What a sensible and logical thread. Oh wait, no it's not, it's bonkers. :-o
If you don't like Windows, don't use Windows. If you don't like Linux, don't use Linux. If you don't like OS X, don't use OS X. If you don't like OS/2 don't use OS/2. If you don't like Solaris, don't use Solaris. If you don't like RSX-11, don't use RSX-11. If you don't like CP/M don't use CP/M. If you don't like QNX don't use QNX. If you don't like Plan 9 from Bell Labs, don't use Plan 9 from Bell Labs... If you do like the Commodoe, then DON'T use the Commode.
I installed Ubuntu 11.10 on PC the other day. Could I get it to share files with Windows 7? Could I balls. Mucked about with it for a couple of hours then gave up.
I remember a work colleague splashing out for a top end PC about 5 years ago. He was dead against Microsoft for some odd reason and so he told us that he was going to install linux or some other OS on it so he didn't have to use Windows. So, he did and for months he never had that PC working properly, if at all in some cases. Of course, it really all depends what you're going to use the PC for. He didn't want to use MS Windows because he was a ****.
Never had a virus on any of my Windows PCs. The missus and the 13-year olds never got any virus on their PCs either. If people are getting viruses all the time and need a user-resistant PC, I completely understand. They're probably doing something that exposes their O.S. :-)
Seriously? Assuming you and your family have been using PCs for a few years then even allowing for a good virus-killer/malware-checker/firewall and intelligent use (and avoidance of obviously dangerous sites) then you've still been very lucky indeed.
Regarding different operating systems, Windows isn't bad, although I say that as someone who's never used Linux or the Apple Mac (the two main alternatives to Windows), and maybe I'd think very differently if I had. But even so, Windows does a complicated job of managing a PC's hardware and software, and does so in a way that's easy enough for most people to master the basics. It could be easier to use for such people, true, and it certainly could do more to aid the more advanced user when trying to solve problems, and I get the impression (from people who presumably know a lot about security and malware threats) that Windows could be a lot more secure. And I do detest the way each new version is bloatware++ (though to be fair Windows 7 demanded a lot less than Vista did relative to XP).
But most of the time Windows is fine. Windows 7 is the best Windows has ever been, and XP is still very good indeed. Alright, so when XP came out there were lots of problems with existing drivers and compatibility with older programs) but they were mostly fixed, and for years now XP has been great (especially with VDMSound or DOSBox to get the older games running well). No version of Windows is ultra-stable, but XP and 7 (and, so I understand, Vista, now it's fully patched up) are usually very stable, certainly far beyond Windows 98 and 85.
Maybe there are better OSs than Windows. Linux is the obvious one, since so many people speak so highly of it, and they often seem to be the more technical type of people anyway, so they should know. But I stick to Windows for two reasons; 1) it runs all of my games and programs, and does so well, and 2) I work with PCs and so have to keep up with the software, and every PC I've ever had to sort out (either at work or for friend or family) has been running Windows, so I've never had to learn Mac OS or Linux.
I've heard it said that if you want ease of use you use a Mac, if you want reliability you use Linux, and if you want compatibility you use Windows. I don't know how true that is, but I think I'm right in saying that almost all PC software runs on Windows. And even if Windows is the least reliable of the three, it's still good enough most of the time.
I get the impression (from people who presumably know a lot about security and malware threats) that Windows could be a lot more secure.
Windows is more or less just like any of the other modern operating system. Apart from the odd overflow/remote execution flaw that slips through and has to be patched with a security update modern operating systems are about as secure as they can be.
The problem with windows is users and 3rd party coders. Microsoft's biggest failing was allowing users to run everything with admin privileges, and thus allowing software to go writing files all over the hard disk for so long that that became the norm. So when they finally turned on all the security measures by default everyone just turned them right back off again so that all their crappy software could still run.
I remember a work colleague splashing out for a top end PC about 5 years ago. He was dead against Microsoft for some odd reason and so he told us that he was going to install linux or some other OS on it so he didn't have to use Windows. So, he did and for months he never had that PC working properly, if at all in some cases.
Then he should have loaded another OS onto it (or have someone else help out).
Of course, it really all depends what you're going to use the PC for.
Personally I'm using Debian Linux because
I like the sharing philosophy behind an open source OS, vs. the 'give me money' behind eg. Microsoft products. Notice this isn't just an ethical issue: the way this works makes that OS development is steered by its users, not company selling the OS. Hardware stays supported as long as people use it with that OS (unlike in Windows land where hw vendors drop driver support for old versions of Windows whenever they feel like it, or don't bother to support old hardware on new OS).
Don't feel like putting more money in MS's pocket, nor feel like running illegal software, hunting down cracks, etc. Never bought (new) pre-built PC that comes with Windows license (always buy parts to build myself, or 2nd hand system).
It does the job I need it to do, and does it well.
For some particular jobs I use my machine for, learning a few built-in Linux tools is easier than installing 1001 specialized Windows utilities.
Have since long been spoiled by several of those handy mini-distro's that you can boot from USB stick. Always comes in handy for diagnosing hardware issues, partitioning tasks & so on.
