Slashdot Mirror
What's Keeping You On Windows?
schnell asks: "Here's something I've wondered about for a long time. While it seems that the majority of Slashdot readers are no fans of Microsoft, recent polls show that 47% of Slashdot Users are using Windows as their main OS (and I bet that number is much higher in server logs). So I have a two-fold question: 1) Is it just the 'vocal minority' that favors alternate OSes over Linux and 2) if not, what's keeping you from 'putting your money where your mouth is' - why are you using Windows? My own situation is that I use an IT-mandated Win98 (ugh) laptop at work, but at home I'm Mac OS X all the way. While I did pay Microsoft for Office for Mac, I try to avoid filling their coffers whenever possible, so for all the family/friends who rely on me for computer recommendations I recommend Mac or Linux. Do people like using Windows? Are games the driving factor? Or is it just 'the right tool for the job?'" It's a perennial question, and one that is fitting to review every so often, if only to see how far Open Source has come, and how far it needs to go.
Warcraft III
...and all the other PC games that I can't do without. I'm a Java developer, so when it comes to my professional life, I couldn't care less what OS I work on (whatever's cheapest usually wins). But when it comes to my personal life, I choose Windows because I'm a gamer, and windows makes gaming easy (at least, easier than it would be on Linux or a Mac)
I do fiddle around with Linux and FreeBSD, and have boxes dedicated to both (plus a Solaris box), but my most expensive system is a Windows box. And there's one reason: games.
The fact of the matter is games are just a lot cheaper and more plentiful on Windows than on Linux, or even a Mac.
Same reason people are still using Windows. Change is hard for all of us I guess.
No matter how fast they make the drivers, no matter how much they optimize it - a client-server based desktop environment is ALWAYS going to be slower than a non-c/s solution. X continues to feel just a bit sluggardly on all my systems, even with the latest, fanciest drivers from whoever.
The second biggest problem I have with Linux is stability. Linux itself is a rock, but I have not used a single X app that hasn't crashed at least once. It's a dismal record. There's no accountability for bugs, so they're only fixed when someone feels like it. I've managed and worked on a few open source projects, and without corporate backing, guess what -- homework, real work, and personal preference come first. Unless you've got some really dedicated guys, shit doesn't get done.
I want Linux to succeed. I really do. I don't see how it's ever going to do it relying on X, and I don't see the desktop environments coming anywhere near more polished corporate-funded alternatives. Mac OS X is pretty, tight, simple, and as powerful as Linux, but I have to have a Mac to run it. Windows 2000 is vanilla, stable, boring, and runs on anything, but I don't LOVE using it. I would love for Linux to be a real alternative, but it simply isn't.
Ditch X and come up with a really solid desktop environment that doesn't require it, and I'll be back in a heartbeat.
I also get an occasional MS Office file and while there are products available for Linux that will allow me to work with these files, it's far simpler for me to pull them up in Office on my laptop. I also need to run Quicken and Quickbooks and so having my laptop running XP makes it all very convenient. It's a shame that I need to either boot into XP or use a second computer to get through the average day but that has been the easiest way that I have found.
Also, I don't have MS like a lot of people do. I do actually like some of their products and while I agree that they have some pretty bad business practices, a lot of security holes, and a list of other things to bitch about, I still find some of their products to be quite useful. I have a MS keyboard and a MS mouse that I really like. I use Office XP when I need to do a spreadsheet or write a business letter. I play Motocross Madness and Age of Empries on occasion. I use some Adobe products as well as other applications and games that aren't available in Linux and since I don't have a Mac, I'm SOL on being able to run OS X.
The more I think about the situation, the less I think that Linux will ever wipe out Windows. I don't think it will ever happen and I don't think that it should. It's all about choice and I do think that we will eventually reach a point where we are free to choose an operating system based solely on that os's merits (with all of the major apps being available for Win, Mac, and Linux).
Until everything that I want to use is available for Linux, I'll continue to contribue to the obscene profits of MS when they have a new program or an upgrade that I wish to purchase. I use whatever is best for the given task. Games, it's Windows. Work (for me) it's Linux. Graphics it's (if only I could afford to get one) Mac.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Like a lot of people here, I run two boxes, one Win2k, one Linux. You gotta play to their strengths.
;)
Windows is great for:
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Warcraft III
A UI that, sadly, is more mature than KDE|Gnome
Inertia (My windows box is still using the 2.5GB hard drive I bought in '96, and I don't really feel up to porting all the cruft that has accumulated on it to Linux.)
