rogergonnet said:
Personally, I dont understand why MS dont just keep supporting XP, and
for that matter, Win98. Not everyone wants all the extra bloat they add
to their newer OSs, and not everyone can afford to keep buying newer
computers to use their latest OSs.
There is nothing to understand here. Microsoft is running a business
not some charity to support hobbyists and enthusiasts like Linux
developers are.
Plus every computer that switches have a learning curve. SomethingTrue, but if a business does not satisfy consumer wants and needs, they
will fail. Even the huge MS monopoly could fail if they stop tending to
the needs of their customers. Of all the people I know who use
computers, only 1 in 10 have gone beyond XP. Most of them say they dont
want a newer OS and are happy with what they have.
Plus every computer that switches have a learning curve. Something
simple like moving "show desktop" from one side of the taskbar to the
other and then camouflaging it is one of hundreds of frustrations each
user will have to go through.
Maybe they should add a "dislike" button just to see what the total
would be.
| My credit union says their ATM have to be fixed nearly every day.
| Windows would explain a lot of things.
|
| They should switch to Fedora Core Linux (which is
| security hardened) and kiss these problems good by.
|
I posted a link about that very issue last week:
https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247096/ATM_operators_eye_Linux_as_alternative_to_Windows_XP
Some operators of ATMs are thinking of switching
to Linux in the face of Microsoft's aggressive stance.
They should switch to Fedora Core Linux (which is
security hardened) and kiss these problems good by.
Something
simple like moving "show desktop" from one side of the taskbar to the
other and then camouflaging it is one of hundreds of frustrations each
user will have to go through.
Per Todd:
Is there something in Linux's architecture? If not, I'd think that once
the number of Linux installs reached a certain number, hacker man-hours
would start being devoted to it.
(PeteCresswell) said:Per Todd:
Is there something in Linux's architecture? If not, I'd think that once
the number of Linux installs reached a certain number, hacker man-hours
would start being devoted to it.
We wouldn't know until the problems start showing up.
Paul
The only way to crash Linux is to kick it over, pour
coffee down it, or a huge power spike.
Per Todd:
Before MS got in to home LANs, I ran something from Novell.
The words of wisdom that I heard were to the effect of: "If Novell goes
down, just start looking for the hardware failure.... period."
Use to work on OS/2 also. I liked that one.
Ran Windows programs much faster and more stable
than Windows. IBM were such idiots that they
killed it off. Sad to see it go.
[]There is nothing to understand here. Microsoft is running a business
not some charity to support hobbyists and enthusiasts like Linux
developers are.
True, but if a business does not satisfy consumer wants and needs, they
will fail. Even the huge MS monopoly could fail if they stop tending to
the needs of their customers. Of all the people I know who use
computers, only 1 in 10 have gone beyond XP. Most of them say they dont
want a newer OS and are happy with what they have.
A business can only make money, if they satisfy the wants and needs of
the consumers. In this case, it's not just a matter of tastes, but it's