Windows 7 Under Fire for ‘Treacherous Computing’

heatlesssun said:
See, you are in that damned "it's free trap" No the hell Linux isn't free when you spending more time trying to get it working than using it!!!!
Click to expand...

And I suppose I never spent anytime getting Windows to work, or anytime ever learning Windows. I was magically born knowing everything there is to know about Windows. :rolleyes:
 
bonsai said:
How so? Which is better? A product that is free and works pretty well. Or a product that costs $200 and works really well? Both have their merits.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand, and maybe I should be more clear: Just because it is free does not mean it is inherently good.
And when was the last time you spent $200 on an OS?
 
So a bunch of hippies that don't shave, wear hemp shirts and thong sandals are mad that no one will use their free pain in the ass to use software?
 
bonsai said:
And I suppose I never spent anytime getting Windows to work, or anytime ever learning Windows. I was magically born knowing everything there is to know about Windows. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's just that 90% of the issues I have in Windows are generally easy to fix. Drivers are gerenerally easy to find. Windows support is FAR BEYOND LINUX ON THE DESKTOP!
 
heatlesssun said:
Of course not. It's just that 90% of the issues I have in Windows are generally easy to fix. Drivers are gerenerally easy to find. Windows support is FAR BEYOND LINUX ON THE DESKTOP!
Click to expand...
i.e., no dicking around in the command line =WIN (pun intended ;) )
 
bonsai said:
Just because it is free does not mean it is inherently bad. What's your point?
Click to expand...

His point is that just because its "free" doesn't mean that it is indeed FREE! Linux on the desktop for the average user is not only free, it actually will cost him lots in terms of learning and lack of support if he does much beyond web surfing.
 
bonsai said:
Just because it is free does not mean it is inherently bad. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Just that. Offering up "but it's free"' as a reason why something is better is a moot point. It has no reflection on it's quality, ability to fulfill it's purpose, or ultimately it's VALUE.

You might as well talk about the color scheme it uses, or the box art...
 
Modred189 said:
Just that. Offering up "but it's free"' as a reason why something is better is a moot point. It has no reflection on it's quality, ability to fulfill it's purpose, or ultimately it's VALUE.

You might as well talk about the color scheme it uses, or the box art...
Click to expand...

100% correct.
 
People see the word "free" and instantly associate it to cost meaning monetary, and that's not what most of us are talking about. Linux isn't any more "free" than any other OS is to be honest, when you consider "free" as the non-monetary cost(s) associated: time, effort, frustration, or the considerable lack of either of those.

"Free doesn't mean better" is absolutely correct, especially where Linux is concerned.

And I agree, Linux is a most excellent server platform, but it will never be accepted as a desktop alternative to Windows for the masses. There's just too much cost associated with it.

It's been "free" since inception and still going nowhere fast... if that's not a clue that even Linux fanatics can grasp, well... they're not quite as smart as they believe they are.

If you prefer Linux, great, fine, just STFU about it and do your thing while we that don't prefer it will do ours. The only time I get involved in Linux-vs-the-world discussions is when the Linux fanatics push their agenda on the rest of us. They start it, and I slam the door in their faces to finish it.

</me slams the door once again...>

NEXT!!!
 
Modred189 said:
Offering up "but it's free"' as a reason why something is better is a moot point.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't think free is better doesn't make it so. Many people prefer a free sandwich that is good, over a great sandwich that cost $5. Linux was founded on the notion that free and open IS better. That has and always will be there biggest selling point over commercial software. There are other things that Linux does better than Windows as well, but that's one of the biggest, and to answer your original point, the place where they started from and went.
 
Joe Average said:
And I agree, Linux is a most excellent server platform, but it will never be accepted as a desktop alternative to Windows for the masses. There's just too much cost associated with it.
Click to expand...

