Why Windows Rules: the QWERTY phenomenon?

[zridling]

It's called the QWERTY phenomenon. David Williams nails it again, this time in a column titled, Why doesn't everyone just run Linux?

In one sense, the Redmond monopoly is self-perpetuating. The first reason Linux doesn't have a stronger foothold in the market is because Windows is already there. For most people their first experience with a computer is Windows. That's the operating system bundled with almost every desktop and laptop you can buy from retail outlets.... Consequently, any competing operating system is at a disadvantage from the beginning: unless a person seeks out Linux or is introduced to it in some way there will be no catalyst for change. Even if the computer operator grumbles about Vista's many foibles, they will lump it often not realising that a choice exists.

[attach]

[Nod5]

There's much truth to this!

The obvious remedy would be and EXTREMELY detailed official XP-to-ubuntu transition site where almost any feature in XP can be looked up -- and the Ubuntu equivalent is presented. There are some such sites around (http://www.osalt.com/ is a good example when it comes to software) but I haven't seen one that is comprehensive and simple enough for the imagined target audience.

[Kamel]

There is a huge difference between keyboards and this IMO. You can easily learn new operating systems (we didn't all start on vista, afterall, many of us started on windows 95 or even DOS). Learning to type on a different keyboard arrangement such as DVOARK (most likely the wrong word, but work with me here Edit: did have it wrong, the v and o were switched, fixed now) is synonymous with learning to speak a new language in many ways. It's something that comes natural and has to do with the physical movement of your body.

I think that there is a lot of truth to the article, but I think the analogy that it's the same thing as the QWERTY adaptation is a bit of an exaggeration. I do believe that if new PC's came with linux more than other OS's, it would make adaptation go at an amazing rate. I believe that linux on a new PC, especially if it meant a few bucks knocked off of the bottom line, would mean that people would really begin to switch. There are few motivators as strong as money in America.

[Paul Keith]

Kamel, actually the analogy isn't so exaggerated.

Think of it this way:

You're used to scanning for viruses having come from Win 95 and suddenly this Linux comes without any scanning requirements and you're twiddling and thumbling your fingers while chanting the mantra "Linux is much more secure than Windows. Linux is much more secure than Windows..." then suddenly due to a hardware/software failure, some thing broke in your Linux! You can't access this or you can't boot that and you're thinking, well when something goes wrong in my Windows (often attributed to a virus) I'll just ask this guy I know to fix it and cross my fingers I won't have to reformat BUT suddenly this guy doesn't use or know Linux and suddenly all these step by step instructions require you asking in the forums.

Now you're ****ed. Day in and day out, you receive the dreaded "well...no PC is the same so you'll have to list this and that and check this and that" Wait...where's my Hijackthis. What? No Hijackthis? It's most likely not due to a virus because Linux is uber secure? NOOOOO!!!

Finally you decided to trash everything and just re-boot Linux from it's default settings but wait...what's this? You have to upgrade within months? NOOO!!! Pressure...pressure... the casual user inside of you keeps chanting "You don't need to upgrade now. You don't need to upgrade now." and soon you find yourself delaying your upgrades that Linux has become slightly less secure.

So now as a casual user similar to someone who's not getting DVORAK, you're thinking...wait... Why do I need to learn DVORAK when I know QWERTY and the results are the same? For Linux, you ask...Wait, why do I need Linux when I can secure a much more familiar Windows XP with an antivirus? Come to think of it... I did read that Norton was a bad antivirus and Win 95 was outdated but outside of DOS, Win XP sounded the same...and the only reason I'm settling for DOS games was cause Linux didn't have any modern games...wait...What the...?! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Hail to my new Windows XP! Pirated copies if Microsoft doesn't want my arm and leg. Hell no! I'm not giving away my hot wife!

