The true conspiracy about Microsoft, PC Manufacturers and Linux

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkJS
 




Both Windows and Linux has been out for 20+ years or so...and up to now, there is no winner in the market. The battle still rages.


Considering Microsoft has a 90% market share i think its safe to say Windows is a very clear winner.





posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Clear winners in the desktop arena, but on systems overall,
Linux is the clear winner.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkJS
ETA: Back to the topic of the thread.... I have a Win8 PC with UEFI. I want to do a dual-boot with Win7 Ultimate, which has XP Virtualization. From what I'm reading, UEFI is not a big obstacle for this setup. I'll let you know in this forum if it proves otherwise.... probably about a month from now when I get my Win7 DVD.

I tried to do that some days ago, that's when I found out about this.

Windows 7 told me that it didn't recognize the drive format, so, to install Windows 7 I would need to format the disk.

As in the company where I work we have Action Pack licenses, I just turned the Windows 8 version of that laptop into the professional version to make it able to join the company's domain.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by MarkJS
ETA: Back to the topic of the thread.... I have a Win8 PC with UEFI. I want to do a dual-boot with Win7 Ultimate, which has XP Virtualization. From what I'm reading, UEFI is not a big obstacle for this setup. I'll let you know in this forum if it proves otherwise.... probably about a month from now when I get my Win7 DVD.

I tried to do that some days ago, that's when I found out about this.

Windows 7 told me that it didn't recognize the drive format, so, to install Windows 7 I would need to format the disk.

As in the company where I work we have Action Pack licenses, I just turned the Windows 8 version of that laptop into the professional version to make it able to join the company's domain.


As a rule of thumb when you setup dual boot with any Microsoft products you should always start with the lowest version first.

If you had windows 7 installed and then installed say XP then Windows 7 will stop working (though it can easily be fixed). But if you install XP first and then install windows 7 it works fine



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Well...

I have seem this kind of policy backfire in the past, I don't see why it won't now. In the short term, microsoft may sell a bit more and monopolize computers used by people with not much interest in liberty of choice, but these people would use windows and only windows anyway.

In the long term, people with more knowledge in the field will simply pass by windows 8, it's a good time for other operating systems as android gain space. Have you ever seem how many people are still using windows xp, refusing to change to newer versions ?

peace...



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoonChild1973
Have you ever seem how many people are still using windows xp, refusing to change to newer versions ?

Yes, but that's because they believe what people tell them, that Windows Vista was terrible, that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista with cosmetic changes and the Windows 8 is not for them.

XP was good when compared with Windows 98, but it was not much good than Windows 2000 and is worse than Vista.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by MoonChild1973
Have you ever seem how many people are still using windows xp, refusing to change to newer versions ?

Yes, but that's because they believe what people tell them, that Windows Vista was terrible, that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista with cosmetic changes and the Windows 8 is not for them.

XP was good when compared with Windows 98, but it was not much good than Windows 2000 and is worse than Vista.



Yes I understand your point of view, I have seem many people using windows xp both because they like and want it in a professional way, and also because of what you mentioned "they were told xp was better"... in any case, people are still using XP, and a lot of people I know about, even a newspaper editor I know uses windows xp (she actually asked a technician to remove win7 oem and change it to win xp)...

Anyway, these concepts people have, either out of knowledge or ignorance help dictate the market...

A pleasure talking to you mate,



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by MoonChild1973
Have you ever seem how many people are still using windows xp, refusing to change to newer versions ?

Yes, but that's because they believe what people tell them, that Windows Vista was terrible, that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista with cosmetic changes and the Windows 8 is not for them.

XP was good when compared with Windows 98, but it was not much good than Windows 2000 and is worse than Vista.


No offense , but Vista was terrible.
7 is not a full version up from Vista, but is clearly more finished than vista!
Windows 2000 was a great OS.
Windows xp also is not a full version up from w2k.
XP became a good OS.
Internet explorer upto and including version 7 was criminally vulnerable.

Microsoft a driven by profit, money as always gets in the way of a more perfect product.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel4
No offense , but Vista was terrible.
7 is not a full version up from Vista, but is clearly more finished than vista!
Windows 2000 was a great OS.
Windows xp also is not a full version up from w2k.
XP became a good OS.
Internet explorer upto and including version 7 was criminally vulnerable.