So it's a combination of 'philosophical' and practical reasons. If those reasons didn't apply I would have chosen something else.
I mostly prefer "form follows function": decide what you want to do. That determines what software you need. That software determines what OS you need. That OS+software determines what hardware you need. If you're a hardcore 3D gamer, Linux is not for you, go buy quadcore, heavy videocard + Win7 installed. If eg. graphics design is your bread & butter, an Apple + good monitor might be obvious choice.
Of course most people do that backwards & don't choose consciously: they buy a new computer & use whatever OS it comes with. Or wipe the HD and install what they're used to. Then figure out what they can do with the new computer.
FWIW: running Debian on a dualcore laptop, and every hw feature is supported (optimal screen resolution, hw 3D acceleration, hw-accelerated video playback, WiFi, Bluetooth, power management, hibernate/resume, etc). Sure that took some fiddling with configuration, but that's no different from installing Windows, downloading/installing drivers, downloading/installing apps, and configuring how you want things. Easier/faster for me to do this in Linux these days, and once done stays the way you set it up until the hardware breaks.
Most people (that is, rest of the non-geek crowd) don't really care about philosophical or technical opinions on which is better. They just want a computer that works without them having to figure things out (shock! horror!).
Arguably, Windows and Mac do it better than your-fav-linux-distro-here (and yes, I have used all three ) and not just because they have a lot functionality built in but also because these functionalities are easy to get to grips with (i.e very little or no command-line kung fu involved). Tons of third party apps help complete the eco-system wherein the end-user hardly has to think to make things work out of the box (compile from source code? foggetaboutit!).
Now you may argue that Ubuntu (say) has many of the features that Windows/Mac do and that installing apps is not a chore any more (trust me, this single thing is still what puts many people off linux) thanks to the package manager. But from my last experience with Ubuntu 10.1, last year, I have to say it's close but not quite there yet.
But by far one of the biggest stumbling block is the lack of quality third party apps for Linux - be it games or professional/commercial software. This obviously has something to do with how Linux is traditionally associated with "free" software and thus not economically viable. This view may not be right but, IMO, it exists.
I'm neither a linux or ms fanboy and use both to do specific jobs - use the best tool for the right job.
However, having built 14 new identical pc's for work and installing windows 7 pro I have to say that I really don't like it.
Sometimes it installed with no problem other times it threw all kinds of errors that weren't hardware related - to the point where once i had running systems I had to 'burn them in' for a week before deploying them.
Also windows 7 networking seems a little flawed somewhere, I can't put my finger on the problem either.
XP is and has been rock solid, once you have a good a/v and keep it up to date.
I use linux as well and have recently changed our 'tea room' computers over to Linux MINT and all of my staff picked it up without me even telling them anything.
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would now choose windows for general office work - everything that windows can do, linux can do for free out of the box with no fiddling around.
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would now choose windows for general office work
I'll get me coat :)
Tech Support probably.....the call centres all need to know how turning things off and on again will react and they can't train that on multiple platforms so they all go with Windows cos it's the one people have heard of
Example I am stuck on IE at work for my limited net surfing....if I try remote accessing my work stuff from home it only works if I change my browser to IE
Example I am stuck on IE at work for my limited net surfing....if I try remote accessing my work stuff from home it only works if I change my browser to IE
I'm still using Firefox, but getting less and less impressed by it.
I'd heard these later versions of IE were pretty good now?
Comments
T,ftfy,yw!
You missed FreeBSD (which is not linux).:D
Well I didn't want to put every variant of UNIX, and I already have OS X in there ;)
ubuntu etc et al
and macs are expensive
and seem to be premium products, that are sort of windows, with pretty cases you can change
Seriously? Assuming you and your family have been using PCs for a few years then even allowing for a good virus-killer/malware-checker/firewall and intelligent use (and avoidance of obviously dangerous sites) then you've still been very lucky indeed.
Regarding different operating systems, Windows isn't bad, although I say that as someone who's never used Linux or the Apple Mac (the two main alternatives to Windows), and maybe I'd think very differently if I had. But even so, Windows does a complicated job of managing a PC's hardware and software, and does so in a way that's easy enough for most people to master the basics. It could be easier to use for such people, true, and it certainly could do more to aid the more advanced user when trying to solve problems, and I get the impression (from people who presumably know a lot about security and malware threats) that Windows could be a lot more secure. And I do detest the way each new version is bloatware++ (though to be fair Windows 7 demanded a lot less than Vista did relative to XP).
But most of the time Windows is fine. Windows 7 is the best Windows has ever been, and XP is still very good indeed. Alright, so when XP came out there were lots of problems with existing drivers and compatibility with older programs) but they were mostly fixed, and for years now XP has been great (especially with VDMSound or DOSBox to get the older games running well). No version of Windows is ultra-stable, but XP and 7 (and, so I understand, Vista, now it's fully patched up) are usually very stable, certainly far beyond Windows 98 and 85.
