June Desktops!

[Sawell]

I don't understand that post :P

What do companies have to do with it?

Microsoft, Linux and Apple!? Everything!

Linux has the lowest market share out of all of them.

Well, apple and linux both don't really stand a chance.

It's basically like firefox vs IE. Since m$ have brought out 7 mozilla went from a 3.4% hold to 1.3%.

You can't resist microsoft, if not for the fact it's easy... then for the fact everyone and everything else uses it.

Let's not forget that a massive percentage of the linux use will be from servers, as there's no doubt linux make awesome dedis.

 

[Dataforce]

..

You do know that "linux" is not a company yes? Linux and apple may not have a large market share, but linux at least (not sure about mac) is better than windows in terms of reliability, customiseability and overall performance. Games which run natively on both windows and linux generally perform better on linux, and there have even been reported cases of windows-only games performing better under wine. (altho the graphics may not be quite up to par)

You are very naive to think that IE7 is killing firefox, as per http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp you will see that its share is still increasing. (Fx is Firefox, Moz is the Mozilla suite - and teh decrease in Moz is pretty much in line with the increased uptake of Fx)

I'm not resisting microsoft, I have absolutely no desire or need to use any of their products. Linux, Firefox, OpenOffice, vlc - who needs anything made by M$ ?
Most of the people who use microsoft products don't so so beacuse they want to, or because they choose to - they do it because someone else chose it for them, be it their boss, their system admin, or their oem manufacturer. And yes you could say people who build their own machines choose to use microsoft products, that is also usually related to someone else makign teh choice and them feeling tied to it due to familiarity.

Those stats are taken from peoples browsing habits (ie desktop) if it was based on servers you would see linux at a MUCH higher position than windows.

The reason linux makes for awsome servers, is the fact its more secure, reliable and better performing :P

 

[Wittin]

Mine:

Had no problems with vista at all, decent OS (only one driver missing, most installed directly from windows)

 

[Sawell]

..

You do know that "linux" is not a company yes? Linux and apple may not have a large market share, but linux at least (not sure about mac) is better than windows in terms of reliability, customiseability and overall performance. Games which run natively on both windows and linux generally perform better on linux, and there have even been reported cases of windows-only games performing better under wine. (altho the graphics may not be quite up to par)

You are very naive to think that IE7 is killing firefox, as per http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp you will see that its share is still increasing. (Fx is Firefox, Moz is the Mozilla suite - and teh decrease in Moz is pretty much in line with the increased uptake of Fx)

I'm not resisting microsoft, I have absolutely no desire or need to use any of their products. Linux, Firefox, OpenOffice, vlc - who needs anything made by M$ ?
Most of the people who use microsoft products don't so so beacuse they want to, or because they choose to - they do it because someone else chose it for them, be it their boss, their system admin, or their oem manufacturer. And yes you could say people who build their own machines choose to use microsoft products, that is also usually related to someone else makign teh choice and them feeling tied to it due to familiarity.

Those stats are taken from peoples browsing habits (ie desktop) if it was based on servers you would see linux at a MUCH higher position than windows.

The reason linux makes for awsome servers, is the fact its more secure, reliable and better performing :P

Company by definition is a number of individuals assembled or associated together; group of people. Linux is still defined as a company, despite having no ownership, just not an organisation.

That was my bad with the stats, was looking at mozilla as opposed to fx. I still think that IE 7 is moving people back to IE though, and I think the consumer market will start moving on a mass scale soon.

Consumers will go with what they feel safe with... many many many consumers choose microsoft because they know it, and know it to work and do the functions they require. There is no onus there, perhaps lack of alternative. But just because my work supplys me with BIC pens, that doesn't mean I don't buy myself better ones for home... if Linux truly demonstrated that then people would, fact is, it doesn't have all that much over microsoft... and more importantly than anything, it's not backed by one of the biggest organisations in the world. Power, as you might imagine, is one of the most powerful attractions in the world. Hence why Linux has such a pathetic hold on the market.

Linux's functions and security may very well surpass Window's, but it's never going to get to a point where the development is that much greater than Windows, what's more; you know windows as a platform is only going up. They've got the money, they've got the brains, they know the market inside out and they've wormed their way into nearly every home in the planet.

As a consumer I would never outcast myself from that kind of compatability with existing software and technology either. Other than acorn I've been a windows user since I could first bash a key, I'm all for change... but Linux isn't change, it's sacrifice for barely anything.

