bit-tech.net

Gartner: Windows is collapsing

Gartner: Windows is collapsing

Gartner believes that the Windows operating system will collapse under its own weight if changes aren't made.

Two analysts from Gartner have said that Microsoft's Windows operating system will collapse under its own weight if something drastic isn't done to save the world's most pervasive software platform.

During one part of the analysis carried out by Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald, a room full of IT managers and executives was asked whether Microsoft needed to radically change its approach to Windows if it is to stay viable in the future. Half of the attendees agreed and raised their hands.

"Windows is too monolithic," claims Silver.

According to the pair, the problems stem from Windows' legacy support and the increasing complexity of the operating system. It's basically too bulky and complex for its own good according to MacDonald.

And what's worse: MacDonald believes that adding more complexity will lead to the eventual downfall of the OS.

The demands for Windows as an operating system have changed and they're evolving in different directions – MacDonald believes that making multiple kernels is one way forwards for Microsoft. Another option is for Microsoft to offering different levels of functionality tailored to specific applications.

This is something that Microsoft is already doing to some extent as it offers multiple Windows SKUs, but Gartner believes the software giant would need to go at least one step further than it has so far. MacDonald believes that these different versions should be virtualised, but he said Microsoft won't like that option. "Microsoft doesn't like anything in between Windows and the hardware," he said. "Ninety-five percent of its revenue comes from OEMs."

Gartner's analysts say that Microsoft must also reduce development times, offer better security, make migration to new versions much easier and to simplify licensing. "Something as common sense as 'I'd like Office to go with me' doesn't work under current licensing," said MacDonald.

The report is bound to cause controversy in the industry, but Windows does need to change. The question is not whether change will happen, it's more a question of how long it'll take for Microsoft to implement any changes in strategy because Windows 7 is already said to be more modular than any previous version.

Do you think Windows is doomed? Share your thoughts with us in the forums.

45 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
naokaji 14th April 2008, 17:04 Quote
They are right, just look at the slow uptake of vista in business. Simply put, most companies dont have pc's that are even close to running the most basic version of vista.
LeMaltor 14th April 2008, 17:18 Quote
Long live XP! :D
Techno-Dann 14th April 2008, 17:27 Quote
...wait a second. They complain about Windows being too bulky, and then say virtualization is the way forward?
Orlix 14th April 2008, 17:39 Quote
yes... you virtually change to the next windows by installing LINUX.
mclean007 14th April 2008, 17:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techno-Dann
...wait a second. They complain about Windows being too bulky, and then say virtualization is the way forward?
Yeah, I missed that one as well! Virtualisation has a lot of benefits, but reduced complexity isn't necessarily one of them!

I guess what they're trying to say is that Windows should have a minimal, super-efficient, bulletproof kernel, which interfaces directly with the hardware and does the lowest level stuff like basic file I/O, bootstrapping drivers, talking to peripherals etc., and then have Windows sitting on top of that (presumably as a bundle of different modules). It's essentially another layer of OS, which could be called a virtualisation layer. The kernel/modules approach means you only load what you need, you have much tighter control over which applications can do what, you can terminate individual modules (e.g. if they crash) without bringing the whole OS down, and upgrading individual modules becomes much easier, often not even requiring a reboot. This is what GNU/Linux does, and if MS could replicate the same model with the familiarity of Windows, it would be fantastic.
MiNiMaL_FuSS 14th April 2008, 17:57 Quote
when there's a nice linux based OS that will run everything windows currently does i'd happily switch.
pumpman 14th April 2008, 17:59 Quote
Well if it did collapse under its own weight it would be a very slow death, I can see Microsoft releasing a core windows , in much the same way as you have basic , home premium, Ultimate , but with windows core and every additional feature you want would be an add on. Windows is only bloaty because it has a lot of things it has to try and work with.
EmJay 14th April 2008, 18:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpman
Windows is only bloaty because it has a lot of things it has to try and work with.

