Windows 10 Editions Compared

[Ashbringer]

First, who cares if you get it for free THEN have to pay after you've already got it free?

Cause if you have to build another PC you have to buy another copy? Not important for majority of PC owners out there who don't build PCs but for people like us, it's a costly $100 to add to your build.

People were using the phrase "Worst Buy" buy refereeing to Best Buy for around as long as people have been declaring the year of desktop Linux. So not that clever.

There is no year of linux. It's a gradual process to get people to accept the OS for regular use. For the most part, you can except for gaming. GTAV and Witcher 3 was released and no Linux version in sight.

I sincerely doubt this. There isn't some mass exodus to Linux waiting in the wings if they charge $40 again (like what I paid for Win8 upgrades) or even full price. MS's worst competition is MS - in the form of Windows 7.

Funny that you should say this, cause there's rumor that Microsoft may dump Windows Phone OS in favor of Android. But one doesn't have to look towards Android for Linux supremacy, even the desktop has some Microsoft attention. .NET is on Linux now. Visual Studio for Linux. Don't forget Raspberry Pi 2 has a crummy Version of Windows for it that nobody will likely use, which is a direct response to Pi having always used Linux.

In America the worst competition for Microsoft is themselves, but not in other countries. There's a growing interest in using linux due to lack of trust towards American made products. It'll be like Xbox where popular in the states, but not so much elsewhere.

 

[heatlesssun]

I sincerely doubt this. There isn't some mass exodus to Linux waiting in the wings if they charge $40 again (like what I paid for Win8 upgrades) or even full price. MS's worst competition is MS - in the form of Windows 7.

The vast majority of copies of Windows like all other mainstream OSes come with hardware and those devices offer free OS upgrades. Like many things that have happened in the Windows 8.x era, Microsoft is aligning windows with the mainstream. That has been a problem considering the utter contempt that many folks have for average people.

 

[PersonalJ]

Windows isn't "mainstream", because the collective IQ of the "mainstream" is somewhere between 0 and a nebulous value somewhere below 1.

The majority of the users don't want or need to know how/why a system does something. They're good little luddite consumers.

Linux never was, and never will be this. It'll be a toolset that pretty much always requires at least a smidgeon of ACTUAL brainpower to comprehend and use.

There are more than three times the number of Linux devices being sold to consumers than Windows devices. Linux is just the kernel, it's used in many different distributions with the most notable being Android. It is the PC market which is stagnating and why Microsoft is releasing Windows 10 as a free upgrade.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/06/ga...in-2014-tablets-to-overtake-pc-sales-in-2015/

 

[WaltC]

"Windows as a service"

Nope.

Yep... Seems like it's always been a "service"--that's just a new name they are putting on the marketing face of the OS and its continuing free updates (Windows updates have always been free of charge.) Nothing really changes--except for the fact that we won't have to decide every five-to-seven years whether to buy the next version of the OS because it won't be for sale. And no more worries about Win10 EOL, because Win10 will never expire--except when your devices do... Pretty much, if you have a retail license of either Win7/8.1, then when you upgrade to Win10 you will carry that license to your grave, or as long as Win10 will install & support the computers you own... OEM license is same-old, same-old: when the hardware goes (eg., motherboard replacement), so does the OEM license for Win10. Never been a future in OEM licenses, though...

 

[WaltC]

There are more than three times the number of Linux devices being sold to consumers than Windows devices. Linux is just the kernel, it's used in many different distributions with the most notable being Android. It is the PC market which is stagnating and why Microsoft is releasing Windows 10 as a free upgrade.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/06/ga...in-2014-tablets-to-overtake-pc-sales-in-2015/

That's an utterly meaningless statistic if ever I've seen one... Jeez, talk about grasping at straws... That's like saying that pants are going obsolete because people buy 6x the number in pairs of underwear... Actually, though, one has nothing to do with the other...Apples, oranges...pants, underwear...cell-phones, PCs...

Windows supports more 3rd-party software & 3rd-party hardware than any other personal computer OS available in the world--operative words: computer OS. Linux on the retail computer desktop, all distributions, is still accounting for ~1% annual market share (usually less.) It just doesn't matter how many Android cell phones are sold...Lol... (Reminds me of McDonald's and its "1 Billion served" slogan...!)

Now that Microsoft has pulled its head out of its rear end and is delivering a really nice computer OS (instead of the unpopular "device" OS GUI the company pulled with the original Win8), expect to see the PC market soar in the coming months. And because of Microsoft's amazingly customer-friendly upgrade policy from Win7 & Win 8, you can expect to see 70%-80% of the entire retail global computer OS market on Win10 in the first year of its availability. That would be unprecedented in Windows history, but this retail-market upgrade offer is also unprecedented in Windows history. As you point out, however, Linux continues to splinter as everyone chops it up into custom bits for their own custom consumer devices & cell phones (as opposed to PC's), while the global Windows PC market is heading in the opposite direction--and I don't mean "Win10" on cell phones, either... Microsoft estimates that it's global installed base for PC Windows is ~1.5B. B as in billion. So far, I think Microsoft is doing everything right with Win10.

