A Windows 10 Alternative: Microsoft Should Embrace, Extend Linux on the Desktop

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Speaking on the prevalence of outdated Windows machines and how many of those users might as well install Chrome OS, ZDNet argues that one solution would be Microsoft releasing its own version of Linux. The writer imagines a self-hosting, bootable/installable Android distribution with Edge for Android as the main browser, all the Android Office 365 apps pre-loaded, and configured out of the box to use Azure AD and Microsoft ID authentication.

I'm talking about a managed desktop software appliance, powered by Azure. In essence, a better Chrome OS than Chrome OS, for people with Microsoft-centric workloads. Realistically, how tough would this be to make? All the Android apps from Microsoft are quite mature. I use Outlook for Android on my Pixel 2 and Samsung S8+ every day, and I also use Word, PowerPoint, Excel, OneNote, Office Lens, and, yes, Edge for Android, too. As an enterprise user, I'm quite happy with the way they work. Imagine if we gave this to everyone.
 
So create an in-house competitor for themselves? Why? And unless it would be free everyone would just laugh at them. Why pay for a restrictive ms branded linux distro when you can pay for the restrictive ms branded windows already? And at least that can run windows programs.
 
This author is an idiot. His vision of the future is web based apps for everything, which is absolutely asinine. It restrains the market, and our future, in major ways. I have had to support web apps, and they are useful in some instances, but they, just like other inventions many techies have touted as the future for everything before such as cloud or VDI, are never going to be useful for everything. Those who seek to replace everything with any particular technology are narrow minded idiots.
 
He also spends the first half of the article defending the position of "if your Windows 7 PC is so old that it can't be updated to Windows 10".
If your PC can run Windows 7, or Vista even, it can run Windows 10. From a pure hardware requirements standpoint, 10 runs as well as can be expected on hardware 15 years old, just as well or better than the original OS.
 
I don't know what a Microsoft Linux distro would solve. Linux users would never trust it and Windows users would ask why they should bother switching from their version of Windows.

He also spends the first half of the article defending the position of "if your Windows 7 PC is so old that it can't be updated to Windows 10".
If your PC can run Windows 7, or Vista even, it can run Windows 10. From a pure hardware requirements standpoint, 10 runs as well as can be expected on hardware 15 years old, just as well or better than the original OS.

I agree. I have installed Windows 10 on many Vista era systems and 90% of the time have no issues. The other 10% of the time they may need a GPU upgrade but a GT 710 or Radeon HD 6450 does the trick for cheap.
 
For MS its all or nothing. A second MS OS isn't a solution to anything.

Ending windows after 10 makes much more sense. I do believe MS linux will happen... but it won't be a parallel product. It will be MS windows OS 11.

I am only really half joking... it makes no sense for MS to continue developing their own OS, when the Linux Kernel which now powers the vast majority of the worlds computing devices, is free. They can do the exact same thing Google has been doing with chromeos. Why would your share holders want you spending 100s of millions every year maintaining and developing something that can be had for a fraction of the cost.

A Linux kernel powered windows is the future for MS... the only real question is when. When the time comes honestly the majority of windows users won't even notice the difference.
 
I don't know what a Microsoft Linux distro would solve. Linux users would never trust it and Windows users would ask why they should bother switching from their version of Windows.

It would solve nothing at all for the desktop. But perhaps if MS did switch windows kernel out for the Linux kernel... they could go after all the lucrative high end bits that MS has been pretty much completely pushed out of. They have a sales force still taking about how great ReFS is... I feel for those poor people having to push that crap, may as well be working for the tobacco indusry they would sleep better.
 
Microsoft make their money from selling user data with Windows 10.
To them it doesnt matter what OS you use as long as they can continue to mine your data.

They made strange noises about developing for Linux before, its starting to become clearer.
This looks like a shill editorial to test the reaction or set the tone for MS creating a bastardised version of Linux for their own gain.
And in the meantime a method of snagging other OS users with online Office.
 
Last edited:
I agree. I have installed Windows 10 on many Vista era systems and 90% of the time have no issues. The other 10% of the time they may need a GPU upgrade but a GT 710 or Radeon HD 6450 does the trick for cheap.

