Why Windows Is Broken

Article

 

yes and it just updates and rehashes from old IBM technology from 1981. They are still selling us 27 year old DOS technology. A classic example of whats popular ain't the best.

 

Here's another article entitled Windows is Collapsing. http://www.macworld.co.uk/business/news/index.cfm?newsid=20965

 

good sourse hahahahaha

 

But is there any truth to it?

 

I've always said that since the Apple II days. From babelism of the myriad computer OS systems back from the 1980's, we have "embraced" the singular voice that is MS. Corporate America deemed MS to be the vanguard of this singular voice and everyone else had to follow along or "travel on the technology pathway alone".

 

Wait.

Unix is over thirty years ago developed, and still a strong OS.
Apple's OS X is based on Unix technology for example. And Linux also.

 

Windows might be considered broken by some it might even be accused of bring so large that it will collapse on itself. these thoughts may be true but it is still the best operating system around. for general computing Mac,Linux and unix just aren't there. Maybe thats why Windows has such a large lead over all of the rest put togther. Ya Think.

 

Yea....I think. But only in part. Another reason is marketing, then there is Marketing, then there is more MARKETING.

 

Windows maybe the best desktop OS, Unix maybe the best server OS... I do not know.

What Windows did bring us was a uniform, easy to use GUI and a suit of office based applications that would run on cheap hardware years before anyone else. Linux was still a Uni student personal project, Unix's had basic gui, but were 99.999% being used for server and scientific purposed, Macs were sticking to their graphic design niche on expensive hardware. Its no wonder MS sold bucket loads of operating systems and office applications.
Its taken a decade (more ?!?) for the other OS's to become anywhere near competitive in terms of offering a good GUI and apps that the average office worker can operate (which is where MS by far sell most of its licences).

What I find interesting is that its not the desktop environments that are coming under scrutiny in recent years, people seem to be capable of switching between Windows, Linux (Gnome/KDE) or OS X for example, but its the under lying architectures, security being the major talking point.
Its here where windows starts to loose out, by concentrating on the front end first and building a system to satisfy the front end GUI needs through its history, its ended up with decent gui performance, barely acceptable stability, but lacking in security.
The Unix and Linux cousins have had different approach, a solid foundation, but will accept no compromise to security and stability or performance, even if it means GUI development takes a longer time, but now they are in a favourable position, because they have a proven inherited secure stable underlying OS and competitive GUIs.

But that's only technologically speaking, the biggest hurdle to get over is the fact Windows is a house-hold name and Linux/Unix is still very much only known to the tech-savvy which makes up less than 0.1% of the population. But things are changing, there are large national organisations starting to take notice of Linux, OS X is more popular than ever, the word is spreading, but there will be massive inertia, it will be many many years before people mutter Gnome, KDE or Tiger in the same breathe as Vista.
Vista, this is the first example of how Windows is starting to loose popularity and there's more and more large organisations talking about using Linux instead of Windows; for the first time ever Microsoft is being challenged, not on what it can offer to the end user, but on security, stability and performance, Windows has a long way to fall to loose dominance, but don't forget that there will be still time for Windows to recover and maybe MS will make the next evolutionary step lin architecture like they did when they went from win 9x to 2000.

Cheers, Nick.

 

Not everyone is embracing Microsoft but thanks to the Internet communication is better than ever and so technologys are overtaking Microsoft as they are not bound by corporate ways. Microsoft is buying up 20 companies a year because they are very worried. Less competition is bad in this case as Microsoft is not the ideal company to lead the way. Any good talent gets swept up and the money becomes hard to resist. The trouble is with corporate it takes so long for better new technologys to filter down until they available. The internet establishes new ways of creativity which of course you seen already. Everybody can agree they want better than Microsoft.The Internet is like a free company in itself, people can work the way they want which achieves better production and design.

