What is it about Windows that everybody likes? (A rant)

[ninaholic37]

People use Windows because it came with their computer.

Quite sure that's the main reason. It's amusing that no one pointed this out yet.

 

[sweenish]

Probably because sudo apt-get install is still not going to cut it for your "everyday" consumer.

And the GUI enabled versions are still lousy.

Linux has made strides, and a few distros are pretty close, but as a whole it's just not there for people.

 

[cubby1223]

Last time I tried to set up a linux machine, I spend over 3 hours trying to install Google Chrome! (actually, forget if at the time I could only install Chromium)

No install package was provided, you get the source code and are tasked to compile it. Upon failure to compile the task was to decipher the random error messages and "magically" figure out that it requires another software package of linux updated. And the update for that component fails to compile and the task is to "magically" figure out which other software package needs updating now to make that one work which will make Chrome compile...

 

[cubby1223]

Not bashing or flaming.

Considering the numerous errors in your assessment, as pointed out by most here, sure sounds like bashing and flaming.

 

[sm625]

Windows is very powerful from the command line too. With tools like powershell, devcon, wmic, etc, you have near total control. I had to write a test program which had to be smart enough to find four ethernet ports, which could be named anything (eg "Local Area Connection 17"), set their IP addresses, send pings to see who is connected to which reference port, and then get the number of bytes sent and received. You can easily do all this using wmi, netsh, and ping. Good luck doing it on linux. I'm sure its possible, but damn, where is the documentation? Where is the easily searchable (ie google) database of sample commands? How to get the syntax correct when all info is buried and obscure? With windows, its all well documented, and it generally works.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I literally don't care at all about start up and install time. I install once, and a system is good for a couple years. I reboot once every few days, and I have so much time away from the computer that I don't care how long it takes.

Programs - sorry, but what you say is just your opinion. I hate libreoffice, and I prefer MS Office. Even if I didn't, you can get Windows versions of Open and Libreoffice. In most other respects Windows support far outweighs Linux support for the applications I use, especially for games.

You're just talking about all the positives of Linux as they appear to you, not as they may appear to anyone else.

 

[ControlD]

About every two years or so I go through this whole "Screw it, I'm switching to Linux full time" process. I actually ran Linux as my only OS when I was in graduate school (1994-1995) and it was an absolute gift. I guess I still want to keep in touch with it so I find a nice distro and away I go.

The thing is, there are programs I still need Windows for (mainly games these days but also real Office with VBA) and trying to use WINE just sucks. Always has.

So, what's the solution? For me it is a dual boot system. Eventually I start asking myself "Why am I booting back into Linux just to surf the web ,<or insert any other mundane task>?".

With Windows I get a solution that does everything. With Linux I get an arguably more fun and empowering solution yet one that does maybe 70% of what I need. Over time that missing 30% wins out and my Linux install ends up unused or at least rarely visited.

 

[alkemyst]

People like windows because they can easily find and install software for it.

 

[Mem]

I like Windows because of PC gaming,normally at the cutting edge,has various upgrades to do with PC gaming,library of games is massive.

I do find Linux fine for general stuff ie browsing,online banking,checking emails etc,it is more of a complete package install OS compared to Windows but gaming is still quite far behind compared to Windows.

Last time I tried to set up a linux machine, I spend over 3 hours trying to install Google Chrome! (actually, forget if at the time I could only install Chromium)

Btw some Linux distros come with Chrome and even when it does not,only takes minutes to install,Linux has come along quite a bit from the old days.

 

[pauldun170]

I use Windows 7, Ubuntu, Centos and Fedora.

From a pure install to fully patched instance, windows typically takes longer than linux but there is more to it than it seems.
My windows media is "as of purchase date"
My Linux distros are always "latest production snapshot from vendor"

If my windows media is 2 years old, it has to pull 2 years worth of patches. Last time I purchased media from microsoft, the iso had most of the recent patches bundled in and it didn't take long to patch.
I can't remember the last time I stored a Linux iso. Every time I install a linux instance, I get the iso from the web.

