Why Linux cannot replace Windows?
- Thread starter Robie
- Start date
- Status
WorldIndustries
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,246
Biggest reason that I can think of (the rest I'm too lazy to type about) is that the work force as a whole is familiarized with Windows. Training people to use Linux would take a lot of time (and money).
As of now, Windows is pretty much a monopoly in the PC world, too. And they'd do all they could to stop transition from Windows to Linux.
Linux CAN replace Windows, in a perfect environment. However, people are too ignorant for that to happen.
As of now, Windows is pretty much a monopoly in the PC world, too. And they'd do all they could to stop transition from Windows to Linux.
Linux CAN replace Windows, in a perfect environment. However, people are too ignorant for that to happen.
Snake-Eyes
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,147
Windows holds your hand and guides you along. Linux gives you functionality, but without the parental how-to.
atomic tofu
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,585
lol....my first post in an other OS forum I believe...I just felt I needed to respond...
I am pro MS/Windows....
Anything can replace Windows if it is designed to do so, from product but more importantly to marketing. Don't let your bias make you ignorant. Yes, it is a funny world that exists where a monopoly can be called such, with competition right? Hey..Windows...Linux, other Unix variants, MacOS, even OS2 and for a little bit BeOS...and I think there are a few more other alternatives out there.
When Windows came out...or maybe with win95, people said Windows was about functionality too. You could go buy or build your PC and by Dos or Windows are start coding or doing anything you wanted...full functionality at the cost of, unfortunately, full security. Of course, only intelligent people really realized this
.
So, place bias aside, if you are so pro something or so anti MS/Windows, that is fine, but see what is what before casting doubt.
Do we want a world that is retro computing where we used to hunt down drivers and it was solely up to us to make sure our hardware and software works? Or do we embrace what movements companies like MS do with DX and getting driver libraries into the OS package? I don't want to go back to the days where I had to fiddle with autoexec.bat and config.sys...oddly some people prefer that type of computing....don't get me wrong, it can be fun, but not something we should have to do. Giving us our functionality is not hand holding.
People will be so negative towards all the windows flavors and harp on how it looks or how it does this and that...and after the initial linuxes came....they started implementing Win9X and even Vista GUIs...go figure. No not cloning some other OS gui...but trying to make things look Windows....strange.
Again...strange world where a monopoly has so many alternatives right?
Sometimes people get to blinded and forget, and sometimes people don't realize the mistakes of OTHER companies. Take for example IBM, they had OS2 Warp and the Lotus apps...for a while they sold to consumers...then they changed their strategy and made it a corporate item...no longer seen by consumers. It took a while but they would slowly get lost. This is no move by MS/Windows...but you market to a segment, and you sell to it.
If you don't market and sell to a population, and wonder why they don't buy it, you will lose out, logically. Same thing with all these other Linuxes. You can choose to be a consumer item, or just another smug product. I for one would like to see Linux flavors not follow the MacOSes. There's enough smugness with them, why choose to be the same?
Champion Linuxes as another viable alternative to a consumer OS and not something someone should buy to make them some type of elitist. Anything can compete with Windows (home and corporate) if it is marketed rightly. Try to develop a "consumer" OS and push it as so...Average Joe or Grandma Ann will not want some OS that they have to learn subroutines for or care about being so insubstantially "superior".
Peace be with you
I am pro MS/Windows....
Anything can replace Windows if it is designed to do so, from product but more importantly to marketing. Don't let your bias make you ignorant. Yes, it is a funny world that exists where a monopoly can be called such, with competition right? Hey..Windows...Linux, other Unix variants, MacOS, even OS2 and for a little bit BeOS...and I think there are a few more other alternatives out there.
When Windows came out...or maybe with win95, people said Windows was about functionality too. You could go buy or build your PC and by Dos or Windows are start coding or doing anything you wanted...full functionality at the cost of, unfortunately, full security. Of course, only intelligent people really realized this
.So, place bias aside, if you are so pro something or so anti MS/Windows, that is fine, but see what is what before casting doubt.
Do we want a world that is retro computing where we used to hunt down drivers and it was solely up to us to make sure our hardware and software works? Or do we embrace what movements companies like MS do with DX and getting driver libraries into the OS package? I don't want to go back to the days where I had to fiddle with autoexec.bat and config.sys...oddly some people prefer that type of computing....don't get me wrong, it can be fun, but not something we should have to do. Giving us our functionality is not hand holding.
People will be so negative towards all the windows flavors and harp on how it looks or how it does this and that...and after the initial linuxes came....they started implementing Win9X and even Vista GUIs...go figure. No not cloning some other OS gui...but trying to make things look Windows....strange.
Again...strange world where a monopoly has so many alternatives right?
Sometimes people get to blinded and forget, and sometimes people don't realize the mistakes of OTHER companies. Take for example IBM, they had OS2 Warp and the Lotus apps...for a while they sold to consumers...then they changed their strategy and made it a corporate item...no longer seen by consumers. It took a while but they would slowly get lost. This is no move by MS/Windows...but you market to a segment, and you sell to it.
If you don't market and sell to a population, and wonder why they don't buy it, you will lose out, logically. Same thing with all these other Linuxes. You can choose to be a consumer item, or just another smug product. I for one would like to see Linux flavors not follow the MacOSes. There's enough smugness with them, why choose to be the same?
Champion Linuxes as another viable alternative to a consumer OS and not something someone should buy to make them some type of elitist. Anything can compete with Windows (home and corporate) if it is marketed rightly. Try to develop a "consumer" OS and push it as so...Average Joe or Grandma Ann will not want some OS that they have to learn subroutines for or care about being so insubstantially "superior".
Peace be with you
kmote
Seg Fault'n,
- Messages
- 5,801
atomic tofu - what?
"Anything can replace Windows if it is designed to do so, from product but more importantly to marketing."
most linux distros are free, how are they to be marketed?
Windows monopolises the OS and particularly the home OS market because they make dramatic threats and business moves in order to prevent people from knowing and using alternatives. When 3.1 came out there was another OS called Geoworks. Geoworks was way better that 3.1 but it still disappeared because microsoft threatened to stop supplying DOS to manufacturers who put Geoworks on their machines. Microsoft then took legal action against Geoworks saying that they had stolen their 'style' when in fact geoworks was working in Apple and commodore before windows was released.
there are loads of other examples of things the Microsoft does to keep itself where it is that have nothing to do with being a better product but this is one that i was reading about recently
Windows Vista (Dinosaur Sightings: Windows splash screens from 1.01 to Vista)
basically in my opinion there is almost nothing in your post that is entirely correct but im not going to go through it all
"Anything can replace Windows if it is designed to do so, from product but more importantly to marketing."
most linux distros are free, how are they to be marketed?
Windows monopolises the OS and particularly the home OS market because they make dramatic threats and business moves in order to prevent people from knowing and using alternatives. When 3.1 came out there was another OS called Geoworks. Geoworks was way better that 3.1 but it still disappeared because microsoft threatened to stop supplying DOS to manufacturers who put Geoworks on their machines. Microsoft then took legal action against Geoworks saying that they had stolen their 'style' when in fact geoworks was working in Apple and commodore before windows was released.
there are loads of other examples of things the Microsoft does to keep itself where it is that have nothing to do with being a better product but this is one that i was reading about recently
Windows Vista (Dinosaur Sightings: Windows splash screens from 1.01 to Vista)
basically in my opinion there is almost nothing in your post that is entirely correct but im not going to go through it all
atomic tofu
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,585
in the end it's all about the marketing, some may disagree with what I have said, but no one wants to ever acknowledge the marketing aspect, it is very very simple.
Currently, the nixes are not marketed as a consumer OS, not that I am aware of. Because I don't dislike the nixes....I cannot say if it is because they are not yet ready for mainstream. They can be perfect for certain core markets, but I think they may not be "consumer" ready, ie., average mass market consumer.
Windows has its corporate and consumer products and are marketed to both, nix is only done so right now in corporate I think?
EDIT comment: It could be also the way they are packaged, with the "free linux", none of the distros may want to partake in consumer support? So it actually might be ready? Now that I think of it...that might be a reason it is not consumer ready, none of the distros want to support the "people". Any pro linux but objective people can comment on this for me? Or just give me and Robie some info.
Currently, the nixes are not marketed as a consumer OS, not that I am aware of. Because I don't dislike the nixes....I cannot say if it is because they are not yet ready for mainstream. They can be perfect for certain core markets, but I think they may not be "consumer" ready, ie., average mass market consumer.
Windows has its corporate and consumer products and are marketed to both, nix is only done so right now in corporate I think?
EDIT comment: It could be also the way they are packaged, with the "free linux", none of the distros may want to partake in consumer support? So it actually might be ready? Now that I think of it...that might be a reason it is not consumer ready, none of the distros want to support the "people". Any pro linux but objective people
can comment on this for me? Or just give me and Robie some info.- Status
