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.

Comments

What keeps me on windows?

[Real World Stuff]

Why the Microsoft ads on Slashdot of course!

Brought to you by the Friday Burn!

Re:What keeps me on windows?

[dhsmith]

Funny you should mention the Photoshop vs Gimp thing. Photoshop is the thing that keeps me on Windows. I've been using it for my graphics stuff for about 7 years now.

Recently I needed to do some graphic work and didn't have access to Photoshop so I downloaded the Gimp. Honestly, I hated it. But I've been exploring it's features off and on for a couple of weeks now and I'm starting to find that the Gimp is not as weak imitation of Photoshop as I thought. All of the most important tools are there, and the majority of them work as well as the ones in Photoshop.

Basically I'm finding out that the Gimp is indeed suitable for many kinds of real work.

Re:What keeps me on windows?

[angel'o'sphere]

the interface is terrible

Yes. Thats the problem. A friend of mine was telling me that I had at least to admit that at least GIMP was a GNU software wich rocked.

Sorry. Its the terribelst thing I've ever seen.

a) the UI is UGLY, *U*G*L*Y*.
b) everybody claiming that GTK is FAST, .... we had that discussion in QT versus GTK ... well, GIMP on my machine is not only UGLY, its incredible slow in window redraws and menu openings.
c) Linux simply offers NOTHING windows does not offer as well.

History:

I admined about 40 SunOS 4.3 and 20 DEC Ultrix machines. I worked with slackware linux kernel version 0.91 or 0.93. My first "big computer" after my Apple ][ clone was a Mac.

I do not switch to linux for three reasons:

i) everything which is unique on linux (and good working versus other OSes implementation) does
-- not interest me (I do no video editing)
-- is incredible difficult to use (e.g. GIMP)

ii) I have a running Windows system. Why should I kick everything I have on it?

iii) everything which is similar on linux, KDE for example, I allready have on Windows.

Well, I come from MAC. I go back to MAC now where it runs basicly NeXT Step/OS X (BSD).

The whole GNU/Linux movement just behaves as if 30 years of user interface design research never had happened.

One third just does what it likes.
One third sticks to old standards because they think better a standard than nothing (X11/Motive)
One third coppies primaryly the bad examples of Windows(KDE).

None of them can get me into the hazzle of wasting 3 or 4 hours installation of a dual boot system.

Furthermore: how to configure a linuy system?

Its not like BSD, its not like System V, its not like AIX, its not like Solaris.

Even worse: every linux system thinks it has invented the holy gral of how to admin a system.

Today I try to work with Mandrake(my DSL router is a mandrake system) tomorrow I like to use Suse.

I can not copy a single config file from Mandrake to my Suse System ... because both keep their config data in totaly different stores.

BTW: GIMP, how do you draw a straight line? Start point -> End Point?

You cant do that without reading the manual. The simplest thing, the first thing every user attempts, is impossible without reading the manual.

And in the manual you can not look under: line, straight line or something. No, you have to read it from front to end to stumble over the point where you finaly figure that you have to use the alt key.

I have to admind, I did not figure that my own, no, I had to ask one.

I spend 3 or 4 hours with GIMP, trying to make some smal PNGs. I gave up.

Well, now you come and tell me: most is OS or even GPL; take it and change it.

Sorry, YOU wrote it. If you like ME to USE it, write it in a way that I want to USE it.

If the surface of your software sucks, I do not even like to look into the source code.

Yes, when I work on *nix I use VI.

regards,
angel'o'sphere

Re:What keeps me on windows?

[Pooua]

Assertion: "What _new_ technology has M$ made? They only steal technology from others, bastardize it, then pass it off as there own."

Rebuttal: If by bastardize it you mean change it to suit their needs, the needs of their users, and make several big improvements - you are very right...

I am not certain where you are coming from, but it is an indisputable fact that Microsoft rarely (if ever) invents the technology that it markets. Back in the mid-90s, industry pundits used the term, "leveraging" to describe this behavior. Examples are, of necessity, numerous. Here are a few examples off the top of my head, that every computer hobbiest should know:

1) DOS and Windows both contain code originally written by Digital Research for CP/M. In fact, DOS is a CP/M clone, re-compiled for the 16-bit microcomputer.

"on July 24, 1996, Caldera Inc. filed a private Federal Antitrust Lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. for alleged illegal activities and unfair practices in the marketing of MS-DOS and its successors, including Windows 95 and Windows 98, both of which are still Digital Research CP/M at their essential core. The lawsuit was settled out of court in January 2000 at which time Microsoft Corporation agreed to certain terms and paid certain funds to Caldera Inc."

CP/M: The First PC Operating System

2) Visual Basic was derived from the work of Alan Cooper (aka, "The Father of Visual Basic"), who had created a new Windows shell he called, "Tripod." Microsoft bought Tripod from Alan Cooper and code named it, "Ruby."

