OSNews

And would anyone dare go backwards, or even forwards a version of Windows? I certainly wouldn't go backwards, and am very hesitant on going forward.

And it continues to sell well because there aren't really any alternatives.
Linux? Has a long way to go yet for the desktop.
OS X? Can only become a real competitor the day Apple opens it up so you can run it on more setups than what Apple provides, without hacking around stuff to install it on anything you like.

>> And it continues to sell well because there aren't really any alternatives.
Linux? Has a long way to go yet for the desktop. <<

Meaning... you tried it and that's what you found out?
If Linux isn't ready for the desktop, then Mac OS X isn't ready for the desktop.

">> And it continues to sell well because there aren't really any alternatives.
Linux? Has a long way to go yet for the desktop. <<

Meaning... you tried it and that's what you found out?
If Linux isn't ready for the desktop, then Mac OS X isn't ready for the desktop."

Mac OS X >> Windows XP >> Linux

I know that because I've tried all of them. You must never touch Mac OS X, it has the most pleasant user interface. You don't have to waste your time to customize your desktop to suit your need. (I will not repeat "Linux is only free ..." proverb).

One more thing: Linux didn't sell well because it free. Free things didn't sell, they just attract sympathy so you are justified to ask donation.

no os sell much on their own. most sales come from them being preinstalled on some computer.

Your logic fails to compute.

MacOSX != Linux
Linux != MacOSX

why should the linux failure imply anything about MacOSX on the desktop?

What Linux Failure?

Meaning... you tried it and that's what you found out?

Yes, I did try. It may be good for server use, but it wasn't for desktop use.

If Linux isn't ready for the desktop, then Mac OS X isn't ready for the desktop.

If that is what you think, then you just don't have any idea what it takes to be "ready".

If Linux isn't ready for the desktop, then Mac OS X isn't ready for the desktop.


Actually neither of those two are ready for the desktop, they are both lugging behind five year old Windows Xp on the desktop market. Unfortunate Microsoft employess can contiune taking their vacation because nothing has been coming
out from that company for the last five years and still
linux and the mac os x will still be lugging behind xp.

Edited 2006-09-26 11:24

Linux? Has a long way to go yet for the desktop.
OS X? Can only become a real competitor the day Apple opens it up so you can run it on more setups than what Apple provides,

I guess these tired, old sayings have finally been repeated enough to hit the magic number where they become facts.

Linux's absence from the home user's desktop has very little to do with the products themselves and any shortcomings they may have and almost everything to do with the conditions of the market. Major OEMs aren't including and supporting Linux, curious beginners are confused by all the options and don't know what to do with it, people need x piece of software that hasn't been ported to it, x wireless card is somehow made entirely out of state secrets so there can never be a driver for it, and all sorts of other excuses that have absolutely nothing to do with the developmental state of Linux and its related technology, so it's not Linux itself that "has a long way to go," it's user knowledge and corporate support.

As for OS X, yes, it is not an option on pre-existing Wintel hardware, and no, Apple does not want it to be. But as for new hardware purchases, Apple is a majorly and growingly popular alternative to Windows resellers, not to mention highly profitable, so they're not feeling this supposed need to change their ways, either.

"Linux's absence from the home user's desktop has very little to do with the products themselves and any shortcomings they may have and almost everything to do with the conditions of the market. Major OEMs aren't including and supporting Linux, curious beginners are confused by all the options and don't know what to do with it, people need x piece of software that hasn't been ported to it, x wireless card is somehow made entirely out of state secrets so there can never be a driver for it, and all sorts of other excuses that have absolutely nothing to do with the developmental state of Linux and its related technology, so it's not Linux itself that "has a long way to go," it's user knowledge and corporate support. "

Very well said.

Linux works fine on the desktop. My father uses it on his Dell Dimension desktop for internet, email and word-processing and spreadsheets.

My question is was Linux pre-loaded with Dell?

Probably not, Linux will get on the desktop when someone pays for it to be. A lot of these computer companies get paid to put trial software on their machines. This brings down of selling price of the computers, in return keeps Windows on the PCs.

Linux will work on nearly ever machine out there today. yet, you pay for XP with every PC you buy(preloaded), making Microsoft OS usage % up.

High Market share will determine what kind of software to develop. Software is a strong reason people go with Windows.

Thanks,
Aaron

No, you make a fair point, as I installed it for him, but your comment "has a long way to go yet for the desktop" implied that it wasn't ready for the desktop, not that it didn't come pre-installed (actually some manufacturers do offer pre-installed Linux machines now) on new buys. The point I was trying to make, and perhaps badly explained, was that my father is a retired gentleman in his mid-sixties who used a computer for anything for the first time last October!!! I installed Ubuntu Linux on an old PIII desktop I had spare and he hasn't looked back since!

In fact, in my day to day work as an IT Consultant, I have recently transitioned medium sized company over to a Ubuntu 6.06 desktop environment, using OpenOffice for offie work, and have saved the company a fortune!

Has he tried Windows XP though? For more than just a few days.

Maybe he would like it better?

Linux is fine for him because it's what he started with.