The amusing thing is that even though certain consumer distributions of Linux have been available for *free* on the PC desktop for *years*, the great majority of people have opted to buy Windows as opposed to moving to a "free" Linux distribution--about 99% of them, in fact. If the market does this when Windows costs between $80 & $200, just imagine the impact the free upgrades to Win10 will have...it's going to be staggering, I'll bet.

 

[Ashbringer]

Windows supports more 3rd-party software & 3rd-party hardware than any other personal computer OS available in the world--operative words: computer OS.

Software yes, but hardware no. Linux supports more hardware.

Linux on the retail computer desktop, all distributions, is still accounting for ~1% annual market share (usually less.) It just doesn't matter how many Android cell phones are sold...Lol... (Reminds me of McDonald's and its "1 Billion served" slogan...!)

Yes every anti linux person here is quick to point out the 1% market share, but dismisses Android and the server market where Linux dominates.

And because of Microsoft's amazingly customer-friendly upgrade policy from Win7 & Win 8, you can expect to see 70%-80% of the entire retail global computer OS market on Win10 in the first year of its availability. That would be unprecedented in Windows history, but this retail-market upgrade offer is also unprecedented in Windows history.

Unless Windows update forces people to install Windows 10, most people won't know about it. The gaming market will because of DX12 and a few tech savvy people.

The amusing thing is that even though certain consumer distributions of Linux have been available for *free* on the PC desktop for *years*, the great majority of people have opted to buy Windows as opposed to moving to a "free" Linux distribution--about 99% of them, in fact. If the market does this when Windows costs between $80 & $200, just imagine the impact the free upgrades to Win10 will have...it's going to be staggering, I'll bet.

Linux has been terrible except until recently. I remember using Ubuntu 10.04 and Wifi wouldn't work without terminal commands. Even getting things like Flash player for the web browser wasn't possible. Graphic cards barely worked cause AMD/Nvidia barely gave a shit.

Now it's easier to install Linux than Windows cause no need to register with Microsoft. Flash and everything is working out of the box. Open source drivers have matured so nicely that for AMD/Intel you don't need Catalyst, though Nvidia owners still need Geforce drivers. Nouveau is just not as good.

As for Window 10 I really doubt a lot of people will upgrade 7/8 for it. Microsoft will have to extend the 1 year deadline for free upgrades, and probably resort is forced installations.

 

[Deleted member 108676]

Cause if you have to build another PC you have to buy another copy? Not important for majority of PC owners out there who don't build PCs but for people like us, it's a costly $100 to add to your build.

You gotta pay to play, and its the cost of doing business.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

Android and server market is not really important to the general consumer(on a desktop). Why do I care if my router runs a form of Linux if that doesn't do anything to help my desktop experience? I'm glad we can finally use flash on Linux though, good thing you finally caught up to something from what, 10 years ago?

Linux will never go mainstream because it's too much of a hassle for most users. You can pretend you don't need the terminal, but you still do for quite a few functions. Until you don't have to go around googling how to do basic things in Linux, it won't be a useful alternative to windows. I would rather pay $100 than having to waste hours learning a new OS that isn't going to do anything better.

 

[rudy]

What people like Ashbringer never seem to understand is that doing some or most of what windows can do is not good enough for people to use Linux. There isn't any job normal people want done on a computer that Linux does better than windows. So no one has a motivation to switch. For most people the measly cost of adding windows to a computer is simply chump change compared to putting up with using and learning a new OS. And all of what I said assumes the user will never have to go to the command line or anything even remotely challenging. A lot of computers can install a distro like Ubuntu now and get up and running without much interaction, but its still not enough. For a more tech savvy user its still pointless. When apple got popular again any chance of Linux on the desktop died. Almost every Linux user I know of in the real world has switched to macs. And I find that really funny and ironic because it means all the BS they said about openness and free doesn't compute. Think of that half your allies have turned to the worst possible alternative. Closed hardware and software. The conclusion I have come to is most Linux users just want to use Linux to feel different. Like they know something others don't know. Not because they actually believe in open software or anything else.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Cool.

I hope I can completely disable many of those features so I never have to see them, including:

• TPM support
• Battery Saver
• Cortana
• Hello
• Virtual Desktops
• Tablet mode
• Edge

I hope they are treated like "Windows Components" have been in the past, so I can unninstall the ones I don't want to take up space, and clutter my interface.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Sigh, why does every thread about Windows and its new features have to turn into a Linux bashing fest?

Linux and Windows are different beasts, for different folks and different applications, and each has things it excels at and things that are problematic about it.

What people like Ashbringer never seem to understand is that doing some or most of what windows can do is not good enough for people to use Linux. There isn't any job normal people want done on a computer that Linux does better than windows. So no one has a motivation to switch. For most people the measly cost of adding windows to a computer is simply chump change compared to putting up with using and learning a new OS. And all of what I said assumes the user will never have to go to the command line or anything even remotely challenging. A lot of computers can install a distro like Ubuntu now and get up and running without much interaction, but its still not enough. For a more tech savvy user its still pointless. When apple got popular again any chance of Linux on the desktop died. Almost every Linux user I know of in the real world has switched to macs. And I find that really funny and ironic because it means all the BS they said about openness and free doesn't compute. Think of that half your allies have turned to the worst possible alternative. Closed hardware and software. The conclusion I have come to is most Linux users just want to use Linux to feel different. Like they know something others don't know. Not because they actually believe in open software or anything else.

