Ah, how Windows has fallen

I'm no fan of Microsoft. But their OS products have always been slightly more polished than the competition ever since MSDOS 3.3. Even in those days you could buy alternatives like IBMDOS but there were little quirks that always seemed to favor the M$ product. For example Windows 3 versus IBM OS/2.

And once M$ gained prominence in the corporate market people wanted to run the same Windows at home that they ran in their workplace. That's probably the biggest obstacle to Linux at home now. Nobody wants to run Win7 at work and go home to a clunky old Linux box.
 
Apple has been around just as long as M$. And comparing them is like comparing Apples to Oranges, well maybe Lemons. Pun intended. Until recently M$ was not a manufacturer of hardware, just pure software. On the other hand Apple has always been a manufacturer of hardware with the software as part of the package. By license and technology their software only runs on their hardware, more or less. So it's tough to compare them in that manner. They are both involved in information communication, etc. So it's more appropriate to compare Apple, which does it all, to Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Dell, HP, etc, etc. as the other group. As you noted Android is *nix based, just like OS X. And actually making a third group of Google, Samsung and Co. is more appropriate since their OS platform is *nix based.

Another observation about basic OS operations. In spite of what M$ says their GUI still runs on top of a core that has CLI as an interface, just like linux. Sure, you can't make a headless W10 box. But, since Server 2008, they have had headless server setup as an option during setup. That's what Powershell is all about. It can be used to manage W10 just like the server versions. Just like M$ server one can choose to install linux as headless, meaning CLI only.

But this is all moot as far as I'm concerned. Smart devices surpassed traditional workstations in terms of usage years ago. Those devices do have a true GUI interfaced OS.
Powershell, however, is an installation on top of Windows, not the other way around.

As for the "headless server", yeah, you can do that, but it's using a specific rewrite of the code to be lower resource usage. The last time I used what was supposed to be a truly "GUI Linux" which, granted, has been quite a few years, I was appalled to see that the fancy unzipping utility did nothing but to output the command line string to the OS. And by contrast even in Windows XP you could no longer boot into "DOS". Last time I used Linux, again, years ago but during a time when it was being touted as "ready for prime-time", you could still exit the GUI into the command line, not just open the command line on the desktop.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE the concept of Linux. So many features just built in. More secure, faster, easier on resources... What's not to love? Oh yeah, usability. Linux is perfect under exactly 2 circumstances. 1) You are as technically inclined as an android and 2) You only ever want to do only a very specific, small set of things with it. 20 years ago I dreamed of the day when Linux would replace Windows, and it actually could happen, but it won't. Some of the reasons were mentioned here. Microsoft has been dominant for too long and it's highly polished, for instance. But another big problem is that Linux developers just don't think like ordinary people. To the ordinary person, Solitaire is a "feature". To the Linux developer the ability to create a text file by typing a single command on the command line using the ASCII code to enter the text is a feature. Developer and end user are so far apart on the spectrum that there's just no way the two are ever going to understand each other.

On the plus side for Linux, years ago Linux support was a joke. You find a forum, post your question and someone would tell you a command that would take a day and a half to type which would fix the problem where Microsoft had real support. These days talking to a support person who knows so much about the subject that they could actually tell you what that command is looks pretty damned good. Hell, Microsoft doesn't even have support for most people. If you use an OEM license you agree to be the end-user support for Windows. When people try to call Microsoft they end up getting some third party support company who happily claim to be Microsoft for $300 and, if you're lucky, don't do anything to your computer. Linux support has not changed one bit and it has STILL gone from "Are you serious???" to "That's amazing!!!"
 
I'm no fan of Microsoft. But their OS products have always been slightly more polished than the competition ever since MSDOS 3.3. Even in those days you could buy alternatives like IBMDOS but there were little quirks that always seemed to favor the M$ product. For example Windows 3 versus IBM OS/2.

And once M$ gained prominence in the corporate market people wanted to run the same Windows at home that they ran in their workplace. That's probably the biggest obstacle to Linux at home now. Nobody wants to run Win7 at work and go home to a clunky old Linux box.
It could be made pretty. The developers are smart as hell. If they'd all band together to focus on a single version and included a few people just dumb enough to actually understand the end user I think they could actually accomplish something. And the market isn't like it was back in the '90s where the average computer user was consistently running out and buying games and The Print Shop Pro to install on their computers. Back then if you had a computer, you were a techy, it was something new and you wanted to see what you could do with it. Today that just isn't so any more. There are still people like that, but for the most part people want to do some very specific things on the computer and not much else.

Now, I don't think it's going to happen, but now is the perfect time for Linux to make a comeback big-time. Think about it. Most computer users don't play games that aren't included or online and they don't run QuickBooks or other specialized software. People are using their phones more often than not, and to such an extent that Microsoft, starting with Windows 8, is trying to be more like a phone or tablet. They added the "Apps Store" where you can conveniently get all your software from Microsoft because they want that market. First our tablets and our phones and now even Microsoft is training people to get software directly from within the OS instead of off the shelf.

What all this means is that if developers were able to deliver a stable, polished package with an app store built in and all the major software such as a polished, easy to use office suite, a couple of image editors (one easy, one professional), some video editing software, some games (that DON'T involve hitting little Bill Gates heads with a fly swatter), something comparable to The Print Shop and/or Publisher...Linux could make a realistic push into the home market. The app store would have to offer some more professional-end software, maybe even Linux versions of things like QuickBooks. But hell, most of what I just mentioned is already available for or part of most Linux distributions for free.

