Microsoft is replete with 'turning points'.
The 'cloud' is fine for installs / updates. I'm keeping my data with me thank you. If I can't I'm not running it.
Speaking of clouds, I hope the fan in the men's room doesn't konk out for the chilli cook-off.
Why aggravate the 100s of millions of existing users, who already know about the "Control Panel", to try and gain a few million new users?
If MS make enough pointless idiotic marketing changes, their user base may decide to swap to:
- Linux (highly customisable and free).
- Mac (supposedly super easy to use).
"I'm going to have to retrain my idiotic staff at a ridiculous cost to my business. I might as well swap to Linux and save myself the cost of the MS licenses."
Why aggravate hundreds of millions of users with new Windows operating systems every few years? Things change. Terminology changes.
If an IT person were to use linux, it would need to be ubuntu or otherwise there would be software fragmentation like android.
And the mac os, from what I've seen, has taken ipad-like features for the macbooks, imacs, and other replicated idevice. Things change.
Hi there
the main trouble with Linux as a desktop (or workstation / laptop ) OS is that there are so many different distributions often requiring different methods of software installs / updates etc.
I agree as a server Linux is first class but as a desktop OS the problems of updating / installing software then it won't fly for anybody other than individuals.
I know a few corporations have tried Linux as a workstation OS -- but it can't compete with Windows in a corporate environment as a desktop OS.
Macbooks can offer another client workstation alternative but Windows still has it by MILES for corporate client laptops / workstations.
As for Android -- It's a TEXTBOOK case of how NOT to write an OS. It's held together by "pieces of string" and any sort of QC on available applications ("apps") seem to be totally non-existent.
My next smart phone will NOT be an android phone !!!. I like the hardware of HTC or Samsung but that Android system -- No thanks !!.
Cheers
jimbo
I can see Linux being used by certain individuals in certain situations. I even had Mint on my laptop for a while.
But my main rig is Windows 7 only because:
1. I record music with Cakewalk Sonar and various soft synths, and I don't know of any equivalent to that on Linux.
2. I do some heavy gaming, much of it in Eyefinity now that I have the hardware and multiple monitors.
3. I have some devices that I imagine probably work best with Windows only, like a Zune HD, Flip pocket camcorder, etc.
4. I have a Blu-ray player in my PC and enjoy watching high-def movies, and it's plug-n-play with Windows (I don't know how well Linux supports something like that -- if anyone has any input, feel free to chime in).
5. I'm required to know Office 2010 for my job.
Absolutely true. The Android development does not seem to be very professional. E.g pushing out 3 releases in 1 year cannot be a thorough job. And all the complaints about V3.0 (Honeycomb) are testimony for that. The Ice Cream release seems to be a bit better. Maybe they are learning.As for Android -- It's a TEXTBOOK case of how NOT to write an OS. It's held together by "pieces of string" and any sort of QC on available applications ("apps") seem to be totally non-existent.
There is a difference between worthwhile changes (e.g. bug fixes, improved files systems, optimised code, etc.) and worthless change (e.g. changing the names of functions).
Most IT people I know hate Ubuntu (and that was before the "Unity" debacle and now "HUD").
For example, my Linux Networking tutor "hates" Windows, but he'd rather use W7 than Ubuntu.
He's a "Fedora Man".
If I hadn't already customised Ubuntu 10.04, I'd probably switch to "Linux Mint + Cinnamon".
CentOS would probably be the way-to-go for business users.
I didn't experience any glitches when we used it on my networking course.
In a business setting, individuals shouldn't be installing software or updating their PCs, the IT dept. should be handling that (just like in a Windows environment).
Businesses could pay for RHEL.
I don't know what the price comparison between RHEL and MS is like though.
The real problem is that certain groups (e.g. Government) insist that submissions be made using MS Office formats.
Last edited by lehnerus2000; 01 Feb 2012 at 21:12. Reason: Additional
Quote