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

[Skaendo]

If linux had the gaming support I'd like it more.

I totally agree with that. There is almost none there. But I'm a die-hard PS3 fan in that area.

 

[Skaendo]

What I like the best about Windows is that when I look outside through one, I see a pretty October day with a cool front coming this weekend. I tried looking through a door but saw nothing and uninstalled that immediately.

Love it.

 

[kiriki]

Security is a compelling enough reason for me. It was hard to switch, years ago, but I have found that things have progressed to where the learning curve is not as great as it once was. Unbuntu has got to be the easiest to switch to from what I've heard, do to the similarities. I do not know for fact as I have never used it.

At what point do you say "good enough" though? Are you using WEP for wifi security? Stock firmware on your $20 11g router? Is your router a dual xeon workstation running some super version of pfsense? My point is, you can always make your setup more secure, but is it worth the time and effort?

For me, common sense along with adblock and noscript in win7 is good enough.

 

[Skaendo]

This has nothing to do with the original question but here is my explanation for good enough security.

I have a Windows 7 desktop. Never updated, never connected to the internet. DVD's & recorded media only use. Good enough.

I have a Debian 7.6 laptop for all my general web stuff; email, eBay etc. Good enough.

I have a Tails 1.1.2 (no HDD or SSD) laptop for secure internet. Not 100% but the best.

That's just me. I know and understand that not everyone has 3 computers to use in the same manner. For some people it may sound ludicrous.

Again this sways from the original question. Why do people prefer Windows?

From the very few answers to this that I have seen in this thread it is simplicity.
And gaming support, Linux has next to none. I think this is a loss for Linux.

Not everyone has an abundance of common sense.

 

[kiriki]

This has nothing to do with the original question but here is my explanation for good enough security.

I have a Windows 7 desktop. Never updated, never connected to the internet. DVD's & recorded media only use. Good enough.

I have a Debian 7.6 laptop for all my general web stuff; email, eBay etc. Good enough.

I have a Tails 1.1.2 (no HDD or SSD) laptop for secure internet. The best.

That's just me. I know and understand that not everyone has 3 computers to use in the same manner. For some people it may sound ludicrous.

Again this sways from the original question. Why do people prefer Windows?

From the very few answers to this that I have seen in this thread it is simplicity.
And gaming support, Linux has next to none. I think this is a loss for Linux.

Not everyone has an abundance of common sense.

The other very short answer to your question is momentum. My point in the previous post is that it takes an effort to change. For some, it's not worth the effort.

 

[Skaendo]

The other very short answer to your question is momentum. My point in the previous post is that it takes an effort to change. For some, it's not worth the effort.

Agreed, it does take effort to change. Personally I think that is what the world lacks these days. So simplicity. It's easier not to change, so why bother. Even though there may be something better. This applies to much more than the topic at hand and probably shouldn't get into that here and now.

Please expand on momentum. New releases? New software?

PS. nothing wifi is very secure.

 

[kiriki]

By momentum, I mean windows is what people have been most exposed to as far as computers go. As far as they are concerned, windows does the job they want it to do.

Take cars, for instance... it used to be that the better gas mileage was a reason that some people drove using a manual transmission. Let's assume you were going to buy a new car because you current car just gave up the ghost with no hope of repair, and one option you need to choose is a manual transmission or an automatic transmission. Before deciding you ask a friend to teach you the basics of driving a manual vehicle. It turns out to be pretty easy and you're doing ok on the streets in under 2 hours. So you decide that the savings from not having to pay extra for the automatic and the better mileage was damn well worth the 2 hours spent learning.

Now we're going to change a few things around.

Your current vehicle has an automatic and is in perfect working order. You ask your friend to teach you to drive manual for funsies. After 4 hours you still can't get the hang of it. Your friend recommends that you go to a driving school for more formal lessons on driving manual and to replace your current car with a manual car so you can practice. It might be worth it to learn from an actual instructor, but you'll have to spend money on a skill you might never use. Certainly you are not going to buy a manual car just to practice.

My point is that the vast majority of people are in the second scenario. Windows is enough for what they need, even if there are some problems here and there. To them, the added effort and possible expenses just isn't worth the marginal increase in security. Therefore they stick to windows.

