Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Feb 2009 10:17 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer had some interesting things to say yesterday about which companies Microsoft sees as its competitors in the client operating system space. You'd think Apple was their number one competitor - and you'd be wrong. Microsoft sees two other competitors as their primary adversaries.
Thread beginning with comment 350657
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sure, cheap (or free) is tempting
by bousozoku on Wed 25th Feb 2009 16:20 UTC
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

Here we go again. There are a few countries that cannot afford Microsoft's typical pricing and they have been getting Windows for the equivalent of US$3.00. Those who don't live in one of those countries and can't get that pricing are likely using a pirated version of Windows.

They don't have a desire to use Linux because the best games aren't available for Linux. For the same reason that many buyers have avoided Apple's machines, they're not going to Linux: they don't know anyone using Linux to get them their favourite software for free. The free software movement means little since they don't recognise any of the names.

Cheap is compelling but until cheap has its act together software-wise, it's not going to take the desktop (or the laptop). There is no application on Linux or *BSD that compels a majority of people to switch.

Add to that the fact that making adjustments from the GUI is not always intuitive and sometimes not possible, people aren't going to flee Windows. (Windows has quirks of course but people can deal with those quirks because someone else has encountered them already.)

Linux would be a great competitor if it worked smoothly and intuitively for more than those who know Linux.

Reply Score: 3

wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

Goddamnit, stop it with the "intuitiveness" bullshit. There's no universal guidelines on intuitiveness, only those that exist in the users' mind. And guess what qualifies as intuitive in a user's mind? What they're used to. Nothing more, nothing less.

People are used to popping in a CD and clicking on the "Setup" icon to install a program. I'd argue that using officially supported repositories is hundreds of times more comfortable and secure than hunting down CDs and executable installers. But then again, people aren't used to it, so they think it's "unintuitive" (which, by the way, it's something they never think about. They only think about the things they're used to. The only ones talking bullshit about intuitiveness are the wanabee interface designer trolls like you).

Losing the FLOSS strengths over a stupid sense of "intuitiveness" is ridiculous, and is never going to happen.

Reply Parent Score: 1

BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

There's no universal guidelines on intuitiveness, only those that exist in the users' mind. And guess what qualifies as intuitive in a user's mind? What they're used to. Nothing more, nothing less.


I have to agree with you 100%. I even have a "fer instance". I have a friend that is completely computer illiterate. He is a stand up comic that finally felt the need to post some of his shows on youtube and keep track of his engagements. The only computer experience he had was his part time job with a movie rental store inventory program.

I set him up with my old PIII laptop with Ubuntu (not my flavor, but good for him) about a year ago. In about a day of simple tutelage he was prepared enough to go on his own. That laptop finally gave up the ghost two weeks ago. So we went out and bought a new one on Monday since he now had a better idea of what he wanted to do with a laptop. I didn't have time to set up Ubuntu for him so he has make due with Vista until this weekend for me to set it up. He called me on Tuesday night asking if I could come over sooner because there just wasn't anything there that he liked. I am so proud of him!

What I am trying to say is simple: if you take a person with no experience, be it child or adult, intuitive UI design opinions are not formed yet.

Reply Parent Score: 0

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

People are used to popping in a CD and clicking on the "Setup" icon to install a program. I'd argue that using officially supported repositories is hundreds of times more comfortable and secure than hunting down CDs and executable installers. But then again, people aren't used to it, so they think it's "unintuitive" (which, by the way, it's something they never think about. They only think about the things they're used to. The only ones talking bullshit about intuitiveness are the wanabee interface designer trolls like you).


Very true. Just look at most cell phones and their providers. They're packaging systems are very similar to what you see on Linux. There is a central, categorized repository to install software. People don't seem to have a problem with the way that works when they download games and applications for their phone. But somehow on when a similar approach is taken for Linux it is "unintuitive". I have the same beef with people who claim there only should be one Linux distro to reduce packaging formats. Application developers for phones don't seem to have a problem creating alternative versions of their software for different platforms.

Reply Parent Score: 4