PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu Computers



Drenriza
March 21st, 2011, 08:55 AM
I must say i'm puzzled. When you look at Ubuntu, you find a great system and stable system. But not a lot of people use it (world wide), compared to OS X and Microsoft.

What i wonder is. As i see it, Ubuntu,s greatest weakness is compatibility with the wide variety of computers out their. NIC,s that docent work, not optimized GFX drivers and so on and on.

Why dosent a firm do like Apple. Make a computer with pre-defined hardware. And make the Ubuntu OS work without a hitch on that.

I believe
#1 more people would have a better experience with the system.
#2 it would be more user friendly (less bugs).
#3 programs would run better on a system with pre-defined hardware.
#4 you can optimize drivers to work with the system.

What is holding the firms back? I see it kind of like a no-brainer. But is that just me?
What is your thoughts?

Rachel_Eliason
March 21st, 2011, 09:52 AM
The problem is that the vast majority of computer users use whatever comes installed on their system, which typically means Windows. If someone made Ubuntu pre-installed like you say, people would use that without thinking about it either. Given Ubuntu's stability and security, especially relative to Windows, it would become a hit rather quickly.

mikewhatever
March 21st, 2011, 09:59 AM
System76 and Zareason do just that. The bigger companies, however, don't seem to see the effort as financially justified, given the low consumer demand for computers with Linux preinstalled.


... If someone made Ubuntu pre-installed like you say, people would use that without thinking about it either. Given Ubuntu's stability and security, especially relative to Windows, it would become a hit rather quickly.

Actually, quite a few have tried, but what do you say to someone who connects a Lexmark printer and it doesn't work or wants to install iTunes to sync an iPod? What good are security and stability in those cases?

Paqman
March 21st, 2011, 10:29 AM
I believe
#1 more people would have a better experience with the system.
#2 it would be more user friendly (less bugs).
#3 programs would run better on a system with pre-defined hardware.
#4 you can optimize drivers to work with the system.

What is holding the firms back? I see it kind of like a no-brainer. But is that just me?
What is your thoughts?

"If you build it, they will come" is a nice idea, but in reality it'll take a lot more than that.

There's a huge amount of inertia in the market due to the overwhelming dominance of Windows. The vast majority of software out there is Windows software, and that matters. Even with Apple's vast marketing budgets they've only been able to carve out a small niche from Microsoft's market share (although to be fair, they do only target the top end of the market). Small companies pushing Linux don't really have much chance of gaining serious traction.

lz1dsb
March 21st, 2011, 10:51 AM
"If you build it, they will come" is a nice idea, but in reality it'll take a lot more than that.

There's a huge amount of inertia in the market due to the overwhelming dominance of Windows. The vast majority of software out there is Windows software, and that matters. Even with Apple's vast marketing budgets they've only been able to carve out a small niche from Microsoft's market share (although to be fair, they do only target the top end of the market). Small companies pushing Linux don't really have much chance of gaining serious traction.
I couldn't agree more... You've said it quite well actually. I think that the only company in the world today which is able to undermine the Microsofts's market share in the desktop OS market is... Microsoft.

Paqman
March 21st, 2011, 11:31 AM
I think that the only company in the world today which is able to undermine the Microsofts's market share in the desktop OS market is... Microsoft.

I think Apple, Amazon and Google could probably do it. It's just a question of whether they want to. Apple have built their brand around being at the luxury end of the hardware market, going to war against the likes of Dell is probably a lose/lose for them. Google are more interested in the web as a platform than desktop OSes, you have to wonder how committed they are to ChromeOS or whether they're just dabbling with the technology. Amazon are probably more likely to release a tablet than a PC.

peely
March 21st, 2011, 03:53 PM
I'm not certain it's about hardware compatibility, I think in the last few years using Ubuntu / Linux I've had one device which I couldn't get working.

For me (as a business user) the biggest issue is in decent groupware which interfaces with our corporate Exchange servers, Evolution just isn't stable. A lack of Webex / goToMeeting client also hinders me running it in business 100%, at home I have no problems.

Zlatan
March 21st, 2011, 05:55 PM
I must say i'm puzzled. When you look at Ubuntu, you find a great system and stable system. But not a lot of people use it (world wide), compared to OS X and Microsoft.

What i wonder is. As i see it, Ubuntu,s greatest weakness is compatibility with the wide variety of computers out their. NIC,s that docent work, not optimized GFX drivers and so on and on.

Why dosent a firm do like Apple. Make a computer with pre-defined hardware. And make the Ubuntu OS work without a hitch on that.

I believe
#1 more people would have a better experience with the system.
#2 it would be more user friendly (less bugs).
#3 programs would run better on a system with pre-defined hardware.
#4 you can optimize drivers to work with the system.

What is holding the firms back? I see it kind of like a no-brainer. But is that just me?
What is your thoughts?

... or you can go easy way (http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/);)

rich52x
March 21st, 2011, 07:13 PM
... or you can go easy way

My Acer Laptop (Aspire 5600)works perfectly well with ubuntu, and so far ive had no real hardware problems

pricetech
March 21st, 2011, 07:22 PM
If I had some chocolate, I'd make chocolate milk, if I had some milk.

Hardware and software vendors will take Linux seriously when Linux gains enough market share.

Linux will gain market share when vendors take Linux seriously.

For now, Linux is still somewhat "geeky" and isn't for the faint of heart.

I do get frustrated when a given piece of hardware or software doesn't work, but then I get much more frustrated when I see a rant on the forums complaining that "linux sucks" because I can't do what I want without some effort on my part.

"Linux doesn't work" usually means "Linux isn't painless for me"

NOTE: I'm not suggesting the OP is doing the above, it just came to mind as a barrier to widespread adoption.

OldTimeTech
March 21st, 2011, 08:12 PM
Dell tried, but didn't market aggressively and they didn't come. Unfortunately, Linux is not like a "field of Dreams". You don't have to be a "geek" to run Linux, but it does need someone who is a power user and not afraid of a learning curve.

The other thing I find is that too many people (definite generalization) want to be able to download any application from the net that interests them, most are .exe's and therefore don't work on Linux that's when they decide Linux is not usable and won't work for them. I look at this as if they want to screw up there machine with applications that may be dangerous it puts money in my pocket to fix their machines ;))))

Zlatan
March 21st, 2011, 08:26 PM
I'm pretty much sure of Microsoft's policy with big PC manufacturers- they have to sell Windows only if they want to have reasonable (competitive) licence prices. If they get anythingelse- boom, they are notcompetitive with Windows machines. None of manufacturers would iketo loose on this field.
Therefore we need more companies like System76 (http://www.system76.com/)- the kind that do not worry on licencing costs from Microsoft.

coolbrook
March 22nd, 2011, 12:04 AM
I'm going to be honest with you. Aside from version 7, which I'll install within the week, I've used every version of Windows since 3.0 and I haven't been through the horror stories of others. 95..98.. XP.. no problems. I used ME at work, to support customers, but that doesn't count.

NormanFLinux
March 22nd, 2011, 03:56 AM
For a noob coming to Linux, I'd recommend PCLOS (any desktop environment) or Linux Mint. Basically, a noob wants an operating system that works out of the box that identifies and configures a wireless card so connection to the Internet is simple and without having to hunt down all the packages needed to build a complete system.

PCLOS would be my choice for two reasons: it supports a great variety of hardware and although its RPM-based like Mandriva, it uses apt-get as its front end like Debian so software updating through Synaptic is painless. Plus its a rolling release.

nkae100
March 22nd, 2011, 04:58 AM
The problem is not Ubuntu. The problem is that 99% of games cannot run on Linux because game developers are in bed with API's such as Direct3D, which can only run on Microsoft platforms.

iD games will run on Linux as they use API's such as OpenGL.


Don't get me started on WINE. Its a complete failure.


Games are what keeps people on Windows. I recommended to Linux Mint to sponsor the WINE project, but I was ignored. I wanted to suggest it to canonical, but there website does not have a general contact point.