Upgrade to Windows7

[Steel]

How is that any of your business?

How is your meddling any of your business?

 

[Boscoe]

It's not much more difficult to use one computer with a new OS than it is
to upgrade from one version of MS to another - both systems will have all
the support needed to 'administer' a single computer fairly handily
available. An argument could be made that the Linux install would be
easier due to a readily available package management system to install
virtually all the software the user could ever need.

Hasn't it sunk in yet that the reason Windows is so popular is because
it's so simple and everything works. Most people aren't interested in
fiddling around with an O/S. Life's too short.

 

[ray]

No you said modern O/S(S). You should have said the desktop in there
somewhere. Your buddies over there in COLA don't make the distinction
about an O/S Android phone O/S or otherwise. It's all Linux.

Very sorry there - I just assumed you were following up on the OP - I was
obviously mistaken.

 

[VanguardLH]

Hasn't it sunk in yet that the reason Windows is so popular is because
it's so simple and everything works. Most people aren't interested in
fiddling around with an O/S. Life's too short.

I'm not sure that is the reason. Windows took off because it was geared
towards consumers in its early versions. *NIX wasn't designed back then
for consumer-grade hosts and university projects didn't even consider
having to do marketing. There is inertia involved in a history of
consumers adopting an OS and then sticking with it. That's why Mac
(non-OS/X) managed to survive for so long despite the dearth of software
titles available for it when compared to what became available for
Windows. Even now you have to be careful should you migrate to a
variant of Linux (or any other OS) from Windows that the software you
now use has an equivalent that will run under Linux (yeah, you can use
WINE if you don't give a gnat's fart about performance).

Many companys have mission critical software that requires the use of a
particular OS platform, like Windows. For end users on home PCs, as is
the case for the OP, the mission critical apps are most likely games
since many but not all other Windows tasks have equivalent Linux apps
(but remember that there will always be resistance by users for the
learning curve to educate themselves to the same level of proficiency
for a new app regardless of how "equivalent" the Linux app may be).
Yes, for word processing, slideshows, and spreadsheets you can replace
MS Office with the equivalent app of OpenOffice but OpenOffice is *not*
the same as using Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. Users already invested
their time to learn one set of apps and really don't have a requirement
to change to another OS - unless the money for the OS is enough of an
impetus to do the switch. Obviously that hasn't been the case and users
still fork out their money for new versions of Windows despite Linux is
free. So the cost of the OS or even its licensing has not yet been an
overriding concern to consumers.

I've worked for software development companies for many years. When I
was in an IBM software shop (not owned by IBM but produced software for
IBM main- and mid-frames), we were supporting all the major operating
systems produced by IBM. That even included the 20-year old ancient
VSE. Customers were still using it because it worked for them, ran
their old mission critical software, and it would be too costly to
switch to a newer or different OS along with losing all the existing
expertise, having to retrain their IT, helpdesk, and employees and
especially in having to contract someone to recode and retest all their
OS-specific software. This isn't just something companies have to
suffer when they switch to a completely different OS but also consumers.

There is inertia to overcome from consumers that have been using
Windows. There is inertia to overcome from the list of titles available
for Windows for which there is no *direct* replacement for Linux. There
is inertia to overcome for the differences in the OS to gain expertise
in using it. The is inertia to overcome in learning equivalent apps or
replacement software to accomplish the same tasks in the new OS thare
performed under the old OS. Not everyone is looking for a free OS as it
isn't their major criteria for its choice, and there are lots of users
that actually do want and pay for support rather than have to wander off
into the anarchy known as Usenet to obtain dubious and unreliable peer
support. Of course, this works conversely, too. A user or shop that
has engrained themself solely into Linux and the apps that run on it
will have similar inertia to overcome if they decided or forced by
requirements to switch to a completely different OS. It hurts to move
so it depends on how much pain the user or company is willing to
tolerate in time, training, and cost (and a switch to Linux may not be
free as indicated by the other posters, especially if task-specific
software is required, has to be converted from the other OS, or the user
or company wants solid support).

