Windows
November 5, 2009 8:11 AM Subscribe
Can someone explain to the layperson why the Windows op. sys. has no competition yet.
Why is it not like any other consumer product?
Because the only serious competitor sells a luxury product.
posted by sinfony at 8:18 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by sinfony at 8:18 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
They have tons of competition.
Desktop: OSX, Linux
Server: Linux, *nixes, OSX (somewhat)
Embedded: Holy cow, millions.
posted by unixrat at 8:18 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Desktop: OSX, Linux
Server: Linux, *nixes, OSX (somewhat)
Embedded: Holy cow, millions.
posted by unixrat at 8:18 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
That is one big can of worms you're opening.
Neal Stephenson addresses this nicely in his short book, In The Beginning Was The Command Line which is available as a free download on his website. It's a fascinating read, as well as entertaining, funny, and knowledgeable.
The short answer is, Windows got the early lock on PC hardware, which is cheap and plentiful. Once people are used to something, they don't like to change to another thing, even if that other thing is better.
This goes quintuple for computer things. If you have ever experienced the office-wide wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs when everyone is upgraded en masse from Word 97 to Word 2000 (say), you would understand.
posted by ErikaB at 8:19 AM on November 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
Neal Stephenson addresses this nicely in his short book, In The Beginning Was The Command Line which is available as a free download on his website. It's a fascinating read, as well as entertaining, funny, and knowledgeable.
The short answer is, Windows got the early lock on PC hardware, which is cheap and plentiful. Once people are used to something, they don't like to change to another thing, even if that other thing is better.
This goes quintuple for computer things. If you have ever experienced the office-wide wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs when everyone is upgraded en masse from Word 97 to Word 2000 (say), you would understand.
posted by ErikaB at 8:19 AM on November 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
Windows has a lot of competition. The Apple OS, various flavors of Linux, etc.
But for Apple, though, most of these may not be obvious to lay people.
posted by dfriedman at 8:24 AM on November 5, 2009
But for Apple, though, most of these may not be obvious to lay people.
posted by dfriedman at 8:24 AM on November 5, 2009
I barely even know anyone who has a Windows machine - among my (very geeky) friends, almost all run Macs, with a couple of Linux machines sprinkled through.
That said, the main difference between an operating system and any other consumer product is that it's a base on which applications run, and it's the applications that are important to most people; once they're invested - both monetarily and in skills - there's a large disincentive to switch. It's not like most consumer products that are perfectly interchangeable with their competitors.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:25 AM on November 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
That said, the main difference between an operating system and any other consumer product is that it's a base on which applications run, and it's the applications that are important to most people; once they're invested - both monetarily and in skills - there's a large disincentive to switch. It's not like most consumer products that are perfectly interchangeable with their competitors.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:25 AM on November 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
There are a million answers to this, but I'll offer my little pet explaination: The build-quality and construction of appliances has increasingly trended towards disposability. They're no longer meant to be repaired or maintained, but simply used up until they fail and are discarded. There are many advantages to this, mainly the ability to rapidly manufacture many copies of any product for minimal cost. One disadvantage is that consumers are being trained to take less of an active role in the maintenance and inner workings of products. Since no one cares to take an interest in the workings of PC, it makes sense that people just use whatever comes installed on it and have no urge to change.
posted by cowbellemoo at 8:26 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by cowbellemoo at 8:26 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
I say there is competition, at least in merit. For anyone given an informed choice about what to use, MSFT Windows doesn't get nearly as much share of the market.
Now, most people use what comes on their hardware. They don't know or care that the software and hardware are different.
MSFT uses its market share to force hardware manufacturers to install Windows exclusively. They make deals like "accept this exclusivity deal and we'll sell you a license for each computer for $50 each, but if you don't accept it, we'll charge you $200 each."
Because there's no way to get more than four times (e.g.) of their revenue from something like Ubuntu sales, the hardware mfr would lose money if they offer more than Windows.
(Disclaimer: I help make Ubuntu, a free operating system that is competition to Windows.)
posted by cmiller at 8:28 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Now, most people use what comes on their hardware. They don't know or care that the software and hardware are different.
MSFT uses its market share to force hardware manufacturers to install Windows exclusively. They make deals like "accept this exclusivity deal and we'll sell you a license for each computer for $50 each, but if you don't accept it, we'll charge you $200 each."
Because there's no way to get more than four times (e.g.) of their revenue from something like Ubuntu sales, the hardware mfr would lose money if they offer more than Windows.
(Disclaimer: I help make Ubuntu, a free operating system that is competition to Windows.)
posted by cmiller at 8:28 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
To address the "not like any other consumer product" issue:
If you switch out your stove, you can still use all your old pots, pans, knives, and so forth.
If you switch from one car brand to another, you can still buy the same gas and drive on the same roads.
Stoves and cars, with a few exceptions, work so much the same that you can use any of them having been trained on a different one. You don't have to send an employee to a "How to Drive a Toyota When You've Only Ever Driven a Honda" class.
Switching from Windows to OS X or vice versa requires a complete reinvestment in software, and in many cases hardware. It also requires acclimation, which in a business setting probably translates to training.
So a business can switch staple brands and paper shredder brands and even copy machine brands with much less of an impact on day-to-day operations. Computer operating systems are more of a big deal, so companies tend to stick with them. As work goes, so goes the home.
posted by lore at 8:28 AM on November 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
If you switch out your stove, you can still use all your old pots, pans, knives, and so forth.
If you switch from one car brand to another, you can still buy the same gas and drive on the same roads.
Stoves and cars, with a few exceptions, work so much the same that you can use any of them having been trained on a different one. You don't have to send an employee to a "How to Drive a Toyota When You've Only Ever Driven a Honda" class.
