Why is windows more popular than linux? Because it's older?

Why is windows more popular than linux? Because it's older?

Other urls found in this thread:

ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
sigchi.org/chi96/proceedings/desbrief/Sullivan/kds_txt.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Microsoft
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Microsoft
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because it's autism friendly.

And it has apps that people actually use

Well, back in the mid to late 90's you could install Windows and it would just work as a desktop OS. Linux on the other hand was basically still just a server OS and using it on the desktop meant you spent most of your time compiling packages and resolving dependencies.

because it works

Because business. Microsoft has been popular since DOS.

Marketing.

The reason why people know more about the iPhone and not so much about Xiaomi and OnePlus (not good examples, since they're well known in the tech community, but average people don't really know about them)

Because it actually works.
Because it has proper software that allows you to do actual work instead of just shitposting on an anime image-board.
Because video gaymes.
Because GNU/+Linux is the definition of garbage and nobody wants to waste hours on something that can be done in less than a minute on Windows.

>Because it has proper software that allows you to do actual work instead of just shitposting on an anime image-board.
Wouldn't TempleOS be a much better choice, then? It has no networking so you won't be distracted by the Internet.

>unix wasn't relevant to the desktop in the 80's and 90's
>desktop users don't want to bother with quirks pushed by unix purists
>unix and linux didn't have a killer app relevant to desktop needs
>etc
Really, the first reason explains all.

>apps

Fun fact: if a unix like os dominated the desktop market, it would be made by microsoft.

Because it ships with every fucking prebuilt PC you can buy, and you have the luxury of a portion of your money going to Microsoft for the OS. If windows did not come preinstalled on hardware, Linux would have a much larger marketshare.

Baby duck syndrome.

>Windows
>works
I think you misspelled OS/2.

>desktop users don't want to bother with quirks pushed by unix purists
>implying desktop users care about the core of their OS

This.
Most people don't care and have no reason to care about what OS they are running hence they just use whatever came with the computer.
I think most people are even completely unaware that there are other OSs than Windows and OSX. You run Windows, you have a PC. You run OSX, you have a Mac. Not knowing that a PC is a PC no matter who makes it and that Windows can run just fine on Macs and OSX can (depending on the hardware ofc.) run on any PC as well.
They just don't know any better.

>gettin turnt with handfaggot.jpg

>source: my arse

i bought a shitty computer in 2003 witch came with linux. I thought linux is something like ms-dos was and installed windows xp.

>apt-get
vs
>Click next few times
Which is easier?

IBM was retard, after that lobby if it don't work extortion. Also eternal 69 position with intel as MS is fuck up everything on ARM since the iphone 3G.
The "popular" isn't the best word to describe it, most faggots like barely knows what is linux.

Policykit is earier.

>click next a few times

After you've clicked about 30 times getting the installer in the first place.

Compatibility with programs and games. And Linux demands more active input.

>Because GNU/+Linux is the definition of garbage and nobody wants to waste hours on something that can be done in less than a minute on Windows.
Could you give an example of something that takes you hours in Linux and less than a minute in Windows?

Backwards compaitibility. Windows 3.1 ran on MSDOS which was the most popular OS for the most popular home computing platform.

So the question is why was MSDOS popular. It was developed for IBM to go with their PC. When the IBM compatible PC became the most popular home PC guess what was shipped with it?

Once you have a product that is the de facto standard and almost complete control of the market, you pretty much have to fuck up some how to change that. Windows has maintained the strategy of remaining compatible with older versions until they are irrelevant and Microsoft has continued to ensure it is preinstalled on a ridiculous percentage of personal computers.

Just playing devil's advocate, on Windows, it is very simple to change, disable, and enable boot options (msconfig.exe) and services (services.msc) OOTB and through a GUI
t. Fedora user

Getting the kernel to handle scroll bars.

>Having to search what arguments apt-get needs to install the program you want

Because it has been bundled with all new computers for the last 20 years

it's more convenient. humans are lazy

because windows just werks. really. even the entry level distros of linux require troubleshooting to get working 99% of the time.

standards are always good, even if the standard itself is limited

helps software devs and software users

makes people more productive when the application is king and the internals are all hidden and, as far as the user is concerned, irrelevant. it should just turn on and work. when you install something, you should just have to click a button and there you go.

>>gettin turnt with handfaggot.jpg
l literally what did he mean by thised.

video games

Because it werks

It just works

fucking casuals, reee

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Because it has a user interface and is not sysem locked to apple devices.

unix is much older than windows but think of the period between 1990 and 1996 when home computers became popular.