Bingo. Windows is expected to work with everything, flawlessly, which leads to the great majority of its problems. I'm not sure what the solution is (I'd be rich if I did), but it will probably require MSoft to relax their stranglehold on consumer's use of their product. That'll be their downfall, if anything.

Personally, I'd love to see the above suggestion of a Linux-style kernel with various modules that can run on top of it to suit preferences and hardware. MSoft could do fantastically well if they made the kernel open-source, and then only sold the modules - it might hurt their monopoly, but enough people are addicted to the Windows look/feel that I'm guessing they'd do just fine.

I don't know. Whatever happens, it'll be interesting.
Nexxo 14th April 2008, 18:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
They are right, just look at the slow uptake of vista in business. Simply put, most companies dont have pc's that are even close to running the most basic version of vista.

I must disagree. Even the relatively underfunded NHS has systems capable of running Vista in Aero mode.
TGImages 14th April 2008, 18:57 Quote
Windows, or Mac OSX for that matter, should be an OS. Period. Provide a common GUI and a way for apps and devices to communicate with each other.

Then, all the Media players and interfaces, apps, web browsers, etc. should each be completely stand alone. The separate "apps" should live and die on their own merits. The more crap they bundle just makes the OS seem bloated and most of this bundled stuff eventually becomes part of the core OS when there is no need to do so.
Silver51 14th April 2008, 20:09 Quote
I *like* a lot of the bundled stuff that comes with Vista.

Admittedly, an option to not install the parts you will never use (IE) on setup would be nice. But I've always found Windows to be a comfortable environment where everything works and where you don't need to be a programmer to install stuff.

I don't think we can guess the future of Windows based on our current view of the computer world. It will change in due course, as will other OS's and the hardware we run them on.
Breach 14th April 2008, 20:35 Quote
They definitely need to innovate to stay alive, another "vista" will kill them.

I think overall MS needs to find it's identity again. Meaning drop the Zune, drop your efforts to beat Google at search, stop anything that isnt making software that lets people use a computer, whether a desktop, laptop, smart phone etc. That is how MS became so big, but now they are bloated trying to be like everyone else and failing at all of it in the end. Vista to me is the end product of their star software not getting the development it deserved, resulting in a prettier XP that no on who knows better will fork over money for the "upgrade". You know there is a problem when even your OEMs start offering XP again.
Woodstock 14th April 2008, 22:34 Quote
@Silver51 you dont need to be a programmer to be able to install things in linux, hell pretty much every package manager has a GUI interface.

@Breach do you really think MS would have would have paid all those programmers for a new UI

@EmJay/mclean007 if you want a linux (style) kernel, use linux. I personally love being able to change the kernel it suit my needs
dslickness 14th April 2008, 22:51 Quote
I'm an XP fan, and I'll never change over to Vista unless performance was better or stayed the same. They were so concerned with the look (compared to OSX) that they cluttered their GUI.
How hard is it to continue the greatness of the XP OS, and improve it to make a more stable, high performing, and clean system?

Well just like WIndows ME, a total mess. Maybe MS will wise up and make a cleaner low profile OS. I hate to say this but Apple has it down when they make incremental changes to their OS. The look is generally the small, but with improved features. (NO A DOWNGRADE)

Anyway, I don't hope for MS to fall. I just want them to retrograde. Just return to the greatness of XP
Nikumba 14th April 2008, 23:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dslickness
Maybe MS will wise up and make a cleaner low profile OS. I hate to say this but Apple has it down when they make incremental changes to their OS. The look is generally the small, but with improved features. (NO A DOWNGRADE)

Well how about Apple have to write for a TINY amount of hardware, compared to Microsoft who have to wrtie software for a MASSIVE amount of hardware, so they will be issues

I use Vista, and I love it, even at work now, using Vista, XP for me now is just a step back in the way things work. I have also tried Ubuntu Linux, however after the devs failing to fix a problem over the last 3 versions, I really cant be arsed with installing it, then bodging it to make it work, its things like that that will prevent Linux going fully mainstream.