 

[Dataforce]

I hope you are not trying to claim windows is safe, i'd have to physically smack you then :P

Pens and Computer software are not the same, it takes a bit of time to learn a different way of doing things, writing with a different biro is nothing.

I'm not sure of the exactness of this statement, but Novell + IBM + Redhat + Sun > Microsoft

I can't fault microsoft's marketing department. They have managed to essentially glorify a pile of turd such that everyone uses or has used it at least once in their life, and its a result of damn good marketing (and NOTHING else) that windows has as big a share as it has now.

Vista is quite frankly not an improvement over XP. They concentrated too much on looks, and randomly decided to move things about and change things that have been established since win95/98, the security thing is a pile of balls, and the system requirements for vista are just stupid. Not to mention the 50 million different versions.

Switching to linux doesn't outcast you from anything. I made the switch a week before vista was released and have not found anything that I could do in windows that I can't do in linux.
Like your self, I've been a windows user since i could first bash a key. I've used every verison of windows from 3.1 to XP, but vista was the last straw, and I'd been threatening to switch since its conception.

Linux is change, and it takes a little bit of time to get used to, but its worth it. You get more freedom, and more choice.

Thats not to say however that linux isn't without its flaws. I still keep a 40GB drive with a clean XP install on it for the odd game craving - (yes linux can play most windows games, but my PC struggles with most new games under windows never mind linux, so its just easier)

Also the freedom of choice has saturated the markets for alot of things. For instance the windows-compatability market. To run windows .exes you have a choice of 3 programs, wine, cxoffice and cedega. Each of which do different things better/worse than the others, none of which are perfect - you end up picking the one that performs the best for a given app.

However, outside of gaming (which is the only thing windows has going for it right now) linux can do anything windows can do, and 99% of the time does it better.

Linux is also a ton more stable. My desktop uptime is going on 2 months now, i'd love to see you get that with a well-used windows desktop, i used to barely manage 2 weeks, the highest i got was 1 month before it was just quite frankly unusable.

(I will admit the advantages to linux do come with somewhat of an initial learning curve for people 100% new to it, but with google at your side pretty much every problem you have is solvable)

I put this challenge to you, get kubuntu and install it on your desktop, and use it (without using windows (and preferably not wine either) at all) for a whole week, and then tell me what you think windows does better.

 

[Sawell]

I hope you are not trying to claim windows is safe, i'd have to physically smack you then :P

Pens and Computer software are not the same, it takes a bit of time to learn a different way of doing things, writing with a different biro is nothing.

I'm not sure of the exactness of this statement, but Novell + IBM + Redhat + Sun > Microsoft

I can't fault microsoft's marketing department. They have managed to essentially glorify a pile of turd such that everyone uses or has used it at least once in their life, and its a result of damn good marketing (and NOTHING else) that windows has as big a share as it has now.

Vista is quite frankly not an improvement over XP. They concentrated too much on looks, and randomly decided to move things about and change things that have been established since win95/98, the security thing is a pile of balls, and the system requirements for vista are just stupid. Not to mention the 50 million different versions.

Switching to linux doesn't outcast you from anything. I made the switch a week before vista was released and have not found anything that I could do in windows that I can't do in linux.
Like your self, I've been a windows user since i could first bash a key. I've used every verison of windows from 3.1 to XP, but vista was the last straw, and I'd been threatening to switch since its conception.

Linux is change, and it takes a little bit of time to get used to, but its worth it. You get more freedom, and more choice.

Thats not to say however that linux isn't without its flaws. I still keep a 40GB drive with a clean XP install on it for the odd game craving - (yes linux can play most windows games, but my PC struggles with most new games under windows never mind linux, so its just easier)

Also the freedom of choice has saturated the markets for alot of things. For instance the windows-compatability market. To run windows .exes you have a choice of 3 programs, wine, cxoffice and cedega. Each of which do different things better/worse than the others, none of which are perfect - you end up picking the one that performs the best for a given app.

However, outside of gaming (which is the only thing windows has going for it right now) linux can do anything windows can do, and 99% of the time does it better.

Linux is also a ton more stable. My desktop uptime is going on 2 months now, i'd love to see you get that with a well-used windows desktop, i used to barely manage 2 weeks, the highest i got was 1 month before it was just quite frankly unusable.

(I will admit the advantages to linux do come with somewhat of an initial learning curve for people 100% new to it, but with google at your side pretty much every problem you have is solvable)

I put this challenge to you, get kubuntu and install it on your desktop, and use it (without using windows (and preferably not wine either) at all) for a whole week, and then tell me what you think windows does better.