Switching from Windows to OS X or vice versa requires a complete reinvestment in software, and in many cases hardware. It also requires acclimation, which in a business setting probably translates to training.
So a business can switch staple brands and paper shredder brands and even copy machine brands with much less of an impact on day-to-day operations. Computer operating systems are more of a big deal, so companies tend to stick with them. As work goes, so goes the home.
posted by lore at 8:28 AM on November 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
Ok...the people above say that Windows has "a lot of competition" but the fact is that while people are TRYING to compete, there really is no competition.
Why?
Well Windows is an Operating System. But for all the bells and whistles people say Operating Systems have, they are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. No one wants to run Windows or OS X, they want the programs that run on these Operating Systems. They want to surf the web (a web browser) or edit video, or play music, etc. They want the applications that run on the Operating Systems, not the Operating Systems themselves.
But programs by and large are written for specific operating systems (yes, this is becoming less true with Web Apps and Java runtime environments, but in general this is true).
So Windows versus, say, Mac or Linux is like VHS versus Betamax back in the 80s, or Blu Ray vs HD-DVD now. Yes, they all presumably do the same thing but the question becomes which has the largest library?
While OS X is doing pretty good and Linux has tons of free/open source software, the majority of programs are written for Windows. Especially business applications.
This leads to a trickle-down effect. People use Windows at work because their business applications are on Windows, they become familiar with Windows, and so they get Windows at home (Apple tried the same thing in the 80s giving free Apples to schools thinking kids would use Apples at school and then parents would buy Apples for the home, but spreadsheets and business applications made IBM win out back then).
Now why are there more programs for Windows? Partially it's an easier platform on which to develop. Partially it's self-fulfilling...more people use Windows, application developers want to get their applications to the most users, they build applications for Windows, people want those applications, the cycle continues.
This is a 10,000 mile high view of the situation, but hopefully it explains it.
posted by arniec at 8:30 AM on November 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
Why?
Well Windows is an Operating System. But for all the bells and whistles people say Operating Systems have, they are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. No one wants to run Windows or OS X, they want the programs that run on these Operating Systems. They want to surf the web (a web browser) or edit video, or play music, etc. They want the applications that run on the Operating Systems, not the Operating Systems themselves.
But programs by and large are written for specific operating systems (yes, this is becoming less true with Web Apps and Java runtime environments, but in general this is true).
So Windows versus, say, Mac or Linux is like VHS versus Betamax back in the 80s, or Blu Ray vs HD-DVD now. Yes, they all presumably do the same thing but the question becomes which has the largest library?
While OS X is doing pretty good and Linux has tons of free/open source software, the majority of programs are written for Windows. Especially business applications.
This leads to a trickle-down effect. People use Windows at work because their business applications are on Windows, they become familiar with Windows, and so they get Windows at home (Apple tried the same thing in the 80s giving free Apples to schools thinking kids would use Apples at school and then parents would buy Apples for the home, but spreadsheets and business applications made IBM win out back then).
Now why are there more programs for Windows? Partially it's an easier platform on which to develop. Partially it's self-fulfilling...more people use Windows, application developers want to get their applications to the most users, they build applications for Windows, people want those applications, the cycle continues.
This is a 10,000 mile high view of the situation, but hopefully it explains it.
posted by arniec at 8:30 AM on November 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
As others have mentioned above, there is technically competition, though Windows owns the lion's share of the personal computing market. The economic term for this phenomenon is path dependence. Essentially, in the world of technology, early innovators often gain near-total dominance very quickly because of network effects (my software is more useful as more and more people us it), learning effects (people learn how to use the software effectively and efficiently), and because of fixed (sunk) costs (it's expensive to buy the software and hardware needed to run it, so once you've decided on a particular brand, it's easier to stick with it than to change all the time).
posted by proj at 8:32 AM on November 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by proj at 8:32 AM on November 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
There's also the fact that Windows has had the business market locked up since forever. I'm guessing that a lot of people got their first dose of heavy computer use at work, and at work they used Windows. When they decided they wanted a home computer, Windows was the natural choice.
On the subject of the presence of competition, as somebody who has been using Ubuntu since version 5.10 or something, the notion that Ubuntu and Windows are competitive products in any significant way is nonsense. I love Ubuntu, but I am not a mass-market consumer who thinks that Internet Explorer is the whole internet. Ubuntu may be beyond the days where you had to command-line install your graphics driver and battle demons to get your wireless card working, but there are still inconveniences there that just aren't present in Windows, and the first time a typical user is confronted with one, they're done. Windows, of course, has significant flaws of its own, but they're problems that the typical user either won't really notice or has become accustomed to, because that's the way Windows has always been. Inertia is very powerful, and it's even more powerful when most users just don't understand how things work.
posted by sinfony at 8:47 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
On the subject of the presence of competition, as somebody who has been using Ubuntu since version 5.10 or something, the notion that Ubuntu and Windows are competitive products in any significant way is nonsense. I love Ubuntu, but I am not a mass-market consumer who thinks that Internet Explorer is the whole internet. Ubuntu may be beyond the days where you had to command-line install your graphics driver and battle demons to get your wireless card working, but there are still inconveniences there that just aren't present in Windows, and the first time a typical user is confronted with one, they're done. Windows, of course, has significant flaws of its own, but they're problems that the typical user either won't really notice or has become accustomed to, because that's the way Windows has always been. Inertia is very powerful, and it's even more powerful when most users just don't understand how things work.
posted by sinfony at 8:47 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
It seems that the operating system business is a natural monopoly.
Gates had a huge insight into the nature of software at the very beginning, which is that software as a product is unique in that the manufacturing cost is effectively nil. Almost the entire expense of selling a software product is amortized development cost, and what that means is that volume is everything. The more units you can sell, the greater the product run over which you can amortize your development costs, and thus the greater the markup and profit.