But on the other hand, I would never consider using my windows box to run:
MySQL daemon
File Serving
Remote interactive prompt (Have you *seen* windows terminal server???)
Web Serving
Or anything else that requires the least modicum of stability
Or anything that would slow down my aforementioned RtCW or Warcraft III if it was run in the background.
There's nothing inherently wrong with using Windows over Linux. You just have to play to each of their strengths. Linux has stability, speed and power. Windows has lots of games.
Cheers,
Bill Kerney
I'm a Windows 2000 user. My computer is stable. It's easy to use maintain. It plays all my games. Well, long story short, I don't have any complaints about my computer. So why should I switch? Sounds like it'd painful for me to switch to Linux without a really compelling reason.
Frankly, the benefit I can see to me switching to Linux is that suddenly I'd be popular here on Slashdot. "hey look! I can use a real OS. After a steep learning curve, I can do what people are already doing in Windows! Woohoo! Down with MS!!"
"Derp de derp."
Note: I am a software engineer and have done enough Windows and Linux cross platform GUI and non GUI coding to not be considered a Linux idiot.
Caution: Well thought-out and knowledgeable opinions ahead. If these disturb you , read no further.
I will not be switching from Windows to Linux as my main platform any time soon because:
1) Less hassle dealing with the OS. I don't care anything about the "OS" part when I'm using a machine. I use applications. Windows is far easier to install and use applications on than Linux. application and install break windows far less than on Linux IMHE.
2) The applications themselves. Though Linux has the basics covered. There is nothing even close to replacing Reason, T-Racks and Wavelab on the music front. Then there is the ubiquitous Photoshop. Though I couldn't afford the full version, my copy of Photoshop Elements for $69 is 90% of Photoshop for 1/10th the price. There is nothing that even comes close to the funtionality of Photoshop Elements for Linux. And of course Games. I work hard and I play hard (all on the computer of course).
3) Development. Believe it or not developing for Windows is infinitely nicer than developing on Linux (Okay, that's just my opinion). The tools are all equal (gcc, perl, python, vi, emacs) up to far more advanced (Visual Studio) and far more varied to choose from.
Basically, everything I do of any importance on Windows has no real counterpart on Linux. There are a lot of wannabe applications (GIMP etc) but they are usually pale shadows of real apps. The major windows (and Mac) apps are just too frequently not there for Linux.
Money concerns: Free is great, but when you can't get what you want for free, then pay is the way. The current state of free is not up to the current state for pay. I work for a living, I make money, I have no problem paying other peoeple for the work they do.
Even if everything else completely equal, the fact that I have 10 years of Windows and Windows Apps know-how in my head means that I would still benefit from staying.
It's been said many many times, but until Linux is considerably better than Windows on all these fronts, there is no incentive to switch. I (and most computer users I'd bet) are not political grand-standers, were tool users, plain and simple. Best tool for the job wins. For all my jobs, Windows wins.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Here goes with some honesty, so I fully expect hostility. Be gentle, okay?
/. people were proudly proclaiming how fast it was and how tiny its footprint was. Please, point me in the right direction. I looked at SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake, and a couple of others, and everyone specified 64MB of RAM minimum -- that's not a small footprint, that's the same as an NT workstation! And, speedwise, my RedHat installation is the same as my W2K Pro installation on my dual-boot system. No tuning on the Linux system; but, then again, I've not tuned the W2K system, either.
Entrenchment
The vast majority of my work is on Windows. The software areas in which I specialize (for example, document management systems) don't do Linux, by and large. I have to know these systems, inside and out, and know the platforms they use, inside and out. For me, that's Windows. I have to know it, and know it well. Linux is strictly a spare time thing, and I really don't have that much spare time. Yeah, I know, if I were a true geek, I'd be staying up until all hours on my Linux system. What can I say? I don't play computer games, either, so it's certainly not that that's keeping me on Windows (unlike every other post I've read in this story so far).
Comfort
I know Windows, and I can get it to work. I fully expect the flaming to start about now, but here are some simple facts which represent nothing more than my experience. My Windows servers don't crash. My Windows workstations don't crash. Personally, I'm just as happy to chalk it up to the fact that I know what I'm doing when I set the things up (and, admittedly, W2K is pretty stable). Yes, I have to reboot for patches. But failures and unplanned outages -- forget it, I don't get them.
Linux, on the other hand, has given me some weird experiences, particularly on laptops, and, yes, occasionally I've had to do a hard restart because it was hung. I'm sure it's because I didn't download the latest drivers, or tweak the settings correctly, or rework my configuration script...but guess what, people -- I don't have to do that on Windows. Again, it's a comfort thing.
