Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Jan 2009 21:34 UTC
Windows Tech ARP has a collection of dates regarding Microsoft's update program. The upgrade program concerns upgrade paths from Windows Vista to Windows 7, and basically entails that when you buy a Windows Vista machine after July 1 2009, you will get a free upgrade to Windows 7 once it's released. The data also confirm a number of versions for Windows 7.
Thread beginning with comment 342649
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Smorgasbord
by Piranha on Wed 7th Jan 2009 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Smorgasbord"
Piranha
Member since:
2008-06-24

Where does Linux fit in here at all? You really can't speak about "Linux" being catered to average users anyways, as this is simply incorrect. What user would know how to take source code, compile themselves a kernel, and build a userland? What we're focusing on is a distribution, and last I checked there was ONE Ubuntu, ONE Debian, ONE FreeBSD (by the way, OSX is based on BSD NOT Linux..), but you get my drift.

With a distribution like Ubuntu, at least people now have a sense of what they're running (maybe not what's truly lying underneath) and say "I'm running Ubuntu". They aren't saying "I'm running Linux version 2.6.19 cause 2.6.20 is too bleeding edge for me, and not sable enough". Even now, people are saying they're running "Windows" regardless if they're running Home or Ultimate.

And yes, the "Ultimate", "Home", "Business" really needs to be retired. With OSX, they have "OSX Leopard" or "OSX Leopard SERVER". When a customer sees "server" they are at least [usually] smart enough to know not to get that. Plus, the cost alone would likely deter them away.

Edited 2009-01-07 21:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Smorgasbord
by flanque on Wed 7th Jan 2009 22:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Smorgasbord"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Where does Linux fit in here at all? You really can't speak about "Linux" being catered to average users anyways, as this is simply incorrect. What user would know how to take source code, compile themselves a kernel, and build a userland? What we're focusing on is a distribution, and last I checked there was ONE Ubuntu, ONE Debian, ONE FreeBSD (by the way, OSX is based on BSD NOT Linux..), but you get my drift.

With a distribution like Ubuntu, at least people now have a sense of what they're running (maybe not what's truly lying underneath) and say "I'm running Ubuntu". They aren't saying "I'm running Linux version 2.6.19 cause 2.6.20 is too bleeding edge for me, and not sable enough". Even now, people are saying they're running "Windows" regardless if they're running Home or Ultimate.


I think you'll find a lot of people claiming that Linux is definately catered to average users, so much so that it is superior to Windows. Let's also keep in mind that when the majority of people say the word Linux they generalise this to mean a distribution of some sort and are not talking about the kernel itself.

Yes I agree that I don't think average users will understand the differences between kernel levels.

However, even at the basic distribubiton level and even keeping just the main ones in mind listed on DistroWatch, take a look at some of the pros and cons and ask yourself how on earth is someone who is isn't technical or is new to Linux (including the politics and philosphy behind it) even going start to identify which one suits their needs?

There's comments about lacking incompatibility, proprietry packages, patent deals and intellectual property, developer mailing lists and blogs can be uncultured at times, lack of "mindshare" among publishing houses, lacks release planning, conservative in terms of base package selection, and so on.

Yeah, I have cherry picked some of the cons from various distributions, but the point still remains that in even with just the top 10 distributions there's too many variables between the distributions for average users to dedicate effort to figuring out what it all means.

It's my view that the approach Linux has taken from a marketing and adoption perspective has been completely wrong. It's been too technically, politically and philosophically based and abscent minded to the fact that most people are more objective based when they use a computer.

It's my view that people want to know things like:

Can I browse the Internet and view websites fully?

Can I access my email?

Is it safe to use?

Can I do internet banking safely?

Can I do things like shopping online, booking holidays or tickets with my airline, etc?

Can I connect things like my printer, scanner, memory cards, camera?

Can I watch videos and movies?

Can I edit and manage photos and videos?

Can I still use my favorite software?


Maybe some don't agree with me, and that's fine, but this is my opinion either way.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Smorgasbord
by weildish on Wed 7th Jan 2009 23:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Smorgasbord"
weildish Member since:
2008-12-06

I completely agree. The "average" user doesn't care (or usually even know) what his or her system is. If it runs what they want and how they want it, then they're happy-- that's how I see it. Usually their system of choice, even though they don't know what the name is or even that it's called a system, is Windows, just because it's installed on almost every prebuilt computer at every retail store. If Dell started shipping desktops with (place Linux distro of preference here), I bet you a majority of the poor folks who are tricked into buying Dell computers would hardly know the difference. "Oh, they changed the Start menu to be at the top of the screen, now. And what's this? OpenOffice? My, it's just like Word/Works! And there's that familiar Firefox. Come here, buddy. Let's check some email at Yahoo."

No, I never did like a Dell compy. Though they'd probably be able to run a Linux system better than Windows since Linux is generally (always?) less resource-intensive.

Reply Parent Score: 2