I am going out on a limb here ... really opening myself up for a flame-war. But you know -- there are some defining moments that beg for such an action. That action? To question why anyone (when they KNOW the difference) would seriously choose a Windows operating system over Linux.
Let me set the stage a bit. Recently I wrote an article for TechRepublic about the fundamental differences between Linux and Windows. As I wrote that article I found myself constantly wondering why anyone knowing these fundamental differences would choose anything but a Linux operating system.
Recently my youngest stepdaughter brought her Windows XP machine to a screeching halt with a nasty boot sector virus. The machine was in a constant loop. Even attempting to get into Safe Mode was no help. Her machine was protected with AVG and yet the virus managed to get right on by what I have used for years to protect Windows machines. But her bout with Windows doesn't begin there. The machine, having a fresh install of XP, constantly (and randomly) restarted itself causing her to lose countless hours of Myspace tweaking and OMGSTFUing on IM with her buds. Granted she wasn't losing databases and research or anything mission critical. But to a 14-year-old, Myspace is pretty critical. And to a step-father who serves as IT person for the entire family (well beyond "extended" family), having a happily computing 14-year-old saves me plenty of nerve endings. So I decided to run a little experiment and install Mandriva Spring 2008 on her machine. She was worried that she wouldn't know how to use the computer or her iPod wouldn't work. OMG! Well, after a very quick installation and next-to-no instruction, she was back to her happy place typing acronym after acronym in Pidgen. And guess what? No restarts. No crashes. No worries about viruses. In fact, I have yet to hear a peep out of her since her machine adopted Linux. This is the epitome of the average computer user I'm speaking of. A Myspace, IM, email junkie who needs to write the occasional report and browse eBay.
So after her success I was back to the question that perpetually plagues me: why would anyone choose Windows over Linux?
|> There's far less risk for viruses and malware
|> It's free
|> Applications are free
|> It's far more flexible
|> It has multiple routes for support
|> It is improving at a far faster rate than Windows
|> Bugs and security holes are patched much quicker
I realise the pat answers will appear:
|> No games
|> No Linux version of application X
But do those really satisfy the question when the average user is not a gamer or uses an application outside of the usual fare?
In my seriously biased opinion I think this question is answered with a simple conspiracy theory: Microsoft is doing everything it can to keep the public blind to Linux. Think about it? Remember the whole Wintel conspiracy where MS and Intel played off of each other to continue their stranglehold monopoly in the PC industry? That era played a huge part in the blinding of consumers. Top that with the business practices MS forces upon big box shops to insure their operating system is sold on nearly every PC and you can see that conspiracy is more of a reality than one might think.
But I would like your opinion on the issue. So do tell me ... why would anyone choose Windows over Linux?
This was published in 
1
zelrik - 25/08/08
I am running ubuntu Linux since more than a year now and I am happy of it. You forgot hardware issues (even if they are about the same for Vista :p) in your list against Linux : Some people dont have money to change their hardware or want some specific hardware to work and if not supported on Linux...they are stuck
» Report offensive content
2
Austin - 25/08/08
"|> No games
|> No Linux version of application X"
You never know your luck with wine. Heaps of games are working OK with it as is a whole lot of other apps.
As the first commenter suggested hardware issues are a problem. In my opinion, the biggest problem. Having hardware vendors not release programming information is at the core of it. And not that I'm suggesting that there is a conspiracy, but they have no reason to hold this information back as it actually narrows their market (i.e. to only those who choose their "supported" platforms). You have to wonder what motivates hardware vendors to do this.
» Report offensive content
3
Spencer - 25/08/08
Yeah, I think you're right that the average user, who has modest computing needs, would easily be able to use Linux exclusively if someone else configures it for them.
So that's the main problem right there, they just need more pre-installed Linux options, and they also need to be shown that Linux will do everything they need.
Now I, on the other hand, am an extensive gamer, so I may never be able to use Linux exclusively. I dual boot Vista and Fedora 9 right now, and that's basically what it will be like for me for a long time to come.
I really want Linux to succeed, since as you say it's more stable and secure, but I need it to do everything I personally want before I can switch to it exclusively.
» Report offensive content
4
Rob - 25/08/08
Windows is such utter rubbish, and it is only ignorance which keeps people enslaved to it. Most people do not even realise that Apple, alone Linux, even exists. Most people see windows as synonymous with computing itself. I currently run an aging mac, but when that dies, i'm off to ubuntu. Surely it is time for windoze to be consigned to the wastepaper basket of history. Be gone! thou doting fool!!!
» Report offensive content
5
Tristan Lewis - 25/08/08
The vast majority of businesses and education facilities predominantly use windows, meaning that the ability to use windows and windows based software is promoted and valued.