The Linux community is still alive and well thank you. Not a single Linux user I know has switched to a mac.

It is true, Linux isn't for everyone, and it cant do everything. The two biggest downsides are having to use open source work-a-like software rather than the brand names most people are used to, and how brand new hardware can take a little while to be supported in the latest kernels. To say it doesn't have areas where it does better than Windows - however - is to be completely ignorant.

The obvious mention here is software development. Sure Visual Studio has improved over the years, but still gets its ass handed to it by Eclipse and IntelliJ. I know there are lots of people on these forums who think Visual Studio is all that, but honestly, it's probably just because they aren't well versed in the alternatives.

There - hands down - is no better development platform than working under Linux. The alternatives don't even come close.

Now as for stuff that appeals better to the average user, well, that's the rub. Applications that run under Linux can match applications that run under Windows in many cases, but in some not, and that can be frustrating for some.

Over the years, I've personally come to appreciate the reliability, stability and security Linux provides, and that is more important to me than the difference between Photoshop and Gimp, or Ms Office and LibreOffice etc, etc. Once you get used to the differences, using the work-a-likes really isn't bad.

Things that I find I absolutely can not live without anymore, that Linux has, and windows does not, include, for instance:

- Unified package manager that handles updates not just for the OS, but also for ALL installed software.

I always wind up being hugely frustrated when in windows with that either every little piece of software has its own auto update checker that pops up at me and wants me to do something, OR doesn't and winds up becoming out of date over time. Having a single interface that prompts you once, for all installed software, and updates it seamlessly is huge.

- The ease of install of Linux is a huge sell for me too.

I used to always keep backups of my OS installs because it was such a pain to install, find all the latest drivers, and install all my software in Windows. Now I don't. I keep all my files on my NAS (and that IS backed up) but my OS drives? Who cares. Takes me a grand total of 10 minutes if I need to reinstall, as opposed to ALL FUCKING DAY the last time I did a Windows 8.1 install (granted from Windows 8 gold release disk, which complicated things)

- Hardware use

I've never been able to figure out why this is the case, but Linux just uses my hardware much more efficiently. The fact that my entire OS install including all programs I use takes only about 12-15GB of hard drive space is amazing, especially considering how many in the windows crowd find 256GB or even 512GB SSD's to not be enough That, and the fact that if I really wanted, I probably could get away with only 2GB of RAM without being too limited in day to day use.

- Ease of scripting and automation

This is huge. Its so simple to create a cron job that does what I want it to, when I want it to. If I can do it from the command line (an d most of the time I can in Linux) I can automate it through a simple script launched from cron.

- And then there's the security and stability, which quite frankly are stellar.

I've been using the same Linux install for years. No registry has slowly corrupted on me, I've never seen a blue screen, It's just as snappy feeling as the day I first installed it. No reason to reinstall.

Windows has improved a lot with XP (protected mode) and Vista (UAC) here, but Linux still has a pretty strong advantage in this regard.

So, really, yes, it is not for everyone, and that is OK.

Windows is brilliant from the standpoint of software availability. You want to run a piece of software, chances are it exists in a binary that you can run on Windows. Nothing else can touch windows in this regard, not OS X or Linux.

If - however - you can put up with the software that DOES exist for Linux (and really, it's not THAT bad, a little different, but really not bad) there are many other benefits as mentioned above.

There are also other areas in which it could improve. Gaming on Linux is much better than it has ever been, but still has a long way to go. I keep a Windows 8.1 partition around just for games.

Much is also made out of the "ease of use" of Linux, and IMHO much of this is either overblown, or commented on from a place of ignorance. Personally I would consider modern linux distributions to be very "grandma friendly". Web, email, running installed programs, is just as easy as in Windows. Installing programs included in the distributions package manager is also dead simple, using the "app store-like GUI interface).

Where the ease of use equation changes is when you want to do something more complicated than the average user would do. In Linux this will often require moving from the GUI into using the command line, and a lot of people have irrational fears of the command line, when it really is no worse than GUI, just different (and for many things actually an easier and better way of doing things). So I'd say that more advanced stuff is easier to get started on in Windows, but once you get used to Linux, it winds up being less of a pain in the ass, and you can do stuff more quickly.

So, the TLDR version, Linux isn't for everyone, that is OK, but there are things it REALLY excels at and for many people using it makes lots of sense.

Personally, I am used to Linux, and I find doing things in Windows rather frustrating by contrast. A setting I could change by opening a text file, searching for the config option, and changing it, in about 10 seconds flat, requires me to click around endless GUI windows to try to find where the hell Microsoft in their wisdom put this one. I could not go back to Windows as my primary OS.

