Why would anyone use Windows?

Totality said:
I for one believe that Linux is useful if you are IT literate. The average person simply cant use it though because configuring and advanced options are a lot more difficult than in Windows. It's hard enough talking my parents through problems over the phone when they have a problem with XP, let alone Linux commands!
Click to expand...

This is both true and not. One of the failings of Linux is that a lot of configuration options are hidden and/or lack an easy to use GUI.
This is the anti-mum factor.

However, there is also the upside of Linux. Everything has a text based command.
As such, even the must clueless person can fix a problem by inputting some text and pressing enter.

I find fixing Linux issues over the internet is far easier than trying to explain even the most trivial of Windows fixes.
 
Last edited:
yashiro said:
I find fixing Linux issues over the internet is far easier than trying to explain even the most trivial of Windows fixes.
Click to expand...

:D True! The number of times I've tried to fix a family related MSN issue by saying "Click on the icon which looks like two people next to each other!!!"...
 
Windows is a take it or leave it option.

Here is windows, thats what it looks like and thats how it works... If you dont like it... tough!

Now here is Linux, thats what it looks like, or that way, or the other way, in fact, it can look like a square or a circle, its all *** same. It works like this, or that or the other way...

Now this is one of its big bonuses but its also one of its big hold-ups too!

Many people dont know whether they are coming or going with Linux.

For me, the biggets problem I have with it, is installing and uninstalling software... I like RPM, and it was fun trying to resove dependencies etc where debian got them for me, and now, thankfully that no longer happens, but there is still a great divide... RPM, DEB or Source? - which to go for? - That alone has cost Linux dearly Im sure

Now, pleae dont get me wrong here, but Linux users know the score, we know what when how and why and sure, its perfectly straight forward, but for a new user, this is too much, when they know they can just install a program by putting a disk into the drive in windows.

Perhaps if Linux is to become more mainstream, its these thigns that need working on.
 
I think the repository-based method is a great addition. Windows users take software installations for granted, but for a noob Windows user it's still pretty confusing. Imagine the following scenarios:

A Windows user is told to install the latest version of, say, VLC to watch a video. First problem - how do they know where to download the software from? Assuming someone tells them which site to use, they download setup.exe. Next problem - it's downloaded the installation program but where is that file? Is it on the desktop, is it in My Documents, is it somewhere else and if so where? Assuming they find where it was saved, theydouble-click it and hit another problem - what location are they supposed to install it to?

Compare this with a Linux user who is told to install the latest version of VLC. They open up Synaptic, hit the search button, enter VLC and click OK. They find it in the search results, click install and click apply. Everything is handled for them. The downloaded file is secure - the chances of having a trojan/virus are slim as you know it's the official version and hasn't been tampered with. The installation happens in the background, the program is installed for the user and a shortcut is added to the Entertainment section (which makes sense really).

As we all know, that's not to say that you can't tinker under the hood if you so want to. Nothing to stop you doing it all manually, but you do have the option of using a package manager if you want. Windows users can't say that they have this level of choice... just like FatRakoon says, "that's how it works...if you don't like it... tough".

I think a lot of Windows users are so accustomed to the way of doing things in Windows that they take it for granted and don't stop to think what it is that they are actually doing and whether it makes sense or is logical.

I'd like to see the repositories used as much as possible in all distros for all users.
 
GarethDW said:
I think a lot of Windows users are so accustomed to the way of doing things in Windows that they take it for granted and don't stop to think what it is that they are actually doing and whether it makes sense or is logical.
Click to expand...

I think thats a very important point. I think that if you took someone who had never sat in front a computer before they would find Linux no more difficult to use than Windows. The learning curve would be pretty much the same for both operating systems.

Windows ease of use also comes down to most people buy it preinstalled with drivers installed and even some basic software for burning discs etc.

I just reinstalled Vista yesterday. My first problem was a very low resolution which my monitor doesn't seem to support meaning that the whole toolbar was off screen. So I had to Win+R to bring up the run dialog search for the drivers I had downloaded previously and install them. Then I had to install my motherboard drivers to get connected to the network. Not easy for a novice user.

I've never had those two problems with Linux and a wired connection. The desktop has always been somewhat usable, sometimes the resolution has been something like 800x600 or 1024x768 on my widescreen monitor but it was still usable and was connected to the Internet right away.

Windows appears easier to most people because it's what they know and most buy a computer pre-configured. If you are installing it from scratch Linux is an easier option IMO.
 
I guess a lot will depend on future versions of Windows.

Will people get tired of buying Windows over and over, if it looks the same on the outside? Will they learn from Vista - will your average user see any tangible benefit from upgrading to Windows 7? Apart from "you need Windows 7 to run Office 14", which I think many people are wising up to, and starting to dislike.