That is why Gates chose to sell IBM a non-exclusive license to MS-DOS instead of accepting a larger amount of money for an exclusive license. Gates, from the very beginning, wanted to dominate the industry by using network effect to become a monopoly.
The Microsoft marketing strategy has always been the same:
1. Offer huge volume discounts to large customers.
2. Work actively with developers to create a large base of MS-only software.
3. Use that huge software base to lock in customers.
4. Wait for network effect to make MS operating systems de-facto standards.
And it's worked, too.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:49 AM on November 5, 2009 [7 favorites]
Gates had a huge insight into the nature of software at the very beginning, which is that software as a product is unique in that the manufacturing cost is effectively nil. Almost the entire expense of selling a software product is amortized development cost, and what that means is that volume is everything. The more units you can sell, the greater the product run over which you can amortize your development costs, and thus the greater the markup and profit.
That is why Gates chose to sell IBM a non-exclusive license to MS-DOS instead of accepting a larger amount of money for an exclusive license. Gates, from the very beginning, wanted to dominate the industry by using network effect to become a monopoly.
The Microsoft marketing strategy has always been the same:
1. Offer huge volume discounts to large customers.
2. Work actively with developers to create a large base of MS-only software.
3. Use that huge software base to lock in customers.
4. Wait for network effect to make MS operating systems de-facto standards.
And it's worked, too.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:49 AM on November 5, 2009 [7 favorites]
It's not so much 'why the Windows op. sys. has no competition yet' as 'why the Windows op. sys. survived against the various competitors it has faced over the years'. Microsoft fought off competition every bit as strong in the early days of the Windows OS as it faces now. A key contributor to their early gains was that they've always favored an open hardware system approach. Other vendors used their OS's to drive sales of their own hardware. Having got the strategy right in the early days they were then in a position to play defense and, by hook or by crook, maintain their position.
posted by IanMorr at 8:59 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by IanMorr at 8:59 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Some things in economics are a "natural" monopoly. That is to say that people dont like to change vendors for goods because of things, in this case, software compatibility, learning new OSs, etc. Toss in things like a large barrier to entry to get into the OS business, patents, etc and youre just not seeing a lot of competitors anymore.
Imagine switching from Ford to GM and only being able to drive on GM roads from now on.
I dont buy the business market argument. When I was younger the business people had DOS-based machines or mainframe/terminal setups and had C64s, Apples, etc at home. Sure, its convenient, but its not the main motivator.
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:59 AM on November 5, 2009
Imagine switching from Ford to GM and only being able to drive on GM roads from now on.
I dont buy the business market argument. When I was younger the business people had DOS-based machines or mainframe/terminal setups and had C64s, Apples, etc at home. Sure, its convenient, but its not the main motivator.
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:59 AM on November 5, 2009
Microsoft has done an excellent job of limiting competition. It's difficult for pc manufacturers to sell a pc w/out Windows. The Bush-Cheney Justice Dept. declined to pursue anti-monopoly action. This is a lively topic for discussion.
posted by theora55 at 9:00 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 9:00 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
The reason i guess is that linux still has a lot of hardware problems and a nasty community. Every single foru mi go to that says they help people with linux bashes you and says do a google search.
Until hardware and driver support on linux is better it will never get the adoption as windows.
Apple thinks its better then everybody else and prices there products atleast $200 to $300 more then a similarly speced windows machine.
posted by majortom1981 at 9:04 AM on November 5, 2009
Until hardware and driver support on linux is better it will never get the adoption as windows.
Apple thinks its better then everybody else and prices there products atleast $200 to $300 more then a similarly speced windows machine.
posted by majortom1981 at 9:04 AM on November 5, 2009
Microsoft has done an excellent job of limiting competition. It's difficult for pc manufacturers to sell a pc w/out Windows.
Seconding this. It's clear that, even today, Microsoft strikes deals with OEM computer sellers to undercut competition. For example, look at what's been going on with Netbooks. When they first were gaining popularity, most came with some flavor of Linux (often Ubuntu, which is free, so it wouldn't cost the manufacturers or retailers anything), and buyers had to pay a premium for Windows. Now, the vast majority of netbooks come with Windows--and sellers often have to pay more for a linux equivalent. The only way that makes sense is if Windows specifically had some sort of deal lined up with retailers.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:07 AM on November 5, 2009
Seconding this. It's clear that, even today, Microsoft strikes deals with OEM computer sellers to undercut competition. For example, look at what's been going on with Netbooks. When they first were gaining popularity, most came with some flavor of Linux (often Ubuntu, which is free, so it wouldn't cost the manufacturers or retailers anything), and buyers had to pay a premium for Windows. Now, the vast majority of netbooks come with Windows--and sellers often have to pay more for a linux equivalent. The only way that makes sense is if Windows specifically had some sort of deal lined up with retailers.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:07 AM on November 5, 2009
The reason i guess is that linux still has a lot of hardware problems and a nasty community. Every single foru mi go to that says they help people with linux bashes you and says do a google search.
Until hardware and driver support on linux is better it will never get the adoption as windows.
I really don't want to get into a long argument about Linux, and I could, but hardware and driver support has been flawless for me with my last year of Ubuntu use (I can't think of a single device that hasn't worked plug and play, from scanners to printers to USB joysticks and webcams). However, when I installed Windows 7 to use on my virtual box, it recognized neither my soundcard or wired internet, and I had to invest significant time into searching for drivers. I realize that you may have tried Linux more than a year ago--and because other OSes, especially Windows, update so infrequently, I can imagine that it's easy to get an outdated idea on the current state of Linux hardware support--but this simply isn't accurate anymore.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:11 AM on November 5, 2009
Until hardware and driver support on linux is better it will never get the adoption as windows.