That being said, I was inclined to try and learn Linux back in the bad old days of Windows. The learning curve was steep, and it took me a good long time to get to the comfort level I have. The reason it made sense for me to try to switch was because I was already frustrated enough with Windows 98SE bluescreening and crashing on me, so I was dual booting Windows 2000. Games in Win98, everything else in Win2k. Since I was already dual booting, I figured why not take it a step further. If I run Linux instead of Win2k, I'll still have my Counter-Strike in Win98.

I also grew up with DOS, so I didn't have the irrational fear of command line interfaces.

If I were younger than I am, doing it today, I probably wouldn't. Windows has improved to the point where stability and security are reasonable enough. Not great - mind you - but not frustrating enough to make one learn a whole new way of doing things. And this is a crying shame, as I feel people are settling for something that shouldn't have to.

 

[Ramses]

Personally, I am used to Linux, and I find doing things in Windows rather frustrating by contrast. A setting I could change by opening a text file, searching for the config option, and changing it, in about 10 seconds flat, requires me to click around endless GUI windows to try to find where the hell Microsoft in their wisdom put this one. I could not go back to Windows as my primary OS.

Note I'm not disagreeing with any of your post and am a Linux fan even though I haven't had it up and running in a year or so, but that right there is exactly a reason a lot of folks would prefer windows and poopoo Linux. Even if MS hasn't given the setting a GUI click switch, there is likely some windows tweaker software to be had (free) that will make it clickable.

And desktop Linux is getting that way, slowly. I drew a line at having to edit a txt file to set my monitor resolution for example a few years ago, there was no good reason for it but it was still common practice in some otherwise nicely polished software. And it was eventually fixed by and large, took years, but it happened. I still can edit such manually and I'm glad I have the skill(dos kid too here), but it's the principle of the thing. I can still do a lot with the registry and powershell etc in Windows, but if I have to do so, I'm using bad language toward whoever wrote whatever made me have to be there doing that most times. It's 2015, I want to TALK to my computer, not type in obscure commands and stuff.

I might also be getting old and spoiled.

 

[DPI]

Now that Microsoft has pulled its head out of its rear end and is delivering a really nice computer OS (instead of the unpopular "device" OS GUI the company pulled with the original Win8), expect to see the PC market soar in the coming months. And because of Microsoft's amazingly customer-friendly upgrade policy from Win7 & Win 8, you can expect to see 70%-80% of the entire retail global computer OS market on Win10 in the first year of its availability.

LMAO.

You should apply for a job writing for Neowin - your talents are being wasted here.

 

[Negative Decibel]

I need pro for Remote Desktop? Really?

That's what I first noticed too... Guess Ill be ponying up for pro... #meh

 

[B00nie]

Lol, pretty much.

"Hey, look at me!!! Use me!! I'm not user friendly and I cant really do shitall without you telling me, but I'll open that command prompt super fast!".

Linux. Cute.

Lol that post was like 'Hey look at me I don't know shit and I just showed it'.

 

[auntjemima]

Which distro you using bro?!

 

[heatlesssun]

Cool.

I hope I can completely disable many of those features so I never have to see them, including:

• TPM support
• Battery Saver
• Cortana
• Hello
• Virtual Desktops
• Tablet mode
• Edge

I hope they are treated like "Windows Components" have been in the past, so I can unninstall the ones I don't want to take up space, and clutter my interface.

Many of these features are tied to hardware and won't do anything without specific hardware. You'd never see the tablet mode without a touch screen device unless you turn it on manually. Same with battery saver. It's on by available on battery powered devices.

 

[rudy]

Sigh, why does every thread about Windows and its new features have to turn into a Linux bashing fest?

Linux and Windows are different beasts, for different folks and different applications, and each has things it excels at and things that are problematic about it.



The Linux community is still alive and well thank you. Not a single Linux user I know has switched to a mac.

It is true, Linux isn't for everyone, and it cant do everything. The two biggest downsides are having to use open source work-a-like software rather than the brand names most people are used to, and how brand new hardware can take a little while to be supported in the latest kernels. To say it doesn't have areas where it does better than Windows - however - is to be completely ignorant.

The obvious mention here is software development. Sure Visual Studio has improved over the years, but still gets its ass handed to it by Eclipse and IntelliJ. I know there are lots of people on these forums who think Visual Studio is all that, but honestly, it's probably just because they aren't well versed in the alternatives.

There - hands down - is no better development platform than working under Linux. The alternatives don't even come close.

Now as for stuff that appeals better to the average user, well, that's the rub. Applications that run under Linux can match applications that run under Windows in many cases, but in some not, and that can be frustrating for some.

Over the years, I've personally come to appreciate the reliability, stability and security Linux provides, and that is more important to me than the difference between Photoshop and Gimp, or Ms Office and LibreOffice etc, etc. Once you get used to the differences, using the work-a-likes really isn't bad.

Things that I find I absolutely can not live without anymore, that Linux has, and windows does not, include, for instance:

- Unified package manager that handles updates not just for the OS, but also for ALL installed software.