[zridling]

Kamel, but learning a new OS these days isn't so simple, especially from scratch. Perhaps I should have compared it to switching to a new kind of keyboard. For example, my wife absolutely hates the Microsoft Natural keyboard whereas I'm lost without one. But just like learning a new language in a different country, immersion speeds the process.

Paul makes some good points about user psychology, and no doubt those many Linux fanboys who keep one hand on a Windows system nearby. It takes application and hard work. I honestly cannot imagine what it's like to drop a person in front of Vista today. It's elegant and powerful, but by no means simple. One look at the Control Panel dialog will cure that illusion.

Whether it's games or security, there are pros and cons -- and you have to love the pros of using Linux/OS X/...whatever and realize that you can do without the pros of using Windows, simply because there's a point at which you can't stand the cons. Of course, you could mirror the same point using any of the three OSes.

[f0dder]

You can't compare DVORAK/QWERTY to Linux/Windows.

DVORAK is demonstrably better than QWERTY, at least as long as you're primarily writing English.

Linux (and open source software) is usually inferior to Windows/Commercial software in one way or another, be it lack of documentation, less features, more bugs, whatever. Yes, it's free, and the features might be good enough for you, and there are niches where free software is better, fair enough... but usually it's (at least slightly) inferior.

We might all be faster at typing if it wasn't for the designed-to-slow-us-down QWERTY standard, but it's not like if the world would be a magically better place if the majority weren't running Windows.

[Ralf Maximus]

See, I've become more agnostic regarding operating systems.

In short: use whatever works for YOU.

If you run BeOs and think the rest of the world is crazy for not adopting it, fine.  If you're a Mac user, good on you.  Whatever makes you productive and happy is best.

The constant hand-wringing over Windows being on top despite questionably inferior technology is counter productive.  When a better mousetrap comes along, people will adopt it... it's just that simple.  Note that until FireFox came along, 99% of Windows users never even considered departing IE.

But "better" has to have quantitative benefits.  Just because the kernel is way cooler or open source or from anyplace but Redmond shouldn't (and doesn't) matter.  When Linux can kick Windows' ass in a spectacular and compelling fashion, the IE-->FF migration will repeat, but with operating systems.

Until that time, articles like this just piss me off.

[40hz]

Until that time, articles like this just piss me off.

Why?

I didn't see anything in the original article, or in this thread, that warrants anybody getting "pissed off" as you so eloquently put it.

Care to clarify?

[Ralf Maximus]

It's the waste-of-effort of analyzing a well understood trend that irritates me.

The simple fact that articles like this exist, if you will.

Windows is installed on zillions of workstations.  Why?  Because it's always been that way.  When will it change?  When something tremendously better compels us to switch.  Until then, analyzing why everyone runs Windows when "better" operating systems exist seems like wankery.

BTW, I may sound like I'm hammering this out with fists of fury, but I'm not.  I'm quite calm and relaxed right now, thinking about fluffy, fluffy bunnies.

[40hz]

It's the waste-of-effort of analyzing a well understood trend that irritates me.

The simple fact that articles like this exist, if you will.

Windows is installed on zillions of workstations.  Why?  Because it's always been that way.  When will it change?  When something tremendously better compels us to switch.  Until then, analyzing why everyone runs Windows when "better" operating systems exist seems like wankery.

And therefor, because you have settled this issue in your own mind (and to your own complete satisfaction) this discussion is a waste of everyone else's time too?

My goodness! What would your fluffy bunnies think?

[f0dder]

But "better" has to have quantitative benefits.  Just because the kernel is way cooler or open source or from anyplace but Redmond shouldn't (and doesn't) matter. 

Thing is, it isn't. It's not the POS it used to be, but it's still inferior to the NT kernel

[Ralf Maximus]

And therefor, because you have settled this issue in your own mind (and to your own complete satisfaction) this discussion is a waste of everyone else's time too?

If you'd like to discuss something, why not the original point of my first response?

You seem to have fixated on the last line of the thing, and ignored the first five paragraphs.