Why I am called "the Father of Visual Basic"

3) File compression had a rough birth into Microsoft's official OS distribution. Originally, Microsoft did not offer any data compression utilities, but several other companies did. One company, named, "Stac," lent their disk compression utility for Microsoft to evaluate. Microsoft included Stac's code in MS-DOS 6.0, but Stac sued, claiming that there was no licensing agreement for distribution (IBM also included Stac's code in PC-DOS, but they had a distribution license, and so were not sued). The two companies settled out of court. Microsoft initially pulled its disk compression software off the market, but then returned it after the settlement.

You see, the problem with your comment is that it's way too left-wing to ever be completely true

Left Wing or not, he is reasonably accurate.

while Microsoft has definately done some things that are a bit (ok, in some cases a lot) underhanded, that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their software,

Stating that Microsoft has not invented the technology it markets is not the same thing as claiming that the quality of their product is poor.

which is getting better every release and starting to rival Linux on several very important issues.

Considering that Microsoft had about a 15-year head start over Linux, you make a sad statement.

Games

[D3]

Games, interoperability with others at work (OpenOffice is good but not a perfect replacement), and the ability to maybe get a first post? ;)

Re:Games

[israfil_kamana]

Pretty much. I just re-loaded win32 to dual boot with OpenBSD on my laptop so I can feed my addiction to Civ3. (No FreeCiv is not as fun in my view...)

Anyway, where it counts (on servers) I push open solutions where they make sense, which is in most places in an enterprise config - at least as far as my previous work-places have gone.

Re:Games

[sniggly]

games here too - although i bought winex and it does a very good job of running windows games on linux.

Linux IS my favourite quake 3 platform, it runs it much better than windows!

Cuz of all the warez

[gambit3]

Cuz most of the warez out there is for Windoze. ;)

Re:Cuz of all the warez

[8282now]

You too can become an honest man/woman/AI too! Just remove all the WAREZ you've been running all these years and become a GNU/FSF convert and make MS, Adobe, Macromedia, etc,... happy! No more s/w pirates! Yay!! --- Support the end of warez, use free s/w! :)

Re:Cuz of all the warez

[Anonymous Coward]

d00d go here 4 sum 3l33t 0-second warez. they r so kewl they even haked the progz n got teh sorce code!!!@#!

Re:Cuz of all the warez

[stinky wizzleteats]

Support the end of warez, use free s/w!

Actually, that is precisely the reason I switched to RH8 on both my home and office desktops. I find it impossible as a professional IT person to use Windows without having warez of some kind. Since I can't afford to run clean and green with Windows, I am switching to Linux.

Hear that, Bill?

Games

[jasonditz]

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.

Applications, baby, applications

[tinrobot]

We do lots of graphics work here. We need all sorts of apps -- Photoshop, After Effects, 3DS Max, Combustion, etc, etc... I can run all of them under Windows. Some aren't ported to Linux, not all run on the Mac, either.

It's always been the applications that have driven things. Still the same today.

Why isn't Slashdot using PNGs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same reason people are still using Windows. Change is hard for all of us I guess.

Two simple things...

[Dalroth]

1. Games
2. Work

1. Until ALL games run under Linux without much difficulty, I simply don't have any choice here. Nearly all the Xbox and PS/2 games in the world don't hold up to a single quality PC game.

2. I work at a Microsoft only shop. It's sad, it's infuriating, and I have little choice. To VPN into work, connect to source safe, upload code to the servers, run terminal services, connect to SQL Server 2000 (Microsoft's only GOOD non-gaming product) I have to use windows.

Re:Two simple things...

[Inoshiro]

"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.

Let's all say it together:

[Bonker]

One App:

Adobe Photoshop

Photoshop runs under Wine, I've heard, but not well. Also, type support, which is highly necessary for any kind of decent design work, is miserable under most linux WM's.

Re:Simple:

[Elladan]

Warcraft III works fine on Linux.

Go to www.transgaming.com

X has kept me away from Linux

[Headius]

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.

Re:X has kept me away from Linux

[glassware]

The part I like most about X is the sophomoric smirk:

Me: Where can I get client software to connect to your server?
Sysop: No, you need X Server software.
Me: I don't need server software. I just want to connect to your server.
Sysop: Yes, but your client provides a display surface to the server, which is a client to your server.
Me: Huh?
Sysop: You see, it makes perfect sense; your client machine is serving graphics to the server! So your computer is a server, and the server is a client! It's all backwards!
Me: Yes.

Re:X has kept me away from Linux

[jonabbey]

This is silly. Do you think that Windows and Macintosh don't have protection boundaries between the graphics rendering layer and the applications (client)? X has used shared memory and event coalescing forever. The only possibly defensible issue regarding X's C-S architecture is the context switch/scheduling delay, and that's on the order of a hundredth of a second delay. Even those delays can be ameliorated with one of the low-latency/interruptible syscall patches for Linux.