Personally I have given linux a really good try, spending over a year setting up and using a number of installations, learning the linux way of doing things and still using it on a server box now, I am currently unable to switch to linux due to certain software and greatly prefer to use windows due to a number of design decisions made with the OS. On top of that, the development environment on windows has been far easier to work with than what I've tried to use on linux.
However, for your average user, I could see linux as being more applicable to them, albiet with a large amount of software installed for them before they begin using the system, particularly media and file searching.
» Report offensive content
6
IanRG - 26/08/08
The simple answer is the same as your slogan - by developers for developers.
Linux's strengths are largely its weaknesses:
- there are two major plus many more minor GUIs - all less USER friendly and more inconsistent than Windows and OSX. The flexibility, adaptability, cutting edgeness of Linux GUIs leave the proprietaries in their wake but fail to give users what they want.
- So many applications are on daily build. To a developer this shows that the product is being continually improved openly and in way that we can choose to see or contribute to. To a user this is bad - it shows it is incomplete and indicates that you will have to reinstall it later
- The open source alternatives are too often not as good - OpenOffice should be as good as Office 2003/04 soon but wait there is already Office 2007/08. Gimp should be as ... - no wait it will never be .... If it ever gets close it or parts of it will be absorbed by the proprrietaries just like Paintshop. We all when we get the latest distro first test which of the bundled apps work, partially work or just don't work on our computers. Imagine how much trouble the proprietaries would get in if users need to do the same to their products
- Open source licenses handicap extensibility. The most popular audio formats are Apple's and Microsoft's - it does not matter why to the user - they just want their iTunes or WMA songs that work fine on their "MP3" player to work on their computer without having to rely on hacks, additional downloads etc. The user does not care that a program handles these myriad open source formats of files (document, audio, graphics, AV etc) - they just want it to handle the "normal" formats out of the box. Open source being more extensible is good for the developer but where it excludes the normal proprietary formats is bad for the users.
- There is no box. Most open source software is downloaded, they rely on dependencies that still today may need to be sourced from another site and installed first. Downloaded proporietary software exists but generally it can also be bought in a box - either way it is all there.
- The proprietaries look professional - the OpenSource community frequently feels unprofessional. It does not matter that many of them are the same people or whether the perceptions are right or justifiable.
- M$ Windoze - everytime we write this we are saying I'm a zealot fanboy who is part of some gnostic belief system therefore I am superior to mere users. Users are put off by this just the same as they were put off by audiophiles & tyre salesmen. The lesser position is when we say I don't know why users all just don't agree with me or if only they knew as much as I know.
The complete list of important people in the computer industry is as follows: The user, that is all.
» Report offensive content
7
Lozil - 12/09/08
The Problem with Linux is There are far too many versions of it available, some good with one feature and some in other. Instead of 100's of versions of Linux, if we had just a 1-3 Versions Linux would have Grown a lot better, Same applies for the GUI's of Linux, Instead of 3 Major GUI's and Many more minor ones, If we had a single GUI and all the good things together in it people would have easily chosen Linux. I use Linux for my Computing, But my DAD never feels comfortable with it.
When the Stubbornness between the Open source developers end Linux will Surely reach it's heights in the Desktop Environment.
» Report offensive content
8
sanoja - 08/10/08
I love Linux. Why? Because I am a geek.
However, as a geek, I find myself having to support countless non-geeks both in a business environment and friends and family.
The problem here is that, if most people can't handle the simplicity and user friendliness of Windows, how can they handle the obscurity of technical complexity of Linux?
Where in Windows you have to click on an icon or a link to install an application, in Linux you need to worry about libraries, versions, distributions... You have to research and run to 20 different sites to obtain the prerequisites for installation. That is cool work if you are a geek, but sorry, my grandma or the CEO of a business simply want to click once to get what they want to get.
Good example, look at what has happened to Vista. Microsoft listened to the geeks about security and other features. Guess what is happening? People are up in arms because it is not as easy to use as XP.
And that is why Windows is better than Linux.
» Report offensive content
9
gb - 05/11/08
good old linux any f lavour try youtube full screen with flashplayer 9 just too hard for the average user xp is soooo easy.
» Report offensive content
10
kevin - 01/12/08
I am a new linux user, I have just installed opensuse 11.0 on my machine, I fnd it brilliant. I own a computer business, I sell new systems and do the usual repairs and updates. I wish to cut the cost of my systems to the end user by installing linux. The only set back I get is the games one. I have tried to install wine with no luck. there just isn't any step by step instruction with screen shots to be found. Any help would be appreciated
» Report offensive content