I really don't want to get into a long argument about Linux, and I could, but hardware and driver support has been flawless for me with my last year of Ubuntu use (I can't think of a single device that hasn't worked plug and play, from scanners to printers to USB joysticks and webcams). However, when I installed Windows 7 to use on my virtual box, it recognized neither my soundcard or wired internet, and I had to invest significant time into searching for drivers. I realize that you may have tried Linux more than a year ago--and because other OSes, especially Windows, update so infrequently, I can imagine that it's easy to get an outdated idea on the current state of Linux hardware support--but this simply isn't accurate anymore.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:11 AM on November 5, 2009
Conspiracy theories aside Microsoft is barred from making the sort of deals that cmiller claims they make and others theorize.
"The only way that makes sense" is not an argument. Here's another way that makes sense: netbooks shipped with Linux have greater return rates.
Anyway I suppose ask.me needed a "Your favorite OS sucks" thread.
posted by Wood at 9:16 AM on November 5, 2009
"The only way that makes sense" is not an argument. Here's another way that makes sense: netbooks shipped with Linux have greater return rates.
Anyway I suppose ask.me needed a "Your favorite OS sucks" thread.
posted by Wood at 9:16 AM on November 5, 2009
Wood, according to Dell, Linux returns are "approximately the same as those for Windows netbooks".
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:27 AM on November 5, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:27 AM on November 5, 2009
The only way that makes sense is if Windows specifically had some sort of deal lined up with retailers.
Microsoft decided it was willing to sell its previous generation OS (XP) to OEMs for $30 as long as the hardware was limited to something like a netbook. $30 is low enough that most people used to Windows will choose it.
Was this pricing done as a response to Linux growing in popularity on netbooks? Clearly. Did it require some collusion with retailers? Not particularly. Did it work to get netbooks back to being Windows machines? Yep.
posted by smackfu at 9:29 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Microsoft decided it was willing to sell its previous generation OS (XP) to OEMs for $30 as long as the hardware was limited to something like a netbook. $30 is low enough that most people used to Windows will choose it.
Was this pricing done as a response to Linux growing in popularity on netbooks? Clearly. Did it require some collusion with retailers? Not particularly. Did it work to get netbooks back to being Windows machines? Yep.
posted by smackfu at 9:29 AM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
First off, let's not confuse options with competition. There are plenty of alternative options out there as mentioned such as Linux and Mac, but they are in not really competing with Microsoft, at least effectively.
A lot of people can blame Microsoft for its monopoly but there is NO monopoly. Consumers are buying it with a Mac right next to it. The better question is why are consumers buying it?
Because just about 99% of all software is Windows compatible. Mac doesn't lead compatibility and falls behind by a rather good margin and last is Linux where they have only a few, besides all the open source stuff.
I have to agree though with others as well in that Linux may be a safe system, but it's not an easy system at all. I had serious video issues that I never could get worked out. Also the headphone jack never got working either. Check out all the abandoned threads at their "support" site on video and headphones.
Mac was okay, but some of the things I wanted to use from Windows, were not compatible with it. What is the point? Plus I already have a lot of software for Windows, why on earth would I want to buy them all over again?
Microsoft is not a monopoly, it is a leader by consumer choice. Consumers won't agree though that it's best, just that it's easiest to work with, software wise.
posted by magnoliasouth at 9:30 AM on November 5, 2009
A lot of people can blame Microsoft for its monopoly but there is NO monopoly. Consumers are buying it with a Mac right next to it. The better question is why are consumers buying it?
Because just about 99% of all software is Windows compatible. Mac doesn't lead compatibility and falls behind by a rather good margin and last is Linux where they have only a few, besides all the open source stuff.
I have to agree though with others as well in that Linux may be a safe system, but it's not an easy system at all. I had serious video issues that I never could get worked out. Also the headphone jack never got working either. Check out all the abandoned threads at their "support" site on video and headphones.
Mac was okay, but some of the things I wanted to use from Windows, were not compatible with it. What is the point? Plus I already have a lot of software for Windows, why on earth would I want to buy them all over again?
Microsoft is not a monopoly, it is a leader by consumer choice. Consumers won't agree though that it's best, just that it's easiest to work with, software wise.
posted by magnoliasouth at 9:30 AM on November 5, 2009
For reasons I don't completely understand (but probably related to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior and intensive marketing), Microsoft's desktop metaphor seems to have a stranglehold on the popular psyche. Anything deviating from this interface is seen as, well, deviant. When people speak of a "standard" GUI for something, they generally mean "it looks like Microsoft Windows". One could argue that Windows itself is based on earlier versions of the desktop metaphor, but Microsoft's seems to have taken over the popular imagination. Computer users are not generally open to alternative interfaces, no matter how efficient they may be. Part of this is unwillingness to re-train, even slightly, but a lot of it seems to be a deeply ingrained expectation that there will be a single desktop, icons, a task bar, overlapping windows with buttons at the corners, alt-tab, a particular type of file-manager, and so on. Beating Windows at being Windows is difficult, and Microsoft's branding sets out to convince the world that this is impossible.
