creative X-Fi sound card is mostly unsupported in Linux (I admit, I didn't think of Linux 6 months ago). But in XP my RAM is filled even only with the basic usage. Soon I'm gonna buy a new PC but make sure the hardware is supported in both Linux and Windows.
To have a working Linux installation your hardware should be supported, otherwise don't start whining.
Software is another problematic thing. In Windows world we are used to use proprietary software (Photoshop, 3dsmax, FL Studio etc.) and expect fancy GUI and whatnot. There are usually alternatives in Linux world (GIMP, Blender) but some people just are too stubborn or lazy to learn new things. Well I am for one. Sometimes there isn't even a good alternative.
In our past Windows was the thing. Using Windows from 3.1 to XP has surely done its job by making us learn the Windows way of doing things and now expect every OS to work like that. Sometimes it's hard to just accept that other OS'es do their things in different way and try to learn it.
In the end we all use the OS we like, whether it's Windows, Linux or geesh, even OS X. So stick to what you are happy with but don't be afraid of trying others and in the worst case, learning new ways to use computers. I actually feel technically illiterate because of my overly use of Windows.
tl;dr Idiot hardware vendors, software differences and learning new things takes time. - Darksider, on 08/18/2008, -1/+12This is a great topic. From the posts I've read the fanboyism and *nix vs m$ tirades are at a minimum. Everyone is giving practical real world reasons why we still use windows. I personally use windows because on my Toshiba laptop I cannot get 3d drivers because they are not available.So any 3d application restart........windows.
- ScrewedThePooch, on 08/18/2008, -2/+13I love Visual Studio.NET as well as my Warcraft 3, and I'm looking forward to Spore. Those are my biggest reasons aside from not wanting to learn an entire OS all over again. I have dual boot Win and Ubuntu, but I hate using the command line. I don't see why they can't make Linux not need command prompts anymore. It doesn't seem that hard.
- stinger666, on 08/18/2008, -3/+14It can't play the games I want to play and I never got flash to work with firefox. I'm not a computer specialist but ubuntu has been the most frustating experience I ever had with computers.
- bluepill2, on 08/18/2008, -1/+12Nuff said.
- Yazilliclick, on 08/18/2008, -5/+15With windows the user can solve many many more problems than they would on Linux because the GUI is designed around the average user for the most part and guides them. Somewhat/sometimes helpful information in popups of how to solve things, software and drivers being as easy as double clicking an executable to install etc...
Linux doesn't need to screw up to require the command line, it can sometimes crop up as the only way to install certain things. Linux is not designed around the average computer user at all. Certain distributions are trying to get it there but they're so far behind that it's going to be a while and ultimately their putting a thin mask over the issue and not really solving it to the degree that windows has.
Linux is the long shot in the fight, if it wins it can't rely on just getting up to being as good as windows at certain things and lacking in others. If it wants to win then it needs to get better at many things and equal in others. Which is pretty unlikely to happen. We're more likely to have OS that are nothing like Linux & Windows before it ever comes to pass. - foxhound009, on 08/18/2008, -0/+10dude....
uninstall it... done. -
Show 51 - 100 of 507 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is