People calling for the rip-and-replace of X windows are simply not being realistic, either on a technical assessment level, or on a welcome to the real-world level.

Re:X has kept me away from Linux

[IamTheRealMike]

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

First mistake. Measured statistics have shown that X is actually faster at some operatons (like line drawing etc) than the GDI on Windows. X is fast. Some drivers are not fast. If you have speed problems with X that are not purely psychology (i think it is slow, therefore it feels slow) then there's a bug somewhere that should be fixed with a driver/toolkit/application.

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

Uhh, well, umm, dunno what to say to that. I guess no Microsoft app ever crashes either? Linux is the OS and is pretty stable. The stability of an OS isn't related to the stability of the apps (snide jokes about 98/macos 9 aside), anybody can write a buggy app. So far most OS level software I've used on Linux has been solid. Some pure userlevel apps, ie chat apps etc sometimes crash but most are pretty good. If you're expecting every piece of software written for Linux to be uncrashable then you'll never be happy with it, so I guess you'll have to stick with Windows.

There's no accountability for bugs, so they're only fixed when someone feels like it.

And if a bug is annoying enough, somebody tends to feel like fixing it. This sounds more like a "my favourite bug/feature isn't fixed yet" rant.

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.

What is it with the mindless X bashing? Linux has already "succeeded" in many areas, and is busy succeeding on the desktop too. I don't understand what you mean by these comments about the desktop environments, to me GNOME2 feels pretty polished, albiet a tad light in features. X has nothing to do with polish OK, and FYI both KDE and GNOME have oodles of corporate funding. So your point is kind of invalid.

Ditch X and come up with a really solid desktop environment that doesn't require it, and I'll be back in a heartbeat.

Ditch X and replace it with what?? A non network transparent windowing system? That would be a major step backwards and I promise you, you wouldn't notice any speed difference (try installing directfb, something that you seemingly want, and see for yourself).

Re:X has kept me away from Linux

[jonabbey]

You're still arguing that it is X's C-S design alone that is causing the problems you're talking about. The C-S design is an easy thing to single out.. "the other window systems don't support network graphics, and they are faster, so it must be the C-S design causing the problem" is not a valid logical argument. That's not to say that it mightn't be the problem, of course, but it's not to say it is, either.

Having to do context switches between the client and the server all of the time is a real issue, certainly. It is one that can be addressed through means other than simply throwing out 20 years of software developed on Unix, though.

Keith Packard wrote a good presentation on this, Efficiently Scheduling X Clients at USENIX 2000.

Something like the improvements to the X server's internal behavior mentioned in that presentation (or in the associated paper, see Keith's Publications Page for more), in conjunction with Linux kernels more optimized for low-latency multiprocess scheduling could help the performance issues a great deal without having to junk the whole system.

Re:X has kept me away from Linux

[u19925]

"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"

Slower by how much percentage? 0.1? It is like saying, you won't take bath in ocean because fish f**k in it. I not only use X, but use VNC client exclusively on my laptop to access all my unix/linux boxes at work and haven't felt it slow. I access the same sessions from home/work/travel etc. BTW, I do heavy development work on unix/linux. I use windows a lot, however not because of X on unix. In fact, I consider X to be number one point of using Unix. Look at VNC on PC and you would know (it typically eats 20-30% CPU on 1GHz PC vs less than 1% on 400 MHz Linux). My reason for using windows are:

Lack of good fonts. They are improving and now a days a well tuned linux has quality comparable to PC. Still Unix boxes don't have good fonts or the apps don't use them correctly.

Many stupid websites shut you out, if you don't use Netscape or IE. I hate Netscape as a browser (though it is my exclusive mail client and HTML editor). On windows, I use IE for those sites and Opera otherwise.

I have a laptop which came pre-installed with windows and no media. Due to lack of time and media for XP, didn't feel like playing with Linux. Even if I could, the only use of this laptop is to browse, access unix/linux machines and view photo/video taken with digital camera/camcorder. Linux has no advantage in this space. For other machines, I use Linux/Unix.

I guess, X has something which windows never had and most likely won't have for ages. It is stupidity of Unix/Linux marketing folks for not exploiting this advantage. Your second point: "There's no accountability for bugs, so they're only fixed when someone feels like it."

You are comparing commercial apps in windows with free apps on Linux. I use almost all commercial only apps on Unix/Linux, and can vouch that there are far less failures on unix/linux than on windows. Just last night, my XP started acting weird on network (it was booted in morning), so I tried to shut down. Well shutdown hung too! I had to hard boot it. While I reboot my XP about once a day (haven't seen uptime more than 1 week on reasonably used XP and more than 2 weeks on NT) while all other unix/linux boxes that I remotely access, are booted once a quarter or so (typically for adding some OS patches) and they are used much more heavily.