The other aspect of the momentum that windows has is alternatives at the retail stores. An OEM might save a few bucks on a windows licence but they would have to contend with the consumer staring at an unfamiliar environment and possibly skipping over a non-windows unit. Why bother when they can just offer windows?

 

[Cerb]

I've done Windows 7 & Debian 7.6 installs recently, less than 2 weeks ago, both from DVD to HDD. No special commands for either. Just started it up and let it go.

Win7 on 2GHz, 250GB SATA 3.5" 7200RPM HDD, 4GB RAM. 2+ hours. Not including updates.

2GHz Northwood Celeron w/ early SATA drive, or something? I'd have given up by an hour into it, with either OS. I'm used to only monsters like OpenSUSE taking a long time.

Optiplex 30-something
3rd gen i3, I think (if not, 2nd gen)
4GB RAM
500GB HDD (probably 1TB/platter, though)
Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit (Dell, but no relevant drivers included)
Took about 25-30 min, after changing from AHCI to IDE (Win7 wouldn't see its own install files in AHCI--go EUFI?), and core drivers just a bit more. Would have been a bit quicker w/ AHCI, which I'll enable later. Of course, it wasn't done doing updates when I left to go home, in part due to slow internet. And yes, the recovery partition was FUBARed by whatever rootkit got to this thing, before you ask about that. *Sigh*

Like what to do once Windows has consumed all their free space after updating

If they're that tapped out, they need to learn how to manage their data. Linux is no better in that kind of scenario.

 

[Skaendo]

Thank you kiriki, another thing I expected to hear. Marketing.

 

[Skaendo]

2GHz Northwood Celeron w/ early SATA drive, or something? I'd have given up by an hour into it, with either OS. I'm used to only monsters like OpenSUSE taking a long time.

Sorry, edit that. HP w/2.4GHz AMD Phenom X4 9750, Seagate Barracuda 750GB 7200.12 SATA, 8GB RAM. Retail Install Win7

If they're that tapped out, they need to learn how to manage their data. Linux is no better in that kind of scenario.

I've never run out of room updating Debian, installing other misc crap on Debian, yes, yes I have run out of room. To be fair I have 50GB partitioned off for OS on a 250GB 2.5". The other is not my Home partition, but a NTFS partition with all my files on it.

 

[Cerb]

Sorry, edit that. HP w/2.4GHz AMD Phenom X4 9750, Seagate Barracuda 750GB 7200.12 SATA, 8GB RAM. Retail Install Win7

2 hours for that is crazy. Like, something is wrong with the hardware, or the installer is having issues w/ the BIOS, crazy.

I've never run out of room updating Debian, installing other misc crap on Debian, yes, yes I have run out of room. To be fair I have 50GB partitioned off for OS on a 250GB 2.5". The other is not my Home partition, but a NTFS partition with all my files on it.

Put more data in /, don't watch it, and it can happen, making updates fail. Just like Windows, it needs temp space for the package itself, then extracted files, then the replaced files, and logs, all before it will successfully complete an update transaction. I've only had it happen when I knew better (I'll go figure out what to keep and delete later, because I still have 1GB...), but I have let it happen a few times .

 

[Skaendo]

Originally Posted by Skaendo View Post I've done Windows 7 & Debian 7.6 installs recently, less than 2 weeks ago, both from DVD to HDD. No special commands for either. Just started it up and let it go. Win7 on 2GHz, 250GB SATA 3.5" 7200RPM HDD, 4GB RAM. 2+ hours. Not including updates.

But yes I did one of these. about same results. Older Dell Dimension E521. AMD Athlon 3200 64bit. I upgraded from 80GB HDD to 250GB WD HDD, Upgraded from 512MB RAM to 4GB RAM. Updates took forever on 1MB internet.

Family computer. Not really a priority to me.

 

[Skaendo]

2 hours for that is crazy. Like, something is wrong with the hardware, or the installer is having issues w/ the BIOS, crazy.

It's an HP. Thats prob the problem. Can't remember if I ever updated the BIOS.

 

[kiriki]

Check out Bryan Lunduke on youtube. He's got a couple of videos of talks "why linux sucks". It's not necessarily why people prefer windows but there's lots of little things in there about what keeps people from switching.