The point about "re-training" bears elaboration. Microsoft has been fabulously successful in making "computer literacy" largely synonymous with "facility with Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office". This may seem circular, because, after all, the keen student should familiarize himself or herself with the tools used in business environments, but I believe actual computer literacy is much more general and applies to any computer or operating system. If those were the skills being taught, instead of "how to create documents with MS Word", then the re-training issue would be much less.
posted by Maximian at 9:32 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
The point about "re-training" bears elaboration. Microsoft has been fabulously successful in making "computer literacy" largely synonymous with "facility with Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office". This may seem circular, because, after all, the keen student should familiarize himself or herself with the tools used in business environments, but I believe actual computer literacy is much more general and applies to any computer or operating system. If those were the skills being taught, instead of "how to create documents with MS Word", then the re-training issue would be much less.
posted by Maximian at 9:32 AM on November 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Because Windows was first and they were widespread and it's still a quality product.
99% of the planet doesn't know- nor do they care- about the other OS's. They don't even know what "OS" means. As long as Windows continues to work seamlessly well, people will not bother or think about switching.
It is only in this tiny internet world of nerddom that people feel the need to nitpick Microsoft. The rants mean fuck-all in the real world. No one cares nor do they realize that there are people who are critical of Microsoft. Because Microsoft works just fine.
posted by Zambrano at 9:37 AM on November 5, 2009
99% of the planet doesn't know- nor do they care- about the other OS's. They don't even know what "OS" means. As long as Windows continues to work seamlessly well, people will not bother or think about switching.
It is only in this tiny internet world of nerddom that people feel the need to nitpick Microsoft. The rants mean fuck-all in the real world. No one cares nor do they realize that there are people who are critical of Microsoft. Because Microsoft works just fine.
posted by Zambrano at 9:37 AM on November 5, 2009
Because Microsoft works just fine.
Yeah, essentially because it's established and it works really well and does everything 99.9% of users want from a computer. And because people develop games and software to work on it without having to jump through hoops. If you started a new OS today, there wouldn't be any programs for it.
The major competition is Mac OS, but of course you have to either buy their hardware or do a whole bunch of hacking- and at this point the two are pretty close to equal in look and feel. At this point, if Mac adds something cool, Windows will do it in the next release (I just noticed Vista has a "spotlight" like feature on the main menu.) And Mac finally admitted CTRL+click was absurdly un-user friendly and added right click support.
So they're basically the same to the average person, who doesn't know or care about it being UNIX based, or being able to address more than 3gb of memory.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:15 AM on November 5, 2009
Yeah, essentially because it's established and it works really well and does everything 99.9% of users want from a computer. And because people develop games and software to work on it without having to jump through hoops. If you started a new OS today, there wouldn't be any programs for it.
The major competition is Mac OS, but of course you have to either buy their hardware or do a whole bunch of hacking- and at this point the two are pretty close to equal in look and feel. At this point, if Mac adds something cool, Windows will do it in the next release (I just noticed Vista has a "spotlight" like feature on the main menu.) And Mac finally admitted CTRL+click was absurdly un-user friendly and added right click support.
So they're basically the same to the average person, who doesn't know or care about it being UNIX based, or being able to address more than 3gb of memory.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:15 AM on November 5, 2009
Oh, also Apple computers in the pre-IMac 90s were so awful as to seem like a practical joke. So they had some catching up to do, market share wise.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:18 AM on November 5, 2009
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:18 AM on November 5, 2009
why the Windows op. sys. has no competition yet.
They have an awful lot of competition, but not on the single platform you, and all of the other MeFi-ers, seem to focus on; that desk computer or laptop you use. Yet, Windows, nor Microsoft, is nowhere in sight compared to its competitors, on mobile platforms. Or in slim embedded systems. Or in cloud computing.
The end of its monopoly is a simple matter of time.
posted by ijsbrand at 11:28 AM on November 5, 2009
They have an awful lot of competition, but not on the single platform you, and all of the other MeFi-ers, seem to focus on; that desk computer or laptop you use. Yet, Windows, nor Microsoft, is nowhere in sight compared to its competitors, on mobile platforms. Or in slim embedded systems. Or in cloud computing.
The end of its monopoly is a simple matter of time.
posted by ijsbrand at 11:28 AM on November 5, 2009
A lot of people can blame Microsoft for its monopoly but there is NO monopoly. Consumers are buying it with a Mac right next to it. The better question is why are consumers buying it?
Again, a lot of people are not buying it, and are in fact buying the Mac next to it. The Mac marketshare is modest but very real - and if you exclude corporate purchases, and focus on people choosing home computers for themselves, the Mac marketshare is definitely big enough to put lie to any "nobody is buying Macs" argument.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:46 AM on November 5, 2009
Again, a lot of people are not buying it, and are in fact buying the Mac next to it. The Mac marketshare is modest but very real - and if you exclude corporate purchases, and focus on people choosing home computers for themselves, the Mac marketshare is definitely big enough to put lie to any "nobody is buying Macs" argument.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:46 AM on November 5, 2009
In addition to what others have said above, it's worth pointing out that MS does a great deal to make the business network administrator's life easier. From "Patch Tuesdays" to automated deployment tools (System Center and so on) to Active Directory, MS provides things that make taking care of thousands of computers and users and resources relatively painless.*
Apple does not, and for the foreseeable future will not, compete in this space.**
Redhat, IBM, Sun, HP and others all do enterprise systems far better than Apple, and in some cases better than MS - but MS is the entrenched standard and they work hard to keep it that way. MS has built a system that largely works from top to bottom of your IT structure, and while other systems might be cheaper, integrating them is harder, more fragile, and generally harder to do.
*(I'm well aware of MS dirty tricks and shenanigans as well. But others covered that, so no need to reiterate.)