>having to search for 'install' argument when you want to install
life is hard

I think we should stop saying "user friendly" and "user unfriendly," and start saying "ignorance friendly" and "ignorance unfriendly."

I seem to remember using a graphical front end to starting services the first time I used Fedora. There isn't a GUI front end to systemctl in vanilla Fedora now?

Either way I find systemctl ridiculously easy in command line on Fedora. I have a weird homemade respin installed so I don't have a simple way to check. Almost everything you'd want to run at startup comes with a unit file in the package. 99.999% of my interactions with systemd are systemct start|stop|disable|enable|list* unless I'm just being curious.

Okay I want to install dropbox
>apt-get install
and then what?

Because most of the user base aren't as """""tech savvy""""" as you guys, like basic office workers, people who just need to fill in a report or print a document - it's not like an office admin who checks calendar times and replies to emails is going to sit and rice their stupid looking linux desktop to make it even less user friendly.

It works for the target audience, which funnily enough is people who play games and generic office staff.

The besides that, there are the bespoke uses where X devs have made software that works on Windows and Windows alone, shit like sage, EMIR, various law firm packages, phone system (panasonic etc) tie ins with bespoke software.

Funnily enough, the people that all use this stuff, don't actually care about Microsoft's analytics (see: botnet), They just want to do their job.

That's why they use it. I might be wrong.
So stop asking this stupid question that's been answered countless times. Fuck.

I found ntsysv and system-config-services.
system-config-services looks and feels similar to services.msc. I will be using this in the future.
Thanks, user!

>apt-get install [package name]
oh no i have to type words with my hands, what a travesty

I don't know about ignorance. There's an incredible amount of stuff that the average person knows about Windows that is taken for granted. If you want to install something on Windows you click on something and download it and run it. If you want to install something on Fedora there's a GUI front end where you click on something to download a package then install it. The difference is what you click.

The only time I used a Mac was a display model at a computer store and I had no idea wtf I was doing. I was just curious but after a few minutes I came to the realization that the only way to learn to use the thing would be to buy one and spend some serious time fucking with it. The same with android. The difference for me was they're everywhere and being the "computer guy" I get questions about them. So I ended up learning stuff.

The only stuff a truly ignorant user of Windows is installing is malware from you're the 1 millionth visitor ads. Everything else for them either comes on it or someone they know did it for them.

MS-DOS isn't much the problem, you could still get alternative DOSes if you want to.
Before Win95 you could still get around with plain DOS. You can use Win3.1 programs without Win3.1 if you want (not in DOS, though).
But with Win95 Windows BOMBED.
Also, they got right with UI.

The real reason Windows is so popular, far above any other reasons is this:

Its what you get when you buy almost any computer, but especially the cheap computers.

It started with DOS and IBM-PC clones and it grew from. Microsoft's big win was getting as many OEMs as possible to pre-install their software, because 90% of the users aren't going to bother installing anything else.

Every other reason posted in this thread, like software availability, the impression that it "just works," the games, everything, is a direct consequence of it coming pre-installed on everything. Technical capability, software quality, number of bugs, etc., none of that matters, as long as it's not game breaking. People are lazy and will get used to just about anything and will then resist changing the status-quo with all their might.

Android's doing the same thing on the mobile space.

mostly this at consumer level

and this at enterprise level

Any other reason posted is marginal and more of a consequence of Windows popularity, not a cause.

Simple linux distros, once correctly set up, just work as well, some times even better than a Windows OS.
It's the setting up that can be scary for most.


And now I'm gonna be called samefag because while I was writing this wrote the exact same thing.

ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

A few reasons really:

>Microsoft had an incumbent advantage as IBM's contract for the home PC compatible market (Xenix, however, was less successful)
>Linux wasn't a thing until the early 90's, and barely had GUIs or package managers by the time Windows 95 hit the market
>Open source and especially GPL was viewed as toxic to business until very recently - probably because of Stallman
>Open source in general is more fragmented and struggled to find investors or properly monetize their product while keeping it secure
>Apple wasn't bringing their A-game to the table, on the verge of bankruptcy, and even had to be bailed out by Microsoft
>Commodore and Amiga suddenly vanished into thin air
>OS/2 got bogged down by IBM bureaucracy and was poorly marketed. How many people even know what OS/2 was these days?
>Microsoft Office and proprietary lock-in to MS formats pretty much sealed the deal

Tuning the audio to get low latency.
Make a old program work.