 

[Skaendo]

Check out Bryan Lunduke on youtube. He's got a couple of videos of talks "why linux sucks". It's not necessarily why people prefer windows but there's lots of little things in there about what keeps people from switching.

I've seen them he's a marketing man for SUSE. Worst Linux build ever. IMO.
Also says 'Shameless Self Promoter' right on video. Talks about forking, ie; built on Debian Linux Distro, like Ubuntu is. I agree. I use straight up Debian with the K Desktop Environment. He is not talking about Linux itself. He is trying to make Linux better. But I don't think he does any actual programming so all he can do is say it's bad without being able to do anything about it.

If you want to listen to someone bash Linux, find McAfee on YouTube. Creator of McAfee Anti-Virus. The man is insane.

 

[kiriki]

He's still right about the problems

Besides the problems he talks about isn't a technical issue. It's actually a community issue.

 

[nettrader]

It is the most used. Therefore has a wide support.
OS X has 6.38% usage share only.

 

[Cerb]

I've seen them he's a marketing man for SUSE. Worst Linux build ever. IMO.

How so? I find it to be quite awesome. Like Red Hat, but with out of the box sanity, and useful GUI tools. Virtualbox add-ons work out of the box, the firewall blocks almost everything in and out by default, it's easy to set up a dev environment, etc.. Unlike Ubuntus, and Debian, it will stay on the domain through Samba updates, too, which is nice, even though getting domain logins working took manual configuration (like most distros, in that respect). It's not a good home desktop, though, because minor config changes require actual work on your part, since under the hood, it's really a server distro with a nice GUI built in .

 

[Skaendo]

He's still right about the problems

Besides the problems he talks about isn't a technical issue. It's actually a community issue.

He also talks mainly about paid for Linux distros. Remember he is a marketing man. Trying to make money.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I find the latest versions of windows threw lot of the stuff I liked out the window, but I find the main thing I like with Windows is the familiarity. The UI is polished and things seem to just work well unless it's crashing or acting stupid, but when all things are working it just feels more smooth to use.

I find Linux feels a bit, I don't know, incomplete? I can't really explain it. I have been using Linux for several years now as my desktop OS but I still find myself debating on going back to Windows. Perhaps not so much about Linux itself, but the app availability. Windows apps just have a better feel to them I find. I can't really explain it.

On the other hand I find Linux is more powerful when it comes to the command line and the fact that it's easier to code for. I also like the fact that it's open source and free and not proprietary. Also one thing that's nice is that due to lack of popularity on the desktop it's not really targeted by adware, spyware and other junk that you get in Windows and coders arn't trying to commercialize everything they do for it. Of course that could change if it actually got popular.

As for running a server, Linux all the way. I feel dirty using Windows as a server.

 

[Skaendo]

How so? I find it to be quite awesome. Like Red Hat, but with out of the box sanity, and useful GUI tools. Virtualbox add-ons work out of the box, the firewall blocks almost everything in and out by default, it's easy to set up a dev environment, etc.. Unlike Ubuntus, and Debian, it will stay on the domain through Samba updates, too, which is nice, even though getting domain logins working took manual configuration (like most distros, in that respect). It's not a good home desktop, though, because minor config changes require actual work on your part, since under the hood, it's really a server distro with a nice GUI built in .

I see it as one of the 'Windows' of the Linux world. All he is doing is begging for money.

 

[kiriki]

He also talks mainly about paid for Linux distros. Remember he is a marketing man. Trying to make money.

/shrug

Him trying to make money isn't a problem to me. Especially since he's right about all the problems. As I previously said, the problems he mentions aren't technical in nature.

Actually now that I think about it... the community is so blinded by the technical wonderfulness of linux they can't see how the non-technical problems are keeping linux's marketshare from growing.

 

[kasakka]

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.

 

[Cerb]

I see it as one of the 'Windows' of the Linux world. All he is doing is begging for money.

I don't even know who "he" is. I just use the stuff. OpenSUSE does not directly take any money, AFAICT, either, unlike, FI, RH. There's no buy links, except for T-shirts, and no direct support packages, either. Not doing a good job of taking some business' money, like that .