The key thing for me is install to final, fully configured ready to use.
A barebones linux or windows install is useless.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I use Windows 7, Ubuntu, Centos and Fedora.

From a pure install to fully patched instance, windows typically takes longer than linux but there is more to it than it seems.
My windows media is "as of purchase date"
My Linux distros are always "latest production snapshot from vendor"

If my windows media is 2 years old, it has to pull 2 years worth of patches. Last time I purchased media from microsoft, the iso had most of the recent patches bundled in and it didn't take long to patch.
I can't remember the last time I stored a Linux iso. Every time I install a linux instance, I get the iso from the web.

The key thing for me is install to final, fully configured ready to use.
A barebones linux or windows install is useless.

Not entirely true; you can download media that includes service packs often (or make the media yourself); additionally in the case of Windows 8 to 8.1, the 8.1 upgrade image if done through the Windows Store is constantly updated. You still have to do a bunch of patches, but it's more than likely that the majority of patches are already there.

As for install times, installing from a USB key I'm usually up and running (without drivers or patches) Windows 7, 8 or 8.1 in 20 minutes or less....but I also have an SSD.

 

[pauldun170]

Not entirely true; you can download media that includes service packs often (or make the media yourself); additionally in the case of Windows 8 to 8.1, the 8.1 upgrade image if done through the Windows Store is constantly updated. You still have to do a bunch of patches, but it's more than likely that the majority of patches are already there.

As for install times, installing from a USB key I'm usually up and running (without drivers or patches) Windows 7, 8 or 8.1 in 20 minutes or less....but I also have an SSD.

You are correct.
However, what I said isn't much different outside of the availability of windows media at ...digital river? Is that the site?

Its been a awhile since I built any new windows instances.

Going from 'discs installing to hdd' to 'usb installing to ssd' was awesome.
Don't even have enough time to squeeze in a cup of coffee.

 

[RampantAndroid]

You are correct.
However, what I said isn't much different outside of the availability of windows media at ...digital river? Is that the site?

Its been a awhile since I built any new windows instances.

Going from 'discs installing to hdd' to 'usb installing to ssd' was awesome.
Don't even have enough time to squeeze in a cup of coffee.

Technet might have updated ISOs (though I guess Technet is kinda dead these days), I'm pretty sure I've seen them in my MSDN subscription and the tool that you plug your Win8/8.1 key into that gives you an ISO download might be an up to date image, though I'm unsure. Either way, it's slightly improved over the days where we had to "slipstream" our XP installs to include SP2.

My first install of Win7 off a USB key blew my mind. I couldn't wrap my head around how fast things had become.

 

[ArisVer]

As far as installations go, nothing can beat Debian's netinstall.iso.

 

[Duraz0rz]

Depending on update backups and whatnot, W7 takes no more than 15GB. 40GB+ means you did a default install and bought plenty of RAM, which Debian will not hit you up for unless asked (the page file and hibernate file are what's taking up so much room, and you can turn both off, or make the page file smaller). I don't recall what Debian does by default, if anything, for swap, TBH.

IIRC, swap is a separate partition in the file system, so it wouldn't show up as taking any room in your OS partition. At least, that's what I usually do.

Also, to answer OP's question, because Diablo 3 doesn't have a native Linux port. Yes, there are methods to get the Windows binaries to run, but I'd much prefer a native binary. CS:GO and other Source games are already on there, so that's fine.

 

[Cerb]

As far as installations go, nothing can beat Debian's netinstall.iso.

Ubuntu has the same, but they bury it a bit, and call it a minimal iso or something like that. I always use it for a server instance.

 

[RampantAndroid]

IIRC, swap is a separate partition in the file system, so it wouldn't show up as taking any room in your OS partition. At least, that's what I usually do.

By default, swap and hibernation files sit in the C drive...and the swap file is a percentage of the RAM (I think it's 1:1 actually?) So 16GB of RAM = 16GB used on the hard drive for swap.

 

[Cerb]

IIRC, swap is a separate partition in the file system, so it wouldn't show up as taking any room in your OS partition. At least, that's what I usually do.