Of course if they ever manage to port DirectX to Linux and game devs make games work on Linux then I would look at swapping over, but until then I will happily stick with my Vista, IE7 and Office 2007

Kimbie
CanadianViking 15th April 2008, 01:29 Quote
...work on decreasing development times?

"Hey Ted, I told you to be done Windows 56 by Thursday. We need to get it out the door by next week, so we can have Windows 57 ready for next month!"

What does he expect? If anything, I would prefer a LONGER development time, if that means bug-checking and getting all the kinks out.

Personally, I've played with Vista on my mom's laptop, and I love it. It's very sleek, and it runs well if you don't have ancient hardware. (her laptop isn't even that great; move forward already guys, this stuffs improving quick). I still love XP because I know what I'm doing on it having used it for years, but I still am quite attached to Vista.
Mentai 15th April 2008, 02:14 Quote
I'm going to install both XP and Vista on my new computer to do a performance comparison in the games I play. I'm guessing the difference will be neglible, especially if I tweak Vista a little to eliminate some bloat. I really don't think it deserves half the hate it's getting...
I kinda like Vista, although admitedIy wouldn't bother with it if they had released dx10 for XP.
BurningFeetMan 15th April 2008, 02:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGImages
Provide a common GUI and a way for apps and devices to communicate with each other. Then, all the Media players and interfaces, apps, web browsers, etc. should each be completely stand alone.

Exactly right. Some obvious proggies,
  • Internet Explorer: Nope - Firefox
  • Windows Media Player: Nope - Winamp
  • Outlook Express: Nope - Firefox/gmail
  • Windows Messenger: Nope - Digsby
Infact, looking at my start menu, there are tonnes of Windows applications sitting there, waiting to be used, that are never used! Needless to say, thanks to Windows and it's bloat, I now enjoy Nliting my install disc as a regular hobby.
xrain 15th April 2008, 03:21 Quote
I'm quite happy with my 64 bit version of vista ultimate, it seems to actually load faster on start-up than my bios does. My bios takes about 20 seconds to load and vista about 15. The only problem I've had so far, was trying to install vista with 4 gigs of ram and not having the hot fix that lets you use 4 gigs of ram, it caused a series of very strange issues.
munim 15th April 2008, 03:22 Quote
Am I the only one that doesn't find Windows full of devastating problems? It fricken works and if there's a problem here and there I can google and find a solution. Simple as that.
1st time modder 15th April 2008, 04:09 Quote
munim, you and I included.... Vista regular drivers carries a larger database, and even then the online search allows easy access. My computer is 3 years old and had no problem whatsoever when i did a full clean install of windows vista ultimate 32 bit.... With the advent of SP1, i again did a full clean install, and to my suprise, there seemed to be less junk files in the windows subdirectories (even though a cleaning was still required and some base extensions were optimized). I feel with windows vista's vastness of support (in terms of recent hardware), allows it to be a stable operating system just like windows xp (even more so in my case), although you have to be more software and technically savvy in order to get the most out of it.... somewhat akin to linux.... no?
Javerh 15th April 2008, 05:48 Quote
There was this one Mac-addict that blamed Microsoft for trying to pressure hardware manufacturers into submission and leash them with standards. Conversely, he praised Apple for making OSX work without compatability issues!

On a sidenote, I thought 64-bit Vista already had a type of virtual machine kernel. The news hyped it a while back, saying that it prevents malicious programs and scripts from harming the kernel.
Gunsmith 15th April 2008, 06:59 Quote
I love how these people who whine that vista isnt as fast as XP simply refuse to give it a chance, XP has had over 7 years to mature in to what it is today. It was the same with 2K and XP when it first came out.
Eloquence 15th April 2008, 07:05 Quote
Gunsmith, then im sure those people will switch if and when Vista matures. But that is not now.
cjoyce1980 15th April 2008, 09:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javerh
There was this one Mac-addict that blamed Microsoft for trying to pressure hardware manufacturers into submission and leash them with standards. Conversely, he praised Apple for making OSX work without compatability issues!

