Linux is free. But windows cheaper than linux????

[Text Stephen]

Inline:



I know, but at least I advocate a real operating system, not a mess of
config files and kernel recompiles.



Well, what do you expect? A whole bunch of people conspired to get
Microsoft, so what?



Take it to COLA. They listen to drivel about Linux there. Don't take it
wrong though, it's nothing personal.

 

[Winux P]

: ***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll. I am just
writting
: an answer to the linux users who make fun of windows users, and some food
: for thought for everyone. I think that even though this is a general post
it
: is not in any way irrelivent to the windowsXP newsgroups, since I am sure
: lots of people would like to read this point of view.
:
: A linux advocate downloads linux, installs it on a $500 - $800 powerful
: computer, and is happy that you he has a free OS.
: Furthermore he goes about making fun of everyone else with windows
: computers, calling them stupid.
:
: How blind can a person be?
:
: If you look further into the mechanisms that made this possible
: you will see that windows was the OS responsible for this.
:
: Windows was the OS that let people of all kinds to start using computers
in
: an everyday basis. Windows was the OS that changed computers from a thing
: only
: super geeks that had gone to 5 years to learn how to program, to a thing
any
: person could do, even a child. Childsplay!
: Windows was the OS that changed the whole market for software and
hardware,
: created new opportunities, new hardware innovations, new technologies, and
: the expansion of the internet to what we have now.
:
: Thousands went to study computer programming because of windows.
: Thousands of jobs where created to fuel the windows and computer
revolution.
: Thousands of computers were installed in businesses, homes, schools and
: everyone
: started using them.
:
: Windows created all this foundation that we have today.
:
: Linux now stepped on that foundation of cheap computers, the expanded
: internet, and computer literate community
: and used that to try to develop a user friendly version of its OS. THIS
HAS
: NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED even to this day.
: As any logical person would observe, it is stealing resources from the
: windows platform. Not to say that most of its programs
: are developed like clones or rip-offs of windows applications.
:
: If you take everything I said into account, if people had not used
windows,
: the computers would be more expensive, the internet would be smaller,
: less people would be using computers, less people would be designing
: hardware, less people would be being educated to be programmers,
: less software would exist. Practically we would be 10 years behind... and
10
: years in computer time is like hundreds of years normal time.
:
: So if windows made everything cheaper and more accessible, isn't it more
: cost efficient for it to exist, than linux? I say that it has a negative
: cost...
: meaning that it brings more money in that it takes out and created new
: possibilities that would never exist without it.
: In other words if we wanted to have what we have now, with technology that
: was 10 years older, the cost would be unbearable, even if it was possible.
:
: Having said all that, I know of course that windows was created on top of
a
: unix prehistory... MS found programmers and ideas from unix.
: But you cannot disregard the influence windows had on the advancement of
: technologies we have today.
:
: I personally would slap a linux geek on the face if he giggled at me
saying
: that I was stupid because I used windows.
: I would call that disrespect to what enabled him to be in that position.
:
:
: Kenny.

Agreed Kenny, and in a corporate-business sense as well. In a previous
vocation (not loo long ago), we were contemplating a Linux desktop server
network system do reduce the cost of software purchases. In a company of up
to 300 workstations and 11 servers I went on my merry way costing up the out
lay and was given permission to install Linux on 7 workstaions and one
(bogus) Linux server to try it all out.

In terms of price, you bet you'll practically pay nothing for Linux (except
RedHat was a bit pricey). In terms of getting the network happening... Well
it happenned but took a lot longer than a Windows network set up, that could
of just been me but, that wasn't our worry. When I was costing support, I
thought (I mean I know) MS is on the crapper, but Linux support made both me
and my boss crap non-stop in disbelief. I've had cheaper girlfriends than
that! Not one cheap, one of the biggest offenders in price for support was
IBM and the biggest rip off was Sun whom offered support for RH Linux even
though they've got there own Unix Flavours.

Well that little project got canned and the company ain't going off MS
Windows. I personally have used Linux (SuSE) less and less as time goes on.
It's a good fast OS that takes alot less resources to install on and run
well on, I really like on on installation you can mount "special" folders on
specific drives (I wish Windows could do that) but it just doesn't keep up
on all (even superficial) techonogies that comes with this industry, like
DOOM III.

....and Open Office doesn't come anywhere near MS Office in terms of
functionailty, bloat, ease of development and, employee familiarity with the
product.

- Winux P

 

[kenny]

I never said the best becomes the most popular.
I never said that windows was original.. please read my post again.

Why something in technology evolves and continues to exist, is very
similar to how evolution works in biology. There are many factors at play.
But windows got the combination right, and thats why its all around!

