"So, which really is better for the desktop: Vista or Linux? I've been working with Vista since its beta days, and I started using Linux in the mid-90s. There may be other people who have worked with both more than I have, but there can't be many of them. Along the way, I've formed a strong opinion: Linux is the better of the two. But, now that Vista is on the brink of becoming widely available, I thought it was time to take a comprehensive look at how the two really compare. To do this, I decided to take one machine, install both of them on it, and then see what life was like with both operating systems on a completely even playing field."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-21
Regarding inertia, why is there inertia when it comes to move to Linux, if people moved away from Netscape at the time. When there is a benefit, there is no inertia and consumers switch to whatever is better to them.
Because of several reasons :
- Internet explorer came preinstalled with Windows 98 (and as recent hearings in the Iowa case have shown, this was tactical measurement to overcome the existing inertia of Netscape)
- The choice of a browser is not as fundamental as the choice of the operating system (you still were able to run both browsers concurently, I have done so before giving up on Ms Windows. At least having two operating systems at one box is more difficult than having two browsers installed)
- The roles: While Netscape was the market leader in a (then) niche market, MS already had a dominant position wrt desktop operating systems. Using this position, it was easy to overcome the market inherent inertia of Netscapes browsers. MS is still in a dominant market position wrt desktop operating systems and Linux/alternative Oses are definitly not in a near monopoly position in other markets (server space is pretty heterogenious) to gain a better foothold in desktop space.
- Education is at least in my country as Microsoft centric as it gets. You don't learn "computing" in school, you learn MS Word and MS Excel. Essentially, students get trained on microsoft products while the goverment / country takes the costs. Not only does this raise the TCO artificially for other soltions (training costs), but it is also an important competative measurement, when most people stick with what they consider to be working.
The list could grow longer, but I hope you get my point, that the situation of IE vs. Netscape is fundamentally different from the situation MS Windows vs. the rest of the world.
EDIT: Note, that it was not my intention to suggest, that Linux should use a dominant market position in another segment to increase it's installbase on desktops. While it is *very* debatable if such a move would even work in the first place (with the fragmentation/diversity among Linux based systems), it would be completely against the spirit of large parts of the community, that have suffered from closed APIS and properitary standards in the past. Just for clarification
Edited 2007-01-28 16:59
Member since:2005-07-02
True, but don't you think there's something wrong with your rationale? On the one hand you have a product free of charge that isn't used, and on the other hand, you have an expensive product that, despite the years, remains dominant?
Most consumers aren't aware of Linux' existence...in fact, many consumers don't even know what an OS is (which is why Vista is only going to really take off when it'll comes preinstalled).
No. This is wrong.
Actually, it isn't.
You can have any retail store to mount a pristine computer for you. In stores, you can whine and have your MS tax removed and your disk wiped. You can also buy a Linux computer, so there are many ways to have Linux installed instead of Windows.
First, you have to be aware of the alternative. Most "Joe Users" aren't. Then, as you acknowledge yourself, you have another set of hurdles to go through: you have to have a store that'll accept to sell you a bare system, you have to whine if you don't want Windows, you have to do a lot of shopping before you can find a store that sells Linux...Your own words support the argument that it is *more difficult* to get a Linux PC than a Windows PC.
Regarding inertia, why is there inertia when it comes to move to Linux, if people moved away from Netscape at the time.
That's a very bad analogy. Switching browsers doesn't require you to reinstall your PC, nor to learn a new OS and use new applications (apart from the browser...which all behave pretty much the same way anyway).
When there is a benefit, there is no inertia and consumers switch to whatever is better to them.
That is untrue, and there are lots of examples of superior technology that failed to catch on for many reasons, including inertia. Again, your previous example is inadequate, as there was very little inertia involved in using a particular browser. It's like saying "it's easy to move a 15-ton boulder, look at how easily I can move this one-pound stone..." You can't dismiss the inertia argument like that. I know you *want* to, because it undermines your position, but you're going to have to do better than that.
I have seen a number of people switch to Ubuntu and reinstall Windows after much frustration.
Again, your personal experience is not a large enough sample to derive a general impression. I myself have seen many people switch to Linux, and none of them have ever reverted back to Windows (though they may continue to use it at work). If personal experiences are valid, then mine cancels yours and we're still at the same place.
Switching to Linux means going back to stone age, so obviously so sensible person wants to do that.
Nice troll. If you want to stoop down to this level, then consider that if Linux is the stone age, then Windows is a dinosaur.
Member since:
2005-06-29
popularity is not linked to quality.
True, but don't you think there's something wrong with your rationale? On the one hand you have a product free of charge that isn't used, and on the other hand, you have an expensive product that, despite the years, remains dominant? People know how to burn CD-ROMs (don't people pirate movies and software?), if they wanted Linux, they would have adopted it a long time ago.
There are many factor that explain Windows dominance, but mostly it comes down to consumer inertia and OEM preinstalls.
No. This is wrong. You can have any retail store to mount a pristine computer for you. In stores, you can whine and have your MS tax removed and your disk wiped. You can also buy a Linux computer, so there are many ways to have Linux installed instead of Windows. Regarding inertia, why is there inertia when it comes to move to Linux, if people moved away from Netscape at the time. When there is a benefit, there is no inertia and consumers switch to whatever is better to them. I have seen a number of people switch to Ubuntu and reinstall Windows after much frustration. Switching to Linux means going back to stone age, so obviously so sensible person wants to do that.