Slashdot Mirror


End of Win 98 Support May Boost Desktop Linux

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft kills off support for Windows 98 and Windows ME today, and ZDNet is reporting that the move will boost demand for Linux on the desktop. Unlike two years ago — when support for Win98 was extended because Linux was seen as a serious competitor — this time it seems there is no turning back."

30 of 581 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah sure... by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Increased demand for Linux on the desktop? Highly unlikely. The machines still running Win98/ME are probably all older machines that keep on chugging. The users didn't bother to upgrade to Windows 2000 or Windows XP in the first place, and will just keep running Win98/ME until the machine dies. When that happens, the users will simply buy a new system and then get the latest OS that comes with it. Probably XP or Vista, depending on time when the old machine dies.

    While Linux may be ready for the desktop, the people that stick to Win98/ME are the most unlikely to switch to Linux.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:Yeah sure... by jagossel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would have to agree. Seems like in a Microsoft-driven world, people will go out and buy Windows XP or Windows Vista. Even with the WGA in place, people would still buy Windows. I'm all pro-Linux myself, but I still use a Microsoft OS at home. I would like to see Linux take their fair share in the desktop market, but I don't think it will happen with Microsoft dominating the market. Plus, users are too familiar with Windows and are a little hesitant to switch to Linux.

      --
      jagossel
    2. Re:Yeah sure... by kripkenstein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From TFA:

      "School PCs are likely more at risk. Win9x PCs used regularly on the Internet need up to date security software. Some of these users -- companies, schools and governments -- may switch to Linux or Mac[.]" (emphasis mine)

      The article doesn't focus on old PCs in people's kitchen that only run Word. It specifically mentions schools, companies and governments - places that might have lots of old computers that still do something, and that need to know that those machines aren't going to be botted (those places DO have people who worry about such things, as opposed to the "average home user" that you seem to refer to). For such places, installing Linux might be a nice option instead of just throwing the hardware out.

    3. Re:Yeah sure... by Xtifr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Increased demand for Linux on the desktop? Highly unlikely.

      Um, you realize that it doesn't take much to qualify as increased demand for Linux on the desktop! :)

      > While Linux may be ready for the desktop, the people that stick to Win98/ME are the most unlikely to switch to Linux.

      True, with one notable excemption you may be overlooking. Companies that still use Win98 may well consider support to be an important factor, and may well be willing to consider an alternative like Linux. I agree that Gramma's Win98 machine is unlikely to change to Linux, but the small company with less-than-a-dozen aging machines might actually consider switching. Most of them will probably bite the bullet and upgrade to XP or something, but a few might actually make the leap. And, like I say, it doesn't take many to qualify as an increased demand for Linux at the moment.

    4. Re:Yeah sure... by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speaking as someone who has run Linux on my desktop since about 1996 (and on my home PC long before that), I can say that Windows is not yet ready for my desktop and most likely never will be.

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    5. Re:Yeah sure... by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, most small companies I know that are still running Win98 do so because they don't need much out of their computers, and it still does the job. Not because they have special apps that require Win98. And these companies are among the prime candidates for a move to Linux. Granted, most of them will certainly stick with MS, but even a few Linux migrations could be fairly significant, percentage-wise.

    6. Re:Yeah sure... by Haeleth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the end of support for Win98 will boost *anything* it's the purchases of Macs.

      You have got to be joking. There are only three possible reasons not to upgrade from Windows 98:

      1. Cannot justify the expense when Windows 98 works fine.
      2. Need to run programs that don't work in newer versions of Windows.
      3. Too lazy to care.

      People in category (1) are hardly going to pay the extortionate premium for an Apple: they'll keep on using their old computer until it breaks, and then they'll buy the cheapest Dell they can get.

      People in category (2) are hardly going to switch to a totally incompatible operating system that doesn't run any of their software: they'll keep on using their old computer until it breaks, and then they'll buy the cheapest Dell they can get and put Windows 98 on that. Sure, you could theoretically buy a Mac and run Win98 on it in Virtual PC. But why bother, when you can get a Dell for a fraction of the price?

      People in category (3) don't care about the end of support, so they'll keep on using their old computer until it breaks, and then they'll... you guessed it, they'll buy the cheapest Dell they can get and not care about that either.

