Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Is XP really that good?
40hz:
I keep thinking about one possible reason why XP remains so popular and Linux is still lagging behind:
a) XP is 'good enough' technology that is effectively documented.
b) Linux is 'good enough' (or possibly better) technology that isn't.
XP has been around long enough that there's now a lot of accurate, well-written technical information available both in print, and online. In a nutshell, it's better understood because it's more accurately documented than any other desktop OS.
I'm wondering if "good enough" technology, combined with superior documentation, is XP's real formula for success.
Thoughts anyone?
MrCrispy:
Linux is not well designed. Its a hodge podge of competing design philosophies with no coherent vision, no standardized API's on which other developers can build apps, and a new project starting every week which tries to fix the failed efforts of the previous ones. Note I am not talking of the kernel, which IS decent, but all the user level subsystems such as video, sound, the filesystem etc.
Documentation is the least of their problems. Linux coders don't need docs anyway, they just read the source :) Hell they even want users to use the source!
For your normal user, there is little reason not to run Windows. More apps, easier to use, faster or just as fast (KDE and Gnome are just as fat and bloated as Windows counterparts) and for most people, Windows will come for free. Even the open source apps like Firefox have much better support and run better on Windows than Linux. For developers, there's even less reason - Windows dev tools, docs and support are leagues apart.
nontroppo:
For your normal user, there is little reason not to run Windows. More apps, easier to use, faster or just as fast
--- End quote ---
Well, that is all very open to debate :P Having to fix endless XP machines of friends (registry errors, infections aplenty, horrible performance), having to recommend from the tidal wave of poor alternative software (more in number yes, not always in quality), I can't say it is better for users at all. XP is easier to use only if you've gone through the Windows mill for years and got used to its quirks, otherwise it is a horrid hodge-podge mess of a UI. Having switched one person over to Ubuntu a year ago, I've had significantly less embarrassed phone calls and less of my time wasted. I'm no Linux user myself, but once configured (which can still be endlessly frustrating), it runs better and with less problems than XP did for him (at least for my limited sample of normal users).
As an OS X user, I'd also say the same about Windows XP APIs as you say about Linux. The horrible mess of user interface styles, the lack of unified inter-service communication, no consistent metadata handling or search, really poor graphics[1] (GDI sucks, terrible colour management) and sound libraries (poor latency), shoddy typography support etc. :P
----
[1] I know I'm ignoring DirectX, but i see it as an accessory library. Apple's Quartz pulls OpenGL much more directly into the core graphics APIs. Apple was doing full hardware compositing using OpenGL transparently in OS X 10.2, shortly after XP was released.
Dormouse:
For your normal user, there is little reason not to run Windows.-MrCrispy (November 29, 2008, 02:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
No activation. Linux runs effectively on less powerful computers.
More apps-MrCrispy (November 29, 2008, 02:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
True. But how much difference do the extra apps make to most users?
faster or just as fast (KDE and Gnome are just as fat and bloated as Windows counterparts)-MrCrispy (November 29, 2008, 02:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, Windows has never run as fast on any system I've put them on. And Vista is infinitely slower than XP. If KDE and Gnome are just as bloated, then Windows must be inherently much slower.
for most people, Windows will come for free-MrCrispy (November 29, 2008, 02:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
No again. Microsoft take their cut from every legitimate version of Windows installed. If people aren't paying directly, it comes in higher prices for the computer. And watch for the bill when the mobo needs changing.
easier to use-MrCrispy (November 29, 2008, 02:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
My non-techie kids find Linux easier. Refuse to go back to Windows. When there's a prog only available on Windows, they want dual boot or Windows in a VM - anything but disturbing their Linux.
They find the whole repository system easier than anything for Windows - and it is only really possible for free software.
It's only familiarity that makes most people think it's easier.
40hz:
A few thoughts:
Documentation is the least of their problems.
-MrCrispy (November 29, 2008, 02:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Not really. The biggest complaint leveled against FOSS revolves around the lack of decent, or (in many cases) any documentation. Go to any LUG, FOSS fest, or NIX bull session, and the one thing you'll hear over and over again is:
"Man! somebody's got to do something about these POS docs!" ;D
Linux is not well designed. Its a hodge podge of competing design philosophies with no coherent vision, no standardized API's on which other developers can build apps, and a new project starting every week which tries to fix the failed efforts of the previous ones. Note I am not talking of the kernel, which IS decent, but all the user level subsystems such as video, sound, the filesystem etc. -MrCrispy (November 29, 2008, 02:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
You're absolutely correct. It's what's referred to as incremental improvement; otherwise known as "Business as Usual."
Unfortunately, that's how virtually all complex technical development gets done. It's not the most efficient or safe way to work. The US Space Program spent it's first 25 years working that way, and got us to the moon. (It also brought us the Challenger disaster.) But once again, it was good enough.
And take a look the Internet. That is one of the biggest kludges the world has ever seen. But it's good enough for most people, so it gets used, and fixed (or otherwise improved) on a daily basis. Just business as usual folks!
For your normal user, there is little reason not to run Windows. More apps, easier to use, faster or just as fast (KDE and Gnome are just as fat and bloated as Windows counterparts)
--- End quote ---
Once again, you are correct. For most people, 'good enough' is all they want or need. Windows is good enough. But so's Linux.
BTW: what exactly constitutes being a "normal" user?
and for most people, Windows will come for free.
--- End quote ---
As Dormouse has previously pointed out: It doesn't. It just comes included.
Somebody, somewhere, has paid something for every legal copy of Windows. Microsoft has not gotten to where they are today by giving away their products.
For developers, there's even less reason - Windows dev tools, docs and support are leagues apart.
--- End quote ---
There may be even less of a reason. But if that is true, how do you explain the number of people (including many world class programmers) that are actively involved in Linux development? Conservative studies put the number of people that have contributed to Linux and FOSS development at somewhere around 1.1 million. Rather interesting, don't you think?
So, maybe there's something more going on here? 8)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version