I always wind up being hugely frustrated when in windows with that either every little piece of software has its own auto update checker that pops up at me and wants me to do something, OR doesn't and winds up becoming out of date over time. Having a single interface that prompts you once, for all installed software, and updates it seamlessly is huge.

- The ease of install of Linux is a huge sell for me too.

I used to always keep backups of my OS installs because it was such a pain to install, find all the latest drivers, and install all my software in Windows. Now I don't. I keep all my files on my NAS (and that IS backed up) but my OS drives? Who cares. Takes me a grand total of 10 minutes if I need to reinstall, as opposed to ALL FUCKING DAY the last time I did a Windows 8.1 install (granted from Windows 8 gold release disk, which complicated things)

- Hardware use

I've never been able to figure out why this is the case, but Linux just uses my hardware much more efficiently. The fact that my entire OS install including all programs I use takes only about 12-15GB of hard drive space is amazing, especially considering how many in the windows crowd find 256GB or even 512GB SSD's to not be enough That, and the fact that if I really wanted, I probably could get away with only 2GB of RAM without being too limited in day to day use.

- Ease of scripting and automation

This is huge. Its so simple to create a cron job that does what I want it to, when I want it to. If I can do it from the command line (an d most of the time I can in Linux) I can automate it through a simple script launched from cron.

- And then there's the security and stability, which quite frankly are stellar.

I've been using the same Linux install for years. No registry has slowly corrupted on me, I've never seen a blue screen, It's just as snappy feeling as the day I first installed it. No reason to reinstall.

Windows has improved a lot with XP (protected mode) and Vista (UAC) here, but Linux still has a pretty strong advantage in this regard.

So, really, yes, it is not for everyone, and that is OK.

Windows is brilliant from the standpoint of software availability. You want to run a piece of software, chances are it exists in a binary that you can run on Windows. Nothing else can touch windows in this regard, not OS X or Linux.

If - however - you can put up with the software that DOES exist for Linux (and really, it's not THAT bad, a little different, but really not bad) there are many other benefits as mentioned above.

There are also other areas in which it could improve. Gaming on Linux is much better than it has ever been, but still has a long way to go. I keep a Windows 8.1 partition around just for games.

Much is also made out of the "ease of use" of Linux, and IMHO much of this is either overblown, or commented on from a place of ignorance. Personally I would consider modern linux distributions to be very "grandma friendly". Web, email, running installed programs, is just as easy as in Windows. Installing programs included in the distributions package manager is also dead simple, using the "app store-like GUI interface).

Where the ease of use equation changes is when you want to do something more complicated than the average user would do. In Linux this will often require moving from the GUI into using the command line, and a lot of people have irrational fears of the command line, when it really is no worse than GUI, just different (and for many things actually an easier and better way of doing things). So I'd say that more advanced stuff is easier to get started on in Windows, but once you get used to Linux, it winds up being less of a pain in the ass, and you can do stuff more quickly.

So, the TLDR version, Linux isn't for everyone, that is OK, but there are things it REALLY excels at and for many people using it makes lots of sense.

Personally, I am used to Linux, and I find doing things in Windows rather frustrating by contrast. A setting I could change by opening a text file, searching for the config option, and changing it, in about 10 seconds flat, requires me to click around endless GUI windows to try to find where the hell Microsoft in their wisdom put this one. I could not go back to Windows as my primary OS.

That being said, I was inclined to try and learn Linux back in the bad old days of Windows. The learning curve was steep, and it took me a good long time to get to the comfort level I have. The reason it made sense for me to try to switch was because I was already frustrated enough with Windows 98SE bluescreening and crashing on me, so I was dual booting Windows 2000. Games in Win98, everything else in Win2k. Since I was already dual booting, I figured why not take it a step further. If I run Linux instead of Win2k, I'll still have my Counter-Strike in Win98.

I also grew up with DOS, so I didn't have the irrational fear of command line interfaces.

If I were younger than I am, doing it today, I probably wouldn't. Windows has improved to the point where stability and security are reasonable enough. Not great - mind you - but not frustrating enough to make one learn a whole new way of doing things. And this is a crying shame, as I feel people are settling for something that shouldn't have to.

You seemed to not be focused on the important point I mentioned the common user.

The common user do not do software development why would they give a shit? This is like trying to argue with a gamer that they should switch from an PS4 to a PC because their games are made on the PC. They don't care. it doesn't matter to them because they don't plan to develop games. Also I interact with a lot of programmers and yes most of them have switched to macs since the explosion of ios, they can code for all 3 platforms on a MacBook. And any time they need a windows program they can run a vm, or dual boot. So while you claim there is no better development platform I would say that I see no tangible evidence of that. Most people I talked to have said that VS firmly trounced anything anyone else had a long time ago and in fact it was a large reason Sony had such a hard time competing with the xbox 360. You version of hands down doesn't match the description of hands down in most peoples book. Regardless its plenty good enough for windows programming and other solutions work for other platforms.


Your whole post is just really skewed and obviously you do not represent or understand the common user and it is always people like you who are the reasons Linux will never go anywhere. You don't understand the common user so you cannot help push the Linux community to do what it needs to do to attract the common user.

- Unified package manager that handles updates not just for the OS, but also for ALL installed software.