I guess, Linux/Unix folks would rather be without U than be without X (pun intended).

Virus protection

[clem.dickey]

Every so often a memo comes out reminding us that we must have the latest Norton Anti-Virus. NAV is not supported on Linux, so I have to power on the Windows box to update my virus protection. Except for that it stays off.

Re:What keeps me on windows

[Denver_80203]

I agree. While the 9x and NT machines were a little bumpy, they got MS in the door. Now 2000/XP are very stable and easy to use. All the applications that my company uses are in MS OS. Linux and Mac machines simply don't have the applications that an Oil Drilling company needs. Certainly are are /some/, but not nearly enough to support the company being "half on one foot". Finally: I don't care if Bill is rich enough. It's not my concern. I have better things to do than hate a company because it's "big". I'm certain that when linux grows large enough and starts serving every possible customer, things will bump into each other and cause problems, too.

Re:What keeps me on windows

[sniggly]

And windows is stable as opposed to what, California around the San Andreas faultline?

What Keeps Me on Windows?

[Psx29]

The Asian Language Support. I can seamlessly switch between Japanese and Chinese input with windows. It is a lot more cumbersome in linux. Aside from that...there are certain programs that are just not available for linux systems and won't function under a windows emulator (or WINE for that matter) which are a neccesity(namely certain CD-R software, and file-sharing software).

Other than games? Not a hell of a lot.

[TellarHK]

I'm buying my second iBook today. I have two PC's, a 500Mhz iBook and a couple Sun classic-era workstations that I play with. Windows is for gaming, pretty much says it all. Sure, my Windows machine is more upgradeable than my laptops, but for the past month I've been using the iBook constantly on the job and have no problem whatsoever with it except that I really like what apple has done to revamp the line. So what did I do?

Today I got a loan from Apple, and will be getting a new $1489 iBook. 800Mhz, 640M of RAM, 30G, and a 32M Radeon in it. Am I stoked? Fuck yeah, I'm stoked. My iBook is going to my partner on 'indefinite postponed payment' once I get my new one. He'll make the second person I've brought over into the Mac realm. And just about two years ago, I was bashing them myself.

OSX is just incredible. No two ways about it, it kicks ass. Closed source GUI? Sure. I can live with that. Secretive API's? I can live with that too. It just works.

And as soon as I get back from the Salem, NH Apple Store tonight, I'll be reading good ol' Slashdot from it. Happy as hell.

Microsoft OS'es are lousy, but the games are okay. At this rate though, I'll be shelving Windows in favor of a PS3 or whatever comes next, and a desktop Mac.

Because Linux is not a Desktop OS

[disc-chord]

Look I love FreeBSD, don't get me wrong. My server runs FreeBSD, my router box runs FreeBSD... but my desktop machine is running Windows 2000.

For me Windows 2000 is just like Linux, except it runs desktop apps which is a nice bonus for a desktop OS. It's not the interface, believe me (I refused to go to Windows 95 for the longest time because of my preference towards CLI). It's just the simple fact that there are so many more exciting apps for Windows.

Whenever there is a neat new technology out it always comes out for Windows first, then *nix, then Mac. (Recent Examples: P2P, PAR, Bottler, etc.) As a fan of technology I want to run the technology as soon as I can download it... not wait for a port! Sure there are ports for nearly every P2P protocol out for NIX, and there are PAR clients, and yes there's even Buttler... but these versions are always months behind in development compared to their Windows counterparts.

Going hand in hand with technology is, of course, games. One can only play so much Tux Racer before going back to Windows for Mafia or the latest Half-Life/Quake Mod.

I'm a Lightwave dude...

[Anonvmous Coward]

I'm an animator. I use Lightwave (PC or Mac, no Linux for at least a year or two), I use Photoshop, and I use After Effects. Right now, I'm stuck with Windows or even Mac.

Would I switch to Linux if magically everything worked? Not today. I recently tried Linux. My biggest complaint was that there was no way I could be productive on it without knowing some obscure command-line stuff. I had trouble getting the network going, I never got sound to work, and I found installing some (not all) software to be difficult. This was Redhat 7.2.

I enjoyed setting up a Redhat webserver. That went reasonably well, and it's behaving quite nicely. As a desktop machine, though, it was a horrible experience for me. I'm an artist. I'm right brained. I don't want to learn a bunch of commands when Windows' UI very elegantly manages the hardware. So yeah, I'm spoiled.

I plan on re-evaulating Linux in a year or so, but I think they need to evolve the UI more before they convert me. In the mean time, I am a satisfied Windows 2000 user. It's hard to switch when today I have working machines that don't give me problems. I've never lost an overnight or even an over-the-weekend render due to an instability in Windows or Lightwave.