Yes. That's also why they're able to get away with all the garbage they're pulling now. People are too used to it and are too afraid to try alternatives.

It actually works AND has software. 2 things that can't be said about Linux.

Sorry Stahlman, we still love you even if you're autistic.

Because Windows 7>Debian/Ubuntu>MacOS.

Windows 3
>Shit

Windows 3.1
>Sweet

Windows 95
>Shit

Windows 98
>Nice

Windows 2000/ME
>Shit

Windows XP
>Nice

Windows Vista
>Shit

Windows 7
>Nice

Windows 8
>Shit

Windows 8.1 (i.e. "9", i.e. what I use today)
>Nice

Windows 10
>Shit

Windows 3
>Shit

Windows 3.1
>Sweet

Windows 95
>Shit

Windows 98
>Nice

Windows 2000/ME
>Shit

Windows XP
>Nice

Windows Vista
>Shit

Windows 7
>Nice

Windows 8
>Shit

Windows 8.1 (i.e. "9", i.e. what I use today)
>Nice

Windows 10
>Shit

The cycle continues. Wait for Windows ___ in 202_ and be happy. I hope they will realise their mistake with the botnet and stop trying to be a Google wanna-be.

b i n a r y a p i

>accidentally pasted that twice

I'm so embarrassed.....

How do I delete......?

Lord have mercy on his soul

Windows 7 is sweet though.

AYYYY
>the pic

>Also, they got right with UI.
yup, win95's UI was excellent, they put a lot of effort into it
sigchi.org/chi96/proceedings/desbrief/Sullivan/kds_txt.htm

>windows 95 shit
>windows 2000 shit

just going to stop you right there

>Windows 2000/ME

Windows 2000 was fucking amazing. And it's Me, not ME. They were two totally different versions of Windows.

Me was a garbage Win98 with extra themes that crashed like shit, where 2000 was the first NT kernel based home version of Windows, where Windows was no longer a 16/32bit hybrid on top of DOS, but a purely 32bit OS with a DOS shell.

2000 was basically XP without the theme engine.

You also forgot to separate 98 and 98 SE. 98 was complete shit, where SE was fantastic.

Basically your list reeks of someone that only ever used any version prior to XP in a virtual machine rather than actually being alive and using computers when each version was the norm. As someone that actually lived through the 80s-90s computing scene and used each as they came out, the list is more like

Windows 1.0 - not bad
Windows 3.0 - shit.
Windows 3.11 - not bad.
Windows 95 - horrible
Windows 98 - terrible
Windows 98SE - amazing
Windows Me - the worst of all time.
Windows 2000 - one of the best of all time.
Windows XP - bretty gud.
Windows Vista - bad
Windows Vista post SP2 - good
Windows 7 - good
Windows 8 - horrible UI decision, but not bad
Windows 8.1 attempt to fix all that was bad in 8, fail.
Windows 10 - shit, until anniversary edition. Then it's amazing if you disable all the telemetry shit and automatic updating. WSL has made it unnecessary for me to boot my Linux partition or use a VM in weeks.

/thread

Is it possible to truly disable all the telemetry shit yet?

Also, do you do manual updating instead of automatic?

Whose side are you on, I can't even tell.

my thoughts exactly

>WSL has made it unnecessary for me to boot my Linux partition

E, E, E.

apt-cache search dropbox
apt-get install [package name you just found]

95 was shit anyway, 2000 isn't. Though i didn't liked it as 98 was more comfy.

>if you disable all the telemetry
>implying you can

Those package names are stupid.

Because Linux rots at the drop of a hat. Very commonly resulting in having the same distribution version as the latest update, but having packages that are outdated/behind and having to find manual solutions for them.

I would never use something as my desktop OS that immediately breaks perfectly functional drivers upon update, no way to revert, and the best opinion and help I ever get from linux losers being "LEL you have X type of VIDEO CARD? LELELELELELELEL Fucking pleb :^^))) NVidia has no drabbers".

I think people stick with Windows at this point because Linux has become such a hugbox of spiteful nerds that it is impossible to work with them on anything. Merely trying to discuss the option of being compatible with certain hardware vendors or trying to figure out ways to make certain blobs work results in "Well why don't you try buying a better computer? Or better hardware that respects your freedumbs?"

Fuck them. I can barely stand running a headless server now.