But "better" has to have quantitative benefits.  Just because the kernel is way cooler or open source or from anyplace but Redmond shouldn't (and doesn't) matter. 

Thing is, it isn't. It's not the POS it used to be, but it's still inferior to the NT kernel

I was visualizing the Linux kernal as I wrote that.

Also, nowhere did I say Windows was better than other stuff, or even acceptable, or even total crap.  It's just *Windows*.

I've missed you, f0dder.

[tomos]

Note that until FireFox came along, 99% of Windows users never even considered departing IE.

that's an interesting point there - I think there was a lot better than IE there before FF (but I dont honestly know - was there!?)
Opera's always (well, for a long time anyways) been much better but very few people have taken up on it

I think FF is doing really well cause the people working on it had a vision/(business-)plan in this direction - and they worked hard to implement it. Opera had a different vision

I guess I'm saying windows will be replaced when someone makes a huge effort to do so (with lots of financial backing I guess)
I'm not well informed about these things so could well be incorrect

BTW hi Ralph, welcome back!

[Paul Keith]

Note that until FireFox came along, 99% of Windows users never even considered departing IE.

I disagree. This is just history revisioning. Even casual techies know that many were still craving for Netscape but it just kept bloating up and being buggy.

Internet Explorer did a Google Chrome, add a monopolistic comes pre-installed with a popular OS and with the right marketing it captured the majority of most people's interest.

If you like to play predictions, you could even say the latest version of Netscape is at the current point where most user friendly Linux distros are today. Featureful but bloated and still often times containing the occassional deadly bug for casual users who don't know how to troubleshoot.

Opera then was Adware and like the early Apple OS's, superior but never considered as a viable alternative. Macs today are highly popular in their niches. The same phase could be said for where Opera is going. Desktop market share wise, they're lingering at the bottom but like Macs, they're focusing to the future. Where Apple eventually focused more on laptops and portables, Opera is gaining new grounds with their browsers being on Wiis, cellphones, handhelds, PDA, etc. Of course it can be said that the company is still missing a Steve Jobs but how notable was the name Steve Jobs then to the mainstream tech crowd?

So to give Firefox credit for all their success like they came out of nowhere is a blatant disregard for all the circumstances that led them here. Remember before Firefox, the main reason why Firebird gained notoriety was it was finally Netscape that got what IE had going for while retaining most of it's features through add-ons while doing the right marketing.

This is pretty much the same pattern the Linux Distro worlds are going through right now. As Windows 7 and Leopard constantly add buggy or irrelevant eye candy, Linux developers are forging the "light on resources" ahead by stabilizing Wubi, improving MintInstall, finally auto-adding a separate user partition, taking advantage of the maturity of cloud technology to sidestep vendor lock ins.

All these while patiently riding under the upcoming bloatware and as the community grows, it could potentially do what Firefox eventually evolved from: A less lightweight Firebird that changed it's mascot and took advantage of the growing dissent and lack of true useful innovation from the competitors.

I guarantee you that had Firefox started like Firefox 2.0 or Firefox 3.0, it won't gather half the marketshare and half the add-on developers like it has now to leverage it's uninnovative architecture and 99% of those using Windows won't be considering switching from IE especially because if the Firebird product had just been delayed a little bit further, the popularity of IE shells would rise and everyone would instead be saying "Why do I need to switch from Firefox if Maxthon can do this anyway?" except for the few open source zealots.
 

[zridling]

[Ralf M.]: Windows is installed on zillions of workstations.  Why?  Because it's always been that way.  When will it change?  When something tremendously better compels us to switch.  Until then, analyzing why everyone runs Windows when "better" operating systems exist seems like wankery.