A bit of sarcasm, but you're being a bit of an idealogue. We don't care for support. PHBs often will not use anything that doesn't have outside support. Unlike RHEL, SUSE, like Cononical, doesn't apply strings to free use, nor impede it in any way (like making outsiders do a ton of work to copy the packages), if you don't want to pay for it. People need to eat, some businesses will have non-IT people needing to use these OSes, and some organizations are just byzantine and must have support contracts (do some government contract work, and your eyes will be opened...plus, you'll have an extra special appreciation for your tax dollars being wasted ).

If someone can get businesses to want to pay them, well, they need to pay their bills like everybody else. There's nothing wrong with that. Better to put that time and effort into something many can benefit from, than just stuff it into coffers, no?

 

[CSMR]

Updates?
Windows, if your installing a brand new version you can hope to get away with only wasting a half hour or so. Otherwise, you might as well start the update process and then go find something to do, like mow yours and your neighbors (on both sides) lawn. Then once the first updates are installed, and your computer has restarted a half dozen times, you need to update again, restart, update again, restart and on and on. Then there is the automatic updates that steals your bandwidth, resources & HDD space whenever it feels like.

Yes this is a minor annoyance. Nice if they made a DVD or ISO with all the updates already there. But this only wastes an hour of the computer's time (not your time) every few years.

Programs?
Anything Windows can do, I can do better. (Sorry, I had to do it.)

Windows, outside the OS you have a billions of options of programs to install that do everything and anything under the sun that you can imagine. With all those options it is so easy to choose (sarcasm). And of course this app has something that that one doesn't and vise-versa.

Debian has a 'set' of apps that can do all the same things, we just tend to make our apps better, not make a new one to do something that can be better off built into a app that does similar things, all wrapped up in a package management system. Even if there is a Windows program that Linux cant do, we have a program called Wine that translates them.

A lot of the best apps are proprietary (Office, Adobe CS) and don't work on Linux. For open source / free apps, there are a lot of great apps and a lot of apps that are completely user-unfriendly. Almost all the great ones are available on all major OSes. If you write a user-friendly app you are probably writing for Windows. Since you don't use a GUI you don't have a mainstream view of what user-friendly means.

OS Options?
Windows, there is none. You get Windows. Thats it. This is how we make it and if you don't like it, tough.

Debian, Never mind the different 'flavours', like straight up Debian, Unbuntu, Mint, on and on, there is the desktop environment, such as the popular Gnome Desktop, the classic KDE Desktop, or the super-light XFCE Desktop. Not to mention the ultralight window managers. All super configurable to meet each and every individual need.

Too many options is a problem. It means poor support both from official and unofficial (online) sources. For a market with such small share already further fragmentation would be deadly, at least for users who are not geeks.

Security?
Windows, security update after security update, holes and vulnerabilities often fixed periodically only after everyone has been infected and millions of peoples credit card data has been stolen. (Home Depot, Target, need I say more?)

Linux, security holes, virus', & malware all exist for linux, but lets face it, how many times have you actually heard of it? An excerpt from Wikipedia: There has not yet been a single widespread Linux virus/malware infection of the type that is common on Microsoft Windows; this is attributable generally to the malware's lack of root access and fast updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.

The two largest vulnerabilities recently have been open-source (openSSL, shellshock). The ones you mention on Windows have affected obsolete Windows systems. Anyone can set up an insecure system if he tries hard enough.

These are my opinions why Linux is better than Windows and I would just like to hear opinions about why most people think Windows is better than Linux.

Here are four reasons. I have not evaluated Linux seriously so this list is not comprehensive.
1. I want to have access to the best applications including Office, Adobe CS, and many other proprietary apps and free apps that are available for Windows and not Linux.
2. Windows is a well-configured system by default. I will change a lot of settings to be more suited to me but even in default state it is usable. For Linux it would be a major research project to choose the options and a lot of time configure it and I would not be confident that I would get a usable system in the end.
3. Windows has a lot of OS features that are very convenient. Linux is lacking features for desktop users, such as color management.
4. Everyone has to know how to use Windows so there is no cost of learning a new system.

I have a lot of linux-based gadgets and interact with websites powered by Linux. Linux is doing very well; it's just desktop use that Linux is not suitable for for most users.