Most distros still do that, by default, since swap files are not supported by every FS (today, FI, BTRFS is a problem). But, for an apples-to-apples comparison, the space used needs to be counted against the same kind of space used.

 

[Duraz0rz]

By default, swap and hibernation files sit in the C drive...and the swap file is a percentage of the RAM (I think it's 1:1 actually?) So 16GB of RAM = 16GB used on the hard drive for swap.

That's the default on Windows. On Linux, it's usually a separate partition by default.

 

[escrow4]

Linus is still a geeky toy. You don't have to recompile bash on windows depending on distro/package/position of the moon or any other package. Drivers work if they are written for the version of Windows you are using. That's it. They work. Move on. I don't have to get another couple .debs or bits and pieces. I don't have to worry about a million distro's with a million environments with a million different packages that may fall over if you misconfigure something. Windows is Windows and it works very well. Show me a distro out of the box like Win 8.1?

Last I installed 8.1 on this 1TB EVO it took less than 15min. Updates and setup took less than 30min after that. I keep my systems lean and lean.

 

[RampantAndroid]

That's the default on Windows. On Linux, it's usually a separate partition by default.

Yeah. Thought you were talking about Windows earlier. Given NTFS isn't really realizable, I'm fine with it being on the C drive....

Then again, I disable my swap file anyway.

 

[mrochester]

What I like about Windows is that I don't have to go dig thru forums for command lines to do even very simple things. Or have to deal with dependencies whatsoever.

That said, OSX is the best desktop operating system right now. Elegant, easy to use, with the best user interfaces even for 3rd party software (developers actually taking the time to make them look and work native rather than the cornucopia of different styles on Windows). Takes a bit of work getting it running on the PC though.

3rd party software quality is the biggest difference between the three. If OSX is more user oriented, Windows software is more often than not "built by engineers" (no eye for ease of use - as long as all the feature checkboxes are ticked) and Linux software is "built by engineers for engineers" (downright ugly user interfaces with many features just missing "because you can just change it from the config files").

None are perfect - Windows has that awful program installation procedure and old version baggage, OSX has poor support for games (and the ones ported usually run worse) and Linux's GUI (no matter which window manager you pick) always seems like a work in progress. Just to name a few, there are many more on each one.

You've just described iOS, Android and Android in that post!

I like Windows because I know how to use it and I can install all my games on it that I want to play.

 

[Mem]

Linus is still a geeky toy. You don't have to recompile bash on windows depending on distro/package/position of the moon or any other package. Drivers work if they are written for the version of Windows you are using. That's it. They work. Move on. I don't have to get another couple .debs or bits and pieces. I don't have to worry about a million distro's with a million environments with a million different packages that may fall over if you misconfigure something. Windows is Windows and it works very well. Show me a distro out of the box like Win 8.1?

Last I installed 8.1 on this 1TB EVO it took less than 15min. Updates and setup took less than 30min after that. I keep my systems lean and lean.

To be fair drivers are important for any OS,my Ubuntu distro installed all drivers that I use to dual boot with Win8,speed is just as fast installing.

In fact I removed Win8 from that PC because of how stable and also no issues on that PC with Ubuntu 64 bit ,I even have an older PC that has nforce 2 board with Linux Mint 17 installed, again it had all the default drivers including my wireless USB and printer,sound etc...

In some ways Linux was better ie Firefox default browser pre-installed and some other applications pre-installed that I use.
No OS is perfect on both Windows and Linux but each has their strength and weakness,ultimately it is down to what the user in question needs or wants for an OS .

Linux live DVD distro,try before you install is a great feature.

I keep saying this but only reason I use Windows is because how great it is as a gaming PC.

 

[C1]

What is it about Windows that everybody likes?

That it should be transparent to the user !

(And that's the problem really isnt it?)

Seen it all before & it will happen again.

 

[Skaendo]

This thread went way farther that I expected.

I have many issues with Windows. My main concern is that it is becoming a normal occurrence for major systems to be hacked and much private data being stolen. I don't know what these systems are running, but with Windows controlling 92% of the market I think that it is safe to say the vast majority of them are running Windows. This seems like a problem that needs to be addressed to me.