      Oh, they won't switch to Linux either, but they certainly won't be interested in Apple hardware. For all its advantages, it does not have anything whatsoever to offer the kind of person who is still using Windows 98 in 2006.

    7. Re:Yeah sure... by doti · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or just install ubuntu without a bloated desktop environment.
      There are plenty of good options around, some are even end-user friendly.

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    8. Re:Yeah sure... by Zyprexia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ever heard of the phrase 'If it ain't broken, don't fix it'. I worked for some industrial companies that never going to take the risk of shutting down their factory line just to do an update. If it's working correctly now, it will also work correctly over 3 years. Most of the industrial companies don't have the resources to write (or maintain) the specialized software. Because of that they paid a lot of money for the software to interact with the factory plant. They are not going to invest millions of Euros to update their software just because Microsoft stops support for W98...

    9. Re:Yeah sure... by Pxtl · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, XUbuntu (a new xfce desktop for Ubuntu) should solve the problem of high processor needs, but RAM is still a worry for getting a legacy box into Linux world. XUbuntu still needs 128 megs just to install using the default (n00b-friendly) installer. A lot of these old win98 boxes have only 32 or 64 megs of RAM in them. Yes, old PC100 ram is cheap on eBay, but that's a substantial difference from just downloading and running a piece of software.

    10. Re:Yeah sure... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I saw this article and turned my Win98 machine on again to download the final updates. Ok, the CMOS values were screwed because it has been unhooked for months, but I have a local Samba time server so wtf.

      This machine is not about to become a Linux machine. The hard disc is too small (fixable, I have another unused one floating around) but the main reason is memory. The beast has 64MB which is not enough for any modern Linux KDE/Gnome system (my old Laptop has 96MB and is pretty turgid), not just that, these old machines would only cache the first 64MB of memory so I would have to start looking at NUMA if I wanted to upgrade (memo to self: does the Laptop have the same problem?).

      Anyone who has a machine of that generation is going to leave it as it is. Linux is not an option.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    11. Re:Yeah sure... by Luscious868 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Oh, they won't switch to Linux either, but they certainly won't be interested in Apple hardware. For all its advantages, it does not have anything whatsoever to offer the kind of person who is still using Windows 98 in 2006.

      I'd take issue with that. When my parents old refurbished Gateway PC that is running Windows 98 finally dies and they come to me asking advise about what they should purchase next I'll be suggesting that they buy a relatively cheap Mac Mini. I think you fail to take into account the suggestions of those of us who are called on to help friends and family when they are buying new PCs or are having problems with their existing systems. I bought a Mac Mini in December and I love it and am suggesting it to anyone who wants to buy a cheap PC that just works. It's incredibly easy to use and comes with all of the software you need to do all of the basics. iLife is a great package as well for the more advanced user who wants to manage their digital media and if they need a more fully featured Office type package than what comes with the Mac Mini you can always install Neo Office. If they need to use their old Windows apps for an extra $50 you can always go the Parallels Desktop route.

      I'm predicting Apple will see steadily increasing market share in the PC and laptop arena. It won't be an overnight boom but as more and more people like me switch there will be a bit of a halo effect as we bring our friends and families with us.

    12. Re:Yeah sure... by gregmac · · Score: 4, Insightful
      (trolling, but I'll bite..)


      What I find incredibly strange is that a machine like that, 7 years ago, would've been top of the line and lightning fast with Linux. Now it barely runs it? Maybe Linux distributions need to work on their bloat a little. In 1998 I got my blazing fast PII-266 with 512 megs of RAM and a 4 GB hard drive and used that to run Linux just fine. Eventually I even had VMware Workstation running on the thing and it ran fine. Now we've got to have a 3GHz P4 with 2 gigs of RAM and a 300 gig hard drive just to get by? WTF?


      Why is that strange? 7 years ago that machine would have been top of the line and lightning fast with Windows. Now it barely runs it? Oh, it ran Windows 98 back then, now we're talking about Windows XP?

      Linux, like Windows, has introduced new versions. The Linux desktop environments (which is really what you're referring to here, as the Linux kernel itself runs on many many devices) have introduced new versions.