Or do you deny this simple fact I am stating with all my original post?

 

[kenny]

Captain.. I dont suppost you imagine yourself upon a starship or anything?

Why are you responding then to me who you claim that I am worst than a
troll,
doesnt that make you worse that somebody worse than a troll?
Or troll in the power of 3.

 

[Gordon]

...and Open Office doesn't come anywhere near MS Office in terms of
functionailty, bloat, ease of development and, employee familiarity
with the product.

Umm BLOAT? In OPEN OFFICE? Are you plain bonkers? MS Office 2003
Professional on my XP machine takes up 402MB. Open Office 2 on the same
machine - 202 MB. Which one, in your opinion, is bloat?
Have you actually USED Open Office 2? It does almost EXACTLY the same as MS
Office 2002. As an Advanced Excel user, Open Office is almost IDENTICAL to
Excel 2002. In fact they even LOOK the same, so you CAN'T have used it.
Anyone who can use MS Office 2002 can very easily use Open Office 2. There
is no more learning curve involved than going from Office 2002 to Office
2003.
And in fact OO 2 has functions which Office 2003 does not have - like export
to PDF built-in.

 

[All Things Mopar]

Today kenny commented courteously on the subject at hand

***Disclamer*** I am not bashing linux, I am not a troll. I
am just writting an answer to the linux users who make fun
of windows users, and some food for thought for everyone. I
think that even though this is a general post it is not in
any way irrelivent to the windowsXP newsgroups, since I am
sure lots of people would like to read this point of view.

don't much like Bill, I guess...

A linux advocate downloads linux, installs it on a $500 -
$800 powerful computer, and is happy that you he has a free
OS. Furthermore he goes about making fun of everyone else
with windows computers, calling them stupid.

How blind can a person be?

If you look further into the mechanisms that made this
possible you will see that windows was the OS responsible
for this.

Windows was the OS that let people of all kinds to start
using computers in an everyday basis. Windows was the OS
that changed computers from a thing only
super geeks that had gone to 5 years to learn how to
program, to a thing any person could do, even a child.
Childsplay! Windows was the OS that changed the whole
market for software and hardware, created new
opportunities, new hardware innovations, new technologies,
and the expansion of the internet to what we have now.

Thousands went to study computer programming because of
windows. Thousands of jobs where created to fuel the
windows and computer revolution. Thousands of computers
were installed in businesses, homes, schools and everyone
started using them.

Windows created all this foundation that we have today.

Linux now stepped on that foundation of cheap computers,
the expanded internet, and computer literate community
and used that to try to develop a user friendly version of
its OS. THIS HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED even to this day.
As any logical person would observe, it is stealing
resources from the windows platform. Not to say that most
of its programs are developed like clones or rip-offs of
windows applications.

If you take everything I said into account, if people had
not used windows, the computers would be more expensive,
the internet would be smaller, less people would be using
computers, less people would be designing hardware, less
people would be being educated to be programmers, less
software would exist. Practically we would be 10 years
behind... and 10 years in computer time is like hundreds of
years normal time.

So if windows made everything cheaper and more accessible,
isn't it more cost efficient for it to exist, than linux? I
say that it has a negative cost...
meaning that it brings more money in that it takes out and
created new possibilities that would never exist without
it. In other words if we wanted to have what we have now,
with technology that was 10 years older, the cost would be
unbearable, even if it was possible.

Having said all that, I know of course that windows was
created on top of a unix prehistory... MS found programmers
and ideas from unix. But you cannot disregard the influence
windows had on the advancement of technologies we have
today.

hmmm. always thought Bill stole this from the Apple Lisa/Mac,
with some heavy borrowing from the old Xerox Star, first
computer with a GUI and a mouse.

Unix grew up on computers larger, more powerful, and 100X as
expensive as PCs, known as "workstations". Now, if you'd said
Linus was loosely derived from how Unix "works", I'd agree.
Some. There's no standard for Unix anymore, just an arcane
command line that hardware manufacturers put a GUI on for all
but the IT folks.

 

[All Things Mopar]

Today Mike Hall (MS-MVP) commented courteously on the subject
at hand

At the time, IBM could not see that the clones would take
over.. they persisted in making expensive MCA machines that
used equally expensive MCA expansion cards and, as another
said, they didn't want to market OS/2 lessen it was
installed on a machine that few could afford other than the
corporates.. it was all just too proprietary..

If IBM had written the contract Bill Gates wrote, which had a
clause buried in 150 pages saying he could sell DOS himself,
there also wouldn't have been any clones. Or, had IBM done what
Apple did and not publish the specs for their first PC, there
wouldn't have been any clones.