^^This. Where I work to switch from Windows to Linux on the desktop would cost not millions, but BILLIONS of dollars, at least that was the rumor I had heard coming of the people actually looking at it about 6 years ago before I got there. I repeat BILLIONS of dollars. We have over 250,000 client machines. Remember that's only $4000 per client to swtich over. When go go through the work necessary it doen't save us SQUAT!
 
bonsai said:
Just because you don't think free is better doesn't make it so. Many people prefer a free sandwich that is good, over a great sandwich that cost $5. Linux was founded on the notion that free and open IS better. That has and always will be there biggest selling point over commercial software. There are other things that Linux does better than Windows as well, but that's one of the biggest, and to answer your original point, the place where they started from and went.
Click to expand...

There you go again with that false notion again! Arggg! Fine Linux is free. Doesn't cost a cent. And it still gets the shit kicked out of it by XP in terms of user acceptance. Maybe its time to charge!:D
 
Actually, Linux isn't free, if you're looking at that non-monetary cost (and sometimes there's a monetary expenditure involved but people simply don't like to bring it up). Examples:

- Linux is "free" to download. Sorry, but you're probably paying for the connection to do the download, hence, it's not free.

- Linux is free to distribute. Sorry, but you gotta get it onto a blank disc somehow, which requires electricity, a computer already running some OS, a burner, the blank disc, etc, hence it's not free.

Snowballs like a motherfucker fast, don't it?

I could go on and on and on with that kind of breakdown but... it ain't free, folks, not even if there's no monetary "cost" associated with it. Far, far from it.
 
There are additional collateral costs with whatever platform you use, that isn't unique to Linux. Vista was passed over by many businesses for this exact reason. In that case I better start claiming that Windows costs businesses $4,500 a copy. :rolleyes:
 
bonsai said:
There are additional collateral costs with whatever platform you use, that isn't unique to Linux. Vista was passed over by many businesses for this exact reason. In that case I better start claiming that Windows costs businesses $4,500 a copy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't forget the tens of thousands of dollars in re-training you will have to do for your staff once they switch from linux to win---

Oh wait. They already all use windows at home so they know their way around the OS already.
 
bonsai said:
Just because you don't think free is better doesn't make it so. Many people prefer a free sandwich that is good, over a great sandwich that cost $5. Linux was founded on the notion that free and open IS better. That has and always will be there biggest selling point over commercial software. There are other things that Linux does better than Windows as well, but that's one of the biggest, and to answer your original point, the place where they started from and went.
Click to expand...

Ok, Stop saying Linux is this mythical and insubstantial 'ok' or 'good', Those are your personal feelings about it, and are not shared by everyone. And talking about.

If a BAD burger is free, and a good burger is $5, I'm spending $5.

My point is that Linux needs to get away from the cost argument. Get FAR FAR away. It doesn't help them because it does not mean anything. Up front cost is largely an abstraction, or at least a minor part of utilization. IT may be free, but the conversion of a company, or a household, from Windows to *nix is not.

And again, cost does not guarantee anything, whether free OR expensive. Portal was a cheap game. But GREAT. Wolfenstein was a lot more expensive on release and is not getting nearly the same reviews (I haven't played it).

If Linux wants to succeed, and believe me I want them to, they need to break out and do something different, not just charge less. Right now, functionally in terms of the UI, it's the red-headed (or hatted? ;) ) step child of Windows. SO much of it is Windows derived in terms of functionality (speaking generally about most of the more popular distros).

The exceptions are where I think linux needs to really pay attention. I was blown away by Moblin when I tried it on my netbook. Very sleek, no command line access needed, and it was new, different and applicable. Yet I still put Windows7 on my netbook instead. It has the apps I use/need, and there are no real linux alts (unless you know of a good OneNote linux alt).

Linux needs to start thinking outside of the box, or Windows in this case, and realize that unless they organize and break the mold, they are never going to gain market share.
 
ThisIsTheNewSound said:
Don't forget the tens of thousands of dollars in re-training you will have to do for your staff once they switch from linux to win---

Oh wait. They already all use windows at home so they know their way around the OS already.
Click to expand...

Now as far as that, it really depends on the type of staff. One of the good things about linux is that you can control more of what the person does on that machine. So sometimes its better to limit aperson to just internet, a few db programs, and a printer or two.
 
Modred189 said:
It has the apps I use/need, and there are no real linux alts
Click to expand...