I guess what I'm saying is: Not only does Linux need to be as good as Windows (particularly in the UI area...), it's also got to entice me some how. Film Gimp was a step in the right direction...

Re:well..

[Elladan]

• WC3: Runs fine on linux, see www.transgaming.com
• The Sims: Linux port available, see www.transgaming.com
• Neverwinter Nights: Port is on the way
• Unreal 2k3: Runs perfectly on linux, the linux native version is in the box you bought at the store

Third-Party Apps mostly.

[simetra]

For the last X years, hundreds, maybe thousands of 3rd-party software vendors have been making all their stuff for Windows. As such, we utilize these Windows apps for which there are no alternative in the Free world.

I still use Windows at home most of the time because it's easy for the wife to use, and easy to install and use various apps and hardware. I can, but choose not to, blow hours reading config files and man pages to get something running that would take maybe 5 minutes to set up in Windows. And no, it never crashes, because I only install software I want, and allow very, very few TSR's and unnecessary services to run in the background. Basically, it works.

Yes, I know I CAN do all this in Linux, but I don't have as much free time as some people. It's still very far away from being user-friendly enough for anyone to actually use as an all-purpose OS.

Photoshop 7 on Mac OS X

[green pizza]

Works great on my iBook. It's overpriced, but it works better for me than Gimp or Corel PhotoPaint 10.

Well...

[TheAwfulTruth]

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.

Re:Well...

[AdrianG]

First, let me say that I do not want to discourage you from posting these opinions about developing on various platforms. But I must say, I am surprised to hear what seems to be an experienced developer who has used both platforms express a preferences for Windows. I hope you will read and reply to this message, and that perhaps I can learn something from your response.

You began with a brief note about your credentials, so I will follow suit. I have been getting paid to write code for about 23 years, now, and have used a variety of systems and languages. I've hand assembled code for a 6502 based single board system, and entered it via a hex key pad; I've written assembly code for MicroSoft Assembler under DOS; for the IBM 360/370 family and run it under MVT, CMS; for the Motorola 6800, 68000, 6805, and 6811 families, and for the Intel 8080, and 8048 families. I've written code in PL/I, Fortran, BASIC, IBM EXEC, EXEC2, REXX, various Unix shells, PERL, AWK, C, TCL/Expect, and Java, amoung other languages. I love programming and learning new systems, so what I am used to will never keep me from giving other languages and platforms a chance. I have to admit that while I have done some substantial programming under MS-DOS, I have never done any substantial coding under Windows.

While I understand why many normal users like MS-Windows and the user interface it presents, I am rarely asked to do the sort of mundane, ordinary user type work that Windows is designed to facilitate. I get mostly requests to do unusual things. I have often been required to use MicroSoft tools for a number of reasons, but I must say that I have not had a single experience with any of that appalling company's software that was not frustrating and unpleasant. I really hate having things hidden from me. GUI's are nice, I suppose, but I will never be happy with a GUI over a command line interface and flat text configuration files unless that GUI lets me do everything that I can do with the CLI and flat text config files. I find that such a GUI is extremely rare. I really hate hand holdy documentation, because it is almost always incomplete, and I really hate it when documentation says things that are not exactly correct, and I routinely face these problems with MS products. I don't have the words to describe how frustrating it has been for me to design my application to use MicroSoft's API as they are incorrectly documented, and then have to change my designed in the middle of a project to deal with how the API's really work.

Unix, on the other hand, seems like a dream operating system for a programmer. (I'm using "Unix" to refer to all Unix-like systems.) If you forget, for a moment, this naive tendency that some recent Open Source Programmers have to use HOWTO's and "info" files as a substitute for "man" pages (they are fine in addition to "man" pages), Unix documentation is online, generally exact, and fairly complete. Most things are designed to be out in the open and easily understood by the programmer. The tools that are provided with a Unix System are designed to be versatile, because the programmers that created Unix knew that they couldn't anticipate everything that their users (other programmers) will want to do with their system.

I realize that Windows has a number of GUI building tools that make it easy for people to create applications without having to know how to write a lot of code, but it seems like these tools do little to tell the programmer exactly what is going on at a low level with the resulting applications. Am I to trust MicroSoft to make sure the applications that results from my efforts with such a GUI will be secure? Also, how can a really serious programmer be happy with having all the details of what is going on hidden from him (or her)?