**(Apple Mail is not exchange - It can't do what exchange does as well as exchange does it. Apple doesn't do iSCSI. Apple doesn't do patch notes ahead of time. Apple does do "SURPRISE! We're doing/not doing this thing now!" which is fun, but the opposite of good, responsible corporate planning. The list goes on, but the point is, Apple does not do what nearly all other IT vendors do - work to make the admin's life easier. Apple == Kenmore; Apple =! HP I'm not making a value judgement - what Apple does apparently works for Apple. That said, they aren't a serious enterprise computer company in the way HP or IBM or Microsoft is)
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:59 AM on November 5, 2009
Apple does not, and for the foreseeable future will not, compete in this space.**
Redhat, IBM, Sun, HP and others all do enterprise systems far better than Apple, and in some cases better than MS - but MS is the entrenched standard and they work hard to keep it that way. MS has built a system that largely works from top to bottom of your IT structure, and while other systems might be cheaper, integrating them is harder, more fragile, and generally harder to do.
*(I'm well aware of MS dirty tricks and shenanigans as well. But others covered that, so no need to reiterate.)
**(Apple Mail is not exchange - It can't do what exchange does as well as exchange does it. Apple doesn't do iSCSI. Apple doesn't do patch notes ahead of time. Apple does do "SURPRISE! We're doing/not doing this thing now!" which is fun, but the opposite of good, responsible corporate planning. The list goes on, but the point is, Apple does not do what nearly all other IT vendors do - work to make the admin's life easier. Apple == Kenmore; Apple =! HP I'm not making a value judgement - what Apple does apparently works for Apple. That said, they aren't a serious enterprise computer company in the way HP or IBM or Microsoft is)
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:59 AM on November 5, 2009
In addition to all of the stuff above, I'll point out that there's a huge cost of entry to the desktop OS market. Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X have millions of person-hours invested in their development. To the point that it's just not a sound business move to try to create a new desktop OS, especially since most people won't buy it if it doesn't run Office.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 12:10 PM on November 5, 2009
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 12:10 PM on November 5, 2009
I want to respond specifically to the word "yet" in your question.
In the early-mid 90s, IBM's OS/2 was a huge threat to Windows, so much so that people were not sure which one would emerge as dominant. OS/2 even had the ability to run DOS and 16-bit Windows applications (32 bit Windows applications at that time were still very rare and niche) as well as its own native applications, so the compatibility issue swung in OS/2's favor. OS/2 had a much more solid foundation in that it was a true protected mode kernel, compared to the messy mix of real mode and protected mode that was offered by DOS+Win3.x. Debates raged on and on over which was better and who would prevail as dominant. It was by no means a given that MS would pull out ahead at the time.
Then Windows 95 happened. Massive UI improvements as well as the introduction of a whole new 32 bit API (Win32) meant that many of the advantages that OS/2 had evaporated. Combined with what many would call poor marketing and mismanagement on IBM's part, OS/2 quickly fell from serious competitor to joke. Today hardly anyone remembers it. But at the time it was a serious contender, so it's really not true to say that MS never had any competition.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:21 PM on November 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
In the early-mid 90s, IBM's OS/2 was a huge threat to Windows, so much so that people were not sure which one would emerge as dominant. OS/2 even had the ability to run DOS and 16-bit Windows applications (32 bit Windows applications at that time were still very rare and niche) as well as its own native applications, so the compatibility issue swung in OS/2's favor. OS/2 had a much more solid foundation in that it was a true protected mode kernel, compared to the messy mix of real mode and protected mode that was offered by DOS+Win3.x. Debates raged on and on over which was better and who would prevail as dominant. It was by no means a given that MS would pull out ahead at the time.
Then Windows 95 happened. Massive UI improvements as well as the introduction of a whole new 32 bit API (Win32) meant that many of the advantages that OS/2 had evaporated. Combined with what many would call poor marketing and mismanagement on IBM's part, OS/2 quickly fell from serious competitor to joke. Today hardly anyone remembers it. But at the time it was a serious contender, so it's really not true to say that MS never had any competition.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:21 PM on November 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm no techie, but here's how I see it: most people simply can't afford to buy a $1000 laptop (apple), and they don't know wtf linux is. Thus - windows it is. If apple became more affordable maybe it would give windows some volume competition, but they are holding their own just fine because their products are so expensive, and some people are willing to buy them.
posted by pintapicasso at 2:02 PM on November 5, 2009
posted by pintapicasso at 2:02 PM on November 5, 2009
Because the only serious competitor sells a luxury product.
sinfony, you're begging the question, and as such, not really answering it. I don't mean to accuse you of anything, except that you are describing, not reasoning.
I barely even know anyone who has a Windows machine - among my (very geeky) friends, almost all run Macs, with a couple of Linux machines sprinkled through.
Tomorrowful, given the market share of Windows versus Mac, you are a de facto bubble boy. Seriously. It's like saying that you live in the US, but barely anyone you know speaks English: OK, so you live in an ethnic conclave. So what? The vast majority of USians speak English.
This is a minor factor; the major one is that most people and institutions find Windows "good enough" and it doesn't take much to merely maintain an existing huge market share for two decades.
Inspector.Gadget, are you seriously suggesting that it's "easy" to maintain a dominant position in the market, once established? Every Fortune 500 company in existence would like to subscribe to your newsletter, once you prove it... Seriously, that is naive. The majority share of a $50B worldwide market would seem to be enough of a carrot.
Personally, although many have made what I believe to be the most pertinent points, Chocolate Pickle said it so well I want tocry forward it to the owners of the start-up I work for.
And, yes, Rhomboid, I too remember the fall of OS/2. Sadly. Hated working with it, but when it was gone, leaving only non-real-time-interruptable Windows for manufacturing & military development (at the time), it left a big hole in the landscape.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:52 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
sinfony, you're begging the question, and as such, not really answering it. I don't mean to accuse you of anything, except that you are describing, not reasoning.
I barely even know anyone who has a Windows machine - among my (very geeky) friends, almost all run Macs, with a couple of Linux machines sprinkled through.