Disillusionment
Boy, I have a horrible feeling about what this might provoke, but here goes. When I first started to look at Linux, everywhere I looked on
Those, for me, are the main reasons. Windows is just too important for me at work to not know it intimately, and Linux doesn't offer enough compelling reasons to dedicate a lot of time becoming better attuned to it. Remember, I'm just being honest!
"Nearly all the Xbox and PS/2 games in the world don't hold up to a single quality [sic]PC game.
Compare: "Nearly all the PC games is the world don't hold up to a single, high-quality console game."
Yes, 90% of anything is crap, and that crap won't compare to the best of the best. JSRF sure kicks the ass of Daikatana, just like Half-Life kicks the ass of Azurik.
If you're going to troll, at least try and be good at it.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Gimp doesn't support cmyk. It also(linux) has crap for color management. Why not ask Adobe to port it?
Among other things, my primary OS is Windows because of the development tools. People who have not used Visual Studio (or people who have only touched the surface) have no idea how excellent Microsoft's development tools are.
;) But when it comes to my professional activities -- I will be sticking to Windows for some time to come.
TAKE NOTE: Before my current job, I was only using Linux, writing Lisp and C code in emacs... so don't write me off as some Windows goober who needs fancy widgets to get by.
Anyway, back to my point.. Visual Studio is some smart software. The layout is intuitive, the toolboxes are the kind of toolboxes you want to keep around and not hide. The dynamic help is wonderful. The tool tips that show various function argument completions are a huge timesaver. The debugger is powerful and easy, built in beautifully with the editor.
VS is just a wonderfully put together development suite that has won me over. There are no open or free tools that even come close.. and believe me, I have used them. Even the commercial development suites for linux/unix don't come close.
Anywho, that is my two cents.
I still run Linux at home.. I need the command line
-gerbik
First, some background.
... for me, for now.
I started using Linux as a development environment (as a hobbyist in highschool, and as a CS student when I was working on my B.Sc) around 1996. I was 16 and really excited about having a UNIX OS on my PC. I'm still very excited about Linux. But as a development environment, I develop in Windows 2000/XP pretty much 95% of the time excepting when I have to test/debug code on a UNIX platform.
I have XEmacs installed in Windows as a native app. I use Cygwin when I need a UNIX shell. XFree86(cygwin), Exceed and/or any other commercial/free X server generally work just fine. And I use MSVC++ for debugging - this is the main reason why I use Windows. I have not seen any UNIX debugger that comes close to MS's debugger (no, not even gdb, ddd or workshop).
As a desktop user, Windows has provided me with 99% uptime (and that missing 1% is for software upgrades requiring reboot, not crashes). I simply can't use the stability argument anymore.
I'm confident that Linux will kick ass on the desktop in the future. But if the Linux desktop is to entice developer desktops as well, a "killer app" debugger is needed. Unfortunately this is a huge undertaking. On top of this, UNIX developers might scoff at fancy GUI debuggers, just like I scoff at WYSIWYG word processors since I use LaTeX. But clearly this is not productive.
So, unfortunately, I have to disagree that Linux (or UNIX in general) is the ideal development environment
Just my $0.02!!!
I actually use a Mac with Virtual PC running WIndows, and I frequently evangelize the Mac/Open Source and dismiss and deride Microsoft and Windows, so I'd say I'm a perfect person to be asked to justify my behavior.
Worse--although I do in fact have OS X on my machine, I don't use it. What is the real reason most people use WIndoze?
Habit. Habit and Familiarity.
Let's be honest. Unless you're work for an oil drilling company like the man mentioned above, odds are you can find a piece of software for the *nix platform (especially if you include OS X). As many people above have pointed out, plenty of alternatives to favorites exist, and many games have been ported over to *Nix platforms.
However, people use their computers as efficient tools. I don't bother even looking at the toolbar when I click on a button, or glance more than 2 seconds at a menu, or pause before entering a key combination. They have all become automatic.
However, were I to switch to another OS, I would have to learn its nuances, and that would take time that I'm not so interested in spending. Even though I'm eager to use a command-driven interface, I find it frustrating constantly having to "learn" how to do things which I easily do in Mac OS 9, and have been doing for over 10 years now.
The reason I haven't switched over to OS X? Believe it or not, there's only one reason: that stupid Open File dialog. I can't grok it, I can't figure it out, and worst of all I can't just type in the first few letters of the file I want in the folder and have it be selected, as has been the case since Mac OS 6.x (back when it was just called "System 6").