Do you not see my desktop on the monthly desktop threads? :P

Put it this way, I have 70 games currently installed on my computer, 20% of those are the latest ones on the market direct from usenet.

Gaming is pretty much all I use my computer for, and web development.

 

[Blaminator]

Do you not see my desktop on the monthly desktop threads? :P

Put it this way, I have 70 games currently installed on my computer, 20% of those are the latest ones on the market direct from usenet.

Gaming is pretty much all I use my computer for, and web development.

QFT, and playing with photoshop

 

[Dataforce]

I didn't say you can't play the latest games, they just don't always play as well as on windows :P

 

[Azura]

My Desktop, Not much...

 

[JealY]

Ew, WMP .

 

[Wittin]

I'm not sure of the exactness of this statement, but Novell + IBM + Redhat + Sun > Microsoft

Vista is quite frankly not an improvement over XP. They concentrated too much on looks, and randomly decided to move things about and change things that have been established since win95/98, the security thing is a pile of balls, and the system requirements for vista are just stupid. Not to mention the 50 million different versions.

Linux is change, and it takes a little bit of time to get used to, but its worth it. You get more freedom, and more choice.

Thats not to say however that linux isn't without its flaws. I still keep a 40GB drive with a clean XP install on it for the odd game craving - (yes linux can play most windows games, but my PC struggles with most new games under windows never mind linux, so its just easier)

However, outside of gaming (which is the only thing windows has going for it right now) linux can do anything windows can do, and 99% of the time does it better.

Linux is also a ton more stable. My desktop uptime is going on 2 months now, i'd love to see you get that with a well-used windows desktop, i used to barely manage 2 weeks, the highest i got was 1 month before it was just quite frankly unusable.

(I will admit the advantages to linux do come with somewhat of an initial learning curve for people 100% new to it, but with google at your side pretty much every problem you have is solvable)

I put this challenge to you, get kubuntu and install it on your desktop, and use it (without using windows (and preferably not wine either) at all) for a whole week, and then tell me what you think windows does better.

Long-ass post which I dont have time to reply to the entirity of (but I'll reply to the stuff I mainly disagree with), but from my point of view linux is better for dedi's but not home PCs.

For a start "Novell + IBM + Redhat + Sun > Microsoft" I'm not entirely sure on what all of them exactly do, I guess they are mainly software, besides IBM which is hardware. The problem there is that you already need to start adding software to the operating system to get the compatability windows has on a fresh format, this is not ideal especially for someone who hasn't used the operating system before (and isn't as computer literate as many of us here). Which will obviously have a negative effect on their market share, however wouldn't really pose a problem for someone like myself.

I've been using Vista now since the retail version was released, everything is where you would expect it to be, besides maybe a few networking features, however, everything is still there, and is probably alot easier to adjust to that an entirely new operating system. The security of vista is actually alot better, by default it has windows defender installed (anti-spyware) and IE7 which is alot better that the older browser versions. I ran my system (like a fool) for about a month with no anti-virus software besides the anti-spyware, which didn't find anything. When I got round to installing AVG I virus scanned my entire pc and found absolutely nothing, which would have been almost impossible in xp, so it is definately an improvement. Also, your treasured operating system has alot more versions than windows, you have versions of the entire operating system kernel, redhat ect, aswell as versions of the versions (which makes it a hell of alot more complicated than a windows package).

PC gaming is also a massive part of the computing market, I would be very disappointed if I bought or downloaded a game and it wasn't entirely compatable with my operating system.

As for stability, I've had my PCs on for weeks at a time, never really had a problem with it, maybe a bit of performance loss, however I don't keep mine on for that long, I just dont see the point. most crashes on an updated windows platform seem to be caused by 3rd party driver faults, and malicious software, not windows itself. However for really long periods of time, this is what probably gives linux an edge in the dedi market.

Sorry to disagree, but I'm a windows user, I hate Bill Gates and his huge business manopoly, but frankly his software is the best around. Mac and Linux however are good, and will probably improve over time.

 

[Dataforce]

For a start "Novell + IBM + Redhat + Sun > Microsoft" I'm not entirely sure on what all of them exactly do, I guess they are mainly software, besides IBM which is hardware.

They are different companies that back linux in one way or another. Novell and Redhat are responsible for their own distros (Suse and RHEL). IBM and Sun both have strong links with the community.