There would be a couple things they would have to do, though, I think. They would have to make installation/uninstallation as easy as it is in Windows. They would have to make the permissions as invisible to users as it is in Windows. And, much as they always seemed loathed to do so, they would have to bury the command line like Android did. If you want the command line you need an addon. And they would probably need to lock down the OS a little bit so that unofficial changes to the OS could only be made by virus writers and techy types. But it could be done, if there were just some money in it and some unity in the Linux community.
 
Have you run Linux Mint 17 or later? "Clunky" does not come to mind...

Actually yes, I have my own Mint machine and find it very satisfying. My post simply alluded to the historical record which allowed M$ to build up a huge base of installed customers. Once a person is accustomed to something it can be very hard to get them to switch. Inertia don't you know.

And actually it hardly matters anymore since M$ is the loser in the new phone wars. They were sleeping at the switch and now Apple IOS and Linux (Android) is taking them to the woodshed. Microsoft will probably own the desktop for the rest of eternity but the desktop is the dodo bird of modern technology.
 
This is a random rant, not anything important. If your time is precious, you should probably move on to something more important.

As of today I have officially sold more Windows XP machines than Windows 10 machines so far this week. That is sad. I am having more and more customers come in wanting an old Windows XP machine to run old software on, swearing they're not going to connect it to the Internet, usually just to run old games. Each and every one of them expresses a deep loathing for Windows 10, which I wholeheartedly share. It seems each update takes more control away from the person who actually paid for the computer and gives more control to Microsoft.

I certainly hope some company pounces on this and makes a real alternative to Windows, because Linux will never be that. Don't get me wrong, Linux is an awesome operating system. But it is not, nor will it every be "ready for prime-time", like the Linux nuts have been claiming for over a decade, maybe two. Why? Because command line. Everything in Linux, and I mean EVERY DAMNED THING, is command line. Even if you use your happy little GUI interface to extract a file all it does is run a hundred mile long command line utility for you so you don't see it. Yes, it's powerful...IF you're a geek. Otherwise it's useless-complicated, counter-intuitive and just plain unusable. Telling the end user they should be using Linux is like telling a driver he should be driving a tank so that he's safer in an accident. Yes, it is a sound argument. It's just not a realistic argument. Nor is it realistic to think that Linux will EVER be a real contender as an OS for the common man so long as it's designed by geeks, for geeks, who, let's face it, are often smug about their skills and apathetic to the plight of those who don't share them.

The industry should have seen this coming. Microsoft has ALWAYS wrested control away from the user. I remember in the Windows 98 days some registry setting to shut off the Recycle Bin or Recent Files or something. Then there was an update where Microsoft checked for that registry setting and changed it back if you had made it because that is not how Microsoft wanted your computer to run. And I remember Vista. When a user said, "I don't like Windows Vista" the Microsoft response was, "Yes you do! It's better!" Until it hit them in the pocketbook, that is. And now we have to pay an excessive amount for an OS AND put up with ads within that OS AND allow Microsoft do decide what happens and when, what information they will take (not that you will give, but that they will take) and, what the hell, Microsoft isn't paying the bill, so if you're on a metered Internet service it's just your problem if you get huge bills because whether you want that ridiculously-sized update or not, Microsoft is shoving it up your a$$. I know that no computer tech has ever said this before, but I hate Microsoft. End rant.
No one should pay for a Microsoft computer, it should be a free household appliance. Microsoft should pay Dell for the hardware, and every home should be issued the microsoft appliance. Those who want to have a computer as a legitimate tool for education and business, should start to learn LINUX or Apple. Microsoft should send a tech out to fix any computer issue regarding the household appliance at zero cost to the victim, and the tech will wait in the driveway until the victim arrives to receive the microsoft garbage repair guy. Bill Gates just donates 30B to charity funds here and there and you're sitting in front of one his creations, for hours, ripping your hair out, staring at a BSOD--does anyone else find this a bit disturbing?

EDIT; of course I'm referring to the mom-pop home user running a desktop, the servers are not included in this rant... :-)
 
Last edited:
No one should pay for a Microsoft computer, it should be a free household appliance. Microsoft should pay Dell for the hardware, and every home should be issued the microsoft appliance. Microsoft should send a tech out to fix any computer issue regarding the household appliance at zero cost to the victim

Well this is one way to kill off what's left of the residential break/fix market if Microsoft fixed everything free of charge. On the bright side, I wouldn't have to deal with the customers complaining how slow their standard issue dell pc is anymore.
 
Anybody insisting on using XP nowadays isn't a desirable client to begin with... imagine all the hassles you'll have to go through when their old crappy PC breaks or some software doesn't work the way it's expected. Nah, thanks. If they really need XP, use VMware Workstation or VirtualBox.
 
For the ones talking about android, perhaps you guys know something I don't. How in gods name do I truly narrow down performance and battery issues on android, nougat for example. In terms of getting down to the very core of a particular issue android seems horrifyingly bad. Aside from the difficulty narrowing down performance issues does anyone really think android is more productive?
 
Back
Top