I think one of the problems, in fact, is that so many Slashdot users are power users -- dedicated gamers, programmers, coders, designers, developers-- who have become accustomed to using their computers as an extension of themselves. For most everyday users, the biggest difference between a Windows machine, a OS X machine, and a machine running a GUI Linux would be the color of the windows and icons. They don't try to juice their programs as much. After all, if the most complex action you perform as a user is hitting the back button on your browser, it can be any browser on any software platform. But if you're used to coding in a specific text editor, moving to another can be a painful experience.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
to some here, i am the lowest form of scum. i am a windows vb programmer. that makes me 1. evil and 2. stupid. evil because i support microsoft. stupid because, as we all know, vb is a horrible language, right? ;-P
you know what? you may be right, but you don't pay my paycheck. i have to eat and pay rent, you know? there's a market for vb programmers. i fill a market, shrinking or not, the market exists. i go to work and get a paycheck. end of story.
i really think i do cool stuff. i'm working with metrics my company is pushing as an industry standard. i crunch data into purty colors using (shake in horror now) microsoft office web component chart objects. it's easy and straightforward. i'm happy and content. doesn't mean i'm a monkey in a suit. i still deal with thorny programming problems. but, of course, i live a rodney dangerfield existence: "i get no respect." you go on with your bad selves and snicker at me. doesn't change a damn thing. smug attitudes are just mental masturbation that makes you feel better about yourself at the expense of winning any converts. and winning converts is the whole issue here.
my boss says "linux is an unproven platform. maybe in five years." before you all reply to his statement with derision and scorn, just remember that it does no good to chastise people like my boss, as you only further the image of the linux geek as an ivory tower, scornful, holier-than-thou type that wins no converts and drives average joe blow users away. instead, take his words at their face value. if you think his words have no truth, then work on dispelling the rumors and innuendo in the press that foster this attitude amongst your average corporate middle management types. don't like dealing with dilbertesque management types. fine! not a problem! don't! remember what the whole issue is here again in this story?
as far as home use, the scene is currently fragmented. "real" geeks use linux and do "real" computer science. the rest of us are just hobbyists and morons, apparently. until, if, and when linux becomes as accessible to average joe blow "how do you click a mouse?" types, windows will be around forever. if you want to accelerate the acceptance of linux and do away with microsoft, the next time a computer user says something mindblowingly stupid to you, you will not snicker and scoff and say RTFM, you will smile and reply helpfully.
and until the linux world makes a serious, concerted effort to make the linux gui and work environment and installation process as braindead as windows, yes, i said braindead, linux will not expand out of it's "i'm an ubergeek" niche. linux will seriosuly dent microsoft when someone can use linux completely, satisfactorially, on a daily basis, in all aspects of use and NEVER HAVE TO TOUCH A COMMAND LINE INTERFACE FOR A SECOND. or even know one exists!
remember, the world of morons does not cater to your computer science genius. YOU cater to and serve computer using morons. accept that or be happy with linux being relegated to the smaller, rarefied world of high-end computing.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There's nothing keeping me on Windows. I switched to Linux way back in 1997 and never looked back. I don't need to list the apps that make Linux a useful operating system -- you've heard the list a thousand times.
The reason you can avoind Windows nowadays is because Microsoft lost the browser war. Yes, you heard me correctly: they lost. Microsoft didn't like the idea of applications shifting from Windows to the web. Remember when you needed special Windows apps for everything? You installed one to send messages to someone's pager, another one to do your banking, another one to track your FedEx shipments, etc. Microsoft wanted to keep it that way, but those pesky Netscape people kept pushing this idea of applications executing on a server while you viewed them in a browser. So they went into War Mode on the browser front. All they managed to accomplish was to destroy Netscape's ability to make money selling browsers. But guess what? Nearly all information-access apps moved to the Web anyway. And those apps are as easily accessed from a Linux or Mac desktop as they are from a Windows desktop. Microsoft failed to stop the migration of apps to the web. Say it with me, folks: Microsoft failed. Doesn't that sound good? It's true. Marc Andreesen's vision of web-enabled applications making the OS irrelevant has become a reality, and that's one of the things that has enabled folks like me to ditch Windows without ever missing it.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
It certainly is certain games. If you have the chance, compare sometime Unreal Tournament on a high-end PC as compared to the PS2 version. The PC version is fast, attractive, a breeze to play, and very fun. UT on a PS2 controller is a complete nightmare. And the resolution stinks.