Yes they are strong on the reliability of Unix. My point being that as Microsoft is the global dominance that it should be the better o/s as it has the most power to do something about but we don't see that happening as it has other agenda's. Microsoft can't control everything, limit growth and be the leader at same time that's a contradiction. It's not innovative as it got to keep hold of it's market share. Microsoft can't keep up with the technical elite who will find the shortest path to achieve it. Do you think we should keep building on the same 30 year old technologys that still trys to keep backwards compatibility even if it stable and don't crash? That's the problem. It don't matter whether it built on Linux Apple or Microsoft.

It's time for the an o/s to be built on new technologies. The new more efficient technologys that you coming out of the web will all come together into an operating system like what Google are trying to achieve. You now see the different operating systems copying from each other but something smarter more intuitive from the ground up will win. A better o/s would need to abandon ways of the past. An ideal o/s should be simpler, user friendly and more efficient and not weighed down with fancy features. A o/s can be built with new ideas and surely will be better learning from mistakes of the past. I see virtualization technologys playing a big role as ways to achieve this and this will help security of the o/s also.

 

The original source:

http://www.computerworld.com/action...ArticleBasic&articleId=9076698&intsrc=hm_list


What do WE do about it ?

Of course, there is the Mac (Apple), but the first release of their new firewall didn't exactly inspire confidence. What was the problem: was the firewall OFF by default, bugged, or both ?
And there are some other good reasons for NOT buying a Mac.

Aside from some exotic and rarely used OS', like OpenBSD, there is Linux.

Truth be told, I didn't keep track of Linux over the past few years.
Some people say it's safe, because few people use it. But with an eye to the future, that may not last long.
How safe is Linux really ? I know Unix has a reputation for being safe. But with Linux being open-source, the bad guys have it easy. (In theory, things can be fixed quicker that way, but there is a delay between the exploitation of a vulnerability, and when the vulnerability is patched/fixed, especially if the abuse and existance of a vulnerability is kept hidden for a considerable time). In today's and tomorrow's malware world. I presume it's not as safe as Unix ? (I'm not sure if Unix is (always) proprietary)
How easy or difficult is it to use, for the average somewhat computer-literate person ? (I've read about differences between 'versions', like RedHat vs others, but again, that was a long time ago). Does it have a good graphical interface, is it intuitive to use, stable ?
I presume it can't handle multiple cores ?

To be honest, I liked the simplicity and stability of MS-Dos, but with the advent of the internet I switched to Windows.

 

I'm playing around with Ubuntu. It has a much steeper learning curve than Windows, in my opinion. If you dislike DOS, you will hate Linux. It seems like just about anything you want to do in Linux requires some programming skill. You need to use a lot of command windows and have lots of command codes in your head to use this thing very much. Lazy? You bet. I want quick and easy. Self extracting and installing program installations. If Linux ever gets these, I'm just about on board. Plug and play would be another good feature. And maybe even some different desktop themes to replace the drab browns and blues would be nice. But now, I guess, I'm bogging Linux down with a lot more overhead, too. Can't win.

~Dave

 

Files with a deb extension can be installed by double-clicking them.

Also programs can easily be installed from Add/Remove Applications or the Synaptic Package Manager.

I think it is Plug and Play, it just may not have drivers.

http://gnome-look.org/
http://www.deviantart.com/

 

there maybe some truth to it but its still macworld so its still be to be careful what you belive from that article.
even the closeest competetor to windows which is apple is maintaining a niche market mainly due to the high price of the equipment and the fact you have to buy the hardware and software from apple.

i dont think linux is ready for the main stream eiether due to to much commandline needed to install drivers. the package managers are getting easier to use but i still think its far off from becoming main stream.

comsumers want an operating system that works all the time,easy to use,and is as secure as possible.
if apple sold OSX leopard on its own and shipped with pc's from dell etc like microsoft do then they might have it other wise they will always be a niche market.

 

I'm curious, why do you choose Ubuntu over Linux/Windows ?

 

I have Ubuntu on a HDD in another removable caddy. Just to play around with it. I have XP on a drive in another caddy. That's my main working OS. I switch just to try and get used to Linux.

