Slashdot Mirror
MS Dissatisfaction High, Users Consider Switching
chriscooper1470 writes "Almost two-thirds of respondents to a recent
InternetWeek Reader Question said they are dissatisfied with Microsoft software, and 41 percent of respondents are at least thinking about switching away from Microsoft software. Only 28 percent of users responding to the poll described themselves as satisfied Microsoft customers. There are some great comments at the bottom of the article discussing why people voted the way they did. My favorite quote: 'At the end of the day, I still wish we had a viable alternative. There isn't one -- yet. We'll keep looking.' - Sure."
If I was microsoft, I'd be paying real close attention and trying to fix the things that my customers were saying were wrong. When you have almost half of your customer base thinking about switching away from your product, that tells you that something's wrong.
The fact is there are really no alternatives for most people. Macs are expensive, and it's hard to find a good x86 box with Linux preloaded. Until reliable, powerful PC's with alternate OSes and applications suites are easily obtainable, the unwashed masses will continue to buy MS. Sad, but true.
So, in both Gnome and KDE 3.1 I can click on an icon and.... nothing. The cursor doesn't change to an hourglass or anything, so I click again thinking I just didn't doubleclick fast enough. Of course, this opens two instances of the program.
See, it's just little things like this, but boy are there a LOT of these little things. Fix them, and maybe we'll see people treat Linux and OSS as a serious alternative.
...And this type of dissatisfaction my friends is why monopolies suck. The lack of options is a problem, but it's the secondary problem. Options are needed when the products are no good. The so-called invisible hand of the economy is supposed to ruthlessly punish companies who produce crappy products that don't give customers what they need. In monopolies, the invisible hands are handcuffed. This in turn really robs the company in question of any motivation to do it right.
I mean, what's the difference? People are going to buy their stuff whether it's good or not. This reminds me of the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison comes up with an alternative to the airplane industry. The only problem is that it has serious, terrible drawbacks. (To say the least) Still, people go after it because even if it's terrible, it provides an incremental advantage to how terrible the airlines were.
Part of the lack of choice isn't Microsoft's fault. Computers are new, and society at large is sorely lacking in the skills necessary to use them effectively. Computer education at all levels (not programming, just training on effective use) is vital if you ever want people to take an alternative to Microsoft, even if it is ever presented.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Look, I'm a Mac and Linux user myself, but come on. did you read the question they asked?
"Microsoft users are getting fed up. They're battered by worms, viruses, security patches and increasing enterprise licensing costs. Aggravation has users talking about switching from Microsoft software to something else. We're trying to figure out how much of that talk is just talk, and how much is serious action. Do you seriously plan to dump Microsoft software?"
You might as well ask, "Wal-Mart customers are fed up, since Wal-Mart employees kick puppies and laugh at old people. Are you planning to stop shopping at Wal-Mart?"
Also, it's an Internet poll...not scientific by any stretch. Seriously, I think a lot of people are fed up with MS, but linking to this story is just ridiculous.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
"I read that Linux has issued 25 patches so far this year, so what is to be gained by switching?"
Yes 'Linux'. No distro, no particular installed apps/services, no particular kernel, just 'linux'. Linux, the company, you know..
Well done Chris Schlehein... I think you really deserve your title of "Enterprise Network Administrator". Your obviously SO clued up in the world of computing.
My favorite quote: 'At the end of the day, I still wish we had a viable alternative. There isn't one -- yet. We'll keep looking.' - Sure
If people don't consider Linux a viable alternative, the problem lies with Linux, not with said people. Attitudes such as this will do nothing to help Linux.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
a) The only reason that most people can setup a Windows box is because it comes set up already. Configuration is a non-issue these days. When RedHat 8 came out, it was easy enough for computer nephytes to do anything they could in Windows. Intermediate users will still have problems (because intermediate users have problems that RedHat doesn't have nice GUI solutions for) but that's a seperate issue.
b) Windows nerds are just as rude as Linux nerds. By and large, nerds (unfortunately) have poor social skills. Windows nerds are just as rude as Linux nerds.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Instead, because it is Microsoft, the editor (namely that tool timothy) takes it as self-evident and obviously true since it confirms his own biases.