It's also hard to imagine games like Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Civilization, most RTSes, etc. working on the console. I'm not saying they don't exist on the console, but that it's hard to imagine them working.
Consoles are great for fighting, racing, and social games. They are not so great for quiet strategy games or RPGs, in my humble opinion. That may work for some people, but I just don't want to be in front of a console for hours. My thumbs get calluses and my hands (which are too big for most controllers) start aching terribly after too long. Not the case with a PC.
It's a variety of factors, but for me it mostly comes down to the kind of games. And it cuts both ways, too: I own a PS2 and a Dreamcast and I love Soul Calibur and DOA2. But I'd never imagine playing either on a PC.
Not many people will say that Windows sucks. Windows XP and 2000 are quite functional, stable, and just damned easy. A P4 2.4 GHz with half a gig of RAM and a 17" monitor from Dell costs LESS than that eMac with a 700 MHz processor and 128 MB of RAM. And let me tell you, Windows XP, even will all the eye candy turned on, feels far, far faster on the 2.4 GHz P4 than OS X does on a 700 MHz G4.
Honestly, the biggest thing keeping me in Windows is that whenever I've tried to switch, I invariably end up with some questions and head to IRC, Chat Rooms, etc. to ask people. The flames and insults I get for being a newbie are incredible. I really don't care enough to deal with that while I'm figuring out the intricacies.
Other than that, it's mostly games. Though there are a few other things... Photoshop, Office (Openoffice is close, but not quite close enough), Outlook (this is huge..), etc. I've got a linux box I use for a PHP server, and I've tinkered with it from time to time, but it's not my primary OS.
Nuff said.
Well, okay, maybe not. Basically, for a *lot* of games, the mouse is a much better and more natural controller than the keyboard or joystick, which is really all the PS2 controller is.
When they come out with a mouse for the playstation 2, I'll be right there. Until then, it's the best controller yet and only available for the PC.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
So far I've read about a third of the posts. I can't read them all because there's a lot. But so far I have not found what I was expecting to see.
No one is claiming that they're staying on Windows because KDE and GNOME look different! There's this sense of urgency in the Linux community that unless there's a unified vanilla desktop, no one is going to want to use Linux. It seems that this is not the case.
But maybe I've missed those posts. So let me ask: is there anyone out there who has genuinely stayed with Windows precisely because KDE and GNOME don't have the same look and feel? [I'm not asking if you want them to have to same look, only if you have honestly refused to use any form of UNIX because of it]
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Many posters seem to be saying that particular applications or lack of linux desktop support keep them tied to windows, but I think it is something more fundamental than either.People in general don't like massive change. Once you know how to do something a certain way, it is often very difficult to willingly adjust to something new.
For instance there are a couple prototype cars out there that have a joystick instead of a stearing wheel. Most people would see that and say, "WTF?!?!?!!" Maybe a joystick interface is easier to control, they would certainly be safer where airbags are concerned... but people aren't going to run out an embrace the joystick as an auto steering mechanism.
Another example would be those "ergonomic" split keyboards. I took a chance on one and I absolutely love it. Yet, most people I know still use the old kind. Why? Because they are used to it. Because learning to use the new one well takes too much time.
A more softwarey example... Today I found I needed to get a list of all Groups in a domain and their members. After fiddling with Active Directory for about 5 minutes, I was like, wtf, I'll just do it in perl. I spend about 20 minutes trying to get Win32::AdminMisc through the proxy using ppm, give up, download it manually, spend about 20 minutes looking for a version 5xx build of perl or a 6xx compatible version of AdminMisc, give up, spend another half hour figuring out how Win32::NetAdmin works, realize that's actually what I used when I did this stuff two years ago, then write the script, most of it anyway. The point is, there was probably some easy way to get the information I needed from within the User interface, but I didn't know how, and I wasn't willing to learn when I had a known option available to me.
It's pretty obvious how this behavior pattern ties in to Linux. People everywhere have grown up using Windows. They know how to browse the web in IE, to create documents in Office, to install software, to install drivers, etc. In Linux, everything is different. Switching to even a user friendly distro like RedHat is like coming home one day to find some dude has moved all your stuff around. Your furniture is upside down, the walls are painted green, all your food has been replaced with organic variants, your universal remote control no longer works with anything, and for some reason your monitor is stapled to the ceiling. You have to relearn where everything is and spend days getting it back into a state in which you can work effectively. To make matters worse, you now have 3-10 very different versions of everything. While I like having choices, I only like making informed decisions.