Tomorrowful, given the market share of Windows versus Mac, you are a de facto bubble boy. Seriously. It's like saying that you live in the US, but barely anyone you know speaks English: OK, so you live in an ethnic conclave. So what? The vast majority of USians speak English.
This is a minor factor; the major one is that most people and institutions find Windows "good enough" and it doesn't take much to merely maintain an existing huge market share for two decades.
Inspector.Gadget, are you seriously suggesting that it's "easy" to maintain a dominant position in the market, once established? Every Fortune 500 company in existence would like to subscribe to your newsletter, once you prove it... Seriously, that is naive. The majority share of a $50B worldwide market would seem to be enough of a carrot.
Personally, although many have made what I believe to be the most pertinent points, Chocolate Pickle said it so well I want to
And, yes, Rhomboid, I too remember the fall of OS/2. Sadly. Hated working with it, but when it was gone, leaving only non-real-time-interruptable Windows for manufacturing & military development (at the time), it left a big hole in the landscape.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:52 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Inspector.Gadget, are you seriously suggesting that it's "easy" to maintain a dominant position in the market, once established?
Yes, as others have pointed out, Microsoft benefits from the network effect. Simply put, Windows is popular because it is well supported, but is well supported because it is popular. Similar logic applies to Ebay and Facebook. Another way of looking at it, lots of people work to improve Windows' usefulness without any cost to Microsoft. Those improvements increase Windows' popularity and Microsoft's profits.
posted by malp at 3:55 PM on November 5, 2009
Yes, as others have pointed out, Microsoft benefits from the network effect. Simply put, Windows is popular because it is well supported, but is well supported because it is popular. Similar logic applies to Ebay and Facebook. Another way of looking at it, lots of people work to improve Windows' usefulness without any cost to Microsoft. Those improvements increase Windows' popularity and Microsoft's profits.
posted by malp at 3:55 PM on November 5, 2009
Microsoft's biggest weapon is now and always has been the Microsoft Developers Network. MSDN is a huge advantage, and none of that was accidental. Microsoft invests billions of dollars a year in MSDN, but the return on that investment is massive.
Irrespective of any other issues, there is more software available to run on Windows than on any other operating system, by a very long margin. And that is why Windows is the standard, and that is also why it's going to remain the standard for a very long time.
About three years ago, Eric S. Raymond wrote an article for his fellows in the Linux community saying that there was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to displace Microsoft as everyone transitions from 32-bit to 64-bit computing on desktops and in servers.
When Eric wrote that article, he said that the issue would be settled by 2008. He was right, and all evidence is that Microsoft is still a lock-in.
His article is worth reading because it pretty much answers the OP's question.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 5:04 PM on November 5, 2009
Irrespective of any other issues, there is more software available to run on Windows than on any other operating system, by a very long margin. And that is why Windows is the standard, and that is also why it's going to remain the standard for a very long time.
About three years ago, Eric S. Raymond wrote an article for his fellows in the Linux community saying that there was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to displace Microsoft as everyone transitions from 32-bit to 64-bit computing on desktops and in servers.
When Eric wrote that article, he said that the issue would be settled by 2008. He was right, and all evidence is that Microsoft is still a lock-in.
His article is worth reading because it pretty much answers the OP's question.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 5:04 PM on November 5, 2009
Tomorrowful, given the market share of Windows versus Mac, you are a de facto bubble boy. Seriously. It's like saying that you live in the US, but barely anyone you know speaks English: OK, so you live in an ethnic conclave. So what? The vast majority of USians speak English.
All right, fine, I don't count. Let's move on to other people and statistics, shall we? This is Apple's market share as of right now - closing in on 10%. Right off the bat, that's a pretty sizable minority. Huge, no, but I daresay enough to put lie to the notion that there's no competition. This analyst, as of April 2008, estimates that the consumer market share - eg, non-corporate - is 21%. This data from the University of Virginia indicates that their Freshman students, in 2008, were 37% Mac users. At what point does a minority start to qualify as "real" for you?
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:53 PM on November 5, 2009
All right, fine, I don't count. Let's move on to other people and statistics, shall we? This is Apple's market share as of right now - closing in on 10%. Right off the bat, that's a pretty sizable minority. Huge, no, but I daresay enough to put lie to the notion that there's no competition. This analyst, as of April 2008, estimates that the consumer market share - eg, non-corporate - is 21%. This data from the University of Virginia indicates that their Freshman students, in 2008, were 37% Mac users. At what point does a minority start to qualify as "real" for you?
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:53 PM on November 5, 2009
This is Apple's market share as of right now - closing in on 10%.
This article claims about 5%. The university data doesn't generalize to the wider world, obviously.
posted by adamdschneider at 9:28 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
This article claims about 5%. The university data doesn't generalize to the wider world, obviously.
posted by adamdschneider at 9:28 PM on November 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Company: "Here, try my whiz-bang new OS! It's awesome and never crashes!"
User: "Does it run all the Windows applications I have gathered for the last 15 years and spent thousands of dollars to acquire?"
Company: "Uh. No. That would be hard and possibly illegal."
User: "I'll pass then. Thanks!"
posted by chairface at 9:42 PM on November 5, 2009
User: "Does it run all the Windows applications I have gathered for the last 15 years and spent thousands of dollars to acquire?"
Company: "Uh. No. That would be hard and possibly illegal."
User: "I'll pass then. Thanks!"
posted by chairface at 9:42 PM on November 5, 2009
What ChairFace describes is exactly what happened to BeOS. Down to the end they were giving it away for free, and it still didn't take hold. And the reason was, it didn't have any apps, and it couldn't run Windows apps.
