 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
So you are, essentially "Mister Windows," right? I mean, always quick to leap to the defense of Microsoft, equally quick to slam Apple, Linux, or...basically anybody that's not Microsoft.
My question is this:
Given that Microsoft, as an OS vendor, cannot compete on the basis of price with some of her rivals (Linux, most notably), then they must compete on the basis of features (which is about the only thing left, if you take price away).
Thus, what features do MS Operating Systems have that in your mind make them worth some $200 more than their freebie counterparts?
I've got a network in my home, and two of my three computers have XP on them, so this question does not come from someone with an axe to grind, by any means.
I'm just curious to know your thoughts...what is it about MS OS's that make them worth the two hundred plus bucks you gotta shell out, when there are perfectly functional OS's out there for....well...free.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
My question is this:
Given that Microsoft, as an OS vendor, cannot compete on the basis of price with some of her rivals (Linux, most notably), then they must compete on the basis of features (which is about the only thing left, if you take price away).
Thus, what features do MS Operating Systems have that in your mind make them worth some $200 more than their freebie counterparts?
I've got a network in my home, and two of my three computers have XP on them, so this question does not come from someone with an axe to grind, by any means.
I'm just curious to know your thoughts...what is it about MS OS's that make them worth the two hundred plus bucks you gotta shell out, when there are perfectly functional OS's out there for....well...free.
-=Vel=- |
For one, it's the industry standard. It has all the software you need on it.
It has a "standard" setup, which Linux does not have.
It has an extremely powerful API setup with incredible documentation for developers to create these programs.
It has a rather consistent UI that it seems most people don't have a problem using.
But it all comes down to the software. The "perfect" OS with only a handful of quality programs is useless.
Linux is too configurable, and most of the software available for Linux lacks polish and professional design.
MacOS X is different, I just don't like some of the design decisions they made. The main problem is Apple's vendor lock-in strategy and monopoly on just about everything on your computer. They also charge for every new version of its OS, and don't offer an upgrade package.
What it comes down to is this: Windows works, it has the most software available to it, and it's the standard. It's the premier desktop OS, period.
MS made it easy to develop for Windows and got a huge advantage from that, and it's paying off. Other people are trying to play catchup, but Linux and MacOS both don't have anything comparable to DirectX for Game Development, or even a decent competitor to MFCs...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
IIRC, Asher is running Linux on one (some?) of his boxes. |
I run Linux on a 486 back in Calgary that acts as a router, and I did run Linux/Windows dualboot on my P3 800. I've tried to install Linux on my new PC and my laptop, but there's way too many problems with it to be worth my time. At school we use Solaris and Linux, and at work we use AIX, Linux (SLES, RHEL, YHPC), and MacOS X.
I'm not the wholesale defender of Microsoft people make me out to be, I advocate the right tool for the right job regardless of partisanship.
The reason I had fun with the Mac forum wasn't really my hatred for Macs, it was because people like Drake and Agathon were, at the time, really getting on my nerves. There were repeated direct insults made to my SO, for example.
So something had to be done. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
So you are, essentially "Mister Windows," right? I mean, always quick to leap to the defense of Microsoft, equally quick to slam Apple, Linux, or...basically anybody that's not Microsoft.
My question is this:
Given that Microsoft, as an OS vendor, cannot compete on the basis of price with some of her rivals (Linux, most notably), then they must compete on the basis of features (which is about the only thing left, if you take price away).
Thus, what features do MS Operating Systems have that in your mind make them worth some $200 more than their freebie counterparts? |
Not having to compile the kernel?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Actually I have to say that Asher gives credit where credit is due, like with Firefox  . Also he praised Apple recently, which shows he's not some fanboy. |
Yep, he is a practical person at heart, and tells what works, and what doesn't.
Linux fanatics all have an axe to grind, and will delude themselves into somehow thinking that it works just as good as XP as a desktop OS, when it doesn't really.
The best interfaces on Linux are the ones that have made themselves more like Windows, you know, being intuitive and all.
Linux is good for alot of geeky things, but the most of us just want to get some work done, not tweak the damn OS all the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
Asher wrote:
"For one, it's the industry standard. It has all the software you need on it."
Comes with Windows?
"It has a "standard" setup, which Linux does not have."
Surely you jest. All major distros have a easy to use GUI installation program with standard configuarations.
"It has an extremely powerful API setup with incredible documentation for developers to create these programs."
You are ignoring the fact that there are two major families of Windows with a whole bunch of different forks. It's not all that easy.
"It has a rather consistent UI that it seems most people don't have a problem using."
Most people don't have a problem using Gnome, KDE, OS X, or other GUI, either.
"Linux is too configurable, and most of the software available for Linux lacks polish and professional design."
You don't have to configure Linux if you don't need to, however you can do it if it is necessary, as the ability to do so is right there. As for software, most programs for Windows lack professional design also.
"MS made it easy to develop for Windows and got a huge advantage from that, and it's paying off. Other people are trying to play catchup, but Linux and MacOS both don't have anything comparable to DirectX for Game Development, or even a decent competitor to MFCs..."
That misses the point. The gamer market is nice, but you don't need it to get the volume - the business market is where the volume is. Linux has come to a point where, as the AT&T CTO pointed out, if any IT manager/CTO/CTO/etc. doesn't consider Linux as an alternative operating system, he isn't doing his job. A number of cities and even countries has gone over to Linux. EU mandates that free and open source alternatives must be considered. The way Microsoft is screwing over its customers only more and more companies will jump ship.
Kuciwalker wrote:
"Not having to compile the kernel?"
Only Gentoo requires you to compile the kernel. Other major distros don't. The ability to customise the kernel when you need to do so is a positive, not a negative.
NYE wrote:
"Not just games. Could you show me a good, open source point of sale system?"
Define good.
The ability to customise any system for yourself is, again, a good thing.
Ted Striker wrote:
"Linux fanatics all have an axe to grind, and will delude themselves into somehow thinking that it works just as good as XP as a desktop OS, when it doesn't really."
[Letting unfounded accusations sink...]
I don't understand why even you think XP is such a hot item, when it's a complete pain in the arse. First of all, installing XP isn't easier than, say, Red Hat or SuSE, and it takes longer - all the drivers must be installed separately under Windows, though people somehow don't think it's part of the installation process.  Sure, there are more drivers for Windows, but that's just a question of volume. As Linux gains a higher volume more drivers will be available, and most market research films reckon Linux will take over 7% - 10% of desktops in 2008. The flip side of this is, if you can't find a driver for a piece of hardware you have under Windows, you are SOL. Under Linux, however, you can wing it.
Secondly, perhaps more important, is Windows is much harder to maintain than Linux, particularly for companies and organisations. For one thing, there are so many viruses, worms, and other assorted nastiness floating about on the Net [Yes I know all about firewalls and virus scanners] and idiotsusers downloading all sorts of stuff and installing them. Then when Windows goes batty it is much, much harder to fix.
"Linux is good for alot of geeky things, but the most of us just want to get some work done, not tweak the damn OS all the time."
Who needs to? 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-03-2005 06:39
|