The problem there is that you already need to start adding software to the operating system to get the compatability windows has on a fresh format, this is not ideal especially for someone who hasn't used the operating system before (and isn't as computer literate as many of us here). Which will obviously have a negative effect on their market share, however wouldn't really pose a problem for someone like myself.

General hardware compatibility out-of-the-box in Linux is significantly higher than windows. (At least for things that are not designed specifically for windows, and the absolute cutting-edge-released-yesterday stuff - this is a side effect of windows' domination tho, not a downfall for linux)

I've been using Vista now since the retail version was released, everything is where you would expect it to be, besides maybe a few networking features, however, everything is still there, and is probably alot easier to adjust to that an entirely new operating system.The security of vista is actually alot better, by default it has windows defender installed (anti-spyware) and IE7 which is alot better that the older browser versions. I ran my system (like a fool) for about a month with no anti-virus software besides the anti-spyware, which didn't find anything. When I got round to installing AVG I virus scanned my entire pc and found absolutely nothing, which would have been almost impossible in xp, so it is definately an improvement.

Its a vast improvement yes - but then when XP was out first you could do the same.

Also, your treasured operating system has alot more versions than windows, you have versions of the entire operating system kernel, redhat ect, aswell as versions of the versions (which makes it a hell of alot more complicated than a windows package).

I accept its somewhat confusing to someone new to it, There is different distros (RH, Ubuntu, Slackware etc) and then as you say there is the kernel which is also different versions.

However generally you can pick a distro (ie ubuntu) and not worry about the kernel version as the software will update that for you and you just need to reboot.

PC gaming is also a massive part of the computing market, I would be very disappointed if I bought or downloaded a game and it wasn't entirely compatable with my operating system.

That is again related to m$ having an amazing marketing dept and thus most of the games companies design for windows-only. (There are exceptions, epic and ID for instance. All of the UT series, Doom3, and the upcoming "Quake Wars" are cross platform)

As for stability, I've had my PCs on for weeks at a time, never really had a problem with it, maybe a bit of performance loss, however I don't keep mine on for that long, I just dont see the point.

Fair enough. My point was just that windows is nowhere near as stable as linux, its designed to remain on for ~7 days and the average joe turns their machine off at night and thus doesn't notice.

most crashes on an updated windows platform seem to be caused by 3rd party driver faults, and malicious software, not windows itself. However for really long periods of time, this is what probably gives linux an edge in the dedi market.
Sorry to disagree, but I'm a windows user, I hate Bill Gates and his huge business manopoly, but frankly his software is the best around. Mac and Linux however are good, and will probably improve over time.

No need to say sorry, things wouldn't be much fun if everyone agreed on the same points of view :P

 

[Chriz]

^_^ ......................................

 

[02goswej]

Though id make a contribution


Soz desktop a bit more messy than usual :/ am in the process of making website so >.<

 

[AgentSmith]

my second boot desktop

 

[Sprinkle]

How did you get a desktop theme like that i would like that lol looks good :P very nice n handy aswell to be honest.

 

[Soul]

Here's mine, nice and simple =]

 

[kud125]

even though it's almost July...
i tried Kubuntu was impressed, but sadly it didn't want to work well with WoW with my graphics chipset so i'm back on Windows

i win? kkthx.

 

[AgentSmith]

How did you get a desktop theme like that i would like that lol looks good :P very nice n handy aswell to be honest.

got it off rapidshare

kuds crystal theme is Very nice very i had it but its lost and the dl will not work anymore ¬_¬

 

[LeoCrasher]

I hope you are not trying to claim windows is safe, i'd have to physically smack you then :P

Windows is safe. The level of safety is however largely determined by the intelligence of the user. Although it is argued that Unix based systems have an architectural safety advantage, it remains to be seen just how reliable this assertion is if such systems were under the pressures of a dominant market share in the consumer arena.

I'm not sure of the exactness of this statement, but Novell + IBM + Redhat + Sun > Microsoft

Well I'd be concerned if you were sure of the exactness of the statement, as you don't make clear what you are talking about. IBM is a services company, Novell and RH distributors, and Sun an OS developer but primarily a services2software company. I'm pretty sure that their GDP would cumulatively not come close to MSFT's. I however suspect that you may be using it to qualify support. In this case, you undermine the sheer number of companies that support Windows. You have to remember that even a small droplet in the Linux see (say, Corel) looks like a giant compared with the other companies operating in the field. However when purely supporting Windows, they are just one of many with little or no emphasis placed upon them. Linux remains a marginalised OS.