There's your answer right there.

That's all Linux really needs to take off. It's the reason why I'm not on Linux 100% and why I don't recommend it to everyone I know, but until Microsoft takes it's chokehold off the software development market and it's monopoly is broken up it's not going to happen.Is Linux going to rule the world anytime soon? Of course not, only fanbois care about shit like that. But the major thing holding it back at this time from being a real contender is software support. I know a huge amount of people in this forum would switch instantly if they could reliably game on Linux. I already use almost entirely free software that I can use on Linux as it is, but a few key players are holding me back. It's inching along little by little, but unfortunately Linux can't buy off people like Microsoft, so it's going to take a while.
 
ThisIsTheNewSound said:
Don't forget the tens of thousands of dollars in re-training you will have to do for your staff once they switch from linux to win---

Oh wait. They already all use windows at home so they know their way around the OS already.
Click to expand...

You have to retrain staff when upgrading versions of Windows as well. Something as simple as removing the word "Start" from the "Start Menu", can send your average desk jockey into a tizzy. You people like to pretend that there were never any costs associated with Windows, when there are just as many if not more. Just as with any large change in a large organization it takes planning, money and lots and lots of time. You aren't going to switch your entire organization from something they've been using for 15 years to something new overnight, that applies whether it's telephones or operating systems. Of course Linux won't work for everyone, but it's a solid alternative for many.
 
Modred189 said:
WHAT in the WORLD are you talking about?
If you don't consider win7 to be a good MS product, what is?
Click to expand...

Visual C++, despite being nonsensically bloated.

heatlesssun said:
And if you don't think Windows 7 isn't good then you're in a tiny minority.
Click to expand...

Oh shit, better change my mind, then.

heatlesssun said:
Windows 7 specifically has pen and touch interfaces that don't exisit on any other platform ATM.
Click to expand...

My Wacom tablet behaves the same on XP, so what are you referring to?
 
bonsai said:
There's your answer right there.

That's all Linux really needs to take off. It's the reason why I'm not on Linux 100% and why I don't recommend it to everyone I know, but until Microsoft takes it's chokehold off the software development market and it's monopoly is broken up it's not going to happen.Is Linux going to rule the world anytime soon? Of course not, only fanbois care about shit like that. But the major thing holding it back at this time from being a real contender is software support. I know a huge amount of people in this forum would switch instantly if they could reliably game on Linux. I already use almost entirely free software that I can use on Linux as it is, but a few key players are holding me back. It's inching along little by little, but unfortunately Linux can't buy off people like Microsoft, so it's going to take a while.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though none of that can happen if it's just another windows machine with a less compatible kernel.

Think about it. OSX is just different enough than Windows to earn ~7-8% of the market, and it's significantly different.

The important thing to remember, too, is that Microsoft did not get as big as it is by making bad products. They make quality products that they support for a long time very professionally. Independent of initial price, the value there is very high.

Linux may bee free for the software, but right now, and since its inception (excepting the server arena), the VALUE is much lower.
 
ChairmanMiau said:
Visual C++, despite being nonsensically bloated.



My Wacom tablet behaves the same on XP, so what are you referring to?
Click to expand...
C++? really?
And if you don't know what he is talking about regarding pen and touch features, then you have absolutely no business in a thread about Windows7.
 
Modred189 said:
If Linux wants to succeed, and believe me I want them to, they need to break out and do something different, not just charge less. Right now, functionally in terms of the UI, it's the red-headed (or hatted? ;) ) step child of Windows. SO much of it is Windows derived in terms of functionality (speaking generally about most of the more popular distros).
Click to expand...

What UI are you referring to? There are many for Linux.
 
You really need to stop that bullshit with the "chokehold" line of thinking.

Linux is billed as a "free" alternative to Windows, and yet, the very nature of it being free means that the developers of software that are doing what they do to earn a living and make money are not going to develop products for an OS that's "free" because it provides no incentives for doing so.