But, then, too, IBM would actually be /less/ wealthy, as they
eventually profited from the decision to open up their machines,
even if it were painful for quite a while.

As the sales of the Intel/Microsoft clones rose sharply and
with the advent of Intel's PCI plug n play abilities, OS/2
and MCA slowly committed themselves to obscurity, not
because they were no good, but purely because the unfolding
market for computers was not prepared to pay the price..
MCA technology was way ahead of it's time, and is still
used in some of the RS/6000 machines..

Ah, yes, O/S 2...

 

[kenny]

in other words OO is a rip of of MS office?
So we aggree?

LOL

 

[Winux P]

: Winux P wrote:
: >
: > ...and Open Office doesn't come anywhere near MS Office in terms of
: > functionailty, bloat, ease of development and, employee familiarity
: > with the product.
:
: Umm BLOAT? In OPEN OFFICE?

No read it properly idiot.
"...and Open Office doesn't come anywhere near MS Office in terms of ..,
bloat.."
Are you plain bonkers? No but you exceptionally bonkers.

MS Office 2003 Professional on my XP machine takes up 402MB. Open Office 2
on the same
: machine - 202 MB. Which one, in your opinion, is bloat?

MS Office like I said idiot.

: Have you actually USED Open Office 2? Yes
: It does almost EXACTLY the same as MS Office 2002. So What!

: As an Advanced Excel user, Open Office is almost IDENTICAL to Excel 2002.
In fact they even LOOK the same, so you CAN'T have used it.
Can you pull yourself elsewhere?

: Anyone who can use MS Office 2002 can very easily use Open Office 2. There
is no more learning curve involved than going from Office 2002 to Office
: 2003.
So which more popular and which is more expensive?

: And in fact OO 2 has functions which Office 2003 does not have - like
export to PDF built-in.

So which more popular and which is more expensive?

- Winux P

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

IBM wrote the contract.. They had no idea that the PC would take off like it
did.. they expected to sell a few thousand and that would be that.. BG was
given all of the rights because IBM didn't consider that it would amount to
much.. it was not long before IBM licensed out manufacture because they
could not keep up with demand..

In the early days, all producers of the PC's, IBM and the IBM 'clone'
manufacturers could afford to make proprietary stuff.. but Microsoft Windows
3.0 and the cheaper Intel based clones (the PCs with 5 pin DIN keyboard
sockets and serial mice) broke the mould as they marketed specifically at
home users and small offices who couldn't afford the 'corporate' machines of
the original makers..

OK.. so Microsoft encouraged the cheap clone producers to pre-install the
OS, but they were not the only company doing this.. Lotus took a shot at it
by offering cut down SmartSuite as an Office option, and they did ok until
MS released their Office products which, with all respect, were more
accomplished.. pre-installing also gave 'value added' to the PC
manufacturers, and meant that home users could run the computers straight
out of the box.. everybody won back then..

Of course, sales would not continue at break neck speed for ever, and as the
downs hit, some companies gave up or took advantage of being bought out by
the big players.. lets face it, if you or I had a small software or hardware
company, and somebody like MS came and offered us more money than we could
reasonably imagine, we would sell out, yes?..

At the end of the day, the best won out.. Lotus Office products were not
exactly integrating too well, being a mish mash of bought in items, and
WordPerfect's first attempt at a Windows version was quite honestly dire and
buggy..

Bill Gates and MS had much better marketing skills than the opposition, and
put more effort into software production than the others.. in the end, only
IBM were large enough to stand up to Microsoft, but IBM could care less
whether they sold software or not.. now they are trying to fight back with
Linux.. hahahahaha..

IBM R&D is beyond reproach, but talk about leading from behind in every
other field.. past masters, and they continue to be..

 

[Lenard Lund]

Check your history, Microsoft bought Windows from Xerox

Actually, "windows" was invented by Xerox and implemented by Apple.
Microsoft *stole* it. When I bought the first Mac, Windows wasn't even
available yet. All you had was DOS.

Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

Check your history, Microsoft bought Windows from Xerox. They did not
steel it.

 

[Lenard Lund]

I used and loved OS/2 up to and including OS/2 warp version 3. It was light
years ahead of Windows at the time. It proves my contention that the best
often doesn't become the most popular and that marketing has more to do with
popularity than technical superiority. IBM didn't market OS/2 right so it
didn't get 3rd party support. Part of this is due to Microsoft forcing pc
manufacturer's to pay for their OS even if another one was installed and
MS-DOS wasn't even supplied with the machine. The legality and morality of
this tactic can be debated but it is superior marketing. Another problem
with OS/2 was public perception at the time. Microsoft was actually viewed
by many as the little guy fighting the established monopoly (IBM).
Microsoft's monopolistic marketing practices were just starting to come to
public notice.