      All the mainstream distros are using KDE or Gnome (which are the two 'big' desktop environments), which are "taking advantage of modern hardware" (in otherwords, they're bloated because current hardware is fast enough to handle it). There are still dozens of desktop environments that are lightweight and will run blazingly fast on 266mhz. You get the added benefit that you're running current versions of everything, including linux itself.
      --
      Speak before you think
    13. Re:Yeah sure... by g2devi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I ran Linux in a much more constrained environment back in 1993 (4MB RAM with ample swap, 40MB Disk, 386, laptop) and it ran at a decent speed with a decent set of applications (yes, even back then).

      I'd be *really* surprised if Linux today couldn't fit in your environment. But you'll likely have to forget KDE/GNOME. They're *nice* but not necessary. My old system used FVWM which is still perfectly capable (I was used it last year on Solaris -- there's even a Win95-like config), although now there are slicker alternatives like XFCE and IceWM which are also available and better supported by default on many distros.

      Here are a few alternatives to consider which are more targetted to your needs. You might want to them all out and see which one you like best:
      https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu
      http://www.puppylinux.org/user/viewpage.php?page_i d=1
      http://www.vectorlinux.com/
      http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

    14. Re:Yeah sure... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a huge difference between being able to buy a machine with an OS and installing it aftermarket.

      To a lot of people, the latter route seems very hacker-esque. If the machine doesn't come with a particular OS pre-installed, then clearly it's not "designed for" that OS. After all, that sticker on the front of the box says "Designed for Windows XP," doesn't it? And you wouldn't want to run an OS on that machine that it wasn't designed for -- that's like putting diesel into a gasoline car. Or something.

      Computers are complex devices, and to many people who don't spend their days working on them, complicated devices. There is a perception that anything you're installing aftermarket must necessarily be an additional level of complexity (even if the resulting system is simpler and/or easier to use, people oftentimes don't consider that).

      The day that you can go onto Dell's Home-user site and order a "PC with Linux" as easily as you can choose one with a 60GB drive versus a 40GB drive will be an important day, if only because it'll serve to break down a little more of the perception that "PC's are supposed to run Windows, even if they can run Linux."

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  2. Useless by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a useless article, the only section that actually mentioned Linux at all was

    Silver still believes that some users may decide to switch to Linux instead of upgrading to XP but he said existing applications that require Windows are likely to stop a mass migration.

    So how exactly is MS killing '98 support going to 'help linux migration'??

  3. In A Related Announcement ... by amelith · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft confirmed that they would begin supporting Windows XP sometime during Q3 this year.

    Ame

  4. not really. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless the end of support means that all copies will explode and stop working. I know people that still run windows 95 and they dont care that it is "unsupported" the masses dont care if something is supported anyways, they dont call microsoft, they typically dont go patching or updating.

    This means absolutely nothing, windows 98 installed bast sill remain the same and slowly dwindle as the poor upgrade their pc's and use what comes on that.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  5. Undoubtedly by samael · · Score: 5, Funny

    The kind of people who are still running Windows 98 are exactly the same people who will happily run Linux. And these same people really care about whether it's supported by Microsoft or not.

  6. Unlikely by linvir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, a rewrite. Changes are highlighted in bold:

    An anonymous reader writes
    "Microsoft kills off support for Windows 98 and Windows ME today, and nobody is reporting that the move will boost demand for Windows 2000 on bittorrent . Unlike two years ago -- when support for Win98 was extended because so many people complained about the early cutoff -- this time it seems there is no turning back."

    Seriously, my PIII laptop has 'Designed for Windows 98' on it, and can run Windows 2000 and Windows XP just fine, but the mainstream Linux distros are too bloaty to even install: the Ubuntu and Fedora installers literally hang, and SUSE and Mandriva are too slow even on my other machine in the +2GHz range.

    Linux can't pick up the slack when MS turns off support for old OSes, because the top Linux distros stopped catering for that level of hardware years ago. And with KDE/GNOME being so indispensable for everyday desktop usage, their near-elitist disregard for anything below mid-high range hardware is infuriating.

    In fact, here is the quote ZDNet is using to support their claim:

    "I suspect that Microsoft's original extension of the Windows 98 support date a couple of years ago was, in part, to make sure Linux was not brought in to replace these systems."

    Words cannot express just how much of a non-story this is.