The only times I have run into machines that can't run Windows 10 is older Athlon 64's that lack the CMPXCHG16b instructions Windows 10 requires
 
The only times I have run into machines that can't run Windows 10 is older Athlon 64's that lack the CMPXCHG16b instructions Windows 10 requires

I've been trying to think whether I have put 10 on an X2 and am unsure. I know I have installed 10 on Core 2 Duos and Pentium Dual Core CPUs.
 
I've been trying to think whether I have put 10 on an X2 and am unsure. I know I have installed 10 on Core 2 Duos and Pentium Dual Core CPUs.

From what I understand it's not all Athlon 64's, just some early ones (Socket 939 and 940?)
 
I fail to see what part of Linux he would want to port over. it's already been proven that Linux runs FASTER on Windows core than it does on it's own core. You can already get apt on your Windows system, and the GUI of Windows is miles above anything the Linux guys can come up with.

So then the only logical thing would be if you wanted Android APKs on Windows. Maybe that would be useful for some apps that are only on mobile that you could use on say a Windows tablet. Outside of that I'd rather just have native apps in the store that is native to Windows.
 
The only times I have run into machines that can't run Windows 10 is older Athlon 64's that lack the CMPXCHG16b instructions Windows 10 requires

That and older GPUs cause issues. You can get it to work but don't really expect 3d acceleration for laptops that are 5+ years old. That's not really Microsoft's fault as much as it is AMDs though. There is a WHQL driver that does it's best to make it work, but it's not quite as fully functional as what you would get on that same laptop running Windows 7.
 
That and older GPUs cause issues. You can get it to work but don't really expect 3d acceleration for laptops that are 5+ years old. That's not really Microsoft's fault as much as it is AMDs though. There is a WHQL driver that does it's best to make it work, but it's not quite as fully functional as what you would get on that same laptop running Windows 7.


Yeah, I mean it's mostly moot either way.

Most of this older hardware that is incompatible is hardware I'm not quite sure why you would be still using in 2017 anyway.
 
I fail to see what part of Linux he would want to port over. it's already been proven that Linux runs FASTER on Windows core than it does on it's own core. You can already get apt on your Windows system, and the GUI of Windows is miles above anything the Linux guys can come up with.

So then the only logical thing would be if you wanted Android APKs on Windows. Maybe that would be useful for some apps that are only on mobile that you could use on say a Windows tablet. Outside of that I'd rather just have native apps in the store that is native to Windows.

While I agree with you, I'm not sure what the goal is here or why Microsoft would want to do this, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "core" in this context.

I find that most things run faster in Linux for me than in windows 10, as long as it doesn't depend on GPU acceleration. Windows does do that much better.
 
While I agree with you, I'm not sure what the goal is here or why Microsoft would want to do this, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by "core" in this context.

I find that most things run faster in Linux for me than in windows 10, as long as it doesn't depend on GPU acceleration. Windows does do that much better.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-10-lxcore&num=2

Core meaning the kernel. The Linux subsystem for Windows runs Linux code on the Windows kernel. I'm not sure what "things" you are talking about though, because I can't say as there is a noticeable impact either way for me when talking about opening standard programs like a web browser, a text editor, a terminal window. The more intensive applications I run don't work under Linux, so I can't say as I have other things to really compare.

Yeah, I mean it's mostly moot either way.

Most of this older hardware that is incompatible is hardware I'm not quite sure why you would be still using in 2017 anyway.

Outside of the GPU issue, hardware hasn't move much in the past 7 years. I looked at a move from an older laptop to something like a new surface pro 4, or even just a typical $1,000 laptop. The laptop from 7 years ago has been upgraded over the years. It has a dual core i7, 8GB of ram, 256GB SSD, 1080p screen. I could have spent $1,000 and bought a dual core i7, with 8GB of ram, 256GB ssd, and a 1080p screen to replace it. It would be in a smaller form factor, but otherwise it's basically a wash. The other machine I can easily tear apart and continue to upgrade and replace whatever I want. The same can't be said for the new systems.
 
Just give up on the linux on desktop thing already. How many decades has it been now?

Why would Linux users want to give up when things keep getting better and better ? The Linux desktop is in better shape than it has ever been in. In what ways has it gotten worse ? What made you give up ? You did use Linux at some point right ? Do you actually expect people to switch their OS of choice because some random person on the internet thinks they should ? Are you being forced to use Linux against your will ? I think the only people giving up are those who had hoped that Microsoft would stop fucking them over any way they could. They are giving up Windows for other options.
 