Perhaps you misunderstood David Williams, Ralf? Maybe not, but he's saying that since [most] everyone uses Windows, unless you have a compelling reason for an alternative to it, then you'll never consider your options. I only used the QWERTY phenomenon as an example of similar historical precedent. Tried buying a retail computer in 2008 without having to pay for a pre-installed copy of Windows on it? You damn sure nearly can't, unless you have the sleuthing skills to find Dell's Linux pages or you just start waving $100 dollar bills in the air toward an Apple product. If Windows works for you, then the explanation fits. You're happy. Microsoft is happy. Story ends.

Forget computers or OSes. Water the analogy down and apply it to anything else in your life -- favorite brand of shoes, toothpaste, power tools, auto, even your preferred soft drink.

[f0dder]

Zaine, the analogy would have worked if the de-facto product was flawed compared to the alternatives - QWERTY is clearly handicapped compared to DVORAK, as mentioned previously... for most other markets with a dominating product, this isn't the case.

[zridling]

Thanks f0dder for the clarification. I see what you mean.

[Ralf Maximus]

Zaine!  I've missed you. 

Yes, upon re-reading I didn't get that from the QWERTY article.  I guess I got hung up on the IDEA of switching, and/or debating the value of one O/S over another, which is a discussion that rapidly bores me.  Sure, compare & contrast the differences, promote one over another for particular tasks... but too many of those threads descend into Mac bashing and Redmond hating.  My reflex kicked in, and it blinded me to the core of the essay.  Thanks for pointing that out.

I still stand by my IE/FF example, as it pertains to the desire to upgrade. 

FF 1.0 was released in September 2004.  In that year, Microsoft shipped approximately 100 million XP SP upgrades.  That's *just* XP, and only upgrades from previous XP editions.  One can easily envision that number being x5 or even x10 when all Windows editions sold prior to 2004 are factored in.

If only 1% of 100 million users hated IE and used Opera, Netscape, Lynx (etc) that's a substantial number -- a million people -- and supports the meme that power users wanted something better, but typical users didn't know/care enough to even think about switching.  From supporting a large help desk, I know for a fact many otherwise intelligent adults think of IE as "the internet," as if it's just a drive share or some magical thing on their computer  ("You need software to see the internet?").

That was my point.

Awareness was raised by the FF phenomenon, and Microsoft's monopolistic issues in Europe at that time.  Suddenly open source anything was in the news, and that also boosted interest in Firefox.

But until that time, I think it's safe to say 99% of Windows users didn't even know there was an upgrade path away from IE, and the vast majority would have shrugged anyway had they known.

[city_zen]

The obvious remedy would be and EXTREMELY detailed official XP-to-ubuntu transition site where almost any feature in XP can be looked up -- and the Ubuntu equivalent is presented. There are some such sites around (http://www.osalt.com/ is a good example when it comes to software) but I haven't seen one that is comprehensive and simple enough for the imagined target audience.

You know, this comment by Nod5 left me thinking. Because it reminded me of what Microsoft itself did when faced with a similar situation, i.e. being the "underdog" in a popular software category. And I'm not talking about the browsers war with Netscape, but the fight against WordPerfect for the supremacy in the word processing category. Do you remember how Microsoft included in every single version of Word a special "Help for Wordperfect users" to ease the transition from WordPerfect? I can't recall which was the first version of Microsoft Word to include that but I'm pretty sure that back then WordPerfect was the dominant program for word processing. And they still have it in Word 2003 (I'm not running Word 2007, so maybe someone else can confirm if it's still there in that version). I'm not saying that that was the sole determinant in Microsoft success in placing Word as the #1 program in the category, but it sure must have helped.
So, what would happen if, say, Ubuntu started including a special "Help for Windows users" as part of the standard help files of the OS? I confess my utmost ignorance about Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular, so maybe this is already there, but I highly doubt it. Such a move would be probably denounced as "sacrilege" by some members of the community, but I think it'd be a wise move on their part since I guess that most first time users of Ubuntu come from Windows rather than another Linux distribution or Mac.

