Windows is crap

Post Reply New Topic

1. Any examples? Hardware issues are probably the biggest issue but this is because people are trying to run Linux on hardware that was designed for Windows; if you run Linux on hardware that was designed for it, everything works very well. You might encounter similar problems if you tried running Windows on Linux hardware. And yes, some commercial programs like Photoshop are supposedly better than the open source alternatives. However, in most cases there are good open source alternatives.
2. The main advantages are performance, security and large repositories of easily installable FOSS programs. These aren't enough for it to be worth it for the average user to switch.
3. Linux isn't meant to replace Windows. It's meant to be an environment for advanced developers and power users and aspirants; in this regard, Linux is far superior to Windows. It's only more recently that Linux has started to appeal more to less technical users (although probably even these users are above average technically).



Unless Microsoft replaces Windows with their own Linux distro (which will obviously never happen), it won't happen in the foreseeable future. I don't see anyone else being able to make it happen.

Valve is going to port games using the opengl engine for linux users as they see windows 8 will be a problem for their service.

EA are slightly thinking of doing the same.

Gamers do not want a tablet style OS getting in the way, so most will stick with win7.

Linux may get its chance to shine.

Linux Ubuntu works for me, and anyone else I know uses it, doesn’t have any trouble with it. That's all I'm saying.

I've never had trouble with hardware, except, one of two laptops I have bought, the wireless driver wasn't available for it yet, because the laptop was so new. When I bought this one, it was only out, less then a month. Just make sure to buy computers that don't have propriety drivers, because those are the worst. Proprietary is evil! At least the drivers are.

1. I'm not impressed by arguments that hardware is "designed for Windows" or "designed for Linux". If it doesn't work it doesn't work and I'm all set. No discussion. No ordering any hardware. What is "Linux hardware" anyway? ... I can't think of an example of an app (not server software, an app) for Linux that is superior to its Windows equivalent. In most cases (OOO vs MS Office) one is lagging almost a decade behind the other and has multiple issues.

2. We agree that those aren't going to be enough to motivate the average user to switch.

3. Linux could be an adequate replacement for Windows on the desktop, just as its derivative Android is an adequate replacement for iOS or Windows Phone on mobile devices. Certain pieces would have to be in place that never have been. In the 90s lots of people thought Linux would slay Windows on the desktop. Linux would need a UI that accounts adequately for about 10-100 times as many use case scenarios as Unity et al do. It probably needs a 99.9% complete Wine implementation, including Windows 8's new API (formerly Metro). That will be quite a few man years. It probably needs a new paradigm such as the blurring of web app vs desktop app, similar to Chrome OS but not the same. If I had the funding or the ability to acquire enough VC, I would be all over this type of project.

Generally mankind is always 6 steps behind when it comes to new technology, people just getting used windows 7.

Technology moves so fast it is hard for anyone to keep up, I used to be able to keep up, but as I am 41 now, I admit I have slowed down quite a bit.

Windows 8 is generally a move in a different direction when it comes to microsoft and they know it is a big gamble. I think people need to wait and see how people will receive and process the change.

I personally would not like linux to become mainstream as I think it should be for geeks and techno freaks like me.

I would love if Ubuntu became the main OS. It's awesome and looks awesome too, in my opinion.

A lot of software I use, is open source, and is the best software, I ever used, such as Firefox, VLC, KompoZer etc. I love LibreOffice, as you can save the document and a lot of formats. I'm not a big fan of Office suites, probably because I don't use them often enough.

Ubuntu is what made computing easy and more enjoyable for me.

1. OOO and MS Office seem fairly comparable these days; there are FOSS programs which are superior to both though (for advanced users).
3. Sure, it could if people put in the effort. I'm not too familiar with the Unity UI since I dislike it, but what is lacking about KDE, Gnome, etc.? It's unfair to ask Linux to simulate another OS like windows perfectly and honestly what WINE can do already is pretty impressive. Development effort would be better spent on other tasks such as improving and writing more Linux applications.

I've found that I've become more selective about which new things I adopt, not slower. If anything faster because I can afford the stuff, when I was 15 I had to ration Granted I'm only 33.

I have a big, big problem with the app store situation. However I think it will become moot in a few years as web apps become indifferentiable from desktop apps. Apple is already disabling functionality in Safari to try to hold that back. When Native Client or a similar technology gets paired with some additional pieces that don't exist yet, it's going to blow a hole in this strategy large enough to drive 6 lanes of truck traffic through.

Linux is already mainstream, it runs on 70% of smartphones.

1. OOO seems to have benefitted from input from professional UI designers sometime in the early 2000s, but the UI is still comparable to MS Office circa that period. It has very few features comparable to those that have been added to Office between 2003-2010. It also has issues including problems importing Office documents, and I don't want to hear the excuse that Office is a closed format - life is hard sometimes. It either works or not. Reverse engineer it. I've had discussions about OOO before on this forum and don't want to rehash all of it.