I guess that means 10 won't run on my AthlonXP with ATI X700 :(

I think it's only the 64bit Athlons that have this problem. I believe the 32bit release would run on an old AthlonXP, but I am not sure.

I'm not sure why you'd want to though. I'd imagine anything uniprocessor would be rather frustrating in 2017.
 
This author is an idiot. His vision of the future is web based apps for everything, which is absolutely asinine. It restrains the market, and our future, in major ways. I have had to support web apps, and they are useful in some instances, but they, just like other inventions many techies have touted as the future for everything before such as cloud or VDI, are never going to be useful for everything. Those who seek to replace everything with any particular technology are narrow minded idiots.

Yeah, remember the day when the industry was going to try to produce everything built upon Java so it would work on any platform you run it on? All of us that were there remember how that worked out.
 
Yeah, remember the day when the industry was going to try to produce everything built upon Java so it would work on any platform you run it on? All of us that were there remember how that worked out.

I do remember that. I also remember an article on Windows NT 4.0 that claimed it was the end of the command line. It's funny how some techies will focus in on one technology and then flat out refuse reality when the technology fails to catch on.

I'm still waiting on OS agnostic VM container programs on desktops. That's one I'd like to see take off.
 
I think it's only the 64bit Athlons that have this problem. I believe the 32bit release would run on an old AthlonXP, but I am not sure.

I'm not sure why you'd want to though. I'd imagine anything uniprocessor would be rather frustrating in 2017.

Mostly joking, but I actually do use it still to store backups of photos and normal files and run Linux for doing astrophotography capture with a webcam. It does what it does well, anything processor stressing I do on my W7 laptop, and I still don't stress it out with anything I do.
 
I'll say it again: just give me a full blown ChromeOS I can run on my desktop. Make it cheap or free, and intuitive.
 
Do you actually expect people to switch their OS of choice because some random person on the internet thinks they should ?

This one made me LOL. I thought that was the whole motive behind Linux users telling people that should stop using Windows!
 
In reality, what this guy is really wants is Edgebooks. Which really isn't a bad idea as MS is really after your data.
 
This one made me LOL. I thought that was the whole motive behind Linux users telling people that should stop using Windows!

We all have our own unique movies. If we didn't then we'd alll be the same person.
 
So create an in-house competitor for themselves? Why? And unless it would be free everyone would just laugh at them. Why pay for a restrictive ms branded linux distro when you can pay for the restrictive ms branded windows already? And at least that can run windows programs.

They can slip telemetry into it! That way it can be just another free Linux distros, but with added spying.
 
I'll say it again: just give me a full blown ChromeOS I can run on my desktop. Make it cheap or free, and intuitive.

They'll get my fully featured OS and local data processing when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. I do not trust "cloud" crap, and neither should anyone else. "Free" services sound nice and all, but there is a cost to everything. Make sure you don't pay too much for your "free" services.
 
They'll get my fully featured OS and local data processing when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. I do not trust "cloud" crap, and neither should anyone else. "Free" services sound nice and all, but there is a cost to everything. Make sure you don't pay too much for your "free" services.

I didn't say anything about cloud crap. And the fully featured Windows 10 seems to feature many of the things you caution against.

Call it Google Desktop or NotWin10 for all I care.

Just something that's not Windows 10, iWhatever, or one of the many many Linux/Ubuntu things.
 
I didn't say anything about cloud crap. And the fully featured Windows 10 seems to feature many of the things you caution against.

Call it Google Desktop or NotWin10 for all I care.

Just something that's not Windows 10, iWhatever, or one of the many many Linux/Ubuntu things.

If someone will just actually complete a version of Linux, sure. The problem is that not a single Linux distro actually has anything finished. Everything is half-assed and half finished, and a user has to be half programmer to do much of anything. Ubuntu is fairly close, rising above the rest, but there is still an awful lot of command line garbage needed to do many things, and it doesn't do automatic/scheduled updates on its own.
 
If someone will just actually complete a version of Linux, sure. The problem is that not a single Linux distro actually has anything finished. Everything is half-assed and half finished, and a user has to be half programmer to do much of anything. Ubuntu is fairly close, rising above the rest, but there is still an awful lot of command line garbage needed to do many things, and it doesn't do automatic/scheduled updates on its own.

I can't understand why this is. I mean, something like 90% of devices use a Linux based OS.
 
Back
Top