They are not going to be able to ask for or charge prices that the end user will say "Wait a minute, I didn't pay for the OS, why should I pay for the software?" and that's that. The fact that developers looking to make money with games is the perfect example: they're not going to make money off Linux. Look at Crossover - look at how long they've been around and they are just barely breaking even with a product that many consider to be almost a requirement to still maintain a lot of Window software compatibility.

Do I care about "free software"? Sure, because a lot of the stuff I use is better than the commercial alternatives. There's still a ton of developers and software writers out there that just like producing good code: ImgBurn, EAC, Media Monkey, DVDDecrypter, Foobar2000, etc etc etc... I could go on and on with that stuff.

Do I care about a "free" OS? Not really, but I haven't paid for a Microsoft OS (and by that I mean directly paid out of pocket in a retail store situation with a boxed product) in years, last time was a 98SE upgrade back in 1998. The other OSes I have are acquired by either being in the beta program for decades, attending seminars/conferences/launch events, etc.

Do I run Linux? Sure, in VMs as required to test/try out things to keep my "edjumication" level high enough to be able to assist when necessary. Gentoo, Arch (my fave), Ubuntu, Xubuntu (yes yes, same thing as Ubuntu, get over it), Slackware 13 just the other day when it was released, and other distros.

Do I use them as my primary OS, or would I? Not in 10 billion years...

Why? Because Windows does everything I require, faster than any other OS out there, with more compatibility with more software and hardware than any other OS out there, and it just works.

Simple.
 
But therein lies another of *nix's issues.
A multidue of options for some of the most basic components of the system. There needs to be A SINGLE Linux Distro. One. Period. (Talking about consumers here). The fact that the question even comes up is telling.
 
Joe Average said:
You really need to stop that bullshit with the "chokehold" line of thinking.

Linux is billed as a "free" alternative to Windows, and yet, the very nature of it being free means that the developers of software that are doing what they do to earn a living and make money are not going to develop products for an OS that's "free" because it provides no incentives for doing so.
Click to expand...

I pay for any software that is worth the cost, the cost of the platform that it runs on doesn't matter. That's a ridiculous notion. I also donate to support free software that is worth the cost. Sure there are fringe people that want everything to be free, but many of them also steal commercial software, so they aren't really part of the equation on either side.

Do I care about a "free" OS? Not really, but I haven't paid for a Microsoft OS (and by that I mean directly paid out of pocket in a retail store situation with a boxed product) in years, last time was a 98SE upgrade back in 1998. The other OSes I have are acquired by either being in the beta program for decades, attending seminars/conferences/launch events, etc.
Click to expand...

Your situation is hardly indicative of the public, and had you not had relatively free access to Windows would your tune change? Possibly. I know that when I don't have access to things like MSDN or MSDNAA I take a good look at what my costs are. The fact that Linux doesn't cost me anything upfront where Windows can cost anywhere from $100- $300 is a big factor. Luckily I've never pay more than $50 for Windows, but that's because that's all it's worth to me, especially when there is another free alternative.

And if you don't think Microsoft doesn't have a chokehold over the software development market you're blind.
 
bonsai said:
They did that a looooong time ago. It's free.
Click to expand...

Yeah we saw how well that went. You just insulted Linux. "They can't even give away their operating system!" rofl.

Linux is a great operating system, and I would imagine OSX has it's place in the world too, but it's the fanboys on all sides of the border that drives me bonkers. Hatemongers and FUD spreaders are no better.

Grow up bonsai.
 
bonsai said:
And if you don't think Microsoft doesn't have a chokehold over the software development market you're blind.
Click to expand...

How do they? It's not one they really actively enforce. When was the last time you saw people CLAMORING for a windows alternative from Dell/HP/Gateway/Asus etc?

Windows owns the market because it's a darn good piece of software, not because it's bad or because MS forces it on us.
 
If Apple had 95% market share and Microsoft Windows had 4% or less, we'd all be complaining about Apple.

End of story.
 
[RIP]Zeus;1034553619 said:
Wow.. Thats some major crying to get some attention. Sounds like he is a major fanboi of open source.

While open source is nice to have, there is no reason to start kicking and crying over an OS.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a reason, it got him a story in PC World and coverage on [H]ardOCP, which was likely the reason for all the drama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top