3. Not enough use cases are covered, a lot of the UI stuff appears to have been designed by programmers and not UI professionals. It's just not that seamless. Too many steps for some operations. I previously discussed this in other threads as well. What Linux apps need is for UI DESIGNERS to plow through them and redesign. What WINE can do is impressive, but still it doesn't meet most needs.

Last edited by MyFutureSelfnMe on 15 Aug 2012, 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Firefox and VLC are examples of good open source software. This is probably because they are not UI heavy, they're algorithm heavy.

Firefox is a web browser, and graphical web browsers are ui heavy. Surfing the information highway is ui heavy in modern times.
But it is true that generally closed source windows programs are more polished than opensource gnome kde programs. A lot of gui programs for gnome and kde are made by people to solve their own problems and are then released for everyone to use. They don't work on them until they become competitive, they are just a graphical interface for a library or libraries. Virtualbox is opensource and a good program. A lot of formerly closed source programs became opensource, but openoffice is not a good example.

The issue is that open source projects rarely seem to get a significant investment from serious UI designers; in most cases the UIs were clearly done by the programmer. Less an issue for FF because the UI only consists of forward, back, refresh, etc; anyway FF seems to have the input of a quality UI developer for what little UI it has. I'm not talking about website content although I disliked the rendering style of early FF versions enough that I didn't use it. No longer an issue. As I've said before, I'm a programmer who happens to have decent UI design sense, but even so I am humbled by the work of serious professionals and I let them do what they do and stay out of their way.

What little UI VLC has is pretty crappy, but like FF it doesn't need much so it's not an issue. Much overshadowed by its good file format support, support for volume level offset, all the crap Windows Media Player and Quicktime really should have but don't. These things are good for the same reason the Linux kernel is good. Open source developers tend to shine at what they do - programming.

I currently use Window but, I'm willing to learn more about other operating systems and sometime in the near future when I have my own computer system would probably consider making it a dual boot system..

1. We'll have to disagree on this. I've had the opposite experience with MS office compatibility in OOO. Also, you wouldn't expect Office to be compatible with OOO files so you're trying to hold OOO to a higher standard. This makes this an unfair comparison.

3. It's true that WINE is lacking in a number of ways. However, how is your Linux executable emulator working on Windows? Since there isn't one, you're making another unfair comparison here.

As for UIs, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The UIs seem fine to me. Perhaps they don't have as many flashy CPU hungry graphical effects? That's fine.

Again, you keep expecting Linux/FOSS programs to be compatible with their Windows counterparts. You wouldn't expect their Windows counterparts to be compatible with Linux so this is not a fair comparison. Any Windows compatibility you get in Linux/FOSS programs should really be thought of as a bonus. Despite this, it is actually quite good in a lot of cases.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of people who write code for Linux could care less about whether it helps Windows users switch to Linux or not. And why should they? FOSS has always been mostly about making programs that are useful for the developer -- not the average user. Why would FOSS developers waste their time writing code which benefits clueless users more than them? This is why Linux is much better than Windows (which takes the opposite philosophy) for advanced users. This has started to change to some extent with distros like Ubuntu but it's still true of most FOSS code. Also, Ubuntu could replace Windows if OEMs shipped it on most new hardware (not that this will happen any time soon).

Your statement that these things aren't fair is correct, but your point is lost on me. I don't care whether those things are fair. Windows doesn't need to run Linux executables because virtually every Linux program is available on Windows thanks to source code ports of the libraries they tend to use. And even if they weren't, it's usually Windows apps that I'm interested in. So you are correct that it's not fair, but I'm talking about what would make Linux relevant to the desktop, not what's fair. So we're talking about two different things. Shrug.

I used to work with a guy who thought my insistence on producing clean code and refactoring was just so the code would "look good". Your comment re: UI reminds me of that. How it looks is one of several issues. Get a book on UI, I don't need to educate you. It's a profession for a reason. There are a plethora of jobs I wouldn't do to my house on my own, even though I'm a home improvement enthusiast. Let the pros work. Unfortunately for most open source projects the UI pros are nowhere to be seen. The programmers tend to not be bad at what they do - but they are specialists and UI is not their specialty.

No offense, but the OO UI and Office 2000, and 2003 UI's were fine, as they were functional. My issue with the Office 2007 to current versions cluttered up something that was completely functional and usable.

My issue with the Win7 UI, is that it's a continuation of the Aero UI from Vista with the glaring exception that it cannot be completely rolled back to a basic Win2k style interface. The clunky Aero style Taskbar, Start Menu, and Compositing can no longer be turned off completely. -- You are now stuck with them and the rescources that they consume.

The Win2K style interface was basic, functional and quite transparent, while the latest offerings really offer no improvements over this other than slick Eye Candy. The former worked as UI should, the 'improved' latter versions really do nothing for me other than get in the way.