People stick with Windows because people stick with Windows because people stick with Windows because people stick with Windows because people stick with Windows, etc.

Quality never had then, doesn't now, and will not in the future, have anything to do with it.

Its all marketing and advertisement. Wangblows and MacOS have big corporate entities behind them that run TV commercials, internet ads, do deals with other companies etc. because they have money to spend (obviously because they make money selling a product). GNU+Linux may be free and some distros are actually easier to use than Mac or Windows but it will never get popular unless someone is telling the public about it. I bet 95% of people who don't use GNU/Linux have either never heard of it or have but never even cared to do a Google search on it.

Because 90% of applications that people use aren't on Linux.

If you pick your OS not based on what programs you need to run then this obviously doesn't pertain to you.

I'd love to run Linux on my main PC but unfortunately I actually like to use programs. There's more to just browsing Sup Forums on whatever flavor of the month freedumb browser is out right now and playing tux racer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Microsoft
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Microsoft

Older?!?! You fucking kidding me. Linux hasn't gotten past 1% marketshare of desktop OS since it's fucking incarnation, AND IT"S FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Linux is pure shit.

This, almost
Windows was aimed at the corporate desktop, offices, etc. That's why their killer apps are those in the Office suite.
Linux was not a server OS, it was a hobbysit OS. The linux we know and love/hate today is not the same linux back then. Back then only techies would use linux, it was a kernel and there was the GNU project and you'd have to put them together somehow. Gentoo and Arch are children's play by the old standards.
Only recently has linux starting to be aimed at casual users

though it WAS inspired by a server OS (or family thereof)

>Windows 2000/ME
they are not the same retard

capitalism

Casual here. Can linux run my steam games yet?

...

it's not older

>secure repo
vs
>b8 websites
hmm...

GNU/Linux has enough programs for normie use. All the grills i know use their phone for socializing/pic modification and a laptop for pdf/google drive/other browsershit.
The browser is literally the only thing they ever use on their computers, plus maybe a music app, if it's not youtube.

Cultural inertia, basically. That, and there's one major "distro" for Windows, whereas there's a billion different Linux distros floating around the Internet.

It's better.

>If windows did not come preinstalled on hardware, Linux would have a much larger marketshare.

Exept linux didn´t even existed at the time of the fist versions of windows and not even to mention DOS.
Linux is a relatively new to desktop pc, linux had/have flaws on their own, it's not like: "linux is omg so grea't and much better that windows, and is not popular only because windows is popular"

>disable all the telemetry shit and automatic updating
>implying this is possible
you reek of newfag Sup Forumsedditor.

You can't disable auto-updating, tho'.

compatibility
if you can comprehend something, someone has made Windows software to make it happen
>most faggots like [redtext] barely knows what is linux.
but he's right, not everyone is a bikeshedding college student who computes entirely through a browser, text editor and an office suite

>t. newfag Sup Forumsedditor who doesn't know what Enterprise is

it's got nothing to do with any linux deficiencies that autists are posting about in this thread. the average consumer doesn't really know what linux is, nevermind specific downsides it has compared to windows

the fact is windows is a household name that comes preinstalled on most all non-apple laptops and desktops. it has the power of commercial marketing behind it (not that it needs it any more). linux is distributed in a completely different way without that commercial focus

there may be legitimate reasons why a normie who knows windows and linux would choose windows, but that's not the issue. as it stands they only know of windows, and that's because it exists as a commercial product that microsoft can afford to forcefeed everyone, whereas linux is essentially a dispersed culture of its own

not possible on enterprise either.
go home, Sup Forumseddit

There once was a Bill Gates, he was a Steve Jobs but knew more shit (arguably). He ruled the computers and the operating system was nice and good. Then he fucked up the OS and got so gay with it that even a faggot like Steve Jobs could look good in comparison with his iPhones and his ballwanks. In the middle somewhere, Linux was made and people figured out other shit that resulted in Linux actually being considered (by people with a computer skillz) a potentially viable alternative to Wangblows.

>n-no it's not [source: my retarded ass]
back up your claims or fuck off
other than the overarching fact that enterprise is intended for markets where detailed telemetry is a severe no-no, it doesn't ship with practically any of the "botnet" features Sup Forums typically picks on 10 for

bitch pls, my brother runs enterprise 10 for his gay men, with all the bullshit and updates "off" and lady update forced herself onto him in the middle of his game last week.

read and fuck off to Sup Forumseddit with your Sup Forumsindows shilling