Maybe there are better OSs than Windows. Linux is the obvious one, since so many people speak so highly of it, and they often seem to be the more technical type of people anyway, so they should know. But I stick to Windows for two reasons; 1) it runs all of my games and programs, and does so well, and 2) I work with PCs and so have to keep up with the software, and every PC I've ever had to sort out (either at work or for friend or family) has been running Windows, so I've never had to learn Mac OS or Linux.
I've heard it said that if you want ease of use you use a Mac, if you want reliability you use Linux, and if you want compatibility you use Windows. I don't know how true that is, but I think I'm right in saying that almost all PC software runs on Windows. And even if Windows is the least reliable of the three, it's still good enough most of the time.
Windows is more or less just like any of the other modern operating system. Apart from the odd overflow/remote execution flaw that slips through and has to be patched with a security update modern operating systems are about as secure as they can be.
The problem with windows is users and 3rd party coders. Microsoft's biggest failing was allowing users to run everything with admin privileges, and thus allowing software to go writing files all over the hard disk for so long that that became the norm. So when they finally turned on all the security measures by default everyone just turned them right back off again so that all their crappy software could still run.
Personally I'm using Debian Linux because
- I like the sharing philosophy behind an open source OS, vs. the 'give me money' behind eg. Microsoft products. Notice this isn't just an ethical issue: the way this works makes that OS development is steered by its users, not company selling the OS. Hardware stays supported as long as people use it with that OS (unlike in Windows land where hw vendors drop driver support for old versions of Windows whenever they feel like it, or don't bother to support old hardware on new OS).
- Don't feel like putting more money in MS's pocket, nor feel like running illegal software, hunting down cracks, etc. Never bought (new) pre-built PC that comes with Windows license (always buy parts to build myself, or 2nd hand system).
- It does the job I need it to do, and does it well.
- For some particular jobs I use my machine for, learning a few built-in Linux tools is easier than installing 1001 specialized Windows utilities.
- Have since long been spoiled by several of those handy mini-distro's that you can boot from USB stick. Always comes in handy for diagnosing hardware issues, partitioning tasks & so on.
So it's a combination of 'philosophical' and practical reasons. If those reasons didn't apply I would have chosen something else.I mostly prefer "form follows function": decide what you want to do. That determines what software you need. That software determines what OS you need. That OS+software determines what hardware you need. If you're a hardcore 3D gamer, Linux is not for you, go buy quadcore, heavy videocard + Win7 installed. If eg. graphics design is your bread & butter, an Apple + good monitor might be obvious choice.
Of course most people do that backwards & don't choose consciously: they buy a new computer & use whatever OS it comes with. Or wipe the HD and install what they're used to. Then figure out what they can do with the new computer.
FWIW: running Debian on a dualcore laptop, and every hw feature is supported (optimal screen resolution, hw 3D acceleration, hw-accelerated video playback, WiFi, Bluetooth, power management, hibernate/resume, etc). Sure that took some fiddling with configuration, but that's no different from installing Windows, downloading/installing drivers, downloading/installing apps, and configuring how you want things. Easier/faster for me to do this in Linux these days, and once done stays the way you set it up until the hardware breaks.
Arguably, Windows and Mac do it better than your-fav-linux-distro-here (and yes, I have used all three ) and not just because they have a lot functionality built in but also because these functionalities are easy to get to grips with (i.e very little or no command-line kung fu involved). Tons of third party apps help complete the eco-system wherein the end-user hardly has to think to make things work out of the box (compile from source code? foggetaboutit!).
Now you may argue that Ubuntu (say) has many of the features that Windows/Mac do and that installing apps is not a chore any more (trust me, this single thing is still what puts many people off linux) thanks to the package manager. But from my last experience with Ubuntu 10.1, last year, I have to say it's close but not quite there yet.
But by far one of the biggest stumbling block is the lack of quality third party apps for Linux - be it games or professional/commercial software. This obviously has something to do with how Linux is traditionally associated with "free" software and thus not economically viable. This view may not be right but, IMO, it exists.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
However, having built 14 new identical pc's for work and installing windows 7 pro I have to say that I really don't like it.
Sometimes it installed with no problem other times it threw all kinds of errors that weren't hardware related - to the point where once i had running systems I had to 'burn them in' for a week before deploying them.
Also windows 7 networking seems a little flawed somewhere, I can't put my finger on the problem either.
XP is and has been rock solid, once you have a good a/v and keep it up to date.
I use linux as well and have recently changed our 'tea room' computers over to Linux MINT and all of my staff picked it up without me even telling them anything.
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would now choose windows for general office work - everything that windows can do, linux can do for free out of the box with no fiddling around.
I'll get me coat :)
Tech Support probably.....the call centres all need to know how turning things off and on again will react and they can't train that on multiple platforms so they all go with Windows cos it's the one people have heard of
Example I am stuck on IE at work for my limited net surfing....if I try remote accessing my work stuff from home it only works if I change my browser to IE
I'm still using Firefox, but getting less and less impressed by it.
I'd heard these later versions of IE were pretty good now?
ah yeah but I'm public sector so we probably still have the old one - I'll see if I can work it out when I get in the office if you like
Since I got this laptop and started using Google Chriome IE feels a bit clunky but that's probably just the better the devil you know factor