Exhibit #15432 why Slashdot can't be taken as more than a joke.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
What people want (and MS seems to be slowly taking away from them) is a simple easy to use OS with a fast responsive GUI, that you can easily install applications on.
Linux doesn't fit the bill. While it is simple to use at a basic user level, the various applications are not at all integrated. Applications are fiddly to get to work properly. X is slow unless you work at it.
That's one loaded question. Why would anyne who disagrees with the premise even bother to answer this?
Personally, I think that's a very valid concern. I have seen numerous users at my company who are very clueless about their Windows desktops, despite the fact that they have a PC at home. If they were to be switched to a completely different and unfamiliar-looking desktop (KDE, GNOME, Ximian, OSX, etc.), the push-back and necessary user training would be enormous.
Aside from the desktop unfamiliarity, applications could be a very big headache. Our corporation has desktop apps that are incompatible between Windows versions (hence, we don't have XP everywhere), so switching all users to an alternative desktop just isn't an option. Unfortunately, it's a catch-22 for many corporate IT departments. They can't switch desktops because the apps don't support them, but the vendors won't support other desktops until the userbase of alternative systems goes up.
At this time, I just don't see how a non-Windows desktop is a viable solution for many enterprises. For certain users (developers, DBAs, admins, etc.), yes, is is a good idea. But, the users in Accounting, Legal, HR, etc. may be locked in.
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
I have the same problem, but I think it's a Mozilla thing. IE never seems to have this problem, but it's reproduceable on Windows and Linux using any Mozilla version after 1.4.
/. makes me load up IE to post this note.
I've lately switched to Konquerer, so it hasn't bothered me as much, but at home I only use Mozilla on XP.
It's really frustrating, and it's been about a month.
It seems to be cookie-related. If you can browse without saving your username into a cookie, it won't happen. The minute you login to post though, it's over.
I find it ironic that
"Microsoft is now as stable and secure as its competitors,"
Okay, put down the Kool-Aid and the crack pipe and step back slowly with your hands in the air.
That said...ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE?
If your answer to the question is "no", perhaps you'll want to enlighten us further as to where your formulate this opinion, because right now it seems that you have no experience with Linux or Mac OS X, and are just toeing the MS Party Line.
Get an OS X box and Red Hat box and call me back after you've used them for a few months.
blog |
This is not a statically valid survey.
We asked the question: "Microsoft users are getting fed up. They're battered by worms, viruses, security patches and increasing enterprise licensing costs. Aggravation has users talking about switching from Microsoft software to something else. We're trying to figure out how much of that talk is just talk, and how much is serious action. Do you seriously plan to dump Microsoft software?"
A question like this is very leading, and is likely to induce a testing effect, in which the actual asking of the question, and they way it is asked, changes the answer the survey taker gives. You can't preface a question by talking about how horrible microsoft is. The question should simply say: "Do you plan to switch from Microsoft sofware?" That would be much more statistically valid, and I can almost guarantee would lead to a diffent percentage of answers. That being said, I agree with the "41%".
Sig!
The fact is there are really no alternatives for most people.
This is false. Sit a novice user in front of KDE3 and Open Office on a machine that has been sensibly set up and they will find a familiar interface and will face few cross-training problems. The paradox is that users who are more 'highly trained' tend to find non-MS systems problematic - novices just go ahead and use the system.
Your average user wants to buy some hardware, take it home and then install it. Ok this isn't always simple with Windows, but more often than not there will be a driver somewhere for your Windows OS of choice.
With Linux you run into the problem of kernel versions and drivers needing to be (in many cases) released as source code. Some companies simply don't want to release such code if they feel it reveals any secrets or patented hardware knowledge. Of course you can use a part binary, part source approach, but that often means employing a full time Linux driver developer. Given the number of government agencies adopting Linux I feel that many companies will have to take notice and provide drivers.
...what some of the not so clued up people who've posted their messages to that page fail to realise is that, yes, there are patches issued for various services on Linux, but by and large they are not in the same league as many Windows ones, as another /. commenter so eloquently put it in the thread about the last OpenSSH vulnerability (before I bastardised it by paraphrasing)...
"the OpenSSH vulnerabilities were fairly subtle in nature, not like leaving a port open by default that allows you to screw over the users PC or access their files"
I am NaN
Hereabouts, any given moment, there will be at least three local high schools, a community college and a public library offering evening classes in Office, with additional free outreach programs for the elderly, the disabled and those on welfare. The message---heard loud and clearly from every potential employer---is that these skills are marketable.
you won't have linux applications until you have linux customers, and you won't have customers until you have users, and you won't have users until you have applications.
the users can break this cycle by getting out of the "either-or" mindset and using BOTH for awhile. they should just get a linux box, today, and start using it. keep the windows one around for stuff for which there is no alternative. or use lindows to even further minimize the amount of machine-switching you must do. by being present in the linux end-user marketplace, they will create the demand for applications.
IT departments should take the lead on this, but same goes for home users.
you can get a linux box for $199 at walmart, for christ's sake.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
No,, rather this:
Bart: Yeah! Funzo makes playtime fun!
[Funzo walks over to Bart's Krusty doll and strangles it with its pull string]
Hey, why is it destroying other toys?
Lisa: They must have programmed it to eliminate the competition!
Bart: You mean like Microsoft?
Lisa: Exactly
Seriously, now... People say that you have to patch Linux just as you have to patch Windows. But they don't realize something that is quite different between the two:
Under Linux, you have total control over the system. There is nothing hidden away, like it is under Microsoft. Therefore, when you apply a patch, you can know exactly where that patch goes and what that patch does. A sysadmin or two can put together a configuration (for 1 box, 100, or 10,000) that they like, and then when a patch comes out, write a small script that busts it into all the systems companywide.
Besides... Under Linux, it is not quite as critical to apply every single patch, as it is under Windows. Because sysadmins can control everything, they can prevent a lot of the stupidities that make Windows boxes vulnerable, like faulty configurations. And, because every company will likely have different Linux setups, viruses or cracks written for Linux will not have the same widespread effect as they do on Windows, where every Windows box is essentially the same, give or take a few variables.
When you think about updates, think about this: Windows has major updates regularly enough that people find the automatic update feature useful. Linux gets major updates that must be installed immediately infrequently enough that automatic updates aren't nearly so useful.
Example: the OpenSSL updates. Frankly, your average desktop user doesn't need to make them a priority. They're critical mainly for people who run servers which use SSL and are exposed to the public Internet. If you're using a hardware router with NAT, or have a standard desktop install and have enabled the recommended firewall settings on it, the outside world can't get at the ports to begin to exploit the OpenSSL bug.
As for deploying to a hundred million users, news flash: Unix admins were doing large-scale whole-enterprise rollouts back when MS's idea of a GUI was DOSSHELL. Of course we also figured out the right way to do it: have the applications installed centrally, so we could update them just once and have everyone pick up the changes automatically, and either run them centrally on large servers or make them available via network filesystems when people needed to run them locally. We also invented rdist and rsync to handle the cases where we couldn't install locally. The main reason Windows can't do the same is all the software that assumed it can blithely install device drivers and system DLLs and scribble on the system parts of the registry with impunity. Software that obeys MS's rules and will run as an ordinary, non-administrative user on WinXP should be quite amenable to centralized installation and maintenance.
NB: Unix people don't "get" the whole remote administration thing for similar reasons. We look at Unix, where there's little distinction between local and remote administration and you can administer a box on the other side of the Atlantic easily using the same tools you use to administer the box on your desktop, and wonder why, with 25 years of this behind us, anyone would deliberately break system design so badly that you'd need special tools for remote administration?