Thread: Windows Vs Linux

>Windows is so successful only because 98% of all the program >makers supports Windows!

From a marketing point of view, you could turn the point of view as stated above to: since Windows is so popular many makers will support it!

Most people who use a computer, use it for doing things like administration, word processing, databases, spreadsheets, planning and that kind of stuff. And as long as the computer is doing that, they're satisfied. And if the computer is doing something wrong (it crashes), then they will simply call the help-desk.

Most people who don't like Windows or Microsoft in general are people who are someway involved in computer technology, because of their profession, hobby or study. But such people usually have some more knowledge about the OS's in the world. The average computer user doesn't know about OS's like Linux, Unix, FeeBSD and all those other non-Microsoft OS's.

Since the number of people involved in computer technology is much less than the number of people who isn't, marketeers go for Windows.

By the way, when just doing word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets etc., Windows is okay in my experience. Only when doing some more technical things, I prefer some other OS. Mainly Linux or some other RTOS.

So I do not necessarily hate Windows, but I agree with Jock, it's the marketing practice of Microsoft that I hate. But I guess marketeers of other company's are the same as Microsoft's marketeers, only not as succesful as Microsoft's marketeers.

I don't like marketeers, they think that they know what I like. They think that their inventions are good for me. They say things like "the consumer doesn't want that" or "the consumer needs this" etc. I really hate that!

howdy,
in 1980 something a very nice looking gal took MSDOS 5.? off my machine. i fought and screamed and cryed... dont put that windows stuff on my box just leave me alone.
well here i am 20 years latter and i was right. it sucked then and it sucks now. in fact i within the last 20 minuts had M$ XP tell me it was impossible to install on this box. (AMD Athlon 750, ASUS K7M MB, 256MB ram, 20GB HDD, 32 MB video etc) so i had to go back to my Red Hat partiton to write this message.
if you recall - im dating my self here - command line loads of all apps in dos. autoexec.bat & config.sys as long as your arm youll know what i mean.
Linux is pretty clean now. and the apps are getting better by the day. look at KDevelope and compare it to Borland Builder.
as far as complexity goes ill say two words NO REGISTRYS(sp) in linux you can get to and mod any system setting from the command line try that in windoze.

Oh SH__ im ranting again -- SORRY.

M.R.

Oh sure, Cobol and Unux are the way better than Windows programs, that's the reason why every large corporation on earth uses Cobol and Unix, because it is superior, it has nothing to do with costs of upgrading technology.

>Oh sure, Cobol and Unux are the way better than Windows >programs, that's the reason why every large corporation on >earth uses Cobol and Unix, because it is superior, it has nothing >to do with costs of upgrading technology.

I think you should make a difference between companies. An accountant company requires other technology than a software developing company does.

I've heard that in financial applications, Cobol is used a lot. Though here in the Netherlands many financial companies are turning to C++ and Java and some other higher level languages.

But I've looked around at several companies involved in embedded systems for some years now, and I've never seen Cobol. It's all C, assembly, C++ and also Java is getting more important.

I agree with using Unix-like OS's. For doing software development, it's much better than Windows.

people seem to forget that unix powers most of the webpages and servers arround...

I wonder how many suicides for which Windows is responsible...