Finally, I have done quite a bit of teaching about programming, and I must say that I am concerned about the effect that MS-Windows seems to have on programmers that use it as their development platform. I really think programmers are better off learning from the very beginning that it is important to understand, in very fundamental terms, exactly what is going on in the applications they create. To me, the very notion that one can get by without understanding their application in pretty exact terms is antithetical to good programming. The boundaries between the application and the operating system must be reasonably simple and must be clearly and exactly specified in documentation that comes bundled with the operating system. Getting a new programmer used to the idea that the operating system is a mystery that he is simply not supposed to try to understand is terribly counter-productive. When a program or an operating system has a memory leak, the leak should be fixed; Training users to reboot the system to fix problems sets a terrible example for programmers. When I first learned to write code, and when I found that my program didn't do what I expected, I had to learn that my own mistakes were the most frequent source of problems. Programmers that first learn to program under MS-Windows don't have the benefit of an OS that is stable enough and conforms well enough to its documentation to teach them this essential lesson, and as a result, I find that programmers that come from a MicroSoft background are much more likely than programmers from a Unix background to start off blaming the operating system rather than looking in their own code for the source of their problems. Of course, programmers are individuals, and make their own decisions about what lessons to take from the platforms they use, but the example that the operating system sets is one of the things that influences the decisions that programmers make, in this regard.

So my question is this: What is it, exactly, that makes Windows a better platform for development?

Adrian

A differing reason (or two)...

[kiwimate]

Here goes with some honesty, so I fully expect hostility. Be gentle, okay?

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 /. 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.

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!

To all of you who say 'Games'.

[thatguywhoiam]

I see a really commonly cited reason is games.

My personal view is that a PC for games is a totally shitty value for your money. I have a Mac, which has a half-dozen games (mostly gifts). I use the Mac for my work. I have a Playstation 2, which I use for games.

Now, considering that a PS2 will work 100% of the time (no patches/bugs/drivers/cruft), has a bigger screen, and pretty much the same number of games as the Windows platform (insofar as both platforms have way more excellent games than I'll ever buy).... and considering that the high-end video card you need to buy (for the PC you've already bought) costs nearly as much by itselfas a whole PS2/GC/XB.... why do you guys do it?

It's not a troll, I really want to know. Is it certain games? Keyboard-based games? The supa-bleeding-edge graphics and sound?

It's just a variant of the original poster's question, really, but I find my Mac/PS2 combination works really well. I don't want for many games.

Re:To all of you who say 'Games'.

[dswensen]

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.

Re:porn

[Mandi Walls]

Time for a Porn-on-Linux HOWTO. (or Porn-on-OpenSource, maybe...or Adult-Multimedia...)

You send me your notes, I'll compile the docs.

Think the ldp would post it? I have hosting space, though, if necessary.

--mandi

ps. I do not want you to send me porn. or spam. notes on how to set up software you use for multimedia viewing on non-luser platforms only.

Switched to Windows for development

[x mani x]

First, some background.

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 ... for me, for now.

Just my $0.02!!!

Habit

[greenhide]

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.

windows vb programmer speaks

[circletimessquare]

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.

Windows? What's that?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

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.

E.U.L.A.

[jmoriarty]

I keep using Windows because of the EULA. Specifically:

5.23a - In the event that Leasee begins using another OS, Microsoft reserves the right to come into Leasee's home and immediately harvest all of Leasee's organs with a rusty spoon.

this is it's strange

[ciryon]

this discussion turned out: "Use Windows, or use Linux". For most people Linux just isn't ready as a desktop OS, even if the apps are there.

But there's NO EXCUSE not to use a Mac. And, no, they're not as expensive as everyone thinks. You can get a really fast iBook or eMac for $999. The apps, are there, stability, UNIX, ease of use and power.

It doesn't matter if you can get a Super-Athlon 2.6 Ghz at half the price of a PowerMac if the OS sucks.

My explanation why Windows is so popular, that noone has mentioned so far, is that people pirate software. A lot. It's extremely easy to find all kinds of windows apps/games without paying for them. Why do you think the filesharing apps are so popular? You can get the latest game within an hour and don't pay a dime for it.

Ciryon

Re:this is it's strange

[jonnythan]

It doesn't matter if you can get a Super-Athlon 2.6 Ghz at half the price of a PowerMac if the OS sucks.

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.

Windows XP and 2000 "different beasts"?

[lvdrproject]

Ok, i didn't even have an account on Slashdot before i saw the above two posts, but i completely disagree with both of them, and had to make my opinion known. Now, i am in NO WAY a fan of Microsoft, and personally i love the Mac OS and Mandrake, but there just needs to be something said here.

"Saying "2000/XP" is like saying "MacOS X/BSD". The two are completely different beasts."

No, they're not. Windows XP is just Windows 2000 + skins + better drivers + new Start menu + a few aesthetic details. In fact, i'm sure you've noticed, Windows 2000 is Windows NT "5.0", and Windows XP is Windows NT "5.1". That is to say, a semi-moderate update, but not a completely new product.