    1. Re:Unlikely by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      seriously, my PIII laptop has 'Designed for Windows 98' on it, and can run Windows 2000 and Windows XP just fine [linuxvirus.net], but the mainstream Linux distros are too bloaty to even install: the Ubuntu and Fedora installers literally hang, and SUSE and Mandriva are too slow even on my other machine in the +2GHz range.

      that is the biggest pile of FUD I have ever heard. I am running Ubuntu on machines ranging from P-III Celeron 700 to AMD 3000+ with 128-512 meg of ram. it ALWAYS runs faster than XP hands down. Finally Mandriva also works well on those machines, although mandriva still has the bug that you need to reboot after the first login to get rid of an installer service that sit's in the background eating cycles. Just like XPMCE 2005 does right now on new installs. (BTW, you want to try a dog? XP tablet edition with SP2 installed is incredibly slow on a P-III 866.)

      Ubuntu live-install CD is broken for most hardware It hates legacy Nvidia video cards, the alternative install CD works on everything perfectly. It even worked on a high end workstation I was messing with that XP refused to install on because of the SCSI raid card, linux was happy with it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. I agree by transporter_ii · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work in a 2-way radio business radio shop. All of our programming computers use Windows 98 SE because everything after that had trouble with using the serial ports of out DOS (Now, on Win98, almost everything works. On anything past that, 90% of the software works, but you will run into something here or there that refuses to read or write to a radio).

    I would love nothing more to swap each Win98 computer over to Linux, but you know how much of the radio programming software - Kenwood, Motorola, Icom, etc. -- will run on Linux? None.

    I would bet that a fair amount of Win98 users still use it because they are in a situation similar to us, too. And you know how many of their critical apps run on Linux? Probably none, too.

    Transporter_ii

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
  8. This shows that Microsoft is a monopoly by dtjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those '50 to 70 million' users of Windows 98 or Windows ME are probably running on older hardware and are unlikely to upgrade to Windows XP due to its increased hardware requirements and slower system response. A normal competitive business with that many users of one of its product would find some way to sell them something such as security fixes, patches, or whatever. Microsoft just kisses them off.

  9. I agree by NetDanzr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm one of those who tried to switch to Linux. Even though Win98 is blazing fast on my machine, Xubuntu (light-weight Ubuntu with XFCE) has been as sluggish as Win95 on my other computer, a 486-66MHz. I really appreciated how helpfull the Ubuntu forum members were, but after a while they all determined that XFCE would not run any faster on my computer than it did, and so I switched back to Win98SE.

  10. Re:Seems unlikely by xtracto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know this will sound as the same old troll but there is, at least with Ubuntu, a long way to go for the Linux desktop mass "takeover".

    I just installed Ubuntu in a Pentium 3 400mhz that I found in the trash (I love UK) which had Windows 2000. Unfortunately I do not have an internet connection with that machine.

    I configured an account for my flatmate, he is a decent computer literate guy, biologist but he likes technology (he is something like 36 yrold and used to make small BASIC programs in the past).

    I am doing an experiment, the first thing he ased when he started using the machine was "but, does it plays MP3"?, I explained him all the situation (he is a "freedom" [in a broad sense, not in libre software as a lot of people is here] activist so, he understands about copyrights and all that shit) and told him about OGG, and showed him that there was support for OGG out of the box.

    Of course, I also told him I would install the MP3 support, here is where te problems began, I went to the UBUNTU site, and looked for what was necessary to provide MP3 support, then I downloaded the specified software and tried to installed via USB. None of it installed as every program needed some other program (aka unsatisfied dependency). Even the mp321 needed the id3tag-whatever library. As I didnt wanted to bother I just installed realplayer, and this is what he is using NOW to play mp3 (unfortunatley it does not have a playlist functionality so my friend has to open each file, and there is no way to configure the gnome file manager to make realplayer the default player when you dobule click, it keeps opening in Totem who says that the mp3 is not a multimedia format).

    Then, he opened OpenOffice (I told him about how it would be the equivalent for Microsoft Office for his needs). After he opened I went to do something else, and when I returned, he had OO.org in full screen mode and the program was kind of paralyzed. After looking a bit he told me he tried to customize the FullScreen Toolbar (the one that has the "FullScreen" button in it), I just pressed ALT-f4 and then tried again, it seems, the Fullscreen mode in OpenOffice gets "always on top" mode, and then when you try to open the customize screen the window sits under the document window WITH focus, the document window wont get focus unless you close that other window that is behind it. Bad program.

