Why do people use Windows?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When ever I ask this question at work the number one answer is SUPPORT CONTRACTS. And the only benefit I see is that if something goes wrong you can blame someone else.

Whenever one of our DBAs calls Microsoft support about SQL Server they rarely get an answer and rant about how useless it is.

And let not forget about patch Tuesday...which keeps lots of people employeed testing what is going to break by applying the patch.
 
roddierod said:
When ever I ask this question at work the number one answer is SUPPORT CONTRACTS. And the only benefit I see is that if something goes wrong you can blame someone else.
Click to expand...
It's funny though, every EULA I've read states that the manufacturer isn't responsible or liable for any errors in the software. So even if you have an expensive support contract and things go haywire you still can't sue Microsoft (or any other "big" name) for it.

NB. You can get support contracts for FreeBSD too. Does anyone have one? I'm wondering what their experience is.
 
SirDice said:
It's funny though, every EULA I've read states that the manufacturer isn't responsible or liable for any errors in the software. So even if you have an expensive support contract and things go haywire you still can't sue Microsoft (or any other "big" name) for it.
Click to expand...

If that's true then why do people keep quoting it as the reason for not using open source software that has no legal entity behind it?
 
kpa said:
If that's true then why do people keep quoting it as the reason for not using open source software that has no legal entity behind it?
Click to expand...

I always found that to be a load of crap half the time. Support contracts, unlike EULAs, are used mostly for accountability purposes that can be legally enforced. This is of obvious advantage to a business. Plenty of businesses that use open source as part of or even their whole product offerings offer support contracts. Canonical and Red Hat just to name a few well known entities.

EULAs do not prevent you from suing regardless of what the EULA says. In simplified terms my understanding is they only, depending on the context, potentially make your chances of winning in court much harder if held valid. A lot of EULAs have been deemed invalid in court. I can't think of any off the top of my head but a quick Google search should easily bring some up.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
I see some people have brought up the "if something goes wrong, we can sue Microsoft". Yeah. Right.
Click to expand...
You sure can do this, whereas with open source you can go p*ss up a rope (as they say). The effect is largely the same, but that is not how management sees it most of the time. The "we can sue someone" is some kind of "it was not me, I wasn't even close! And the check is in the mail!" cargo cult to make the bad effects manifest somewhere else. Given a certain difference is size, this is total nonsense.
 
kpa said:
If that's true then why do people keep quoting it as the reason for not using open source software that has no legal entity behind it?
Click to expand...

Because corporate companies want to deal with corporate companies only. That's why Red Hat has made a success in the gnu/linux world. On the other hand, Ubuntu has helped gnu/linux to be a more widely known OS.

Coming to drhowarddrfine's OP;

Another reason I can think of is that Microsoft provides integrated solutions, such as Exchange Server + LDAP Authentication + Lync Communicator (and this can be integrated to desk phones), www proxy etc... companies do not want to bother with "hacks" to make these ecosystems work seamlessly. These systems/software may not involve in "mission critical" tasks, but lead "microsoftication" (I made this up, but you know what this means?) of the whole system.

I work for a telco operator which provides wireless and DSL solutions to customers. Most of our OSS (Operation and Support System - they are critical systems, one OSS goes down, then you have no mobile coverage/DSL service in one part of the country) systems run on UNIX-like systems (there are some SunOS systems, as well as Linux machines)

Big enough companies (Netflix, Google, Yahoo) who have enough IT/engineering resources definitely choose any UNIX-like system (name it linux, FreeBSD, or any commercial UNIX), or develop their own OS based on one of the FOSS OS'es. But mid-small range companies rely on "turn key" solutions, and at best make a support contract with an IT firm, that's it.
 
To be clear(er).

As I said in my original post, this is the third time I've gone off about this here. It's a rant, a rhetorical question, that needs no answer or explanation.

What I'm trying to say is, for a company to use Windows for critical operations is a serious error in judgement. I see more problems for companies in a multitude of situations that all have Windows at their root.
 
I would say that you are very likely correct in that, and also that you are far from alone with that position - here at least. That may explain why the thread does not work as expected. It is, however, a mark for the community here that the thread is as it is now. Well done, I'd say.
 
Corporate IT's solution to the problem we're having: they're FedEx'ing a whole new unit to us overnight. The problem is so bad, they didn't even want to touch it themselves.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
What I'm trying to say is, for a company to use Windows for critical operations is a serious error in judgement. I see more problems for companies in a multitude of situations that all have Windows at their root.
Click to expand...

Judgement involves making decisions based on a lot of facts. Multimillion/billion dollar companies need an OS that they know will have tremendous support in the mass market. If a really great new application gets written they know their OS (Windows) will likely get it first. They also know that IT staffers that have Windows skills are a dozen a dime.

I challenged one of our 'good guy' IT guys one day, about converting the organization to Linux. For every really good argument I could toss at him he could counter that with a better argument. It was also interesting to hear what sounds like a complex licensing scheme that helps keep you 'loyal'.

Personally I think with the right shift in marketing effort, FreeBSD could really explode at becoming the choice OS for the cloud/CDN/NAS-on-steroids appliance market. Servers that have a hard core heavy-duty requirement to have the power to serve gazillions of users simultaneously.
 
As of 10AM this morning, I still don't have a completely working system. They can't get the receipt printer to work. Windows says it's there but "unavailable". IT says our cable must be broke. Hardware says the port or drivers are wrong. Software vs Hardware. Windows vs Reality.
 
Any chance to send a bill to the ones forcing ahem.. offering you that solution?
 
I, in particular, keep a Windows box (my desktop computer) for several reasons:

1) FreeBSD does not run on Haswell (yet... the I915 patch works -at least the bits I've tried-).
2) Steam does not have a native FreeBSD port.
3) I have to use applications that are only available on Windows.