"Windows 2000 is indeed stable, and all-around is the best OS M$ has ever put out. XP, on the other hand, is a nightmare at all levels. The UI changes are ridiculous and counterintuitive, the stability is a joke, and the mothership-calling/DRM/licensing/totalitarianism is insulting, painfully annoying, undesirable, and runs directly counter to the philosophy that made Microsoft, DOS, and Windows a success, which is putting more power and control in the hands of the end user."

The UI changes that actually go any deeper than simple colour and logo changes are very few, and most of these can be modified to work/look exactly like Windows 2000. The stability is a joke? Bull. Windows XP is just as stable as 2000. I've NEVER, repeat, NEVER, had Windows XP (that is to say, the actual operating system) crash on me, and i've been using Windows XP since the pre-2600 build stages. In fact, i might relate a little anecdote here: a few weeks ago, i was attempting to get an old (500 MHz) computer up and running, and as my XP CD was mysteriously corrupted, i installed Windows 2000. Mere MINUTES (and i do not exaggerate) after my initial boot, i got a blue screen, and it died. In Windows XP, the operating system rarely crashes; instead, the programs crash, and the operating system continues on its merry little way. As for "mothership-calling", almost all of those features can be disabled, and if you still think that "M$" is HAX0RING UR IMPROTANT FILEZ then you can invest in a decent firewall. If you know how to work XP, you can make it work or look any way you want it to.

As for the second post:

"In all seriousness, I have found XP to be terrible both in general speed (crispness, responsiveness to clicks, etc.) and stability (especially in an environment where the machine is pushed hard)."

Ok, i don't know what you're running on your computers (i have a Dell Dimension 4300 1.8GHz/512-MB RAM computer, which sounds like the same model, or a similar model, as yours), but XP is nothing but speedy for me. And i'm one of those people who loads his computer with every possible RAM-sucking gadget he can find, including transparent mouse cursors, transparent windows and menus, every single visual effect XP comes with, etc., etc.. XP is super fast for me. My programs don't load up slow at all. On the other hand (and i did notice that you didn't defend any other operating system, but let's use an example here), Mandrake 9 with KDE 3 runs noticeably slower, and this is the standard bare-bones install, with no fancy tricks or gadgets. On both my 500-MHz K6-2 and my 1.8-GHz P4, i have Mandrake and XP Pro dual-booted, and XP is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH faster.

Now, why do i use Windows? Because i'm 15 and don't have the money to buy a Mac; because i was BORN in a house that ran MS-DOS/Windows; because i'm used to it; because it looks prettier; because it's more user-friendly (not so much as opposed to the Mac, but definitely so as opposed to Linux); because all of the great applications that i can't live without (Winamp, Photoshop, Flash MX, Nero, Exact Audio Copy) aren't found on Linux; the list goes on.

I LIKE Linux, i LIKE the Mac; i don't use my computer for playing games (except frozen-bubble :D), i don't use my computer ENTIRELY for chatting with my school friends (like most 15-year-olds i know), i have a little bit of programming/scripting/"getting into the system" experience, and i'd like to think that i know what i'm doing.

So, as an objective observer, i would like to just make my disagreement known.

:Lav

Probably the flames I get from linux users mostly.

[gatekeep]

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.

So far...

[Arandir]

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]

Re:So far...

[onyxruby]

Actually, I consider this to be an important issue. I have played with trying Linux off and on since Red Hat 5.2 and inevitably give up every time after a short while. Part of the frustration is that I don't have anything consistent for interfaces. It's one of the things that MS screwed up with XP, they changed the interface enough that it can be a real pain in the but doing what you've always done. In short, don't discount the whole kde/gnome consistent interface thing. It is important for furthering adoption of Linux beyond a certain crowd that has already embraced it.

In short, I want to be able to "just use it". I want to go to a consistent place every single time and be able to enable a nic to use / not use DHCP regardless of flavor of linux I am on. That and the biggest thing that the linux community needs to do is have a serious attitude adjustment. The whole, holier than thou attitude and general unwillingness to help (with exceptions of course) have ruined it in many portions of society. I was working a very large gov contract position a few years back and when I asked why they didn't have linux in use (despite many of the workers privately using it), I was told bluntly, "because the community can't be bothered to step out of their white tower to help unless your a programmer". "The entire concept of anyone /other/ than a programmer administrating a machine has been lost on them". In short, I should not need to know "C" to admin a box. I am not, and have no interest in becoming a programmer, I simply desire to be an administrator.

In case your wondering if it's the whole CLI interface thing, no it isn't. I've been using computers since the TI80, have 5 years professional experience, and have absolutely no problem with the Cisco CLI. I'm also in school to pick up Solaris, Cisco, and Unix once Linux is finished. Thus I am hardly a newbie that is scared by the lack of a pretty interface. hope this helps.

Linux is ready - I am not

[Darth_Burrito]

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.

