Posted on 11/26/2004 8:55:01 AM PST by JusticeTalion
The cats are new...I am the old one. :)
The real problem is not usability (that has largely been addressed), it is software compatibility. Even though software like OpenOffice.org is 99% compatible with Microsoft Office, that last 1% still scares people off.
The thing is, 99% of office workers/non-gamers could switch to Linux without any significant problem. But if they're getting Windows free (pirated), they have little incentive. I am happy to see Microsoft crack down on piracy, as it forces people to accept the true cost of their choices.
I've been using Linux as my sole desktop operating system since 1997 or 1998. I manage to accomplish what I need to accomplish. I had one job where I occasionally needed to run a Windows application (we were using a MS SQL Server db for a Linux-hosted web application). For that, we bought VMWare, and I would just run Windows in there when I needed it.
Why dont we give microsoft amnesty for using pirated softwarez! Check this out
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/11/13/0036243.shtml?tid=133
FiredFox is awesome ! Microsoft will have to go back to the drawing board for this one.
I enjoy Linux (Fedora, SuSE and Mandrake primarily), but it's definately not ready for your average home user yet. The system will definately have to be simplified a bit on the UI end before the typical family will be comfortable with it. Gnome and KDE are starting to look real nice now, but the UI's are still geared to hackers (in the traditional sense), geeks, and power-users.
Software and hardware installation processes really need to be unified and cleaned up a bit as well. Having worked in tech support, there are enough people out there that get confused by the InstallShield wizards on Windows that you're just not going to be able to get them recompiling or editing scripts for installations, no matter how powerful the new way is.
If everyone in the world had the hacker ethic, then Linux would be a perfect solution, but most people really don't want to know how everything works, they just want it to be taken care of for them.
Given another couple of years and some real effort at addressing these issues, I'm sure that Linux will be in a more suitable position to compete in the desktop market.
When you don't understand how something could possibly come to be, your best course is to examine your assumptions.
In your case, the assumption that "Windows XP sucks" is the one I would challenge. It may suck for you, but many on this very thread have noted that it works well for them. It is targeted at a mass consumer audience, and is apparently good enough that a viable alternative that's supposed to be even easier to use (Apple) gets less than 10% of the market.
With two viable competitors for the consumer space already in place, both with satisfied users, it is no mystery at all to me why no other competitor has arisen or is likely to arise. It is an expensive undertaking, and a moving target.
For example, speech and handwriting recognition are now going mainstream, and any competitive OS will have to incorporate them transparently. How is any company going to (1) produce a flexible, easy-to-use OS that is (2) highly reliable, and (3) works with just about any hardware you want to attach, and finally (4) continues to evolve to meet the needs of changing technologies?
Hating Microsoft is no substitute for rational analysis on this subject.
Agree with you on XP. I have never had any problems with it.
I know there are a lot of critics, but for the general user I would say it's a good operating system.
In your case, the assumption that "Windows XP sucks" is the one I would challenge....
======
Joe - I did not say that Win XP sucks...someone else said that. My points of contention are with MS, no WinXP...which I use heavily on a daily basis.
Cheers.
I doubt that this is true, and here's why. There is no one in the Linux space with the economic incentive to get it up to par and keep it on a par with Windows and Apple OS. Making an OS both flexible and easy to use is a very expensive undertaking. Keeping it integrated with leading edge technologies such as speech and handwriting recognition is even more expensive.
Open source efforts such as Linux work well to replicate technology that is already well understood. But by it's nature, open source is not good at innovation. That implies that commercial operating systems will probably keep their lead on Linux for implementation of new technologies such as speech and handwriting, not to mention better integration of new peripherals.
Couple that with the fact that the people who gain the most from open source are highly technical types, and are not representative of the user community. That means there is no appreciation of the things the typical, non-technical user wants, or even the understanding of what that non-technical user needs. How are such people ever going to produce software that appeals to the non-technical user?
I'm happy to see Linux (and Apple) doing well in certain segments. Microsoft does much better when they have competition. They tend to get sloppy when they don't (which is why Internet Explorer stagnated so long). But that needs to be tempered with a realistic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of open source.
Sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood. If you think XP is a good product, what made you believe that the market is there "for the taking" to a competitor?
I agree completely. I have been into computers since the days of punch tape and main frames in high school. I have run the gambit from Commodore to Apple II to Mac and IBM. XP is the best thing to happen to IBM clones since personal computers became available. I currently am running an Athlon 64. I have'nt even had any probs even with SP-2. Everyone can say what they like about Microsoft, but the fact remains more cutting edge hardware and software is dedicated to MS than any other OS. Since I like to keep on the front edge of tech I will stick with IBM clones and MS until the techies lean another way.
Didn't Gateway get it's start in a barn?
CP/M wasn't Microsoft. Microsoft's DOS competed with CP/M-86. IBM went with DOS for the PC.
Gates made a statement at a computer conference years ago that went something like this: 'Good ideas are to be borrowed; great ideas are to be stolen.'
Gates didn't magically think up Windows all by himself. He thought the early Mac had a 'great' idea.
During the early years of Windows (before most of the world even knew what is was), a software company (Digital Research, IIRC) developed developed a graphic interface called GEM. It was a fair desktop application software. But, like so many, it didn't gain much of a following and went out of business.
Right you are!
I wish I could market something that sucks and become a billionaire! ; )
I don't know about Gateway, but Gates worked out of his garage in the early years, IIRC.
It was a barn in Sioux Falls.
I'm not sure about Gateway, but from what I remember, Michael Dell started building PC's in his living room when he was in college.
It's great to see that an individual filled with determination can STILL produce a fine product, make millions or billions, without having a pot to p!ss in to start! : )
Appearently, you haven't worked with much.
XP blows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, and 2000 (in certain situations) away. Not to mention a host of other OS's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.