On a sidenote, I thought 64-bit Vista already had a type of virtual machine kernel. The news hyped it a while back, saying that it prevents malicious programs and scripts from harming the kernel.

the mac osx is only design to run to hardware that they want it to run on, if microsoft did the same and produced there only pc's like apple then there would be none of this bitching, but upgrading you pc would be pretty much impossible.

so do you want a static pc and OS that is not hardware upgradable, or do you want a windows pc that isnt going to bitch about it when you replace your motherboard and processer?
Woodstock 15th April 2008, 09:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javerh
There was this one Mac-addict that blamed Microsoft for trying to pressure hardware manufacturers into submission and leash them with standards. Conversely, he praised Apple for making OSX work without compatability issues!

On a sidenote, I thought 64-bit Vista already had a type of virtual machine kernel. The news hyped it a while back, saying that it prevents malicious programs and scripts from harming the kernel.

the mac osx is only design to run to hardware that they want it to run on, if microsoft did the same and produced there only pc's like apple then there would be none of this bitching, but upgrading you pc would be pretty much impossible.

so do you want a static pc and OS that is not hardware upgradable, or do you want a windows pc that isnt going to bitch about it when you replace your motherboard and processer?

ill take the nix install thanks
steveo_mcg 15th April 2008, 09:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodstock
ill take the nix install thanks

+1

Horses for courses, but if every one bought a licence for every computer in there house i suspect windows would be much less dominant, or there would be far fewer old computers in circulation.
hawky84 15th April 2008, 11:59 Quote
well hopefully reports like this will push a couple of larger firms to the penguin side of the OS front
cjoyce1980 15th April 2008, 13:32 Quote
nix is okay if all you want to do is office type stuff, internet and email, play and watch media. as a gaming platform it's pretty poor!
Shielder 15th April 2008, 13:39 Quote
Why don't companies look at having diskless linux systems running from a central server? Common hardware, no hard drives, centralised storage and a clean install every reboot. It is (relatively) simple to set up and will reduce the manpower required to service all of your IT systems (instead of having a team of 20 servicing 1000 PCs, you have a team of 5 servicing, say, 20 servers).

Cost savings on the Windows licenses (no Client Access Licenses to worry about), Open Standards (don't mention OXML, it isn't even Open in the proper sense of the word) and little exposure to viruses. Why do companies stay with MS???
boggsi 15th April 2008, 15:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikumba
Quote:
Originally Posted by dslickness
Maybe MS will wise up and make a cleaner low profile OS. I hate to say this but Apple has it down when they make incremental changes to their OS. The look is generally the small, but with improved features. (NO A DOWNGRADE)

Well how about Apple have to write for a TINY amount of hardware, compared to Microsoft who have to wrtie software for a MASSIVE amount of hardware, so they will be issues

I use Vista, and I love it, even at work now, using Vista, XP for me now is just a step back in the way things work. I have also tried Ubuntu Linux, however after the devs failing to fix a problem over the last 3 versions, I really cant be arsed with installing it, then bodging it to make it work, its things like that that will prevent Linux going fully mainstream.

Of course if they ever manage to port DirectX to Linux and game devs make games work on Linux then I would look at swapping over, but until then I will happily stick with my Vista, IE7 and Office 2007

Kimbie

XP versus Vista benchmarks have proved time and time again XP is faster, especially with the release of the new service pack. Given benchmarks and current security of XP (post SP2), I see no reason for the Vista crew except eye candy / propriety applications. Ill take a lean (comparatively) system with as much open source as possible any day.
Drexial 15th April 2008, 15:10 Quote
One of the most common arguments for vista is that it has some bugs, But XP has been out longer. I'm not sure you realize that they started developing the previously codenamed 'longhorn' back in 2002. Not long after XP was released. XP started birth with Whistler Beta in late 2000, and then was pushed to retail in just about a year. They started working on Longhorn in July of 2001. Thats 6 years of development and half of which was beta testing. When programmers are being paid up to 6 figures to get work done and the head of your company is the richest man in the world. Sorry if I expect little less than perfection.

