World of Warcraft running in Wine for Linux.
World of Warcraft running in Wine for Linux.
Last edited by SteamGamer; 02 Feb 2014 at 02:54.
Like 99% os users, I have a love-hate relationship with MS Products. Since 99% of businesses use MS products, do you think they are all paid by MS?
not sure if you are a kid, or soemone who has professional work, but once you get a job and work with a PC, you will dump Linux or your employer will dump you.
They do, but not necessarily as a desktop os.If Linux was actually as useful as Windows, wouldn't you think 99% of the people would use it by now?
Desktop is about the only place Linux has little presence (yet).
It is the other way round. Because windows was the most used, software was developed for it.windows simply has by far largest base of software out there (that's what made them most used OS, for PC devices in the first place).
Imagine if windows had been impossible to pirate. All those millions allegedly using it that way over the last 20 odd years would have been using guess what.
Then guess what would have attracted a huge amount of development.
That's what started it and that's all it boils down too, to heck with the OS, for most it's just something in the background that just empowers user to run selected programs and do what is required, needed or wanted.
As the first OSs where most users did not get in touch with them almost at all, programs were those that mattered, only later people started to be fascinated with Windows etc where they can interact with them easier because of GUI and even later "looks" of it started to be important and only very lately some people started to choose OS by them liking the looks of it and not it's functionality, which I find utterly ridiculous.
Desktops we talk about are used for productivity and games. We can talk all day about if Linux or Windows have better RAM usage, GUI etc. Maybe some Linux distros are better, what do I know. But three are some unsurmountable thins speaking for Windows:
- there is an ecosystem (95% of all desktops and software) and all major software is available. From free to very expensive. Some productivity software cost $30k or more, the cost of the OS is irrelevant.
- Most employees already are exposed to Windows, so training them on Linux would be an added cost
- there is millions of hardware along with drivers, one can built his own PC, or choose from thousands of OEM. This keeps hardware prices low and allows the use of the latest hardware. I know Linux runs on the same x86 hardware, but driver support is... slim
- almost any idiot can install windows and other software and use the PC.
- there generally is only one Windows (besides home and pro versions). So the prospective buyer does not have to research for weeks which one to buy. For the better or worse, less choice simplifies. This I also think is Linux biggest weakness, the 1% marketshare are split in 200.
- the fact that Linux fanboys (same as mac fanboys) point out the option of dualboot to still use windows. This just proves my point that Windows is required. And how many people want that added expense, maintain 2 OS, and learn 2 OS. Also the use of wine or other software that runs "most" of the software is BS. People who use it probably never worked with software is very professional and even sensitive to the windows version. Between my wife's accounting software and my engineering software i bet most will have problems with Linux. And who pays me for the time to find out when soemthing doesn't work?
- OS are irrlelvant to most people, this is just a GUI to get to the actual software I actually have the PC for. Except some IT nerds that really just play with the OS, no one really cares about the OS. It just has to work with all the software people use, and is easy to use (which admittedly is debatable with W8 - but is Linux easier to use?). Most people don't even know what an OS is or does. they think windows is the brand of their PC. Most OS are used outside your parent's basement, to do actual work. this is also why windows RT failed, maybe it is not a bad OS. But who cares, it does not have an ecosystem. People don't buy a tablet to play with the OS, they want the "apps", which RT doesn't seem to have enough. Google for "VHS vs. Betamax" and you see why ecossytem matters, not necessarily the better product. Maybe Linux is the best OS in the world, but it doesn't matter, if it doesn't provide all the software people need.
Highly relevant. Linux is all around. NASA wouldn't get far without it. Cars,washing machines. tv's amazon, google, it is almost everywhere. There is only one area it isn't really in. Everywhere else it is doing great.
I have said exactly that. It has little presence on the desktop.
Perhaps it will at some stage, perhaps not.
The difficulty for MS is they used to have 92% (allegedly) of computing devices.
Even if they stay on top in the desktop arena, they could end up with 30% of computing devices.
That still gives them monopoly power in that area, but is a far cry from what they had.
Much harder to push other stuff thorugh and make it the de facto standard, like they did with office.
Pretty hard to hold onto it as well. Others will be nibbling away at the edges and slowly taking bigger bites.
Hard to see Linux coming through soon as a big desktop player. More likely in the guise of android on tablets with keyboards. Good enough for most people. That is their "desktop". Maybe the oems will get together and support a full scale alternative. They should have done it years ago.
If you include all electronic devices like cars and watches, Windows maybe has 1% market. No argument there, just not sure how that relates to this topic.