Mainstream Win7 article mentions linux...

[Sporkman]

7 Myths About Windows 7

* By David LaGesse
* On 2:11 pm EDT, Thursday October 22, 2009

Yes, Windows 7 didn't even hit the market until Thursday. But that hasn't stopped a fog of myths from enveloping the newest version of the much loved--and much hated--PC operating system from Microsoft.

[Slide Show: The Best of What's New in Windows 7.]

The software giant hoped that wide exposure to Windows 7 would help smooth its entry. Microsoft let millions of consumers and professionals download test versions of the operating system. And by a wide margin, testers have found the new system to be the best yet from Microsoft. Version 7 is leaner, more useful, and prettier than past editions--a worthy effort to update the Windows world.

Still, the fictions are legion. Much of it is innocent confusion that accompanies any major software release. Some of it arises from Microsoft apologists trying to bury the botched release of Windows Vista, sniping Apple fans who want the Mac to continue gaining market share, or diehard techies who revere free Linux software.

[Why some analysts argue that Linux is better than Windows or the Mac.]

With so much misinformation swirling, we've sorted through seven points that are confusing consumers:...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-Myths-About-Windows-usnews-661053706.html?x=0&.v=1

[Sealbhach]

Diehard? Are we an endangered species?

Journalists like to pigeonhole certain groups, it makes their job easier, I suppose. The Linux desktop is still suffering from the snootiness and rudeness of Linux users in the early days, so I guess it's just Karma really,

Anyway, if Windows 7 turns out to be a good release then it's good for consumers, at least they'll be getting better value for money - unlike me who paid a license for Vista which proved to be unusable on my hardware.

.

[Sporkman]

Anyway, if Windows 7 turns out to be a good release then it's good for consumers, at least they'll be getting better value for money - unlike me who paid a license for Vista which proved to be unusable on my hardware.


You could argue that Linux as a viable alternative pushed MS to create a quality product like Win7. So Linux did its job, and we consumers win.

[Bachstelze]

You could argue that Linux as a viable alternative pushed MS to create a quality product like Win7. So Linux did its job, and we consumers win.

What? Linux's goal has never been to push MS to do anything.

[Sporkman]

What? Linux's goal has never been to push MS to do anything.

Linux's goal has to been to offer consumers a choice, by becoming a viable desktop OS. That choice arguably put pressure on MS to improve it's product to compete & protect its market share.

[armageddon08]

linux's goal has to been to offer consumers a choice, by becoming a viable desktop os. That choice arguably put pressure on ms to improve it's product to compete & protect its market share.

+1.

[Bachstelze]

Linux's goal has to been to offer consumers a choice, by becoming a viable desktop OS. That choice arguably put pressure on MS to improve it's product to compete & protect its market share.

Ubuntu's goal, perhaps, but definitely not Linux's.

[LookTJ]

ubuntu's goal, perhaps, but definitely not linux's.
+1

[Mauler5858]

Linux's goal has to been to offer consumers a choice, by becoming a viable desktop OS. That choice arguably put pressure on MS to improve it's product to compete & protect its market share.

Ive played with Win7 for work reasons...and for M$ im actually a tad impressed. And on the other side of your coin....in turn with your theory, it will force Linux developers to work harder to compensate for their decent OS.

[orlox]

Linux's goal has to been to offer consumers a choice, by becoming a viable desktop OS. That choice arguably put pressure on MS to improve it's product to compete & protect its market share.

+1. Usually in commercial software, competition drives innovation. If you have a monopoly, innovation is a cost with little benefits, and it turns out to be much more profitable to do relatively small modifications and selling them as a complete new system altogether.

I think vista was a bold attempt at trying to improve things and don't be left behind. They weren't left behind though, cause linux wasn't so user friendly in many points, and for hardcore pc gaming windows is always a must.

Windows 7 is a good shot though, and I think it would suck if microsoft didn't had any competitor. Hell, if there was no risk for them, I think vista and 7 would be to XP as much of an innovation as windows 2000 and ME were to windows 98.

[ade234uk]

I think Microsoft need to have one crap OS before they bring out a better one. Windows ME was crap, then XP came out.

I expect Windows 7 to become standard, but eventually its downfall will be viruses and spyware just like other versions of Windows, and when you use Windows, you will still be locked in.

When you buy a new pc, Windows 7 will be ruined by vendors putting loads of junk on top of Windows 7, just like XP and Vista, this will make the system rubbis.

I left Windows, because of Viruses and spyware, and I dont like being told what I can, and what they can't do with my computer, and I hate having to pay.

When you use Linux, as stupid as it sounds you feel free of all the crap that comes with Microsoft.

[Dark_Stang]

Let's see... I'm a computer science student focussed on software development and operating system design I got bored because I ran out of programming classes so I'm going to get my CCNA and Security+ this year. And I work on about 300 Windows and Mac machines each week. So yes, I may be a diehard linux user... but really it's because I have to WORK ON 300 WINDOWS AND MAC MACHINES each week. After I setup a linux box... it just works... period.

[mivo]

I left Windows, because of Viruses and spyware

I don't understand this. In many years of using Windows on various machines, I have never contracted a virus. I just run one (free) AV program, have NoScript enabled in the browser, and I don't download pirated software. I also don't open obscure file attachments. It takes little effort to not get a virus.

[benmoran]

I don't understand this. In many years of using Windows on various machines, I have never contracted a virus. I just run one (free) AV program, have NoScript enabled in the browser, and I don't download pirated software. I also don't open obscure file attachments. It takes little effort to not get a virus.

Yeah, but the second half of your sentence is evidence that you are not an average user. Average users usually run whatever virus program came with their PC, DO open all file attachments, and have no idea what NoScript is. In the 12~ years I used windows, i've only had a few viruses. I do know a ton of people though with virtually wrecked computers from viruses/spyware, because I used to be the one to fix them. Just the fact that we're on a forum discussing computers shows that we are not the average user.




And not directed at you Mivo, but why does everyone say Linux is about choice? That's crap that was started by folks who use Linux only for the cost.

The goal of free software has always been to get people out of the Windows/proprietary prison. Not to give the jailor incentive to build a nicer prison.

[Dark_Stang]

+1. Usually in commercial software, competition drives innovation. If you have a monopoly, innovation is a cost with little benefits, and it turns out to be much more profitable to do relatively small modifications and selling them as a complete new system altogether.

I think vista was a bold attempt at trying to improve things and don't be left behind. They weren't left behind though, cause linux wasn't so user friendly in many points, and for hardcore pc gaming windows is always a must.

Windows 7 is a good shot though, and I think it would suck if microsoft didn't had any competitor. Hell, if there was no risk for them, I think vista and 7 would be to XP as much of an innovation as windows 2000 and ME were to windows 98.
Just a couple things to straighten out here... Windows ME was based on Windows 98. Windows 2000 was actually quite a large step above both of those. XP was based heavily on 2000. Vista was both a very large step forward and backwards for Microsoft. Windows 7 is heavily based on Windows Vista and can be seen as Vista on a strict diet with a few new features.

[Frak]

Linux's goal has to been to offer consumers a choice, by becoming a viable desktop OS. That choice arguably put pressure on MS to improve it's product to compete & protect its market share.
Linux's goal is to be Linux. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the article, rubbish. Another article writer with a peice of paper full of notes he/she collected off another collegue and then preaching it like it's the word of the day.

[FrostyC]

I'm glad Windows stays on top, then all the dummies get the viruses & spyware, I make $$$ cleaning their PCs & go home to my nice secure Linux OS.

I remember when I ran Windows & was constantly getting trojans & malware from seemingly harmless sites like MySpace & such. Then one day I was like "There has to be something better than this..."

I tried out my friend's Mac & I felt like I was using a computer with training wheels. Whenever I asked a question like "So what if I don't want to use iTunes?" I got a response like: "What's wrong with iTunes? How come you don't like it?" as if I was the one who had the problem & not iTunes crappy GUI.

Then I found Linux & HOLY CRAP was I addicted! I could do seemingly anything I wanted, however I wanted.

Hell, I installed Linux on my Mother's machine, threw an XP-esque theme on there & she didn't even know she was running Linux for a week! She found out after I asked her, "So how's your computer been doing since I took all that spyware off?" Her response made my heart sing: "OMG what did you do? It's running faster than it ever has & it hasn't froze up once!" Then I told her, "Mom, you're running Linux." She was dumbfounded, because she always thought Linux was hard to use & she didn't know that Linux could look like Windows so easy.


Linux's goal is to be Linux. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think you mean ANYTHING MORE & nothing less.;)

[Bachstelze]

As for the article, rubbish. Another article writer with a peice of paper full of notes he/she collected off another collegue and then preaching it like it's the word of the day.

I thought the article was pretty good.

[Frak]

I think you mean ANYTHING MORE & nothing less.;)

That's just it, it's not. Linux's goal is to be Linux. It doesn't want to displace any company. It doesn't want to fit a particular goal, it's just there to be there. If anybody needs it for some reason, hey, Linux is there to use, but Linux itself doesn't have a goal other than to stay alive and be actively developed.

[earthpigg]

Can someone clarify this "Linux's Goal is..." stuff? the ultimate dictator of anything called Linux remains Linus Torvalds (http://www.linuxmark.org/). any allegation of Linux having a goal should include a quote from him or from someone authorized to speak on his behalf.

Now, Ubuntu certainly has a few goals that pertain to windows. such as Bug #1 (http://www.linuxmark.org/):


Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace.
This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix.

Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world's population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry.

Steps to repeat:

1. Visit a local PC store.

What happens:
2. Observe that a majority of PCs for sale have non-free software pre-installed.
3. Observe very few PCs with Ubuntu and free software pre-installed.

What should happen:
1. A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu.
2. Ubuntu should be marketed in a way such that its amazing features and benefits would be apparent and known by all.
3. The system shall become more and more user friendly as time passes.

[SomeGuyDude]

7. Mac users should abandon Apple. The Mac is still the standard for a computer that "just works." Apple has more control over the end product because it also assembles and sells the hardware. The Mac system is also more secure, if for no other reason than that a smaller market share makes a smaller target for criminals. Windows has to run on any batch of hardware that a maker or user throws together. That's one reason Windows requires more tinkering. But Windows also comes from a culture that is more influenced by techies who like tinkering and think everyone else does. Macs cost more. But they also benefit from the aura of success that surrounds the iPhone and iPod. Windows 7 may cut into the momentum behind the Mac, but it alone is unlikely to reverse Apple's gains.

In an article about myths surrounding Windows 7, and after relegating Linux users to "diehard techies", the author felt the need to say that Apple users should stick with Apple? That's... peculiar.

But then, I guess that's why he thinks Linux is for "diehard techies", he thinks Windows is a culture of people who like tinkering.