When point 1 is fixed, I'll install FreeBSD on my spare HD. Point 2 might be a problem for a while. I don't think point 3 is going to be fixed.
 
beastDemian

I can't think of a single reason to run Windows just so one can use Haswell. Unless it's for games but most people who use Windows wouldn't even have a computer if it weren't for games.

I have not used Windows since 2004. I don't know of any reason to and I run two businesses.

Now that I have that partial lie out of the way. My franchised restaurants use Windows for the POS system and I don't know why. It's one of the biggest thorns in our side but it's not my choice and I have no alternative.

My wife uses QuickBooks for our accounting but only because our accountant uses it and it makes it easier to transfer all that info to him. If I took the time, and knew enough about all that, I'd bet that's not really necessary, though. That, too, has caused issues and I spend more time fixing her Windows issues than anything else.

For that matter, nothing she uses otherwise is Windows-only and, if I could, I'd take her off that in a heartbeat.



But for my personal and business use, I have no use for Windows.
 
I haven't run Windows at home since 2006 when I bought my first Mac. Between 2006 and 2010 I may have used Windows on a handful of occasions, my main systems were Mac and Solaris.

Since 2010 I have only used Windows at work. At first because there was specific software for interfacing with onboard train signalling equipment, and log analysis; since 2013 I've been given a Windows laptop to administer RHEL servers, which seems bonkers to me…
 
I think people here know the difference between hardware and software. Of course many knowledgeable Windows users do too, but the vast majority of the general population don't really - so they buy a computer and guess what's it's go on it? That's the end of that story. The bottom line for the general public is that in the budget range which they find reasonable, and given their knowledge level, they don't have a choice.

I've never used it myself, so I shouldn't comment further in this particular thread.
 
OJ said:
I think people here know the difference between hardware and software. Of course many knowledgeable Windows users do too, but the vast majority of the general population don't really...
Click to expand...

[off-topic]
I think if they have to use a computer regularly, they understand the difference well enough. They just don't really get the notion of "portability," and think the operating system (software) is tied to the computer they bought (hardware). My mother and grandmother are that way: if I run into a bug in a single program, they say it's because I had the audacity to use an "incompatible" operating system. If they've got malware, it's because there's a design flaw in the computer that didn't protect Windows properly, or the people who made Windows for their model screwed up an update somewhere. Despite her years of problems with Windows malware and my years of insistent suggestions, my mother put off buying a Macbook or Chromebook (what she has now) because she was absolutely positive that any files created on one system would be useless on any other. Her office used Microsoft Word on Windows, so that's what she needed too, because she believed the only alternative to losing work every few weeks was to have no work at all.

I think this is just part of the default human psyche. They don't really understand this tool, but it's basically essential to modern life. Yet they don't want to devote the relatively large amount of time and energy they could spend on other pursuits to learning about that tool. There's a natural psychological conflict in that, and to deal with the anxiety people simply shift blame for problems with the tool onto the tool itself rather than their own (arguably innocent) incompetence. Of course, sometimes the tool really is shoddy, but it's hard to distinguish when it is and isn't if one always defaults to an assumption.
[/off-topic]
 
drhowarddrfine said:
I can't think of a single reason to run Windows just so one can use Haswell. Unless it's for games but most people who use Windows wouldn't even have a computer if it weren't for games.
Click to expand...

I could have gotten an older processor, but I didn't think it was worth it. I do use Windows for gaming and modern games (like Mortal Kombat X for example) requiere a powerful CPU. I really don't think it is a good think to purposefully buy old processors when you can just buy the new ones. Besides lack of Haswell support is supposed to be temporary (and if the -x11 mailing list is any indication, 11.0 will include Haswell support).

On the other hand, I use programs that are only available for Windows and have no equivalent/replacements on FreeBSD or even on Linux. I understand the Windows hatred, but as of today it's a necessary evil for a number of disturbing reasons (the most prominent for me is having to install software released by the Argentinean equivalent of the IRS - who is full of people that think the only OS to ever exist is Windows -). You can't even run them properly on Wine under Linux. It's been tried and they fail horribly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ANOKNUSA said:
I think this is just part of the default human psyche. They don't really understand this tool, but it's basically essential to modern life. Yet they don't want to devote the relatively large amount of time and energy they could spend on other pursuits to learning about that tool.
Click to expand...
People should be educated to the use of technology and telecommunication devices. Usually the average user doesn't understand the impact and the consequences that the use of computers could have on real life (from a simple chat to home banking), because is not aware of the power and the value of information, and what means dealing with, not paying enough attention to and protecting it carefully.

EDIT.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Oko
Maxnix said:
People should be educated to the use of technology and telecommunication devices. Usually the average user doesn't understand the impact and the consequences that the use of computers could have on real life, because is not aware of the power and the value of information, and what means dealing with it.
Click to expand...
+1

Well said!!!
 
In large parts of this world, people are free to do as they wish. You can't force them to listen to your "should", "must" or other beliefs that you think (or know!) is good for them. You can only hope to get them interested enough that they listen, and want to know more.
 
tingo said:
In large parts of this world, people are free to do as they wish. You can't force them to listen to your "should", "must" or other beliefs that you think (or know!) is good for them. You can only hope to get them interested enough that they listen, and want to know more.
Click to expand...
I apologize for my post. I should have known better. I know that it is election season here in old good U.S. of A. and some people are fresh from primaries. Of course you are 100% right. All citizens are free to chose to remain ignorant and that is their constitutional right.

@admins
Now do you think that this thread has run its course and it might be a good time to close it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top