I can't fault microsoft's marketing department. They have managed to essentially glorify a pile of turd such that everyone uses or has used it at least once in their life, and its a result of damn good marketing (and NOTHING else) that windows has as big a share as it has now.

Nothing else? Saying Windows dominance is due to marketing is absolutely rubbish. While Microsoft are great at creating a stir for their products, it comes nothing close to the religious fervour of die hard MacOS and Linux users. No, Microsoft's dominance is due to its agreements with OEM's and monopolist tactics in order to get Windows on as many machines as possible - thus breeding familiarity and user lock-in through the back door.

Vista is quite frankly not an improvement over XP. They concentrated too much on looks, and randomly decided to move things about and change things that have been established since win95/98, the security thing is a pile of balls, and the system requirements for vista are just stupid. Not to mention the 50 million different versions.

The Aero and WPF systems make overall, a very small part of the changes in Windows Vista. Vista incorporates many new technologies which remain under the hood. There is a very good Arstechnica article on the changes.

Yes the requirements for all features are a bit over the top. However the Basic version still remains to run on most machines, just like XP. No Linux user has a leg to stand on when it comes to number of variations.

Linux is change, and it takes a little bit of time to get used to, but its worth it. You get more freedom, and more choice.

More freedom and choice over what exactly? To the average joe, what freedoms does Linux offer which they would be interested in? The lack of full Windows Application compatibility is quite a 'freedom restricter' in my point of view. There are not Linux versions of everything people use, particularly those of us for whichever reason use old or bespoke software.

However, outside of gaming (which is the only thing windows has going for it right now) linux can do anything windows can do, and 99% of the time does it better.

Well, I'd say it has a lot more going for it. Whether it is through ignorance or otherwise, the Windows share of >85% of the consumer market says most people just are not seeing your point of view. Linux fails spectacularly with its user friendliness and performance. Very few distributions have succeeded in matching WinXP's boot times (cold boot), with Ubuntu being particularly slow. You need to do all sorts of technical things to get the boot time down yourself. Its user interface requires you to drop down to bash to perform the simplest of tasks, such as installing the correct driver.

If something goes wrong, you risk being forced out of your X session - particularly with graphics drivers, which means you are stuck there unless you are proficient enough to fix the xorg.conf from the command line (great idea for n00bs).

Raw performance is also MUCH slower than Windows. Benchmarks with applications such as SuperPI have proven this. However I concede that many applications, even those under WINE, have a performance benefit (particulary games). Although user perception surveys show people 'feel' its slower - mainly due to for whatever reason slow application loading / window painting.

(I will admit the advantages to linux do come with somewhat of an initial learning curve for people 100% new to it, but with google at your side pretty much every problem you have is solvable)

And this is the problem. New users do not know how to use Google. Linux does not JustWork(tm) like MacOS and Windows, and still requires a great deal of system maintenance in order to get to an acceptable level.

I put this challenge to you, get kubuntu and install it on your desktop, and use it (without using windows (and preferably not wine either) at all) for a whole week, and then tell me what you think windows does better.

I dualboot Ubuntu 7, WinXP pro and Vista. I have stuck to my WinXP system due to what I perceive as raw performance and ease of use. I don't do anything particularly resource intensive, but I do notice when things such as Firefox take an extra few seconds to load compared to my WinOS.

In Ubuntu, and have to consistently drop to the command line to perform tasks - particularly when trying (and usually failing) to configure the xorg.conf file correctly. I infact, never managed it when I had dualview CRT's. The lack of GUI configuration options is simply inexcusable, especially considering its inclusion with new Dell systems.

Lastly, Windows offers a consistent experience. I can quite happily drag a file from explorer into BSplayer and watch it play effortlessly. In ubuntu it depends on the playback application, drag source... and god knows what else. Not mentioning that Ubuntu's out of the box Samba performance is dreadful, making it impossible to achieve throughput acceptable enough to drag and play files from a Windows share.

And Windows is pretty (I use the Vista transformation pack). Compiz-fusion has nothing on WindowBlinds.

I do however use Xubuntu as the primary OS for two of my other workstations. Bare bones systems which do nothing but provide internet access for other users. Their environment does not need to adapt to new software and the users are somewhat inexperienced. Therefore I rely on Ubuntu's lack of malware compatibility to keep maintenance of the systems down - its ideal in this situation.

I do own a Fedora server, but I'm happy with my Windows one and much looking forward to Longhorn server and its new Terminal Services features . It doesn't have problems with uptime either.

/Leo