Linux has had this for a long time, guess what the common user has shown its is not enough to motivate them to go to Linux.

- The ease of install of Linux is a huge sell for me too.
You admit up top that Linux hardware support can be slow..... Then you claim its easy to install drivers. Doesn't seem like a win, most people get their windows machine with drivers installed. Most windows default drivers will get most systems up and running and many users simply don't care to update or have the latest. Many companies do not support Linux so actually the reality is the driver you are using is probably no better or different then some generic MS driver.

- Hardware use
Ya Linux people claim this, wasn't it the same thing that apple claimed with the PowerPC look how that worked for them? Ultimately once again why does the common user care even if it is true. You know what else is really efficient with hardware? Windows phone lol, looks like the reality no one gives a shit about hardware efficiency in the common user base. They don't even know how to properly pick a CPU or know that intel makes more than 3 (i3,i5,i7) that's all intel makes to most of them. Are they areally going to go try a new OS to gain a processor cycles of efficiency?

You keep a copy of windows 8 installed, others find it much simpler to simply run a single OS. Because so far there is nothing most common people need that windows cannot do and there is nothing Linux does that is compelling them to switch. Even at a $50+ difference in price

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

You seemed to not be focused on the important point I mentioned the common user.

The common user do not do software development why would they give a shit? This is like trying to argue with a gamer that they should switch from an PS4 to a PC because their games are made on the PC. They don't care. it doesn't matter to them because they don't plan to develop games. Also I interact with a lot of programmers and yes most of them have switched to macs since the explosion of ios, they can code for all 3 platforms on a MacBook. And any time they need a windows program they can run a vm, or dual boot. So while you claim there is no better development platform I would say that I see no tangible evidence of that. Most people I talked to have said that VS firmly trounced anything anyone else had a long time ago and in fact it was a large reason Sony had such a hard time competing with the xbox 360. You version of hands down doesn't match the description of hands down in most peoples book. Regardless its plenty good enough for windows programming and other solutions work for other platforms.


Your whole post is just really skewed and obviously you do not represent or understand the common user and it is always people like you who are the reasons Linux will never go anywhere. You don't understand the common user so you cannot help push the Linux community to do what it needs to do to attract the common user.

- Unified package manager that handles updates not just for the OS, but also for ALL installed software.

Linux has had this for a long time, guess what the common user has shown its is not enough to motivate them to go to Linux.

- The ease of install of Linux is a huge sell for me too.
You admit up top that Linux hardware support can be slow..... Then you claim its easy to install drivers. Doesn't seem like a win, most people get their windows machine with drivers installed. Most windows default drivers will get most systems up and running and many users simply don't care to update or have the latest. Many companies do not support Linux so actually the reality is the driver you are using is probably no better or different then some generic MS driver.

- Hardware use
Ya Linux people claim this, wasn't it the same thing that apple claimed with the PowerPC look how that worked for them? Ultimately once again why does the common user care even if it is true. You know what else is really efficient with hardware? Windows phone lol, looks like the reality no one gives a shit about hardware efficiency in the common user base. They don't even know how to properly pick a CPU or know that intel makes more than 3 (i3,i5,i7) that's all intel makes to most of them. Are they areally going to go try a new OS to gain a processor cycles of efficiency?

You keep a copy of windows 8 installed, others find it much simpler to simply run a single OS. Because so far there is nothing most common people need that windows cannot do and there is nothing Linux does that is compelling them to switch. Even at a $50+ difference in price

But as I stated, it's not for everyone, and that's fine. It doesn't HAVE to be for everyone, nor should it try to be.

By making Linux more like Windows, you'd inevitably have to take away some of the Linux experience that many linux users like.

I'm all for NOT making linux for everyone. I'd rather focus development for those who already like it, and improve what current users find broken.

I would love full kernel drivers for every CPU, Motherboard chipset and driver at launch, including all GPU hardware video decoding features, for instance. This really shouldn't be too much to ask. Nvidia beats Intel and AMD here in their closed source drivers, but this should be universal.

Some GUI tools to make tasks easier, where they make sense would be great too, as long as they don't take away from the current way of doing things in the console and text files.

The truth is, once you learn console and text file editing, it is inherently much more efficient to set up and configure than any GUI could ever be, provided there are good default config files with commented examples.

 

[rudy]

OK well then I guess we can say Linux isn't for the common user then. So we can all agree to stop recommending it to anyone but programmers.

 

[TekRok]

So if I have a Win Pro 7 right now, will they be giving me a Pro edition of 10 as well?

 

[ManofGod]

So if I have a Win Pro 7 right now, will they be giving me a Pro edition of 10 as well?

Yes.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

OK well then I guess we can say Linux isn't for the common user then. So we can all agree to stop recommending it to anyone but programmers.

I think it is useful to a lot more than just programmers.

Anyone who appreciates stability and security, and ease of install and is willing to sacrifice a little convenience in which software they run, would be a great likely user, not to mention all the special purpose applications, like XBMC/Kodi boxes, mythtv home servers, etc. Etc.