So what's my point? Hell, I forget. Oh yeah, the question is what is keeping me on windows? The answer is, ease of use. I know where everything is. Of course if you asked me what was keeping me on Linux, I'd give you the same damn answer. Ever try to find free anti-spam support for Exchange (shudder)?
I use Windows on the "Main" PC, run RedHat and Debian on my two servers, and use Deb on my thick thin client laptop. I stick with Windows on the desktop because the amount of time it would take me to reach my current level of desktop mastery on linux is well worth the price of XP and probably the next Windows as well. Right now there's room for both in my world. After using linux as a server for near 2 years, I'm getting a little better learning my way around, and while I'm sure the Linux desktop is ready for me, I'm not yet ready for it.
But, and I know this is going to get me flamed, there's another thing. In the year and a half I've been in this job, I've found out that the Microsoft tools I'm using are really not that bad. Back in my dot-com Java days, I figured VB was a fate worse than death. It's not. It's pretty ugly at times, sure, but it's got a lot of nice points to it. I can whip up an application in no time at all, for one thing. I can integrate web sites, client-server components, MTS components, and databases with ease. It really is a piece of cake working with this stuff. And, I think a lot of the Linux-only guys miss this basic truth. When it comes to developer's tools, Microsoft is truly on the ball.
Why aren't there equivalent, GPL'ed tools for Linux yet? I don't mean "functional" I mean equivalent. Sure, some of the Java IDEs are nice, but most of them run kinda slow, don't they? And, you're at the mercy of the JVM running on any given Linux box. Your apps are not going to run blazingly fast, ok?
What's wrong with putting together something like Borland's C++ Builder and making it available, GPL, for Linux? Something where you have a GUI that lets you do UI design and then snap right into code, set properties, etc, without having to use multiple tools (like KDevelop and its UI designer, or am I thinking of a QT thing? It's been a while)? Maybe such an environment exists; if so I'd like to hear about it.
Basically, I think Linux needs to address this. Borland's making some strides, which is nice. I'm very interested in their new environment. But I'd much rather see something GPL'ed. Sun offers Forte, but it runs SO SLOOOOOOW on my machine. Give me something I can sink my teeth into.
I can't promise I'll use it at work -- that's not for me to say. But I'd use it at home.
Note: as far as games go, that's a non-starter with me. My gaming platform is the Playstation II. I can sack out on my plush futon, ten feet away from a big TV, and fight my heart out without getting carpal tunnel or wrecking my eyes. And, it plays DVD's too!
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
The Mac is a waste of time: software that you can't configure because you don't have any damn option or it's too 'experimental'... Sugary sweet interface that makes it unusable (semi tranparent windows ?!? Anti aliased [=blured] fonts !?!?!? are they on acid or what ?)
The SGI and linux boxes are good for computations, grepping log files, servers and such but... user pleasure is just not there. Windows come with long delays and plenty of other UIR little things that tell you that it's just not quite right.
Anyway, that was just one more opinion.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Title says it all. Who wants to spend hours trying to get shit to work when you could just intall and play under windows. I think this is the most over-looked piece of the pie. Not all of us have endless hours to piss away trying to make things work. I use linux where it makes sense, for everything else, I use windows.
I want my PC to work and to work well. I want security to be good without constant security updates and REBOOTS most of all...and I want to be able to run as many apps as I can without noticing a slowdown. Windows cannot do that for me. Even XP...the moment you even try to open PhotoShop things start slowing down. I hate the file system getting fragmented and constant defrags...need something better...What I need is a more EFFICIENT operating system...hence I switched to Linux.
:) ) and use that for the cool games till the market for linux games opens up enough so that developers release new games with Linux versions.
I'm now running Linux as the main OS. I do miss the great 3d Games on Windows, but I figure I'll just get me a PS2 or a GameCube (not an XBox
Hell, I don't even feel like playing games that much anymore...there's so much great stuff to learn in Linux...so much to customize...I'm like a kid in a tub of toys. I love the speed and stability of Linux and the fact that it is already more secure than Windows by default. So my major concerns are taken care of...but I can now run more applications simultaneously...the CPU usage is distributed more evenly....I can chop and change anything I like...most of the software I need comes pre-installed...I HAVE BEAUTIFIED THE LINUX DESKTOP TO MAKE IT EASIER ON THE EYE - very important that....and now, in my opinion, it looks, runs and FEELS better than Xp did, albeit after days of tweaking. So I love it.