Do Microsoft have enough cash to guarantee Windows as the pre-installed OS of choice from now to eternity? Suspect 'yes'.

Will future versions of Linux offer 99% GUI-based troubleshooting? This is where Linux for me falls short of being mainstream OS material. In Windows, if something breaks, the tools for fixing it are mostly GUI. In Linux, we're back in the Win 3.1 days of editing config files and using the CLI. [I'm not saying that's bad - I'm saying that's not mainstream compatible.]

Linux is a good OS, no doubt. I'm using it now. But it's nowhere near being fool-proof. Windows isn't 100% fool-proof either, but it feels easier for the average user.
 
FoxEye said:
Will people get tired of buying Windows over and over, if it looks the same on the outside? Will they learn from Vista - will your average user see any tangible benefit from upgrading to Windows 7? Apart from "you need Windows 7 to run Office 14", which I think many people are wising up to, and starting to dislike.
Click to expand...

Do most users have a choice of purchasing? With the exception of dell and some small netbooks everything comes with Windows whether they want to pay for it or not. Until this changes average Joe won't be too inclined to use Linux.
 
JonRohan said:
Do most users have a choice of purchasing? With the exception of dell and some small netbooks everything comes with Windows whether they want to pay for it or not. Until this changes average Joe won't be too inclined to use Linux.
Click to expand...

Yes. Most people don't upgrade their machines. Most will simply go out and buy a new one. Hence they always have the latest Windows whether they know anything about it or not.

And as a salesperson, it's very easy to make "it comes with the latest Windows" into a selling point :D Most people won't question the in-built instinct that newer versions are universally better than older versions. We seem to be programmed to believe this!
 
almichev said:
Except HD and 16-bit graphics.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. My Linux HTPC rigs handle HD content just fine. Yes, Linux lacks driver support from ATi and nVidia for hardware accelerated codecs, but that's not so much a failure on Linux's part, is it? As for 16-bit graphics, I've been running 24-bit graphics for years, just as Windows users have (the whole "32-bit graphics" thing is hogwash since 8 of those are bogus alpha channel jazz). If you're referring to the GIMP then you are right., though higher levels of color support are coming as a result of the 2.6 rewrite. Even so, what percentage of the total Windows and Linux user bases require that? Heck, a stock Ubuntu installation comes with a really powerful, scriptable image editor right out-of-the-box. What does Windows come with, Paintbrush? Photoshop adds an additional ~300 quid to the purchase price if you want to be legitimate. Copyright infringement should not be required for proper use of a platform at a reasonable price. It can cost business users hundreds of thousands of dollars and shouldn't be seen as so prevalent among home users given the excellent Free alternatives.
 
Last edited:
@ GarethDW and Billyt'Impaler

Thanks for the helpful comments unlike those from Brummie and FatRakoon.

Have had major problems with HD and 16-bit on Linux. Am continuing with Windows for the time being and keeping an eye on things with Linux. Are things easier on Linux for getting HD and 16-bit performance now?

As for driver support not being a failure on Linux's part, I didn't say it was.
 
Just thought I'd update following on from my previous posts. Currently running Suse 11 and have been now since my above posts! Have set it up on it's own HDD and have XP booting off the other for gaming. Havent even used XP since installing Suse as havent needed to game and forcing myself to learn linux by default booting into Suse.

So far I'm enjoying it, but it's a long way off user friendly for the average user. Flash with Compiz is hell and really stutters. Seems a common problem from the looks of other forums. Turning it off helps, but its still rubbish with Firefox. Just installed Opera and flash seems to work a lot better now even with Compiz desktop effects turned on! Actually quite like Opera as never used it before and it has some nifty features.

Still hoping Windows 7 will be what Vista should have been, but for now I'm quite happy using Suse and even have my NTFS partitions mounted so can access all my music, etc. Wasnt easy getting all the drives mounted and took a while to learn commands, but after learning what stuff does it becomes a lot easier.

In conclusion, I've found Linux to be a perfectly viable free solution to Windows if a little quirky at times and it definitely requires a lot more work to get stuff working! But as I like learning new stuff its more fun than hardship :D
 
If Valve really does release Source + Steam for Linux (as I read rumour they might), it could help Linux gaming become more wide-spread.

And the ability to really strip down Linux to the bare essentials might even lead to a bit of extra performance, assuming drivers are up to it.

Maybe in another 10 years...
 
Flash + Compiz = Stutters.

Im running my Opteron setup ( SKT939 Opty285 / 2GB / 2x6800SLI ) with Sabayon Linux and my LapTop ( Asus 1680 ) with Kubuntu and both have the full eye candy junk with 3D transparent Desktops and all the useless crud all set to obscenely useless eyesore and I dont find flash to be a problem at all.

I have found the whole experience to be silky smooth and much better and smoother than the Vista PC is doing.

I guess there is a lot of luck in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom