Why people choose Microsoft.

[ForceSphere]

I know Linux is denting Microsoft's monopoly but still few people use Linux.  The reason people dont flood to Linux is beacuse it is a lot harder than Windows (or because "new" means bad like XP    ).  I am not saying Windows is good by any means, i am saying it is all people know.  Most of us here are young, and young people try new things.  The average person:
1) doesnt have the time to run and learn a new OS
2) doesnt really care because Windows half-asses things for them and they think it is peachy because they know nothing else.
I just got RedHat, and i love it, im still a very large noob at it but i can see once i get the hang of it, i will have no need to dual boot with windows anymore.
I think Windows' dominace will aventually change, but right now there are lots of people who just dont give a shit, they just wanna check their email and chat basicly.  Most people dont know how to do the most basic things on Windows, let alone try to learn a much more difficult system (I feel it is only difficult because it is new, if every1 was brought up on Linux and Windows was the newer kid on the block, if you will, Windows would be the hard one to learn)

[JH]

Well, I don't think Linux (or whatever) is HARDER. It's not the point anyway. Most of average users don't care about OS - they get it pre-installed with a new computer or ask someone to install some OS. OSes are the pain in the arse for system administrators and they are the only people who really cares about what OS to use. The reasons MS dominates, IMHO, are:
1. Traditional. "Everyone uses it. Six million lemmings can't be wrong."
2. Software. As I mentioned, almost nobody needs OS. People need the environment to run programs.
3. Hardware support. Every manufacturer makes drivers for Windows and just few add ones for Linux.

Moral: It'll take some time till the things are made right. I remember Linux of mid-90's and it developes very fine, the most of all the OSes. Windows don't and that's it.

[Calum]

JH is 100% correct. anybody who says linux is harder to use than windows simply has not taken what are known as the 'facts' into consideration.

The only reason an individual might find windows easier than linux is that they already have some windows experience but have no experience with linux. Simply put, that's all there is to it. because most people have some windows experience and little to no linux experience, you get a world full of people complaining linux is too difficult for them.

[zooloo]

Untill recently Linux and Open Source Software were not "MS beaters".

They are now.  

zooloo

[Zombie9920]

Nazi party has sensored this for you.

[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: X11 ]

Refalm: Content edit. Removed Nazi flag posted by X11.

[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: Refalm ]

[slave]

Hmm, DVD playback works almost out of the box for me in Red Hat Linux 8 after enabling DMA for my dvd drive (it's disabled by default for some strange reason)and typing "apt-get ogle".  If Calum's dvd player doesn't work with Linux, that's not Linux's fault, it's the hardware maker's fault.

[hm_murdock]

lets not forget that Windows is tied to the shit eater x86 processors and the everloving piece of shit that is the IBM PC architecture. Linux runs on ANYTHING. I can install Linux on my iBook 800, on my Power Mac 7200, on the busted ass old Sun workstation that I hijacked from the dumpster of the Little Rock Public Works building. I can run Linux on a PS2, or an xSux. I can run Linux on an iPod, or a PocketPC, or... or damn near anything.

let's reiterate...
x86 "IBM PC" sucks ass
Windows only runs on it
Other platforms eat x86 for breakfast
Linux runs on nearly all of them.
Therefore
Windows sucks ass
Linux eats Windoze for breakfast.

edit: most hardware makers seem to do as much as they can to make things incompatible.

[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy James: Mac Commando ]

[cahult]

Tradition is, I think, the main reason for not going with another OS. Most users are older than 25, as odd as it may sound to you, and they were trained (read: brainwashed) on Microsoft

[DC]

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy James: Mac Commando:
let's reiterate...
1) x86 "IBM PC" sucks ass
2) Windows only runs on it
3) Other platforms eat x86 for breakfast
4) Linux runs on nearly all of them.
   Therefore
5) Windows sucks ass
6) Linux eats Windoze for breakfast.

Let's see...
1 is arguably true (x86 has some advantages, but performance-wise they tend to suck)
2 is true
3 is true
4 is true
So at least your premises are true.
5 does not follow from the premises (if it is true or not (well, it is) is another point). x86 may suck - that doesn't mean every software written for said architecture. If this were the case, Linux sucks too, since it too is written for x86. You can have a fantasctic piece of software running on the most appaling pieces of crap. The performance may not be that good, but if it accomplishes more than a 'decent' software system the software is still good.
6, equally, does not follow from the premises. Running on more/better system is at most a minor argument in quality debates.

Whay you say may be true, but the logic you use is non-existant.

[Fett101]

Howabout some reasons Linux isn't doin' for regular people.

1. Don't care because it's just an OS. They'd rather drive thier SUV or listen to thier Spears.
2. Lack of media exposure. If it's not in a commercial, they don't know it exists.
3. RPM's and dependence hell. Thay'd never put up with that, and apt-get doesn't do well over dial up. Or even having to compile software. I can imagine the headaches caused by just the thought of it.
4. They'd freak out at the first site of the command line.
5. lack of software/hardware support. Not Linux fault' but still a problem. And an abundance of amatuer looking software.

There's plenty of articles about this if you google for them.

[X123]

The main reason is compatability. People could easily learn how to use linux. I used to know nothing about Linux. I quickly learned. However I don't use it because of compatability with most programs.

[Calum]

<cough>bullshit</cough>

let's look at hardware compatibility:

linux runs on at least twelve different types of computer, many other unices run on more than one type. windows runs only on x86 as stated above.

let's look at software compatibility:

lots of programs run on windows. most are shit and old. almost all of them are crippleware, nagware, cost a shitload of money et cetera.

lots of programs run on linux. most are relevant and fairly recent. many are open source and can be installed on many other operating systems also (all the ones that run Windows for example), some linux (open source) programs can be compiled on, or have been brought out for, windows. Most linux programs are free, and better you get the rights to rewrite them yourself and sell on your efforts if you like.

what more do you want? anybody who is not happy with this, fuck off back to windows.

[choasforages]

thats right mplayer is hard to install on linux. but since im no longer using linux, dvd's should be easy now and software is soo easy to build and install now. if only they could have this on linux *sigh*

[choasforages]

and i know that last post was a bit cryptic, im using the *BSD's now

[zooloo]

People don't choose MS, they buy PCs with it installed.

After that they buy MS Office etc because they think "MS, that's what I've got".

The average punter doesn't know (Or care) what an OS is.

MS is shit software and excellent marketing.

zooloo