When longhorn was announced they declared a revolution in the way you would experience your PC. What they delivered was last years model with a new paint job, some extra plastic on the sides and in car entertainment system, but with the same reliable but not so exciting power plant under the hood. Then they jacked up the price even higher then what the other model was at its release.

I'm not blaming it all on MS, though I don't know the whole story. I find it hard to believe that every hardware manufacture on the planet was really that lazy to develop drivers for the OS. I mean I would expect things like this from Creative. But nVidea, ATi, and a host of others. All of them being that slow to release drivers?

I think I have been fairly honest in my assessment of the situation so far. So let me take this time to speak for the positives of Vista. It does indeed boot amazingly quick, it shuts down really quick, it resumes speedy, it is relatively fast. No complaints there. But let me also mention this point. I have seen in the comments about it being slow because of all the hardware it has to support. Thats a load of crap. The built in drivers for the OS aren't constantly looking for something to install. Sure it takes up some extra space on the HDDs. But that has nothing to do with hoe much memory it uses. Thats where its downfall is. I also find is Super Fetch to slow down the computer more then it speeds it up. When I say the computer ran speedy, it was after I disabled the Super Fetch.

My computer would boot and for another 15-20 minutes just sit there cashing programs into memory. It was damned near unusable during that time. Once I disabled that in the registry, everything was golden.

So in the end the reason I don't like Vista can be summed up like so. Its like talking to my kid and telling him "I'm not angry at you, I'm just intensely disappointed" I don't hate the OS. It's just not worth anything for how much time and effort they said they were going to put into it.
Shielder 15th April 2008, 16:08 Quote
I remember all the hoo-ha about XP when it came out, and most of the comments we are seeing are similar (takes up too much memory, too slow etc etc). However, they redesigned Vista so that problems like the Blaster worm are less likely to happen. That is why nVidia, AMD/Ti, Creative etc have had such a hard time designing the device drivers for Vista. IIRC, the new design separates the drivers from the kernel, whereas previously, the drivers could hook into the kernel directly and run in kernel space. This is not possible with Vista and the hardware manufacturers had to develop a new way of thinking.

That said, Vista doesn't do anything different to XP (IMO). It is an Operating System, and the only reason I got Vista was for the 64-bit support (I know, XP has 64-bit support, but I want my system to have up-to date support). Most of my programs are on XP still and I can't see that changing for the foreseeable future (unless I get a game that has a 64-bit client). Sure, Vista 'looks' nice, but it isn't really giving me anything different, in the way of a user experience, that XP is doing now. I get more satisfaction from my Fedora install than I do from my Vista install.

I think the reason why people are 'disaffected' by Vista is the hype that was generated before it was released. It was going to have a new filesystem, intelligent search etc etc (I can't remember exactly what it was going to have) but all this was cut because MS couldn't get it to work. All we really got was Aero (who actually keeps it running?), Superfetch and pre-fetch (?), semi-intelligent search and a couple of extra games (not to mention the update to Minesweeper :D ). Oh, and we got all this in 6 different versions too. Vista was overhyped, was not backwards compatible for businesses and created more problems in the hardware department (complete hardware refresh required before you can run Vista on a standard business desktop) than it solved. I'm running XP on a Dell Optiplex GX280 (512MB RAM, 2.8GHz P4, 40GB HDD) and I've got Word, Excel, Outlook and an XSession open at the moment. Could this PC run Vista? No. Is the IT department going to shell out to replace 800+ perfectly workable Pcs and laptops just to run Vista? No. That is why Vista is failing in business space.

