Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:59 UTC
Windows 7 has been out and about for little over a week now, and as it turns out, Microsoft's new baby is doing relatively well. That is, according to the figures by NetApplications: Windows 7 already reached the 3% mark this weekend, and is already closing in on the 4% mark.
Thread beginning with comment 392631
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Windows market share
by twitterfire on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:21
in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
Member since:2008-09-11
Almost all the software you have mentioned runs on windows too. You can use VLC on Windows, you can use python, apche, mysql, whatever. Besides gcc, there are much more c/c++ compilers for Windows. And guess what? There are some useful IDEs too, not just Vi and Emacs.
As for Abiword, even that you can use it on windows? Why bother?
And I am sure that professionals will find Gimp more useful than Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, like you seem to believe.
RE[6]: Windows market share
by boldingd on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:41
in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
Member since:2009-02-19
Almost all the software you have mentioned runs on windows too. You can use VLC on Windows, you can use python, apche, mysql, whatever. Besides gcc, there are much more c/c++ compilers for Windows.
I know. The statement that lemur2 made, that was subsequently contested, was that Linux distros ship with more useful and higher-quality software than Windows 7 ships with. I feel his statement was accurate, and that the post refuting it was not informative or reasonable. Hence, my post.
Clearly, large amounts of high-quality software are available on either platform, and most of the software I mentioned is available in some form or other for Windows. But it's not on the Windows install DVD. A plain-vanilla install of Win7 (or OS X, to poke a hornet's nest) will include less useful software than a plain-vanilla installation of Ubuntu or Slackware.
And guess what? There are some useful IDEs too, not just Vi and Emacs.
I agree, there are lots of useful IDEs out there, on Windows and Linux. And... this is relevant how?
As for Abiword, even that you can use it on windows? Why bother?
Because it's a good, simple, light-weight WYSIWYG word processor? Because it's better than WordPad? What's your point?
And I am sure that professionals will find Gimp more useful than Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, like you seem to believe.
I don't believe or claim anything. What I said was:
1) I'd like to know what graphics pros think of Gimp, and
2) Gimp is more functional than anything in a plain-vanilla installation of Windows 7.
Edited 2009-11-03 21:42 UTC
RE[6]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:23
in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
Member since:2007-02-17
Almost all the software you have mentioned runs on windows too. You can use VLC on Windows, you can use python, apche, mysql, whatever. Besides gcc, there are much more c/c++ compilers for Windows. And guess what? There are some useful IDEs too, not just Vi and Emacs. As for Abiword, even that you can use it on windows? Why bother? And I am sure that professionals will find Gimp more useful than Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, like you seem to believe.
Unlike a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, none of this software is pre-installed on a Windows 7 machine when you buy one.
If you can run this software on a Windows 7 machine or alternatively on a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, why would anyone choose to run it on the Windows 7 machine which was: more costly; slower; carries severe licensing restrictions and was more prone to existing, known security risks?
RE[5]: Windows market share
by tomcat on Wed 4th Nov 2009 18:04
in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
Member since:2006-01-06
Your criticism of GIMP is subjective; I'd love to hear the opinions of graphics professionals. Even having said that, does Windows ship with anything with even half the features GIMP has?
Windows isn't allowed to bundle software that would potentially threaten ISVs. If they did it, ISVs would complain, the DOJ/EC would jump all over MS, and MS would be forced to remove it. So, any criticism about MS not shipping something which is shipped by other OS is BS.
Member since:
2009-02-19
Ironically Microsoft Word 2007 starts much, much faster with wine then Open Office Org starts native.
How we measure "faster" is a good question, but I don't think that claim is ridiculous. I expect that there are reasonable metrics for "desktop speed" where Linux comes out ahead.
What's better? The fact that Network Manager is broken? The fact that pppoeconf stalls? The fact that various programs are crashing?
Network Manager is broken? Like, "so borken it's unusable"? That's news to me. It performs adequately on my Ubuntu machine.
How about this: Linuxes typically include Firefox by default, which I think I can say is a better browser than IE8 by most reasonable metrics. Distros may include AbiWord, which is certainly a better word processor than WordPad (remember, Office doesn't come with Windows; that's a whole nother expensive purchase). I would far prefer any of Amarok, Rhythmbox, VLC or Banshee to Windows Media Player. Pidgin is better than Windows Live Messenger -- claim it's not, and I'll mock you. And even simple gEdit is a much better text file viewer-editor than Notepad, to say nothing of gVim or Kate. Windows doesn't even come with a shell as expressive as Bash -- Windows GUI hunt-and-clickers deride it all you want, it's beautiful for high-efficiency power-use. Let's not even touch linux distro's inclusion of power tools like Perl or Python, and never mind that Gnome's (or, one assumes, KDE's) built-in file-browser-integrated CD burning program can actually burn ISO images too, which is something that Windows has only just now learned to do. And I'd much prefer... pretty much any PDF viewer on Linux to Adobe's offering. Let's not even contemplate all the software that resides in most distribution's package management systems -- getting a compiler on Windows is so much more of a PITA than it has to be or should be.
You can keep pointing at OpenOffice and laughing all you want. I mean, it's ugly and slow, so all open-source software is junk, right?
Your criticism of GIMP is subjective; I'd love to hear the opinions of graphics professionals. Even having said that, does Windows ship with anything with even half the features GIMP has?
Define "professionally written software." Lots of software professionals contribute lots of code to FOSS projects, and certainly, some projects have very high quality standards. Some don't, true, but many do: you have to learn to tell good software from trash on the windows side too, so what's your point?
And, 99 percent of Windows software doesn't run on Linux? What a surprise! Boy, that statement sure did convey new and intriguing information, didn't it?
I need my OS to run on several machines.
No, he's refering to low-end or last-generation x86 machines. You know, the ones that Vista didn't actually run on? The common wisdom seems to be that Win7 runs better on lower-end machines than Vista did; great, good for you guys. Meanwhile, you can still get decent performance out of a 750 MHz PIII with a low-resource distro -- hell, or XUbuntu. Not to mention that some distros -- like Fedora or Ubuntu, I believe -- still have PPC ports.