Not everyone devalues their time as worthless to learn a new OS or new
albeit possibly equivalent apps so they can remain *as* proficient as
they were before. The Linux proselytizers always mention the OS is free
without noting the actual costs of time to do the migration and omitting
that there may not be (and usually is not) near-equivalent apps in
Linux. Apparently they don't value their time. Once you get past the
pretty desktop which has been made more and more to be Windows-like, the
administration of the OS is quite different. Since you may get stuck
with using an equivalent app on Linux (whose "equivalency" could still
be significantly different), it'll take time to become just as
proficient with it as you were under the old OS. If you're willing to
do all that learning to do the migration and have the time to do it and
are willing to suffer any incidental costs then the switch is less
painful and doable. However, from what I've seen, those that switch
from Windows to Linux still keep Windows around.

I think we lost the OP quite a ways back. Linux is not even a glimmer
of a choice to him so this and the other Linux debating subthreads are
completely off-topic.

 

[Nil]

And do you make a donation to Linux or contribute anything to it?

How would that be relevant?

Or do you let others do all the dirty work for you?

What dirty work?

 

[Stan Brown]

Hasn't it sunk in yet that the reason Windows is so popular is because
it's so simple and everything works. Most people aren't interested in
fiddling around with an O/S. Life's too short.

I will say that Windows 7 seems to be closer to that ideal than
Windows XP, which in turn was closer than Windows 98. I've seen Win 7
do some surprising self healing.

But Windows isn't popular or not popular. People use it because it's
virtually impossible to buy a PC without it, and Macs are sold in
fewer places and are more expensive. Windows has the market share it
does because of excellent marketing by Microsoft to computer
manufacturers, not because of any intrinsic excellence of Windows.

 

[Peter Foldes]

How would that be relevant?


What dirty work?

Nil

Frank's alter ego Trolling

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

 

[VanguardLH]

How would that be relevant?


What dirty work?

He's probably referring to the freeloaders that only use FOSS without
ever contributing to it (via money or coding). Yep, I'm a freeloader of
Linux, too (openSuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc) because I don't get involved
with its development nor contribute to any particular distro to help
fund its further development or the resources needed to distribute the
distro (assuming you can even contribute which is often not the case).

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/get-involved/donate lets you contribute
support for [k]ubuntu. Not all distros ask for donations. Not all *NIX
variants ask or even want donations. Why would you contribute to
[open]SuSE which is funded by Novell who is obviously a commercial
enterprise allocating a portion of their revenue towards this distro?
They get money by selling you support or enterprise solutions.

Boscoe lumped them all under the umbrella of "Linux" so I don't which
distro to which he might refer that actually accepts donations and where
he considers you a freeloader if you contribute money or time. After
all, these distros were produced under the altruistic premise of being
free and that really does mean free to the user. Donation is voluntary,
and not even expected. You could also pickup trash you seeing lying
along the highway. Do you, though?

 

[Nil]

Frank's alter ego Trolling

I suspected as much. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[Boscoe]

I'm not sure that is the reason. Windows took off because it was geared
towards consumers in its early versions. *NIX wasn't designed back then
for consumer-grade hosts and university projects didn't even consider
having to do marketing. There is inertia involved in a history of
consumers adopting an OS and then sticking with it. That's why Mac
(non-OS/X) managed to survive for so long despite the dearth of software
titles available for it when compared to what became available for
Windows. Even now you have to be careful should you migrate to a
variant of Linux (or any other OS) from Windows that the software you
now use has an equivalent that will run under Linux (yeah, you can use
WINE if you don't give a gnat's fart about performance).

Many companys have mission critical software that requires the use of a
particular OS platform, like Windows. For end users on home PCs, as is
the case for the OP, the mission critical apps are most likely games
since many but not all other Windows tasks have equivalent Linux apps
(but remember that there will always be resistance by users for the
learning curve to educate themselves to the same level of proficiency
for a new app regardless of how "equivalent" the Linux app may be).
Yes, for word processing, slideshows, and spreadsheets you can replace
MS Office with the equivalent app of OpenOffice but OpenOffice is *not*
the same as using Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. Users already invested
their time to learn one set of apps and really don't have a requirement
to change to another OS - unless the money for the OS is enough of an
impetus to do the switch. Obviously that hasn't been the case and users
still fork out their money for new versions of Windows despite Linux is
free. So the cost of the OS or even its licensing has not yet been an
overriding concern to consumers.