    Ok, then I told him about OpenOffice Draw, I use it a lot (it exports to EPS which I use with LaTex). I told him about the Vector graphics format and explained about the SVG and WMF (told him that SVG is the open and standard equivalent to the windows WMF). I made a fast drawing, selected all the elements and exported as SVG. Then I tried to import that image in a DOCUMENT (Open Office Writer Inert/Image/FromFile) and to my surprise THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR IMPORTING SVG. There is SGV which is I believe a staroffice format, but it is another thing. I tried chaning the extension to whatever (SGV) without success. it was funny that just two minutes before I had told my friend that Linux was cool because it "recognizes the format from the file content and not from the extension", but then it seems OpenOffice.org expects the files to have a specific extension. Bad bad program.

    Then I exported the same drawing to WMF (THE WINDOWS PROPIETARY FORMAT) and to my surprise I could import it to OpenOffice Writer without problem (WTF).

    Another annoyance, that is of course a RealPlayer problem is that, there is no way to select which soundcard to use. The motherboard has an integraded soundcard and a Soundblaster live (darn Britons, I cant believe I found it in the trash in a rainy day =o). I configured the SoundBlaster live as the default device (in the Ubuntu menu) but the REalPlayer ignored that. What I had to do is connect the speakers to the integraded soundcard jack and then just selected it as the default sound card.

    O

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  11. Surely you can't be serious. by RoyGBatty · · Score: 4, Funny
    I would like to see Linux take their fair share in the desktop market, but I don't think it will happen with Microsoft dominating the market

    What a coincidence! I would like to see Barack Obama as President, but I don't think it will happen with George Bush in office.

    --
    I was always fascinated with rock 'n' roll, or girls, or something like that when I was a kid. - Gary Sinise
  12. It's the Applications by Carcass666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An example of Windows 98 is at my gym where the barcode check in/check out system churns along happily day after day on a Windows 98 box (not connected to the Internet, or I'm sure it would be unusable by now). Here's an example of an old box, probably better made than half the crap churned out today (decent power supplies, hard drives that were throroughly Q/A'd, memory modules with matching chips, etc.), that will continue being used until it implodes upon ifself. The application does not need the eye candy of XP/Gnome/KDE, nor does it need access to infinite amounts of virtual RAM, etc. It needs to start quickly (which Windows 98 does) and go.

    This may be a perfect opportunity to set up a simple Linux application that runs under X (not using KDE/Gnome), but who is going to spend the money to fund the development? It's not a "sexy" project that it going to be picked up on by some hacker for fun, and the kind of guys who write boring database apps like this are mostly busy in the US these days working 10 hour days trying to keep their jobs.

    It's not Microsoft Office that keeps these Windows 98 boxes alive; but the small, VB apps that do not die but continue doing useful work day in and day out. Could these be built on Linux? Absolutely. Would they be better? Sure they could. Could they be built as quickly and easily as their VB 6 counterparts? Not that I have seen so far, and that includes Gnome, KDE/Qt, Tk and wxPython (I know there are many more). That's where Windows picked up so much momentum; it was the ability to toss together small, useful, ugly RAD apps that were not things of Computer Science beauty, but they could be built by people who didn't know C++ but knew what they needed.

    IMO, this is a big reason why Linux hasn't caught on the way it ought to have on the Desktop. There is no easy way for the non-computer scientist to put together quick, useful applications. This is something IBM never got with OS/2, and why it died a stagnant death, because while it could run Windows 3.1 apps better than Windows itself, to do anything in native you pretty much had to do it in C++.

    Most Linux users like the idea of their apps being constructed by committees of uber-hackers in Europe who really know their stuff. However, until your average hobbiest or business professional can put together useful applications as easily as they could in VB (and to a lesser extent VB.NET), and distribute it, legacy operating systems like Windows 98 and XP will still be floating around for many years to come.

  13. Cost of Training by shaneh0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take a look at your scenario: If YOU were that small business owner, with 10-15 employees and 10 older '98 machines, which do you think is more likely?

    Scenario 1
    - Sees slashdot headline in RSS reader about '98 support being discontinued and a mention of Linux, which is free software that you've heard discussed every now and then
    - Ignores all matters critical to running his business--normally a 60hr/wk job--and learns about Linux and the different distros and which companies offer support
    - Calls Red Hat, or a Red Hat provider, and discusses the software, gets a demo, installs, tests, and orders the software and support contract
    - Tries to find software to replace all of the titles used in Windows
    - Trains employees or hires someone to train employees

    Scenario 2
    - Calls Dell and orders 10 of their cheapest XP PC's shipped to their door at $500 machine.

    Scenario 3
    - Does nothing, crosses fingers, replaces PC's one at a time as they break

    I can't possibly imagine ANY SMALL BIZ owner following Scenario 1. I don't understand why linux zealots try to push linux down everyones throat, even where it doesn't belong.

    The people that WANT to use linux are already using it. It's not as if a critical mass of people are JUST ABOUT to use Linux if only X would happen or Y would happen to nudge it along. Like it or not, linux is positioned as a Server OS.

    Currently, OSX isn't enough to convert users. So when Linux is better then OSX, come back and tell me and I'll help you evangalize.

    1. Re:Cost of Training by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't possibly imagine ANY SMALL BIZ owner following Scenario 1.

      Certainly not the version of it you describe. Modify your scenario with this, though: Assume the small business has an IT guy who provides support on an as-needed, contract basis, and that guy already knows Linux, knows the distros and knows the applications. So here's how the scenario plays out:

      • Owner sees news article about Win98 end-of-life, gets mildly concerned.
      • Next time owner speaks with IT guy, he mentions that he's worried that his Win98 boxes are no longer getting security updates. Alternatively, it could be the IT guy -- who really hates his periodic trips to clean out viruses and spyware -- that brings it up.
      • IT guy mentions that Linux might fit the bill, and it's free, receives regular security updates and doesn't suffer from virus and spyware problems anyway.
      • Owner asks how hard it would be to switch, and IT guy offers to inventory the applications used by the business, evaluate the hardware and make a recommendation.
      • Owner agrees, IT guy does the inventory and finds that all the machines can run Linux just fine, using a lightweight window manager that looks a lot like Win98, and that there are F/LOSS equivalents to all of the applications being used, with a couple of exceptions which prove to run fine under WINE.
      • Owner has IT guy install and configure Linux on one computer. The user likes a few things better about the new system, complains about several changes, but overall doesn't see all that much difference and adapts quickly (mainly because the IT guy set the new system up to look and feel as close as possible to the old one).
      • Owner has IT guy spend a day and install Linux on all of the machines, plus another to show the employees how to use the new system. It's an up-front cost, but the IT guy assures him that it will pay for itself in reduced downtime and reduced IT support costs due to the lack of malware.

      Can you really say that any of that is unlikely?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  14. And why not? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I would have to agree. Seems like in a Microsoft-driven world, people will go out and buy Windows XP or Windows Vista. Even with the WGA in place, people would still buy Windows. I'm all pro-Linux myself, but I still use a Microsoft OS at home. I would like to see Linux take their fair share in the desktop market, but I don't think it will happen with Microsoft dominating the market. Plus, users are too familiar with Windows and are a little hesitant to switch to Linux.

    How hesitant users are to switch depends on the demographics. Mostly it is the older users who are stuck in the Windows cycle, alot of younger people who are comfortable around computers are much more mobile in this respect and willing to try new things. I have seen enough people switch to OS.X from Windows to know that. Of course the OS.X switchers are not exacty a mass exodus but alot of them are not exactly powerusers either and Mac sales have been picking up recently. There is no real reason why Linux as a desktop OS for regular users shouldn't also be able to achieve similar growth and thus help to gnaw away at Microsoft's market share. What keeps regular users (not nerds) away from Linux as a desktop OS is among other things:
    1. The still user unfriendly and sometimes buggy nature of many Linux distributions, especially when it comes to laptop support.
    2. The fact that major PC manufacturers don't offer Linux as an OS option complete with a support package and sell it aggressively.
    3. The sheer flora of desktop environments that are available for Linux since alot of normal users associate the desktop strongly with the operating system however illogical that may appear to a nerd.
    I'd like to see some major PC maker offer a Linux line of Destop and Laptop PC's, a hardware/software package similar in concept to Apple's offerings and with the same effort being put into support, development, making the OS easy and consistent to use and that users can easily get ahold of applications to replace the ones they miss from Windows. The components for this already exists, somebody just needs to get off his/her ass and use them to shake up the computer world like Ryanair and the likes managed to shake up the airline business. One thing is for sure, as long as people keep using Windows as they do nothing and wait for Microsoft to shoot it self in the foot and screw up it's monopoly nothing will change.
    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow