Is the Global Representation of Windows an Indicator of its Quality?

[Callipygous]

I would like to challenge this. I have purchased a large number of computers. All of the computers that I have purchased in built form, other than macs, have come with windows installed. Never once did I ever choose windows as you say, as there has never been an alternative. I usually dump the original OS for my own choice. I contend that the vast majority of users who use windows did not choose it. Windows comes pre-installed.

 

 

i couldnt help but laugh as i read this post. "i didnt choose windows, i wasnt given a choice"

 

uh huh. you certainly couldnt have found ANY deal that didnt include a preinstalled os. you definately couldnt go to gateway or dell, and as you build your pc, tell them not to include an os. you definately couldnt have asked for a little help and then built if from parts (which takes all of about 15 minutes) and given that you installed any os other than windows on a machine (which pretty much narrows it down to LINUX) you definately arent computer savvy enough be able to build one.

 

i didnt have a choice!

 

never mind imacs.

[Callipygous]

I disagree with this completely. Windows is marketing king' date=' as someone said previously. That is all.

 

In the U.S., it is very difficult to find computers for sale with no operating system. All of them come with an OS, mostly windows. In other countries, such as Canada, it is possible to buy a computer with no OS, and then to install the OS of choice. Here in the U.S., they come with an OS, typically a crappy Windows OS. When I buy a computer, I have to pay for the Windows garbage. Then I can install a better OS, even if it is still Windows.

 

Go to the local computer store and count how many computers are for sale with no OS. Do you really think that there is much choice for people who want to put their own OS on a machine? The reason is that Microsoft is a crafty marketer and is a ruthless company. It is not that the people begged Microsoft to do this for them.[/quote']

 

 

how does microsoft get computer hardware companies to ship their boxes with microsoft already installed?

 

if a large portion of the population didnt want windows preinstalled on their machines do you think IBM would still sign off on that deal? do you think microsoft sneaks in and installs all the os's themselves?

 

and as that other guy said above. the majority of the public doesnt have the patience or skills(or need) to learn linux. the majority goes out and buys the pc that already works with one of the systems they know and love. Windows, or mac.

[Sayonara]

Sorry for the long post guys - it includes replies to several posts.

 

 

considering the original statement was "windows sucks" in reference to windows xp, i think it would be perfectly reasonable to consider the systems we normally run windows on, or even just the personal computers, ignoring their server versions.

The statement was "Windows sucks". The response was "but it runs on 90% of the world's computers".

 

My responses are attempting to demonstrate why that is a BAD ANSWER, not why it's "wrong".

 

 

the point of my statement is that the VAST majority of users choose Windows over any other system.

As has already been stated, this is not strictly true, and you know it.

 

Microsoft have managed to insert their product into the self-sustaining cycle that is the sweet spot of any market. The average user buys a computer expecting to be able to turn it on and go because they don't understand the differentiations between hardware, BIOS, and O/S. Your average Joe doesn't even know that other domestic or consumer operating systems are available (whether free or not), much less that they can be installed in place of the supplied O/S.

 

These expectations have nothing whatsoever to contribute towards the idea of home users "choosing" Windows. It's a result of the product's placement, which in turn is a result of Microsoft's early strategies (carrying no value on the books for its products, delaying public options for as long as possible, and - the big ones - their deft dealings with IBM, and their infiltration of hardware supply.)

 

and given that PCs FAR outway the number of servers and similar systems, the end result it that the majority of systems are running windows. windows is absolutely a triumph of marketting,

The majority of end-user systems running Windows doesn't really tell us anything about how good it is, as I am trying to explain.

 

try reading up on their story sometime.

Have done. It's one of the first things you learn on a computing degree.

 

when 90% of the computer using populations chooses windows you have to assume they arent ALL just sheep following the marketing.

Again, you are throwing phrases around here without any regard for what they mean. What is "90% of the computer using populations", and without more in-depth analysis how can you demonstrate anything from that other than your ability to count?

 

some of them have to be knowledgeable users who decided that it was worth their $300 to get windows instead of getting linux for free. it HAS to have something going for it.

It has plenty going for it. But having the exact features that x number of people want doesn't necessarily mean that it is 'better' than anything else.

 

i honestly believe that my statistic is right even if you consider ALL systems, but i gaurantee its right for PCs.

It may well be, but it's still a poor response to "windows sucks".

 

 

 

I agree with Callipygous here. The point I'm making has nothing to do with which OS is better than the other. I'm merely pointing out that the USAGE figure of 90% Windows is well to be expected.

I'd certainly expect a high figure, but this 90% seems to have been pulled out of someone's flue.

Given that the original phrase was "90% of computers", and not "90% of desktops or boxes with end-user-available operating systems", it seems to me that either the reasoning ought to take all computers into account, or the claim needs to be adjusted accordingly.

 

I also don't see why usage time and capacity has anything to do with this. We are talking about the number of computers running an OS not how much computing is done by each OS.

I know I tend to waffle, but please try to follow what I am saying. The number of computers running an O/S is not representative of the quality of that O/S. Therefore, in order to qualify or disqualify the statement that Windows sucks [relative to other systems, one presumes] we need to take something else into account.

Call me crazy but I would suggest that the quality of a computing system is best indicated by its capacity for computation.

 

Without knowing how much work the two systems do per box, you can't just compare the number of admins and decide one is better. For instance, those 9 admins on your *nix box could be doing more than three times the total work than the admins looking after the Windows box (or, if you prefer, a third of the work each - it's easier to sit back and look busy when you're admining on *nix).

It's not 9 admins per *nix box it's 9 boxes per admin - ie: you need 3 times the number of admins than with Windows servers to meet the same performance targets.

My mistake, sorry. However the same argument essentially applies - we can't arbitrarily ascribe the notion that *nix is necessarily "worse" from that information alone.

 

I'm citing corporate networks here because the number of PC's they use far outweighs other types of organisations that may have a need for Linux.

"I chose this example because it supports X".

 

Frown.

 

Which company would introduce Linux as it's standard desktop with the knowledge that 99% of the staff would need to be trained just to write a letter and manage their data?

I don't see how that is particularly relevant to the issue at hand. We don't really need to consider how the situation can change.

Although there clearly are advantages to be gained, and tbh it takes less than an hour to get someone doing the basics in Linux (which includes using Open Office Text to the sort of standard that most people use Word).

 

Don't forget most people don't use computers for technical reasons. A room full of journalists isn't interested about the latest capabilities of their PC, they just want to write articles as they always have done.

Quite true, but this doesn't tell us anything about the operating system other than it's the one they use.

Employees don't have the luxury of installing their O/S of choice, and as we have already agreed systems like WinNT are deployed because they are currently preferable in terms of licensing and support requirements, which is all down to marketing and the fact that we happen to be at this particular point in history.

 

 

 

Sure, but there's a reason why it comes pre-installed. Ask a typical consumer what operating system he wants.

If you don't know about the other options, it's not a "choice". Microsoft's market penetration in terms of the brand is truly a phenomenon.

 

After you go on to explain what an operating system is, the vast majority of the time he or she will answer "Windows". They want what they happen to already know how to use, and what all their friends have.

Which is more due to the fact that most domestic users have few complex requirements, and are either unaware of or don't care about the issues that usually divide Windows and (for the sake of argument) Linux advocates. It's really not because they see Windows as being the technological apex of operating systems.

 

Personally I think the key is to continue to do what we've been doing -- keep our minds open, continue to use competitive solutions whenever we can, adopt new technologies that work even if Microsoft hasn't adopted them yet, and push hard for other people to do the same .

Absolutely agree.

 

 

 

Of course they have a choice. Take the OS off.

Like I said, that's only a choice if the user knows they can do that. The vast majority of domestic consumers who buy computers do not fall into this category - half of them don't even understand the window and desktop metaphors, for god's sake.

 

More than likely the type of person who's going to be concerned about the OS they are running is going to buy components to build a proper PC rather than a bog standard store bought one.

I would tend to agree with this. However I think the percentage of consumers falling into this category can be easily overestimated (especially for people like us, who tend to gravitate to the same social locations), and probably is not high enough (yet) to shift the PC market paradigm.

 

The people who buy off the shelf PC's are generally happy with Windows, if they weren't then Windows wouldn't come pre-installed.

Why is it always the assumption that Windows has spread purely because of the marketing efforts of MS.

It's not an assumption. Microsoft have worked very hard to claim that prize - when the market did not exist, you'd have to have been a complete monkey not to try.

Well, I say they worked hard. There was actually a good deal of luck and "right place, right time" involved too. And some fortuitous "walking away from smoking wreck of the project without anyone noticing".

 

If people wanted PC's without an OS then that's what would be for sale. It's like all products, stores stock what people buy.

Firstly, I'd point out that consumers are lazy. They aren't going to revolt against Microsoft and stage marches in the city streets over something that really won't affect them that much.

I mean seriously - you need a PC. Are you going to wait for the market to change, or go out and buy one of the ones available that does what you need?

 

Secondly, those products are available from countless retailers (I imagine the degree of availability will depend on the location).

 

Let's not forget though that there are many retailers whose supplier-trader agreements will not allow them to sell a hard drive or CPU to a consumer unless they purchase an OEM copy of Windows with it. Take CCL Computers, for example.

 

It's fortunate that the web allows us to break that small part of the O/S monopoly by searching for retailers with no such requirements. However consumers who do not understand the market will often accept such conditions at face value, as they do for virtually every other market going.

 

 

 

 

i couldnt help but laugh as i read this post. "i didnt choose windows, i wasnt given a choice"

He may not be explaining it very well, but his point is perfectly valid. See above. There is no excuse for intellectual dishonesty in a thread with such a self-evident subject as this.

 

how does microsoft get computer hardware companies to ship their boxes with microsoft already installed?

This coming from the person who told us to "try reading up on [microsoft's] story some time". Do the research.

 

if a large portion of the population didnt want windows preinstalled on their machines do you think IBM would still sign off on that deal? do you think microsoft sneaks in and installs all the os's themselves?

What people "don't want" is not the issue (or rather, what people "fail to say they do want") - markets shift towards demand. Knowledge has to exist among consumers before a market can shift - it's a very obvious prerequisite for demand.

Non-windows systems such as Sun and Mac OS tend to occupy small technological niches. It's only recently that Linux has exploded into a widely acceptable suite of products that are accessible to a larger range of users.

Given enough time, it is perfectly possible and perhaps even likely that many more consumers will become aware of this and start creating demand.

 

To ignore this possibility is naive, and smacks of premature judgement. Which is what I meant by my "particular point in history" comment, many lines above.

 

Additionally, the implicit idea that Linux ought to appear pre-installed in high-street stores in order to "prove" that people want to use it is just ridiculous. You'd have to be devoid of any concept of the way either o/s is marketed to come to that conclusion.

 

 

and as that other guy said above. the majority of the public doesnt have the patience or skills(or need) to learn linux. the majority goes out and buys the pc that already works with one of the systems they know and love. Windows, or mac.

If you go out and buy a PC, chances are Windows is already on it (regardless of whether or not you intend to use it). You can't just assume that every consumer knows that (a) it's not the only choice, or (b) they don't have to buy it. Consumer ignorance is a major factor in sustaining a false monopoly.

 

If your average person goes out to buy a computer because they hear it can help manage their finances, music and word processing needs, they aren't likely to be equipped with a vast battery of computer science knowledge. They walk past the Apple store with barely a glance ("HOW MUCH!? I just can't understand how they sell anything.") and walk into PC World. Wherein they are confronted by row after row after row of PCs with Windows already installed.

"Wow," they think, "Microsoft sure have a lot of PCs to choose from."

 

The bottom line is that a PC running Windows will probably be fine for what they want to do, but (oh my god my brain, it wants to scream) that still doesn't make Windows better than operating system n.

[Sayonara]

Just a quick note - I think it is important to keep in mind in this discussion that marketing is not the same as advertising.

[Callipygous]

good god man! most the forums i have posted on wont ALLOW posts that long O.o

 

i only really have time for one thing right now:

"This coming from the person who told us to "try reading up on [microsoft's] story some time". Do the research."

 

i have. i know how they did it. i was asking if he did.

 

 

i gotta go get breakfast, to be discussed later : P

[mossoi]

Sayo, I'm not attempting to argue which OS is best, only the percentage of users on each one. You've changed the title of this thread away from its original meaning which has undermined several of the arguments it contains.

[Pangloss]

If you don't know about the other options, it's not a "choice". Microsoft's market penetration in terms of the brand is truly a phenomenon.

 

Sure, and I agree with your point, and won't bother to quibble about how a lot of retailers (if not most of them) allow the buyer to remove Windows and get credit -- an irrelevent point since most consumers aren't even aware of it. Even worse, a lot of the bigger retailers have contracts with Microsoft that specify this kind of packaging. There's a *reason* why if you go to the Dell web site and "customize your PC", Windows can't be deselected. And really it's just the tip of the iceberg in the long history of Microsoft's collusive, underhanded and in some cases outright illegal tactics. And this is court-established fact, now, not even something that's subject to debate anymore. The book is closed on this.

 

But it's not the only reason why Windows is on top. There is another factor, and it's arguably a greater one. That is Microsoft's ability to embrace and extend technologies, make them easier to use, and alleviating the tedium and complexity of computing. One has to look no further than KBE or Gnu to see the influence Microsoft has had on the industry. 20 years ago computer people would laugh out loud at the notion that a common interface would make it easier to learn new software. I could go on and on about this, but I really think this is fairly obvious.

 

Whether or not that has bearing today is a good question. Windows XP very much resides on its own laurels, and Microsoft seems well aware of the fact that they have a massive market share and consumers who don't seem too eager to make changes. I think the industry in general is also somewhat stagnant when it comes to innovation right now. It's been *ten years* since Al Gore invented the Internet for us (while he was busy cleaning up Chernobyl and building the tsunami early warning system, right?). Where is the killer app of the 21st century?

 

But getting back to the point, I agree that Windows is resting on its laurels today, and this is prime time for Linux and other tech to leap to the fore. The recent progress of Firefox is definitely showing a chink in the Microsoft armor, and Java continues to grow. Microsoft isn't standing still -- Java fans are already cringing over the upcomig Visual Studio revamp.

 

But it's looking better for competition than it has in a long time. The question is whether or not those of us who are smart enough to use leading-edge technology are also smart enough to recognize that competition won't succeed unless people are willing to TRY IT. Guys like us have to get out there, embrace that stuff, and put it to work. Tell our friends about it. Get the ball rolling.

 

That's how you win this thing.

[1veedo]

There was an entire page of posts between what I was responding to and where we are now.

 

Just a note:

It IS cehaper to run Linux then Windows. The article I posted last page clearly shows that it requires less admin to run Linux then Windows.

 

Some of Microsfots marchetign stratagies:

Software dependencies. If you write a power point in an older version, it will nto wrok in 98. Microsoft diliberatly did this so users will buy the latest software.

 

Upgrades. Microsoft diliberately ships programs with bugs. They "fix these errors" in the next version. For example, 98 was supposed to be windows 95, but they put in bugs so people would pay twice as much to get waht they wanted.

 

Buying out. Microsopft will enter a field just to bankrupt a company. One example is Inter et Explorer. Netscape was doign pretty good, but then Microsoft introduced a free browser. This browser was not only free, but Microsoft PAID people to use it -- they vigerously advertized it. How was Netscape supposed to make profit and compete with IE??

 

Software Bundles. Microsofts products are required for the OS to run. Try stoping your MSN client. I dare you.

 

Not to mention that Microsoft has lied to bring this about.

 

As a side note: Microsoft originally lied abotu their newest OS, Longhorn:

It will require subscription fees to get updats on Longhorn. Knowing Microsoft, they will intentially leave security holes open.

[Callipygous]

i think your assuming a little too much malice in microsofts actions.

 

while windows 98 was definately a bug fix for 95 i dont believe that was intentional. i think it has more to do with the fact that they promised people a ship date, and when that ship date came around they said "oh no, were f'd" and shipped what they could.

 

shipping nothing but garbage in all your products isnt what one would call a marketting scheme. thats a good way to throw away you customer base. you ship the best stuff you have available, reputation is the most valuable thing a company has.

[Sayonara]

Sayo, I'm not attempting to argue which OS is best, only the percentage of users on each one. You've changed the title of this thread away from its original meaning which has undermined several of the arguments it contains.

Actually I haven't. I returned it to the original meaning, after noticing that the title I gave it on thread split (i.e. "Global representation of windows") didn't really relate to the topic under discussion. This title does.

[Sayonara]

In reply to Pangloss, Microsoft can - fortunately for everyone else - afford to be sloppy occasionally (for instance, buying up software that they claim to be integrating into their existing suites, when it is in fact not integrated at all - like Visio).

 

It's when they say they support standards like XML and rebuild their apps to use these new technologies, then refuse to share their specifications with all the other vendors that the trouble starts. Hello antitrust case number 3905.

 

Where is the killer app of the 21st century?

It's called Project Looking Glass, and it comes from Sun Systems. [edit] It's just that the killing hasn't started yet - give it a year or two.

[Sayonara]

shipping nothing but garbage in all your products isnt what one would call a marketting scheme. thats a good way to throw away you customer base. you ship the best stuff you have available, reputation is the most valuable thing a company has.

While this is true in itself, Microsoft's strategy does sacrifice some quality, some functionality, and virtually all interoperability in order to get their products to as many customers as possible in the widest slice of the market.

[Sayonara]

i only really have time for one thing right now:

"This coming from the person who told us to "try reading up on [microsoft's] story some time". Do the research."

i have. i know how they did it. i was asking if he did.

Are you sure? Because the line straight after it about IBM is a bit weird too. In what way do IBM have any control over the countless companies manufacturing and shipping IBM compatibles and clone components?

 

Incidentally' date=' in reference the last line of that post (about people going to the system they know and love rather than learning Linux), I find this is a common argument against using any non-Windows system. However here I have to say "what complete bollocks", because nobody is born with an innate ability to use Windows. With a competant mentor and starting from scratch, Linux is no more difficult to learn than XP, and neither is Mac OS.

 

More difficult to [i']master[/i], perhaps, but then mastering Linux means you have covered more ground than someone who has mastered Windows, and let's face it - it's a shitload more useful. But then most people won't need to master the system, no matter which one it is.

[Edward]

Do palm pilots count as computers how bout x bocxes running linux or internet appliances running crap???

[Sayonara]

A PDA is a computer, and an X-Box definitely is (irrespective of the o/s).

 

I don't really know what you mean by "internet appliance". You mean like those stupid 'wired' refrigerators?