The same argument can be made alternatively for people who have always used Windows I suppose.

I just wonder, if a test was done... where people who haven't used computers were to start using them, half Linux half Windows... then after a set period of time try to switch, what the results would be.

I just wonder, if a test was done... where people who haven't used computers were to start using them, half Linux half Windows... then after a set period of time try to switch, what the results would be.

It wouldn't matter. The Linux fans would just claim that the test was bogus because it used RedBoot ELX 5.243 Business Desktop when it should have used Linbiantu Woody Etch 2010.01 with custom kernel 2.7.21-mmx3-ac-lt-at and Gernome 3.0000111-pre-alpha-RC2-patchlevel94 (or vice versa).

Here's a usability study, done ~3 years ago, titled "Study: Linux nears Windows XP usability ":
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/04/HNusabilitystudy_1.html

Was with SuSE pro 8.2 using kde 3.1.2 (which has come a long way since, while XP stagnated).

It's an interesting point, and to be honest, I think the real answer is that it doesn't matter. If both system do what the user wants without issues, then by default there is nothing to choose between them. Then it will come down to cost and Linux wins there. Actually, my father has now used Windows XP on my wife's machine and for what he uses it for, there is no difference. Even the applications he tends to use - OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird - are on both platforms for him. Thus, the underlying OS is largely irrelevant to him.

I wouldn't say it sells particularly well. It seems that most of the existing users upgrade to it with hardware they desired, and not by buying it seperately. And among the users, many of them still aren't using it: And it's rarely for compatibility issues with software they're dependant on.

Steve Jobs quote from a Wired interview:

When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth.

... and the job of marketing / advertisement is to tell people what they _should_ want so someone else can give it to them. Probably it's not about conspiracy, but it's not much better.

If you've had the misfortune of having to use engineering apps for Windows (AutoCAD, OrCAD, Altera MAXyou would know that product activation has existed for a long, long time before XP, even before widespread internet, and in much more user-hostile implementations.

I have had to deal with stacks of dongles plugged in the parallel port and with 30-character long activation keys generated from seed keys generated by the software, and then faxed to and fro half around the world. Floating licenses, computer-tied licensed, user-licenses, the works. And whenever Windows 3x or 9x rotted and needed to be reinstalled, the whole procedure had to be repeated. For each component in the software stack.

So, why has XP activation survived? Well, because it is really not that inconvenient, and people don't really value their freedom that much, and don't really care about Microsoft, Sony or whoever snooping into their computers and then calling back home with the details.

Yes, activation has always been common on software that costs over $2,000 per seat.

It's sad, but I'm not sure they could continue that business model without it. Maybe they should just find a better business model though? I can't think of one to suggest, but maybe you can.

Windows, on the other hand, is usually shipped pre-installed on the computer. You have to pay for it this way. And each lost sale is a tiny loss ($83 for XP OEM last I knew, factored against the odds this intellectual property infringer would have paid for it if they had to) when compared to how many valid users it annoys.


Anyway, as was probably predicted. Almost everyone was mad over activation, and 99% of them aren't mad anymore and have just gotten used to it.
I wonder if it'll be just that, or a frog in the boiling pot sort of thing. Will we someday have to fax Redmond all of our personal identification to login and not realize how horribly obnoxious that is?

I don't know about their business models, but I do know that you could get out of the OrCAD and AutoCAD activation treadmill by installing a crack (and I believe you can with XP too). It is funny how these contrived schemes end up f--king up the paying customers, while the pirates sail unbothered.

As programmable logic design packages, I don't use them any more, but I believe they have dropped from incredibly expensive to free as in beer, because what is important having customers buy their chips, not use their software. That took them long to find out, though.

Not that inconvenient? Try activating over the phone.

It takes about 10 minutes, and involves some incredibly long numbers being read out over the phone in a monotonous robotic voice and then typed into a dialogue.

I consider it extremely inconvenient.

As an "Anonymous Penguin" I hate to admit it, but actually XP is quite stable now. It has taken 5 years to reach this goal

My main gripe with XP is that even a computer "savvy" person will have a hard time keeping spyware/malware off their machine.

Sure, you can (and should) run as a non admin user. And there is plenty of open source goodness for Windows XP, but eventually every Windows user is going to install something they can't be sure of. (Or it gets installed unbeknownst to the end user.) You can't even trust big companies. (Sony root kit anyone?)

While I'm not a programmer myself, I know that the Debian repositories are maintained by idealist people who simply won't compromise.

Erm... Keeping spyware and malware off your PC isn't all that hard. There's all the boring stuff like

1) Keep your AV product up to date
2) Run behind a hardware firewall, all the time
3) Use an anti-phishing filter (like the one in IE7)

But the real problem isn't technology - there'll always be technological exploits. The problem is psychology. Things like:

4) Don't forward "hilarious" executables/videos etc. you've received. Friends don't infect friends!
5) Don't run "hilarious" executables apparently (or actually) forwarded by your friends. (See 4)
6) Try to avoided blundering around the nasty side of town. We don't hang around there in the real world, so why do we assume it is safe to do so online?