Kerry

OS2 Warp sucked it was much slower and less user friendly that windows.

 

[Kerry Brown]

OS2 Warp sucked it was much slower and less user friendly that
windows.

It was slower than DOS and Windows 3.1. It was faster than Windows 95 on the
same hardware. It was harder to find drivers for hardware and harder to
install the the drivers than Windows. Once setup and running on comaptible
hardware it was a very secure multi-tasking OS. It is still more secure than
Windows XP and multi-tasks about as well as XP. For it's time it was one of
the easier OS' to install. It was easier to install than Windows NT, Xenix,
Unix, etc. all reasonably comparable for security but no where near as easy
to use. If you grew up on Windows it was different and therefore had a
learning curve to overcome.

Kerry

Kerry

 

[Kerry Brown]

I never said the best becomes the most popular.
I never said that windows was original.. please read my post again.

Why something in technology evolves and continues to exist, is very
similar to how evolution works in biology. There are many factors at
play. But windows got the combination right, and thats why its all
around!
Or do you deny this simple fact I am stating with all my original
post?

Re-reading your original post and your replies in this thread I can only
come to one of two conclusions. 1) You're a troll or 2) You don't express
your opinions very well. While Windows has had a large influence on how
computer technology has developed it can easily be argued that Windows and
Microsoft have actually hindered that development. The fact that Windows is
popular is because of marketing and luck. I'm not bashing Windows. I use it
daily. I prefer it over other OS'. That doesn't mean I'm blind to it's
faults or history. You are starting to sound like the Linux zealots you
profess to despise.

Kerry

 

[kenny]

The disadvantage of using windows is the expense. $150 for the OS, $400

for
the office suite, $50 for the financial software, and I don't know how
much for
AV, Spyware, adware to keep the gremlins out

Why? cant you have windows only and then free applications running on it?
There is freeware for almost everything! More choice for windows than you
have for linux! And yes there are free AVs and spyware.. you name it!

I have experienced the truth that the learning curve from windows to
Xandros
Linux was no more of a curve than going from 3.x to W95 or from W98 to XP.

Oh yeah? How about telling those people on the learning curve to
fishout programs from the internet that can be installed on that machine and
install them? There is a distro package chaos out there! Dependancy
nightmares!
How about finding and installing a driver for a hardware that
the installation does not have at the begining. How about repairing a
problem
after it occures.....?? Hmmmm????

In windows at least you have system restore that fixes most of the problems
in a
few mouse clicks!

Its fine when the sit them in front of a box that has been prepared for them
and there is a tech beside them all the time,
take that out to the real world, on a global scale and its chaos!

HA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gordon]

Why? cant you have windows only and then free applications running on
it? There is freeware for almost everything! More choice for windows
than you have for linux!

Rubbish. Now I KNOW you are either a troll or a total dimbo. There are FAR
more apps written for Linux than Windows. My edition of Ubuntu comes with
over *FIVE**THOUSAND* free apps.

 

[Gordon]

MS Office like I said idiot.

OK I misread that. It was quite late!

In fact they even LOOK the same, so you CAN'T have used it.
Can you pull yourself elsewhere?

Eh? A very cryptic reply if I must say.

is no more learning curve involved than going from Office 2002 to
Office
So which more popular and which is more expensive?

What has that got to do with the ease of use?

So which more popular and which is more expensive?

Your record is stuck. Change it.

 

[kenny]

well who said you know much about software?

Rubbish. Now I KNOW you are either a troll or a total dimbo. There are FAR
more apps written for Linux than Windows. My edition of Ubuntu comes with
over *FIVE**THOUSAND* free apps.

 

[George Hester]

Really who cares who came first? I believe Pioneer was one of the first
consumer electronics and where is that? The issue here is stability. And
many say that the Windows Platform is inherently unstable. I agree with some
of that but any op sys made for the lowest common denominator has an uphill
climb in the area of stability. What may make Linux more stable is the level
of expertise of the user more so than the inherent attributes of the op sys.

So let the Linux user have their day in the sun. It really says nothing
about about which product is best nay more so which user is most
knowledgable. And Windows was developed for the neophyte not the expert.
Windows is a Consumer product Linux really is not at this point.

 

[Text Stephen]

Gordon,

The Linux community will often confuse sheer volume for quality. Of those
5000 apps that bloat a Linux distro's install, 4985 are at alpha quality
level. Another 15 are at beta level.

Typically, when one clicks on a menu feature of one of these "apps", nothing
happens save a dialogue box saying "To be implemented". 5000 apps, my
you-know-what. I almost really don't know how Linux users stand it. But I
actually do: it's amazing how much a person can convolute to keep his
delusions intact.