So right now, as a former Windows power user, this is what I feel Linux is missing:
1) Great 3d Games
2) A Universal Partition tool that's the equivalent of something like Partition Magic.
3) Improvements in the menu structure and GUI - a user shouldn't have to hack for hours or days. it would be better if it looked great out of the box.
And since we're talking beautification, kudos to RedHat 8.0 - it's a step in the right direction.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Than what? PostgreSQL is pretty good from what I've heard, I am just sick and tired of all these hoser zealots running their mouths about "M$ and Oracle suX0rs - use MySQL!" MySQL simply can't handle the load that these other databases can, and fraudlently claiming that it can perform equally or as well as other, more mature database software is just ridiculous.
Well to be honest, I use 50% windows, 50% linux. I really WANT to use Linux more, but there are just some basic reasons why I need to keep windows on my machine.
.exe file to match a specific build version of windows!) and generally are of a higher quality. I have yet to find ANY decent, truly stable and useable music creation and audio editing software for Linux. Audacity is pityful compared to CoolEdit, and there's nothing even close to FruityLoops.
a) Applications - windows apps are easier to install, don't have major compatibility issues (you never have to download and compile three different shared libraries to get Windows software to run, do you? You don't have to download a specific
2. The construction of the OS makes software installation a pain - this point is touched on above. Yes, I know it's open source, and all that, but if Linux was constructed more intelligently, it should be possible for users to just download a single binary file and run it. There is too much dependancy on tiny little libraries all over the place, and too much dependancy on things like (a) Exact library version (b) C-compiler version (c) Kernel version (d) How the distribuion organises its file locations. You simply don't get ANY of these problems in Windows. Occasionally you'll have to download a newer version of a DLL to get software to work, but when you do, it doesn't break software that relied on the previous version of the DLL.
Why is this happening? I call on Linux developers to start programming for the USERS, not for themselves. Aim to design software that is easy to install, that is configurable from within the program, that relies on only MAJOR libraries, and MAJOR stable version numbers. It is possible, you know. "Big" software releases for Linux (OpenOffice, Mozilla, Opera, many games) just install themselves simply and easily, and work, so why don't the smaller software projects work the same way?
In the end, I use Linux when I just want to quickly boot up, get on the net, have a fiddle around. I boot Windows if I want to use actual specific, important pieces of software for which there is no equivalent available for Linux.
-"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
Photoshop has good support for translation of the different color models and calibration to match colors as precisely as possible. Gimp sucks ass at that.
Photoshop Elements lacks those features as well, and guess what? The reason it's $500 cheaper than Photoshop is precisely the same reason that GIMP doesn't support accurate color space conversion: it's patented, and the patent holders are not willing to license the patents royalty-free.
Will I retire or break 10K?
First, background.. I've been using linux since the wee versions.. .96 or so, 1992-ish. I was fluent in SunOS well before that. I've been through the whole zealotry phase, and used linux on just about every concievable machine I've touched.
I use windows on my laptop. Here is why.
- I like the way Windows XP looks. Cleartype rules on my laptop.
- All the flash readers, usb devices, and everything else I can get my hands on just WORKS most of the time.
- Games work better. All the games I play appear to be available on linux, but they just don't work as well.. this is most likely related to video drivers.
- Software compatability. Sorry, but in this modern world, I NEED MS Internet Explorer.
- Windows is NOT as bad as everyone makes it out to be; yes linux is far more open, but many, though not all, of the things that people whine about not being able to diagnose in windows are simply because they don't know how; they only know the unix way.
- Windows 2000 was a large improvement, I believe in a large way because of the pressure the Linux threat put on MS. Windows Xp even moreso from a personal workstation perspective.
So far though XP hasn't been bad, VERY few crashes (like 5 in about four months, three of which were EndNote's fault).
This is XP's fault, not EndNote's fault. A user-space program should never cause the OS to crash. Hardware? Yes, possibly. Programs? Never. Anything less is a flaw in the OS design. People are still way, way, way too forgiving of Microsoft for their lackluster design.
At least, this is my opinion. Am I being to hard on Microsoft?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
How did I get out from under? Well, job-wise, I work as a technical instructor for a company that teaches Solaris, HP-UX and Java. Occasionally, I'll have to teach an onsite where they are using NT or 98 or something (I teach Java), but for the most part, I'm on Solaris. We have company laptops which are supposed to be NT/2000. Mine's Linux. Sorry, not using my laptop as a server at an onsite class for Java under Windows. I don't care what flavor of Windows it is, I'm standing in front of students who evaluate my performance. I'm not using anything that may crash in the middle of something important. So it's a credibility issue for me. Maybe if Microsoft supported Java better (at all), I'd use NT.