Not for everyone, but certainly usefull for most serious computer hobbyists.

 

[MRAB54]

I see Windows 7 Ultimate will upgrade to Windows 10 Pro. As a home user, will I be missing out on anything in the Windows 10 Enterprise version?

 

[bobdelon]

No Remote Desktop for Home users seems new.

 

[auntjemima]

Its not. It has been this way for more than 10 years.

 

[Sycraft]

Sigh, why does every thread about Windows and its new features have to turn into a Linux bashing fest?

Because Linux users can't STFU? Seriously, that seems to be the problem on forums and in real life: A new version of Windows is nigh, so people start talking about it. Almost immediately a Linux head will stop by and start talking about how bad Windows is, better Linux is, and that people should just switch. So shots get fired back and it all degenerates.

That's what happened here: Third post is a Linux head crowing about "You know on Linux you get everything." and then the fight got started.

If you don't want a Linux bashing fest, don't bring up Linux in a Windows discussion. Don't act surprised when you pick a fight that one comes back.

Also consider that your giant wall o' text doesn't apply to everyone, and other people have a similar wall o' text of reasons why they use Windows.

 

[Ashbringer]

Because Linux users can't STFU? Seriously, that seems to be the problem on forums and in real life: A new version of Windows is nigh, so people start talking about it. Almost immediately a Linux head will stop by and start talking about how bad Windows is, better Linux is, and that people should just switch. So shots get fired back and it all degenerates.

Well a common complaint is no remote desktop. Linux doesn't divide its users with pointless flavors of an OS. Mac doesn't do it. Linux doesn't do it. But Windows has a Home, Pro, Enterprise, and Education flavors. Windows is the only OS that does this, so why? Oh that's right, cause they're the only ones who still charge for an OS.

That's what happened here: Third post is a Linux head crowing about "You know on Linux you get everything." and then the fight got started.

Truth sucks? Everyone wants to suck the Microsoft man sausage and doesn't want to question it cause it's bacon flavored.

If you don't want a Linux bashing fest, don't bring up Linux in a Windows discussion. Don't act surprised when you pick a fight that one comes back.

Ignorance is bliss. How dare we compare products and discuss them!

Also consider that your giant wall o' text doesn't apply to everyone, and other people have a similar wall o' text of reasons why they use Windows.

I still use Windows and I'm the one who introduced Linux to the discussion. Whatever your reasons are for sticking with Windows or Linux, don't you think Windows need decent competition? Windows on desktop has no competitors. Not Mac or Linux. We've got guys complaining about remote desktop, which is really a stupid feature to omit from home users. A quick VNC installation will fix that but still. Also $135 for a copy of Windows 7 Pro, which you can only install on one machine and if you change your hardware you have to give Microsoft a call. Again, no one else does this not even Mac. I believe a copy of Mac OS X is $20 and is good for 5 machines, give you're a good person and stopped installing it on those said 5 machines.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Which distro you using bro?!

As a self-proclaimed subject matter expert on forum trolling, I just wanted to let you know that you're doing it wrong.

 

[Soarin]

Which distro you using bro?!

WOw, someone really seems to like downing others about things to make themselves feel better.. At least that is how your comments are coming off. Who gives a shit what OS someone is using. Long as it works for them and are able to easily use it then so be it. So many elitist people here as of late.. lot more are out in droves now a days then compared to 4 years ago..

 

[heatlesssun]

Well a common complaint is no remote desktop. Linux doesn't divide its users with pointless flavors of an OS. Mac doesn't do it. Linux doesn't do it. But Windows has a Home, Pro, Enterprise, and Education flavors. Windows is the only OS that does this, so why? Oh that's right, cause they're the only ones who still charge for an OS.

A for profit company has to monetize their products one way or another or have a loss leader. OS X is monetized through hardware and technically can't be bought or obtained for use beyond Apple hardware so it's a loss leader in a way. One of the issues for desktop Linux over the years has been difficulty in monetizing it. Indeed Steam OS is a loss leader for Valve that they will try to make back on game sales. There is no free lunch. Only one where costs are shifted around.

Truth sucks? Everyone wants to suck the Microsoft man sausage and doesn't want to question it cause it's bacon flavored.

Except this isn't the truth. If desktop Linux truly provided the same level of hardware and software support as desktop Windows while still being free to consumers, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There'd be no at cost Windows to talk about because it would be done.

I still use Windows and I'm the one who introduced Linux to the discussion. Whatever your reasons are for sticking with Windows or Linux, don't you think Windows need decent competition? Windows on desktop has no competitors. Not Mac or Linux. We've got guys complaining about remote desktop, which is really a stupid feature to omit from home users. A quick VNC installation will fix that but still. Also $135 for a copy of Windows 7 Pro, which you can only install on one machine and if you change your hardware you have to give Microsoft a call. Again, no one else does this not even Mac. I believe a copy of Mac OS X is $20 and is good for 5 machines, give you're a good person and stopped installing it on those said 5 machines.

The overwhelming majority of Windows users never paid $135 dollars for their copy of Windows, most have never bought a retail copy of Windows, upgrade version or otherwise.