Microsoft a driven by profit, money as always gets in the way of a more perfect product.
------

Agreed, ever since I started in computing back in 1995, windows vista is by far the worst microsoft operating system I have used, and I used it because in early 2006 I bought a nvidia directx10 capable video card and I had no other option but vista. In many years of use I found it to be slow, unstable, terrible whilst handling ram memory, etc... back then I had a dual boot with windows xp sp2, in some cases I would install a game to play in directx9 in xp, even when the game supported directx10, that was the case for bioshock, in vista it had some minor graphic advantages, in xp it would run really faster and since I could up the graphics, it looked better.

Cheers,
edit on 20/2/13 by MoonChild1973 because: (lost the quotes... sorry)
edit on 20/2/13 by MoonChild1973 because: (lost the quotes... sorry)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
No offense , but Vista was terrible.

I was expecting that someone would say that, as I have seen many people complaining about Vista, but the fact is I haven't had one problem with it during the three years (I think) I used it.


Microsoft a driven by profit, money as always gets in the way of a more perfect product.

Capitalism was supposed to be good for the people (or so they promoted it against Communism).



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoonChild1973
In many years of use I found it to be slow, unstable, terrible whilst handling ram memory, etc... back then I had a dual boot with windows xp sp2, in some cases I would install a game to play in directx9 in xp, even when the game supported directx10, that was the case for bioshock, in vista it had some minor graphic advantages, in xp it would run really faster and since I could up the graphics, it looked better.

As I said on my previous post, I never had a problem with Vista.

When I first installed it I had only 768 MB of RAM on my computer, and I was able to open a 1.2 GB image in Photoshop. It took some minutes to open the image, but in the end I could work with it (I cropped a small section of the image) without any problems.

This was on my old computer, the second I built from parts chose by me.

I never had any problem in my work computer with Vista either.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The whole market share view of computing is flawed too. There is no "winner" either an OS is being developed with new versions and updates coming out or its abandoned.
Windows,Mac, Linux and Unix all have their own markets and are used for different things. The only time there are winners and losers with this is when you try to have these OSes fulfill the roles of the others.
A windows user wants to work and play and have a wide array of programs at their disposal.
Linux and Unix users usually have a specific reason they are on that OS. For example all the super computers that are capable of computing an insane amount of data at an even crazier rate are all running Linux. Because you can make Linux do whatever you want it to do (for the most part).
If I want to make my own custom desktop environment im not going to be using windows or apple and if I want to run office and play a modern game with the best performance im not going to use Linux. Most of the web pages you visit are all hosted on Linux, because Linux is simply better at it. Windows is catching up but the price tag will probably never make it a viable alternative to Linux hosting.
Apple is... geared more for people who want to say they own a computer.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
All versions of windows are dreadful.
Slow, insecure, virus and spyware ridden.
The only reason microsoft has such a high market share is because you are forced to have it when you buy a new computer. I honestly think if everyone tried linux mint, they wouldn't go back to windows.

And seeing as this is a conspiracy site: Do people really trust microsoft not to be monitoring everything you are doing?
Or apple for that matter. I don't. No one sees the source code, who knows what they are up to.

This is the freedom that open source software brings.
Security.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I inherited a dell laptop from my dad which had barely enough ram to run vista (512 Mb).
It was an appalling experience.
It took 5 minutes to open a 1k text file in notepad!
As soon as I formatted the hard drive and installed ubuntu it was very a fast and powerful machine.

People who say there is nothing wrong with windows are people who have never tried linux.
It is a joy to have machines boot up in a few seconds and shutdown in less than one second.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
People who say there is nothing wrong with windows are people who have never tried linux.
It is a joy to have machines boot up in a few seconds and shutdown in less than one second.


Sorry I disagree because I have been running Windows and Linux (various distros) over the course of my career. As have millions of other people I am sure . Hell Im running WIn7 and 2 different distros on the same machine now. The core OS is Win7 and it boots in less than 20 seconds.

Each OS does things great and sucks at other things.

Wish people would finally realize that and move on to pressuring a company that takes the best elements of Microsoft and the best elements of Linux and build them as 1 os.

edit on 21-2-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
It took 5 minutes to open a 1k text file in notepad!

In that case it means that something was wrong with that Windows installation, even with only 512MB (Vista's minimum) a 1k text file should open in just one or two seconds.


People who say there is nothing wrong with windows are people who have never tried linux.
It is a joy to have machines boot up in a few seconds and shutdown in less than one second.

Some months ago I tried to install Linux on a computer that was running Windows XP, but it refused to install because it didn't have enough memory (the computer only had 256MB of RAM).

Some of today's distros have almost the same requirements as Windows for doing similar things.

And I have never seen any clear difference in speed between Windows and Linux running on the same machine, but I have seen that only in a few machines.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
All versions of windows are dreadful.
Slow, insecure, virus and spyware ridden.

Do you really believe this or is this just something you heard?



The only reason microsoft has such a high market share is because you are forced to have it when you buy a new computer. I honestly think if everyone tried linux mint, they wouldn't go back to windows.

You are not forced... They even sell computers with Linux on them but people are not buying them. A major problem arises when someone needs to use Microsoft programs or they want to play a game.



And seeing as this is a conspiracy site: Do people really trust microsoft not to be monitoring everything you are doing?
Or apple for that matter. I don't. No one sees the source code, who knows what they are up to.

I have seen the source code but seeing as this is a "conspiracy site" people probably wouldn't believe me and I don't care. Linux is not special in the spying department
www.neowin.net...
And do you really think that Microsoft or the government have the ability to actually monitor computer use?



This is the freedom that open source software brings.
Security.


I would hardly call the GPL freedom and the security from using Linux is just a false sense of security. Syaing that Linux has better security is the same as me duct taping my front door shut and boasting on how no locksmith can pick my lock. Its not that Linux is more secure its just that the group using it is so small that it is not a target for malware. Many web servers are hosted on Linux yet we hear about websites getting attacked all the time. Computer security has all to do with the user and little to do with what OS they are using. I just recently saw an article about malware attacks on android being on the rise, because there are more and more people using it each day.
There are upsides to Linux but the ones you go over are overstated and propaganda driven.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
All versions of windows are dreadful.
Slow, insecure, virus and spyware ridden.
The only reason microsoft has such a high market share is because you are forced to have it when you buy a new computer. I honestly think if everyone tried linux mint, they wouldn't go back to windows.


Interesting all versions of Windows are slow, insecure , virus and spyware ridden? Really wish I would have experienced that at some point over my career too bad I havent though. I take it by your posts your a Linux or nothing person so their really is no point in my tryhing to debate with you any of your points.. Enjoy what you will while much of the rest of the world will enjoy the other or ideally both

Mint is nice..I run it as vbox on my Windows7 machine..works great.
edit on 21-2-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by opethPA
 


I do use windows 7 occasionally for games but that is all.
I've not always been a die hard linux fan, I used to prefer windows XP for a long time.
But I do think linux has become more and more user friendly and faster at some point overtaking windows in both user-friendliness and performance, over the years.

Nice chatting with you. I can see neither of us will change our minds but that's OK!



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Superhans
Do you really believe this or is this just something you heard?

Experience tells me it is true!



You are not forced... They even sell computers with Linux on them but people are not buying them. A major problem arises when someone needs to use Microsoft programs or they want to play a game.

You still have to pay a premium, you do not get the price of windows off the machine, because of the "arrangement" that M$ has with the hardware manufacturers.



I have seen the source code but seeing as this is a "conspiracy site" people probably wouldn't believe me and I don't care. Linux is not special in the spying department
www.neowin.net...
And do you really think that Microsoft or the government have the ability to actually monitor computer use?

Ubuntu got absolutely slated for that in the open source world. It is an example of how the open source community does monitor behaviour like that.



I would hardly call the GPL freedom and the security from using Linux is just a false sense of security


The security in linux is mainly due to nobody having permission to do anything. So if you do get a virus it can't get into the system folders. It is secure by design.
Nice comments





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join