[Paul Keith]

If only 1% of 100 million users hated IE and used Opera, Netscape, Lynx (etc) that's a substantial number -- a million people -- and supports the meme that power users wanted something better, but typical users didn't know/care enough to even think about switching.  From supporting a large help desk, I know for a fact many otherwise intelligent adults think of IE as "the internet," as if it's just a drive share or some magical thing on their computer  ("You need software to see the internet?").

Again, several things went against those browsers you mentioned to make them viable alternatives then:

1. Opera - free version had Ad-ware then which if you don't know, was an even bigger issue for pseudo-power users then who knew no better than Adware = evil. Even if you weren't bothered by Adware, Opera unlike Firefox had a unique interface compared to Firefox/IE. The fact that numerous Firefox add-ons today which Opera has always had still gets much praise is just proof that Opera was ahead of it's time BUT also didn't get the market as the Ad they have for example severely made Firefox look more minimalistic from the get go than Opera. Finally the nail in the coffin was website compatibility, lack of developer support and a familiar help for IE users. All critical areas that were important even for power users.

2. Netscape - same with Opera, people don't like using software that feels buggy.

3. Lynx - text browser.

If you can name me how any versions of those browsers were as easy or familiar to use as Firefox at that time, then you might have a case but the fact is, none of those were as easy a switch at that time.

Awareness was raised by the FF phenomenon, and Microsoft's monopolistic issues in Europe at that time.  Suddenly open source anything was in the news, and that also boosted interest in Firefox.

But until that time, I think it's safe to say 99% of Windows users didn't even know there was an upgrade path away from IE, and the vast majority would have shrugged anyway had they known.

The problem is that there was no "upgrade" path from IE at the time. There were different flavors of browsers but none of them were stable, free and familiar.

Here's what the Firefox "phenomenon" pretty much was:

1) Security - Opera had this but how can you develop confidence in ad-ware?

2) Tabs - Again, killer feature but not something that works well if you have a big block of ad on top or buggy software.

3) Ad-blocker - Suicide for companies like Opera and Netscape at the time. You might find this silly nowadays but back then these were all you heard from forums hyping Firefox besides Tabs and Security.

4) Extensions - Let's face it, part of the hype back then was contributed by marketers who thought they could eventually evolve a business model from it. Part of it was also people wanting to get instant net fame by copying Opera's features. Finally part of it was blogs making lists of these that made Firefox looked like Google Chrome as far as how most of the net were talking about it.

Now look how much these word of mouth contributed to Google Chrome's fast market share rise without it even having an ad-blocker and security and you will see that the phenomenon wasn't much of a phenomenon at all as much as "Ad-blocker". Remember part of the whole open source movement at the time was contributed by a rise of Ad-ware applications like Bonzi Buddy that exposed these security risks to users which was also contributed by the strong detection rates of popular antiviruses at the time which eventually got disfigured into ad-ware = evil everything.

[Ralf Maximus]

Paul, I respect your deep knowledge.  You have a very precise style of laying out facts that is a pleasure to read.

But.  I feel like you're fixating on key words in my text (e.g. "upgrade", "lynx") and running with those, breaking things down to the subatomic level and reassembling them differently than I meant.  Obviously I am not able to articulate my real point: that O/S agnostism is something to strive for, and spending time worrying about why Windows both rules and sucks at the same time is not productive.  I view that as a failure on my part, as I pride myself on communications skills.  Maybe as we get to know each others' posting style this will ease somewhat -- I'm really a nice guy, and I'm sure you are too. No harm, no foul.

But for now I will bow out of this thread, declare you the winner of a debate I didn't even know I was participating in, and let things go.

[40hz]

Ralf: There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, or a strong feeling about something. But the one thing you can expect at DC is to have your opinions challenged and debated. It's pretty much in the nature of the place from what I can tell.

I've had my butt handed to me on more than one occasion when I've posted something on DC that I either: didn't properly think through, articulate clearly, or double-check for accuracy. And I've benefited from that experience. I know it's improved my forum skills - and it's definitely encouraged me to become (with mixed success) a better writer.