 

[Freiya]

Yep and its easily one of the most moronic decisions MS has ever made. You could improve the windows experience for millions of people who could just have their grand kids or friends login and fix their computers. Or you could leave it as is now with people moving in droves to apple due to bugs and misunderstandings.

This! Few weeks ago I spent an hr trying to help my moms find rdp so I could help her. I had no idea only pro and above could do it lol. I couldn't believe my mom was that blind until I realized it just wasn't there.

 

[heatlesssun]

This! Few weeks ago I spent an hr trying to help my moms find rdp so I could help her. I had no idea only pro and above could do it lol. I couldn't believe my mom was that blind until I realized it just wasn't there.

I agree that remote desktop should be in all versions of Windows. That said, not really sure how big of a deal it is. I just have people install TeamViewer, takes literally 2 minutes. It's not the kind of thing that would have people moving in droves to buy Macs.

 

[Unknown-One]

Yep and its easily one of the most moronic decisions MS has ever made. You could improve the windows experience for millions of people who could just have their grand kids or friends login and fix their computers. Or you could leave it as is now with people moving in droves to apple due to bugs and misunderstandings.

Uh... this has been a supported scenario since XP, even in Home Edition

Home editions of Windows include the "Remote Assistance" feature, which allows someone to remote-desktop in for a support session.

 

[Unknown-One]

This! Few weeks ago I spent an hr trying to help my moms find rdp so I could help her. I had no idea only pro and above could do it lol. I couldn't believe my mom was that blind until I realized it just wasn't there.

Start > Search > type "Invite Someone"

The Windows Easy Connect wizard will pop open and let them invite you to help via RDP, even on Home editions of Windows.

 

[Ur_Mom]

I agree that remote desktop should be in all versions of Windows. That said, not really sure how big of a deal it is. I just have people install TeamViewer, takes literally 2 minutes. It's not the kind of thing that would have people moving in droves to buy Macs.

Teamviewer is what I use. It's easy to get someone to go to the site, download and give you the code and you're in to support them. Chat, video, etc. are all available if needed. The one time code is good, too. At least for family and random people. Managed servers and the like? RDP (VNC for desktops that users are currently using, though).

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Well a common complaint is no remote desktop. Linux doesn't divide its users with pointless flavors of an OS. Mac doesn't do it. Linux doesn't do it. But Windows has a Home, Pro, Enterprise, and Education flavors. Windows is the only OS that does this, so why? Oh that's right, cause they're the only ones who still charge for an OS.

Truth sucks? Everyone wants to suck the Microsoft man sausage and doesn't want to question it cause it's bacon flavored.

Ignorance is bliss. How dare we compare products and discuss them!

I still use Windows and I'm the one who introduced Linux to the discussion. Whatever your reasons are for sticking with Windows or Linux, don't you think Windows need decent competition? Windows on desktop has no competitors. Not Mac or Linux. We've got guys complaining about remote desktop, which is really a stupid feature to omit from home users. A quick VNC installation will fix that but still. Also $135 for a copy of Windows 7 Pro, which you can only install on one machine and if you change your hardware you have to give Microsoft a call. Again, no one else does this not even Mac. I believe a copy of Mac OS X is $20 and is good for 5 machines, give you're a good person and stopped installing it on those said 5 machines.

Actually the very reason I stopped bothering with Linux after a decade of using it was all the pointless flavors. It's more fragmented and convoluted than Windows ever was. The reason linux had always been and will remain niche is because it's user base collectively has their heads so far up their own ass, they can't agree long enough to produce one version that just works and eliminates the stupid bullshit.

There will always be a special place in my heart for what linux could of been. Unfortunately it never will be due to the tireless stupidity of its fan base.

 

[Ramses]

Actually the very reason I stopped bothering with Linux after a decade of using it was all the pointless flavors. It's more fragmented and convoluted than Windows ever was. The reason linux had always been and will remain niche is because it's user base collectively has their heads so far up their own ass, they can't agree long enough to produce one version that just works and eliminates the stupid bullshit.

There will always be a special place in my heart for what linux could of been. Unfortunately it never will be due to the tireless stupidity of its fan base.

There is imo some truth to that as well. While outfits like Ubuntu for consumers and RedHat for enterprise, and others, have made some headway, the amount of effort that is put into Linux around the worlds should have made it a virtually perfect OS years ago, instead it's 300 pretty decent OS's.. (and I use the term OS to encompass distro here) That frustrated the crap out of me too.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Different distros, different package managers, etc.. With Windows, yes it costs money and is closed source, but if you buy Windows, you're getting Windows. It's standard across all versions.

Not that it's a bad thing if you're in the Linux world, but for the average user, they want to say "I want Windows" and get the same Windows that everyone else has. They want to be able to do the same things as their neighbor using the same technique.

 

[Sycraft]

Ignorance is bliss. How dare we compare products and discuss them!

Then don't whine when people slam Linux. You seem to have some cognitive dissonance going on here where you want to be able to crow about Linux, but people aren't allowed to respond with criticism, only praise. Don't whine about a fight about Linux in a Windows thread when you picked the fight.