Other than that? My choice. I don't have to use Windows for anything. There are alternatives. Can I play games on my iMac? Hell yeah. The top games are all available: The Sims, Warcraft III, Harry Potter (it's number 6 or soemthing like that), I can play them all. Sure, I just got Jedi Knight II, what, 8 months after the PC release? So what? I was playing Sims, Warcraft, Alice and Diablo for all that time. How many games do you need? More than that? Buy a console, they've got even more games than Windows. Can I run business software? Certainly. Word, Excel, whatever. Server applications? Check. Apache, SSH, name a service. Java? Roger that, too. Some Java gurus think Apple's JVM is one of the best ever. There isn't anything that I can do on Windows that I can't do on something else. Well, okay, VB. Why would I want to do VB, anyway? I don't program for Windows only.
Sure, there's loads more software for PCs. The top sellers are Windows licences, virus scanning software and utilities packages to fix your system. Joy!
I read a lot of stuff from both sides: Windows is better for business, Linux is better for stability. OS X is equal to both in both arenas (unfortunately, we're sometimes equal to Linux in driver support and Windows in eye candy that can bog down the system as well, but we're getting better - hey, our current OS is, what, coming up on 2, 3 years old?). Hardware's more expensive, maybe it's not worth the cost from the parts perspective, but the whole . . . ah, so much greater than the sum.
Plus, we get ants in our laptops. And sometimes they catch fire. Clearly, we think they are pants (which means we may be lying).
If your company forces Windows on you, erase the hard drive and install Linux if you can. Or even if you can't. Just do something. Take a stand! Have some reasons, and try to have some way to do everything they want you to do with Windows. It's not that hard for a lot of people. Take away the IT department's power. You might even be amazed at how much more work you can get done when you can ignore most of their e-mails and don't have to reboot as much. REVOLT! STEAL THIS OS!
The only thing keeping most people on Windows is plain laziness. Plain laziness.
Do not touch -Willie
Probably only a minority of people favor alternate OSes over Linux. I am one of that number, but I am highly aware of the those other people. My observation of them leads me to believe that they favor Microsoft Windows either out of ignorance (maybe they don't know what an OS is) or job security (administering a Windows box requires specialized skill, which means the Windows-certified professional has a secure job in the Windows world), with most people having little concern beyond not having to buy and learn a whole new way of doing things.
2) if not, what's keeping you from 'putting your money where your mouth is' - why are you using Windows?
I have always been a fan of alternate systems. I ran my old computer on Novell's DR-DOS for several years, before finally breaking down and buying Windows 95. The processors that run my computers have been either Cyrix or AMD. About two years ago, I became so disgusted with Windows crashes that I vowed I would move to another OS, no matter what it took. Yet, I just bought a copy of Windows XP. Why?
The main reason I still use Microsoft Windows is that I am highly familiar with both the product and the design philosophy of the product. I have been using PC-compatible computers since 1988, and it is difficult for me to get used to Linux. I have tried. I own over a half-dozen distributions of Linux, starting with RedHat 5.1 and going up to SuSE 7.2 Pro. I also have a copy of BeOS... for that matter, I have a copy of OS/2 Warp 3. I have never been able to get any alternate OS to function as it is supposed to function. I have spent several evenings trying to get simple things (like connection to the Internet) working, knowing the entire time that I could get it to work in a half-hour with Windows. It's not that Windows is that much better; it's just that I know it that much better.
Recently, I decided to back up all of my pictures and home movies to a bootable hard drive. I tried using a few distributions of Linux, besides BeOS (and OS/2 Warp), but I could not get them to work correctly. SuSE installed OK, but I am not comfortable partitioning drives under it, and it does not correctly play most of the movies I've collected. If it has anything as functional as ACDSee, I don't know about it (no, The Gimp is not it). Meanwhile, I have about 2 Gig of photographs that I took that are waiting on a portable drive, with another Meg or 2 added each week. After a few weeks of experimenting, I finally broke down and ordered the cheapest copy of Windows XP Home I could find.
I am required to use Windows in my workplace. I recently asked the head of the IT Department which version of Windows they planned to use for the near future, as I am considering certification (or, at least, training). He told me to get Windows XP, as the company would be moving to that in the near future.
Many of my friends at work have Windows XP on their home machine. Only a few try alternate OSes. One is a Linux guru; another is an Amiga fan. Both also use Windows.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)