Andy
moshpit 15th April 2008, 17:57 Quote
Blah, blah, blah, XP is faster then Vista, blah blah, 98 was faster then XP at first as well, blah blah blah.

I love my Vista Ultimate x64 install and cannot imagine going backwards to XP again. Just like I thought about all the silly people who were praising Win98SE over XP, I still think those same people are just as silly now saying the same thing with XP over Vista. I wonder if any of those people are the exact same ones and see the irony of the complaint now?
Lazarus Dark 16th April 2008, 03:11 Quote
I refuse to buy vista or probably any windows os going forward. Don't get me wrong, I love my xp pro. After years of hacking, I've brought xp to it's knees. I pwn xp. But going forward MS wants to tighten control over the OS with a big focus on bowing to the content industry. That said, if MS offered say, a desktop environment on top of Linux like gnome or kde, I would drop a hundred bucks on it without thought. I want control of my computer. But if the content companies demand control over the content, I don't mind giving them a sandbox running on top of my OS. I just don't like giving control of my whole system.
ClearCaseMan 18th April 2008, 15:24 Quote
Well, I will just say a few words. "worldcom" and "bear stearns" microsoft is not going anywhere. they may end up back tracking to one os and keeping it alive much longer than they like but MS is not going anywhere. anyone who thinks about how deep this rabbit hole goes will know that. the industry just is not ready for opensource (Linux etc) a few may disagree with the linux statement, but it has been proven several times recently. and the MS fangs go deep.
Cthippo 18th April 2008, 20:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClearCaseMan
anyone who thinks about how deep this rabbit hole goes will know that. the industry just is not ready for opensource (Linux etc) a few may disagree with the linux statement, but it has been proven several times recently. and the MS fangs go deep.

I don't disagree with the intent of the statement, but with the analogy. The world isn't going to wake up one day and say "You know what, I'm ready for open source!". Rather it will continue to be a growing segment until one day the open source movement becomes a mainstream market in and of itself.

Each iteration of both Windows and linux is moving us closer to that day.
ClearCaseMan 18th April 2008, 21:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
I don't disagree with the intent of the statement, but with the analogy. The world isn't going to wake up one day and say "You know what, I'm ready for open source!". Rather it will continue to be a growing segment until one day the open source movement becomes a mainstream market in and of itself.

Each iteration of both Windows and linux is moving us closer to that day.

I agree only to a point. the only thing separating them is just a "click". but it is a big "click" and when I say click. we have become a point and click world. and Linux just is not there. consumers as a whole are dumb, I do not mean to offend anyone by this but it is the truth. everyone here has seen it. example I was in walmart and a woman was returning her tomtom because it did not work. point in fact it was her cigarette lighter in her car that did not work. she complained to the girl behind the counter that it was broken and that it only worked for about 1 hour before it broke. the girl asked her if she had it plugged in to the cigarette lighter and the woman said OF COURSE I DID DO YOU THINK I AM STUPID OR SOMETHING. the girl asked her if the light on the cig adaptor lit up when it was plugged in. the woman said she did not know. and I just made the comment that she might want t check the fuse for the cigarette lighter and the woman said to me rather snotty like that the wire to it burnt up a while back because her son had put a penny in it, and she could not get it out. I tried to explain that if the wire was burnt up the tomtom would not get power. (at this point it occuerd to me I should have never said anything). the woman said well it was broken because it did not say anything about needing power. now people this is not a once in a lifetime story, it is the norm everywhere you go. now people here @ bit-tech for the most part have taken the next step up the evolutionary ladder and I do say for the most part but there are some here who do similar things. until this is not the mainstay you are talking a big "click" that separates the two operating systems. the fact is all you need to know to install something in windows is select install or setup, in most cases it will start for you all by itself. Linux just does not have that, it is one of the things that make it more secure than windows. and I will not even go into the linux based pc's that walmart sold recently for $250.00 and had a 70% return rate because people just did not realize what they were getting themselves into.
Glider 19th April 2008, 10:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClearCaseMan
the fact is all you need to know to install something in windows is select install or setup, in most cases it will start for you all by itself. Linux just does not have that, it is one of the things that make it more secure than windows.
Let me ask, how long ago have you used Linux?