~Dave

 

Argument Reply to Windows is collapsing.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/windows_collapsing_2011_tipping_point.php

 

Predictions are great, but as long as the world will be based on money, they will take much more longer to fullfill. Windows will stand its position on market at least till Windows 7 (2012), then it depends on its quality and on quality other OS like Linux. They say, that new Windows allways take more resources, but they forget to say, that it has also more features. A user can have a light OS, which he has to control or he can have an OS, which can control itself almost without an intervention. Eg speech recognition lags on old PC, but it runs fine on a new PC. What do you think, how much CPU and RAM takes a computer on the Enterprise. I guess, that Star Trek's crew would not trade it for some light OS just to do to all its work manually instead of spending their free time on a Holodeck.

P.S.: It is true, that MS does not optimize its software, it just creates it and ships it and that it is its mistake. MS has to hire more people or it will fall.

 

It's very hard to predict anything. I don't think MS is going to fail to deliver a new OS on a technical level. Too much money and employees. It's impossible.
But the market could change (how much is very subjective without some serious research). But they will be market leaders for a long time.
People are used to it (stuck with it).

One thing that flashes in my face when i refer to GNU/Linux to 'computer uninterested friends' is that they think it could be good, but Windows is pretty and it's easy to use.

What they're not saying is that they never tried anything else (like me pre-Wilders) -comparison is non existent- and they just use whatever was on the PC.
The advanced ones download an AV.
I know a few of these that changed OS. How? They bought a new computer
--> a MAC.

To have a real change in the market, some other OS has to come with it:
1- People don't look for alternative OS's for their existing PC's. They buy PC's.
2- Even trying one, there are good chances some driver problems will make them give up. That's because, up until recently at least, drivers were afaik really made by the free software community, not the hardware manufacturers. MS does not have to reverse engineer drivers to build Windows compatible ones. That was never an obstacle.
The community really wants the specs to develop free drivers, but even proprietary binaries were poor.

Hardware manufacturers have a clear incentive to supply Windows, for their own market positioning.

Besides hardware compatibility, there's the "ease of use" or intuitiveness, and compatibility with other people's file formats (proprietary, closed, absolutely nothing to do with any standard) - documents, spreadsheets, videos etc., at home or work - could be the main MS winning variables.

GNU/Linux based distributions or BSD or Solaris could, and some are being built to be easy to use (graphically, using the mouse mainly). That is no longer the main issue in my view. Most people confuse hardware support with how easy it is.
Windows comes pre-installed, with all the drivers.

Compatibility is the reason imo they are NOT interested in supporting standards. The profit drives them that way, so to stimulate competition, standards should be enforced by governments, imho. That is their main task.

Regulation, as long as not excessive, is needed to foster competition. And it's probably not going to be "ISO", but the EU.

Once everyone can read each other's documents no matter what OS, it's mainly down to what computer was best advertised.

Of course web applications will play a role. But if the computer is shipped with Windows..

Much is left unsaid of course. Some reasoning flaws here and there no doubt.

 

Yeah, but thanks to vista, that is now changing...not radically, but changing nevertheless

1.- Asus EeePC, shiping with Linux or XP -->there is an OS choice
2.- The hype Mac is getting --> OS choice (although one can argue that in this case is the hardware and not the OS the main factor...most people I know that want a mac, doesn't know what an OS or a driver is)
3.- Roughly 80% of the people I know that bought a PC vith Vista pre-loaded, have downgraded (or upgraded ) to XP

So now IMO OS's are slowly starting to get peoples attention, and that is a good thing I think.

Still a long way for "common folks" to try or at least talk about distros, BSD, etc...

 

1- is only one initiative, could mean something or not.
On 3-, your experience is valid, but on the large scale, well, you know..
Actually it would be interesting to see some statistics on that. Although these probably have flaws, they should tell us something if done right.

 

Slightly steeper, I'd say, but not that much more.

I don't need any command codes in my head to use Ubuntu, nor have i got any programming skills and i still have found it fairly intuitive to learn; the few I did need to get linux fully set up were easily found through Google, then just a matter of copy/paste in the terminal window to use them.

 

I know, my statements are based on my experience. And I agree with your post, people don't shop for an OS. I was just stating that things are slowly starting to change (hopefully, because this will be better for everyone, including MS lovers)