Just one more opinion...

[dargaud]

I'm a software engineer and sysadmin. On my desk I have a G4 with OS-X, a Gateway with Win2000 and no less than a 4 processor SGI 2100. Oh, and also a Linux box used only as a server. Guess wich one I use ? The PC. Win2k is, once configured properly, an excellent no-nonsense user interface, and once completed with Apache, ActivePerl and Cygwin there's nothing missing.

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.

Here's my list.

[Mustang Matt]

Looks like everyone pretty much beat me to it for this thread so I doubt this will get read, but here goes...

Before I start, let me say that I WANT to switch to linux and I'm almost there.

I should also say that all of my servers except one are running some form of linux (usually SuSE). I keep one IIS server around for customers that need ASP and because I started on the Microsoft side.

Alright here goes...
1. The single biggest reason that I haven't switched 100% to linux is driver support. Windows has done this right, you plug in hardware and download a driver or pop in a CD and walah, your hardware works. I know this isn't 100% true, but it's at least 90% true. Linux hardware support has grown leaps and bounds over the past couple of years, but the problem is when you run into problems... If you've got an odd ball network card or other device that just doesn't want to work under linux. I think over time, companies will release linux drivers at the same time, but hopefully some of them will learn to release linux source for their drivers so that their products will rock.

2. Speed... Windows XP on my old 650 MHz Sony VAIO w/256 mb of ram runs circles around KDE for the most part. I've never tried Gnome just because I don't know how to easily switch using SuSE's built in management (yast). Anyone want to point me in the right direction for a how-to?

2. Macromedia Homesite... I really love how easy it is to use Macromedia homesite and have a nice easy global search and replace tool that doesn't require me to learn regular expressions but allows them if I know them. The color coding and various other features make it my ASP/PHP script editor of choice. Maybe it would run under Wine, but I want native speed and stability and macromedia hasn't announced a linux version yet.
Zend Development Environment is the closest thing I've found that's acceptable but ironically I've never run it under linux.

3. I like Outlook Express. It's fast, it's easy, it has all the features I need (except the ability to disable html, but you can buy noHTML for $20). I would use Mozilla but it can't tie multiple email addresses to one identity. I found the feature request for this on bugzilla, but nothing has really happened with it yet. Once Mozilla gets that single feature, it will replace the Opera/Outlook Express combo I use now.

4. Gnucash is getting better, but there are a whole lot of things I need to do (Quicken) that it can't do such as recurring transactions and loan calculations.

5. Usability... There are times when things just don't work as expected. Windows software generally costs money, but most software works as expected (most of the time.)

A couple of the things I hate are that when I hit abort and nothing happens. Different applications behave this way. Sometimes I have this problem in windows as well, but on a slower linux system it's terrible!

Also, sometimes I'll be doing things like running GNUcash's QIF import and suddenly the window I was working with gets set behind the one I was formerly working with... Little stuff like that drives me bonkers.

I can't get Gnomemeeting to work... Ah, the list goes on and on. I like linux a lot, especially for server stuff, but on the desktop, it has potential and it really can do some great stuff (and the price is certainly right.) but I can't quite switch over yet...

CHEAPER in terms of time too.

[prisoner]

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.

NOT "EndNote's fault"

[Loundry]

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?

X is what *brings* me to Linux!

[PotatoHead]

I hear a lot about X being bad, X being hard, X is this and X is that. All of it is bullshit plain and simple.

The X window environment is likely the best feature of any UNIX and Linux is starting to do it really well.

X is what gives Linux its true multi-user environment. Sure you can run command line stuff without an X server, but why bother?

You don't have to be a CLI geek to make good use of X. Just know ssh, xhost, rlogin and how to set your DISPLAY variable for UNIXes that are not crafted to be display friendly and you are set. That is very little to learn really.

X window setup is getting easier every day. When I started with Linux, X was hard. Now it is a whole lot easier. Give it another year and it will be no harder than dealing with win32 display issues.

X is what brought me to UNIX. I was headed down the MSCE path until I landed in a situation where I needed to work with a few UNIX machines. The users there used all of the machines as if they were their own. To someone used to non X display systems, this was amazing, not to mention very productive from both a user and administrative standpoint. Client server is not the only computing model. Think about all the web applications out there. They work remotely and you just display and input. Lots of people seem to think this is great. Guess what, X is that and more and it is here today, working nicely.

Before we had the networks we have now, X would have been a waste on most desktop machines because they were not connected enough to matter. Not to mention that if they were the OS was clearly not up to the task. So today we have a bunch of people who don't know what it is. This does not make it hard, just different.

Today we live in a networked environment. X was designed years ago with this in mind, we are just now getting there. Why continue an old mindset just because it is comfortable?

Take a little time to learn just a little about X, it is worth your time.