Install in Windows: insert CD, press next 50 times and then ok
Install in Linux: Open package manager, select the package, press apply.
ClearCaseMan 19th April 2008, 15:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
Let me ask, how long ago have you used Linux?

Install in Windows: insert CD, press next 50 times and then ok
Install in Linux: Open package manager, select the package, press apply.
your analogy doesnt make sense because it is not 50 times and you need to select a good bit for linux aswell, I am not even going into the how to partition your hard drive with linux (yes I know there is a automatic for this now) but how about when you want to install something after the install? this is my point. we can go back and forth on the little things but it does not change the facts that the people as a whole just are not ready.
Glider 19th April 2008, 15:12 Quote
Partitioning on about any Linux install is easier then on a XP install...

And I was also talking adding software after the initial OS install. If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't go about comparing things...

But I agree, most people cling onto things they are used to. Just look at the thread about the Bit-tech forum change...
ClearCaseMan 19th April 2008, 15:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
Partitioning on about any Linux install is easier then on a XP install...

And I was also talking adding software after the initial OS install. If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't go about comparing things...

But I agree, most people cling onto things they are used to. Just look at the thread about the Bit-tech forum change...

and you were also talking about adding software after the inital os install??? I do not see anywhere in this thread where you said that. And I know exactly what I am talking about. are you sure I did not see you in walmart trying to return a TomTom?
completemadness 19th April 2008, 17:44 Quote
Installing stuff in Linux is probably faster (possibly easier) when its available (and works), However, there are times when the default packages aren't right, up to date, or exactly what you need (like if it wasn't compiled with something)

Personally, if you can plonk the Linux cd in, install it, and it works on your computer, your probably fine for a lot of "standard" tasks (browsing, music, email, video etc)
But if you want more then that, you will probably need a decent(ish) understanding of Linux to get things to work

Fortunately, there are lots of guides out there, as long as you don't want cutting edge software, there is probably a guide out there that can help you (if your willing to search)

If your a novice, but only want to do simple things, Linux is fine - if you want to do more then that, its a bad choice
If you are somewhat competent with computers, and are willing to learn a bit, Linux is fine for you - otherwise it will be a bad choice
Shielder 21st April 2008, 10:16 Quote
Linux is excellent for many tasks. The only task it doesn't do well is run all Windows software and DirectX (forget about WINE, I've not managed to use it yet). It can be a word processor, spreadsheet maker, database, email client and server, web client and server, number cruncher, fileserver, telephone exchange, router, domain manager, etc etc.

If Linux runs the software that you need, then Linux is what you should use. If it doesn't, then don't.

I use Linux for Monte Carlo number crunching, office tasks, email client and surfing the web. The only reason I have got Windows is for the games that haven't been ported to Linux yet, although there are some very nice games for Linux.

Installing Vista on it's own is just as easy, if not slightly easier than installing Linux, however, in Windows, you're only installing the OS, not the other packages that you may need, such as a number of Office Packages, a selection of media players, image manipulation software, compilers (if you want them), games, etc etc. It has taken me nearly a day to install the above on Windows, it took me an hour or less to install the same sorts of package on Linux.

ClearCaseMan; it was perfectly plain what Glider was talking about in his post. That's why the post said "Install in Linux" not "Install Linux". However, I agree that people are not ready for Linux yet. They have been "conditioned" into thinking that Microsoft is best and anything else is just too hard. If people actually used Linux instead of thinking it is too hard to use, then we would see just how "popular" MS software becomes...

Andy
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums