The most stable operating system ever

[DiscipleDOC]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

Excuse me DOC. I've never made such claims that Linux is the most stable OS ever or such claims near that. Linux is just another OS example because, guess what? It's no small secret that Windows is not the only OS with stability or the only OS in fact.

Sigh. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Sean_W

Anyway. Good luck with your most stable OS in the world and enjoy is while it lasts.

You wishing for his (or anyone's for that matter) system to crash in your round about sarcastic way does not disprove the thread either. All you are doing is regurgitating the same crap that Linux users has been doing for years. You're wishing something bad to happen to windows is not going to somehow pump up the Linux market share. Again, your logic is flawed.

[Sean_W]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDOC

Sigh. Whatever.


You wishing for his (or anyone's for that matter) system to crash in your round about sarcastic way does not disprove the thread either. All you are doing is regurgitating the same crap that Linux users has been doing for years. You're wishing something bad to happen to windows is not going to somehow pump up the Linux market share. Again, your logic is flawed.

Microsoft has had a monopoly in this market for well over 15 years now and it's notoriously hard for 'any' OS to get a foot hold. Just to prove this, let's take Linux as an example.

Linux is successful in various markets like, Server, Netbook, small devices, super computers. Microsoft got split a part in the 90's(During the Clinton years) because of their monopolistic tactics. Today yet again, Microsoft are being fined because of this and their refusal to be more open and let competing software compete. Their technologies are incompatible with other OS's and their network protocols just don't allow other OS's to interpolate with it.

Despite the bull**** many Windows elitists say about Linux, it's not because "Linux is hard to use" and "Linux is not ready for the desktop" junk statements. It's because Microsoft have a monopoly on the market, pure and simple fact.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

Are you still clinging on to that old story about Linux Netbook returns that was actually false? I bet Microsoft paid Acer and such OEMs a lot of cash for spreading that amount of FUD.

BTW. Microsoft ships Windows 7 Starter Edition with Netbooks, which is pathetic.

Nope.

I am actually going by the numbers of services people I directly work with who know about these things first hand. Cost of dis-sat when it comes to a very low-margin product such as a netbook is never good.

What other report are you talking about?

Also, there is nothing wrong with Windows 7 Starter Edition. It is not full-featured, obviously, but then neither are netbooks.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

Microsoft has had a monopoly in this market for well over 15 years now and it's notoriously hard for 'any' OS to get a foot hold. Just to prove this, let's take Linux as an example.

Linux is successful in various markets like, Server, Netbook, small devices, super computers. Microsoft got split a part in the 90's(During the Clinton years) because of their monopolistic tactics. Today yet again, Microsoft are being fined because of this and their refusal to be more open and let competing software compete. Their technologies are incompatible with other OS's and their network protocols just don't allow other OS's to interpolate with it.

Despite the bull**** many Windows elitists say about Linux, it's not because "Linux is hard to use" and "Linux is not ready for the desktop" junk statements. It's because Microsoft have a monopoly on the market, pure and simple fact.

Once again, go look up the term TCO and how it applies.

Companies are still investing in Microsoft because, they get a complete solution at the same or LOWER TCO for the duration they are looking at (typically a 3 year SA setup, same with RedHat if they went that route).

Microsoft has been fined for some monopolistic behavior but the gist of it is, they have money so they are targeted. The single biggest monopoly (Apple) doesn't get targeted because, by comparison, they have a much smaller market share, even though they have strangled their competition through lawsuits and the like.

When a product is made more INSECURE because 3'rd party AV makers and others whine that they are going to lose money, that's when I lose respect for their stance. Likewise for the browsers (Mozilla, Opera) whining that Microsoft should install their browsers on THEIR operating system.

I will be interested to see how Chrome OS does, although I am not a big believer in cloud based computing with all my data stored out there, for security reasons.

Good for a laugh, not good for a power-user.

[Sean_W]

The simple fact is Sazar, that Linux has a big share in the Netbook market by it's own doing. Microsoft were selling Windows XP at a loss just to even get and get market share.

People will return Linux Netbooks more based on various reasons, just like any new product, and simply because people don't know it or just want to use what they know already.

Windows fails a lot of people, but all they can return it for is another Windows.

[Drolfrawd]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

The simple fact is Sazar, that Linux has a foot in the market by it's own doing. Microsoft were selling Windows XP at a loss just to even get and get market share.

People will return Linux Netbooks more based on various reasons, just like any new product, and simply because people don't know it or just want to use what they know already.

Windows fails a lot of people, but all they can return it for is another Windows.

Drivel.

[Sean_W]

Originally Posted by Sazar

Once again, go look up the term TCO and how it applies.

Companies are still investing in Microsoft because, they get a complete solution at the same or LOWER TCO for the duration they are looking at (typically a 3 year SA setup, same with RedHat if they went that route).

Microsoft has been fined for some monopolistic behavior but the gist of it is, they have money so they are targeted. The single biggest monopoly (Apple) doesn't get targeted because, by comparison, they have a much smaller market share, even though they have strangled their competition through lawsuits and the like.

When a product is made more INSECURE because 3'rd party AV makers and others whine that they are going to lose money, that's when I lose respect for their stance. Likewise for the browsers (Mozilla, Opera) whining that Microsoft should install their browsers on THEIR operating system.

I will be interested to see how Chrome OS does, although I am not a big believer in cloud based computing with all my data stored out there, for security reasons.

Good for a laugh, not good for a power-user.

What market does Apple have a monopoly on? Microsoft go split up because they abused the market.

As for browsers, yes IE is at it's lowest share for decades(it's already dropped another 1% just recently) because finally other software have been able to compete.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

The simple fact is Sazar, that Linux has a big share in the Netbook market by it's own doing. Microsoft were selling Windows XP at a loss just to even get and get market share.

No, it is because consumers are looking for the cheapest product with the hardware they might have heard about on TV.

I was at a trade-show for DoD in Hawaii just a few months ago and people were drooling over a netbook running Ubuntu that I had brought over. It was fully kitted out, had a touch-screen and everything, including OpenOffice.

But once we started working on answering some questions, pitfalls arose, not because of lock-out specs but because of TCO and lack of resources to support the items. This was just in conversations over personal use items, not a NIPR or SIPR or MIPR product but rather a travel companion.

The general consensus was, people if they KNEW what was happening, would be more inclined to get a product that was mainstream and just worked and was supported than one that was not. Linux netbooks only get elementary support at best, by the way, and service calls cost a lot more per incident.

People will return Linux Netbooks more based on various reasons, just like any new product, and simply because people don't know it or just want to use what they know already.

Windows fails a lot of people, but all they can return it for is another Windows.

I will agree with you here because of a variety of things I just mentioned.

However, the fact is that Microsoft has a more robust and complete system than anything on the Linux side of the market. You CAN fix up the Linux components to be as or more full configured but you need to know what you are doing and are still going to have to jump through hoops to get things to work correctly.

Coming back to the topic at hand, Windows 7 was universally praised at the "trade-show" (more conference really) I was at and not a single unit that I was working with failed over a period of 3 days, running pretty much all day. The ubuntu netbook failed 2 times. Simple reboot fixed everything, but it did freeze up.

[DiscipleDOC]

Sean, you're just being pathetic right now. Again, you're making stuff up to show your arrogance and how much you DON'T know about the "marketshare"

The topic is about how stable Win 7 is, and because you can't disprove that fact you want to grasp at straws. Please stop embarrassing yourself and let it go, man. Every post you make now just shows your cries for attention.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

What market does Apple have a monopoly on? Microsoft go split up because they abused the market.

As for browsers, yes IE is at it's lowest share for decades(it's already dropped another 1% just recently) because finally other software have been able to compete.

Apple OS can only be installed by Apple on hardware it designates, for example, regardless of if the hardware someone else has allows usage of said software.

That is, I would think, a monopoly and anti-competitive.

[DiscipleDOC]

Originally Posted by Sazar

No, it is because consumers are looking for the cheapest product with the hardware they might have heard about on TV.

I was at a trade-show for DoD in Hawaii just a few months ago and people were drooling over a netbook running Ubuntu that I had brought over. It was fully kitted out, had a touch-screen and everything, including OpenOffice.

But once we started working on answering some questions, pitfalls arose, not because of lock-out specs but because of TCO and lack of resources to support the items. This was just in conversations over personal use items, not a NIPR or SIPR or MIPR product but rather a travel companion.

The general consensus was, people if they KNEW what was happening, would be more inclined to get a product that was mainstream and just worked and was supported than one that was not. Linux netbooks only get elementary support at best, by the way, and service calls cost a lot more per incident.



I will agree with you here because of a variety of things I just mentioned.

However, the fact is that Microsoft has a more robust and complete system than anything on the Linux side of the market. You CAN fix up the Linux components to be as or more full configured but you need to know what you are doing and are still going to have to jump through hoops to get things to work correctly.

Coming back to the topic at hand, Windows 7 was universally praised at the "trade-show" (more conference really) I was at and not a single unit that I was working with failed over a period of 3 days, running pretty much all day. The ubuntu netbook failed 2 times. Simple reboot fixed everything, but it did freeze up.

Nothing else is needed to be said.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDOC

Nothing else is needed to be said.

You realize that in this one thread, we've sort of hinted to people that we may have actual jobs

How depressing