It's also made me painfully aware of how easy it is to fall into the trap of truthiness. (see quotes below*)

Don't bow out (or yield) if you think you've been misunderstood. It's not a competition. We're all seeking clarity here, no matter how divergent our points of view. So please, get in there with your facts and rationale for why you've formed the opinion you have - and share it with the rest of us.

Look at it this way: You may be right. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*

http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness

Truthiness is what you want the facts to be, as opposed to what the facts are. What feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support.

~ Stephen Colbert
October 17, 2005 The Colbert Report[/b]

Truthiness is the reality that is intuitively known without regard to liberal ideals such as reason and logic. It is the truth that is felt deep down, in the gut. It can't be found in books, which are all facts and no heart (except for the one true book, I Am America (And So Can You!) It is absolute, and can only be infallibly known by the gut of Stephen Colbert. It can only be felt by Americans with huge brass balls.

In the past decade, occurrences of truthiness have tripled in the United States. The rest of the world, sadly, lags far behind.

American Dialect Society's Word of the Year

On January 6, 2006, the American Dialect Society announced that truthiness was selected as its 2005 Word of the Year. The Society described its rationale as follows:

    "In its 16th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted truthiness as the word of the year. First heard on The Colbert Report, a satirical mock news show on the Comedy Channel, truthiness refers to the quality of stating concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true. As Stephen Colbert put it, 'I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart.'"

Apparently after realizing that "truthiness" was found in the Oxford English Dictionary, the Society later changed the wording of this press release on their website, from "First heard on The Colbert Report..." to "Recently popularized on The Colbert Report..."

[Paul Keith]

Ralf, nice to meet you too, and what 40hz said.

Communication problems weren't totally entirely your fault, I was partly to blame too.

The reason it sounded like I was focusing on key phrases of your argument was because I was.

I do agree with your general premise and in fact, I was originally considering writing something too similar to your reply on the futility of this discussion, decided not to and then I read your reply and pretty much lurked here until I felt your analogy with the browsers read too much historical revisioning compared to the version I knew of that it was worth a rebuttal not necessarily for the goal of winning but to cementify my own thoughts if I'm wrong as well as inform readers/lurkers who chance upon this topic that might not have any true idea and hopefully one way or the other, they get a better version of the events out of reading through the topic.

In hindsight, it would probably have been simpler to imitate f0dder's trail of argument by focusing on the actual QWERTY-DVORAK analogy but at the time, I just felt I had more hands-on opinion of browsers and the idea that QWERTY was inherently flawed compared to DVORAK just left a sour taste in my mouth.

It just comes off like an argument saying ergonomic chairs are much superior to cheaper generic models but often times it turns out that it's my sitting posture that's the problem and was the missing perspective to my dilemmas.

In a way, by following this premise I just felt like it was ignoring the innovations and hardships many distribution developers had done to improve parts of Linux to be better than Windows out of the box which rather than prove the futility of the discussion and treating the topic as a well done analogy, ends up forcing the analogy to be unnecessarily over-thought in my head.

[Ralf Maximus]

Thanks for being cool about all this.  I understand now what you were trying to accomplish.

However, I'm uncomfortable with the response my simple statement of opinion generated.  I've spent entirely too much time defending and explaining a position I don't even care about.

The end result is that I no longer feel qualified to express opinions unless I am prepared to do battle, High School Debate Club style.  That's not fun, and not why I come here.  I am not a newbie -- check my stats.

So, I'll go back to posting fun/amusing doo-dads and leave the heavy debate to the more qualified.

Have fun.

[40hz]

The end result is that I no longer feel qualified to express opinions unless I am prepared to do battle, High School Debate Club style.  That's not fun, and not why I come here.  I am not a newbie -- check my stats.

So, I'll go back to posting fun/amusing doo-dads and leave the heavy debate to the more qualified.

Have fun.

We will. Hope you do too.

[attach]