I've worked for software development companies for many years. When I
was in an IBM software shop (not owned by IBM but produced software for
IBM main- and mid-frames), we were supporting all the major operating
systems produced by IBM. That even included the 20-year old ancient
VSE. Customers were still using it because it worked for them, ran
their old mission critical software, and it would be too costly to
switch to a newer or different OS along with losing all the existing
expertise, having to retrain their IT, helpdesk, and employees and
especially in having to contract someone to recode and retest all their
OS-specific software. This isn't just something companies have to
suffer when they switch to a completely different OS but also consumers.

There is inertia to overcome from consumers that have been using
Windows. There is inertia to overcome from the list of titles available
for Windows for which there is no *direct* replacement for Linux. There
is inertia to overcome for the differences in the OS to gain expertise
in using it. The is inertia to overcome in learning equivalent apps or
replacement software to accomplish the same tasks in the new OS thare
performed under the old OS. Not everyone is looking for a free OS as it
isn't their major criteria for its choice, and there are lots of users
that actually do want and pay for support rather than have to wander off
into the anarchy known as Usenet to obtain dubious and unreliable peer
support. Of course, this works conversely, too. A user or shop that
has engrained themself solely into Linux and the apps that run on it
will have similar inertia to overcome if they decided or forced by
requirements to switch to a completely different OS. It hurts to move
so it depends on how much pain the user or company is willing to
tolerate in time, training, and cost (and a switch to Linux may not be
free as indicated by the other posters, especially if task-specific
software is required, has to be converted from the other OS, or the user
or company wants solid support).

Not everyone devalues their time as worthless to learn a new OS or new
albeit possibly equivalent apps so they can remain *as* proficient as
they were before. The Linux proselytizers always mention the OS is free
without noting the actual costs of time to do the migration and omitting
that there may not be (and usually is not) near-equivalent apps in
Linux. Apparently they don't value their time. Once you get past the
pretty desktop which has been made more and more to be Windows-like, the
administration of the OS is quite different. Since you may get stuck
with using an equivalent app on Linux (whose "equivalency" could still
be significantly different), it'll take time to become just as
proficient with it as you were under the old OS. If you're willing to
do all that learning to do the migration and have the time to do it and
are willing to suffer any incidental costs then the switch is less
painful and doable. However, from what I've seen, those that switch
from Windows to Linux still keep Windows around.

I think we lost the OP quite a ways back. Linux is not even a glimmer
of a choice to him so this and the other Linux debating subthreads are
completely off-topic.

I've got to say this is an excellent reply and you make a lot of good
points as does Stan Brown who sums it up nicely. If only all the post
on here were as articulate and thoughtfully expressed as this, then this
group would become a valuable experience to everyone that visited.

 

[Boscoe]

Boscoe lumped them all under the umbrella of "Linux" so I don't which
distro to which he might refer that actually accepts donations and where
he considers you a freeloader if you contribute money or time. After
all, these distros were produced under the altruistic premise of being
free and that really does mean free to the user. Donation is voluntary,
and not even expected. You could also pickup trash you seeing lying
along the highway. Do you, though?

What I'm getting at is most freeware, which means precisely that, though
you may be encouraged to pay a modest registration fee - it's only
polite if you find it useful and continue to use it.

‘Open source’ software, which essentially means users are encouraged to
help with its development so it is constantly evolving. Commercial
distributions are the ‘personal’ versions
of Fedora Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSe.

 

[Steel]

Did I disrupt your little put down?

Stupid go now go over there and stand in the corner.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I suppose you could say it qualifies as an OS from which to upgrade to
Win7. ;-)

I guess I could say that