OK, this hasn't got a lot to do with XP, but we manage to keep our business pretty virus free these days (having learned the hard way that it is modifying people's behaviour that is more important than the technology they happen to run).

Having said that, I fully expect our entire enterprise to be brought to its knees tomorrow by some worm or other! (Best to be prepared...)

I am running XP with Avast now. It seems to stop almost everything. Occasionally I run an Ad-Aware/Spybot scan.

As to Debian, well, that is another story altogether

I am a very "computer savvy" person, and so are most of my friends, and none of us have any problems keeping malware off our machines. It's quite easy actually. I run as a normal user, use firefox for browsing, and run Windows Defender and AVG. that's all you need to do.

I do not particularly like Windows, but I use Windows often for certain packages that are not available on other operating systems, and even before that I developed commercially for the platform for a number of years. I have never had any spyware, nor have I ever had a machine compromised due to the various defects. It's not that I assume that this is the case--I even use a variety of utilities to scan for various problems on a weekly basis simply to err on the side of caution--I just have no such problems. I think "computer savvy" people should have few problems obtaining the same success by means of being proactive. If you treat XP like the highly-targeted insecure-after-install operating system that it is, you shouldn't have to deal with correcting problems after they've had their way with your computer.

My main gripe is that normal people end up dealing with computers full of crap, because they don't know any better. That's why I've switched so much of my family to using Macs: it's a much less attractive target for malware. If you don't actually need anything that is Windows-only--and quite honestly most people don't--then it's a pretty pleasant experience for them when they don't have to call for help because malware has made their computer unusable.

Honestly I have no problem at all with it. It's very easy to avoid malware. Keep Windows and your antivirus program up to date, don't open email attachments that you don't know anything about, and don't download every flashy free thing someone offers you on the internet. No, you do not need a free toolbar that gives you grocery coupons or a friendly monkey that dances on your desktop and tells jokes.

I think 2 things need to occur in order for Windows to become safer (in my mind the structure of Windows just isn't as safe as BSD, Solaris or Linux)

1) Pre-Installers-Dell and the other PC mfg's need to stop installing Windows with everything open. Vista may help that regard, but leaving the door open with nothing locked is inviting thieves into your home.
Teach the user to either install their locks, or to use a key to get into their house, or in this case their computers.

2) Culture Shift-Focus on security within companies rolling out Windows. Don't give in to mid-level management about needing every program under the sun, and the ability to install without supervision.
The business mindset is where much of computer knowledge starts, and it transfers to your home use as well. Use it safe in businesses, and it will carry over to your home use.

Microsoft can throw in all the patches and service packs they want, but as long as they use duct tape to keep the doors on, people will keep trying to break in using a sharper knife.

And yet until Apple insists on OS X working only on its rather overpriced hardware, with very expensive upgrades (RAM, HDs...) I can't see it significantly increasing its market share outside the US.

If Apple were to unbundle OS-X away from the hardware, they'd be in the same boat as GNU/Linux. You'd never get anyone to install it, 'cause their computer came with Windows XP pre-installed. If you're going to go to the trouble of installing another OS, why not pick a free GNU/Linux distro rather than paying whatever it is that Apple will charge? Also, what incentive is there for Dell/HP/Compaq/Gateway/etc. to pre-install it? None, unless Apple gives them some major kickbacks.

"Also, what incentive is there for Dell/HP/Compaq/Gateway/etc. to pre-install it? None, unless Apple gives them some major kickbacks."

Not true. Here is one of many articles which prove you wrong:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/16/dell_eyes_apple/

And yet until Apple insists on OS X working only on its rather overpriced hardware, with very expensive upgrades (RAM, HDs...) I can't see it significantly increasing its market share outside the US.

Don't really know what you mean with overpriced hardware, compare for yourself (even cheaper than some equal Dell models). Of course there are cheaper PCs, but it's not overpriced. This was true before the intel-switch.

Expensive upgrades? Why should the RAM and HD that someone buy to their Mac be more expensive than the ones a PC-user buy, when it's the same ones?

"Expensive upgrades? Why should the RAM and HD that someone buy to their Mac be more expensive than the ones a PC-user buy, when it's the same ones?"

I mean upgrades bought together with your computer directly fom Apple.

Your have to consider why this is so. When a new piece of hardware comes out, it's The manufacturer's job to ensure that it works on Windows. Linux doesn't often get a crack at compatibility until a hacker gets the hardware off the shelf this is why Linux hardware support is always a generation behind.

Edited 2006-09-25 17:19

<sarcasm>
Yeah, and 100 different conf files scattered all over the file system are such a great solution.
</sarcasm>

Not funny at all. Conf files are a much cleaner solution. They can be read by everybody, rather easily edited, and they are not a huge, messy melting pot like the registry.
Besides they are not "scattered all over the file system", the majority of them are all in one place (/etc).

Now mod me down to hell, I couldn't care less.

[T]here are still applications out there that insist on having write access to Program Files folder and don't work properly under a limited user account.

It's no more Microsoft's fault that there are programmers who write crap for Windows XP than it is GNU/Linux's or Apple's fault that there are programmers who write crap for those OS's.