I downloaded and installed it on one of my computers, and I played with it for a while. Then eventually I deleted it again. It was really nice to use, but I couldn't solve my problem with it. It was effectively just a toy.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:14 PM on November 5, 2009
I downloaded and installed it on one of my computers, and I played with it for a while. Then eventually I deleted it again. It was really nice to use, but I couldn't solve my problem with it. It was effectively just a toy.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:14 PM on November 5, 2009
Afroblanco wrote "backwards compatibility"
This is probably one of the major reasons Microsoft wins, but also one of the major reasons Microsoft sucks.
I can still run Windows 3.1 applications. They work. I can still run Win95 and Win98 and Win2k and WinXP software in current versions of Windows. There's a handy option - right-click, select "compatibility" and choose your desired version option. Good to go. Doesn't work? Throw on a copy of Microsoft VirtualPC, and fire up your old OS version. DOS 6 works just fine.
Microsoft works very hard to reassure you that the money you spent on software over the last 20 years is not lost. Your old-ass but mission-critical program? It still runs, go ahead and keep using it. (Unless it's our program, of course, then you really ought to see what we've added in the new version, we promise it's every bit as stable!)
People are willing to put up with a lot of shit to keep their old software running. End users will accept ridiculously excessive security warnings. They'll accept the invasive and accusatory activation and antipiracy measures (what other OS comes with a required tool that assumes you're a pirate unless you can prove otherwise with every single security update?). They'll accept that their OS will check 30 times per second whether media streams are being sampled, and will automatically downgrade media playback if the OS suspects you might be copying the media. They'll accept that the software vendor has the right to examine the contents of the drive and change or remove content without warning. They'll accept that nothing really works correctly unless they use the media programs, web browser, email client and word processing software also sold by the same vendor. They'll accept that they can't be safe unless they run background security software at all times - antimalware, antivirus, software firewalls. They'll accept that incremental upgrades that do little except fix the numerous problems introduced by the last release are actually full OS upgrades, and happily pay full price for them. Backwards compatibility means that much to so many people, especially in the corporate world. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who works in a large company or government position - we FINALLY got an updated web browser on the thin client image here, and gosh it's IE7 because they haven't finished "testing" IE8 to see if it works with the internal websites (completely ignoring the "compatibility mode" IE6 rendering engine built into the damn thing!) and if you want to buy anything other than a WinXP system good luck with that.
There's a downside to this of course. The OS is not as robust as it could be, because backwards compatibility often means code fragments live on in version after version - which means that any bugs or vulnerabilities in the code also are propagated down the line. I noticed while playing with Vista prerelease builds a few years back that Vista used the exact same dialog for new font installation as Windows 3.1 - I did a side-by-side screenshot comparison of the install dialog, in every version of Windows I had available, and it hadn't changed one bit, right down to the Win 3.1-style dropdown list to select the directory path. Is it fixed in the final build of Vista? Or in the final build of 7? Who knows, I didn't bother to muck with either OS to find out. I figured if something that blatantly obvious to the end user could go on unnoticed for that many years, god only knows what other legacy code is living under the hood, waiting to destroy my machine.
Apple isn't a serious contender for corporate use partly because of backwards compatibility. You have an old copy of some Mac software? You better have an old Mac to run it on. Anything predating OS X won't run on a newer machine, unless maybe it's a PowerPC and has Classic installed - but then you still run into problems with System 7 or 8 software not working correctly. You can't legally emulate old Mac hardware, and Mac software won't run on non-Apple machines (not any more, not without some serious hacking, and not without some problems even then, and of course it isn't legal according to the software TOS agreements). Apple's philosophy is simple: We sell hardware. We include an OS to make the hardware useful. We tie major OS improvements to major advances in the hardware. We won't bother ensuring that old stuff works, because our job is to get you to upgrade to the new hardware.
Linux has a better shot at moving into the corporate world. While both Apple and Linux make life easier for administrators simply by not being as vulnerable to attack as Microsoft, Linux offers the advantage of low cost of entry. Even paying for support from Redhat or Ubuntu is cheaper than paying for Apple or MS support. The downside there is that, because MS is the de facto business standard, Linux is constantly playing catch-up: To interact with other businesses, they must be able to send compatible files. Microsoft keeps even their "open standard" XML-based Office files just confusing enough that OpenOffice developers must scramble to make compatibility changes with each new Office release, and by the time they're done Microsoft has made more changes, sparking another round of catch-up. There are places where Linux is making inroads, outside of server-class systems. I noticed a few years ago that Lowe's home improvement stores were running a Gnome desktop on all the employee terminals in the store. It's encouraging, but I would have been very surprised if the computers in the back offices were running something other than Windows.
posted by caution live frogs at 8:59 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is probably one of the major reasons Microsoft wins, but also one of the major reasons Microsoft sucks.
I can still run Windows 3.1 applications. They work. I can still run Win95 and Win98 and Win2k and WinXP software in current versions of Windows. There's a handy option - right-click, select "compatibility" and choose your desired version option. Good to go. Doesn't work? Throw on a copy of Microsoft VirtualPC, and fire up your old OS version. DOS 6 works just fine.
Microsoft works very hard to reassure you that the money you spent on software over the last 20 years is not lost. Your old-ass but mission-critical program? It still runs, go ahead and keep using it. (Unless it's our program, of course, then you really ought to see what we've added in the new version, we promise it's every bit as stable!)
People are willing to put up with a lot of shit to keep their old software running. End users will accept ridiculously excessive security warnings. They'll accept the invasive and accusatory activation and antipiracy measures (what other OS comes with a required tool that assumes you're a pirate unless you can prove otherwise with every single security update?). They'll accept that their OS will check 30 times per second whether media streams are being sampled, and will automatically downgrade media playback if the OS suspects you might be copying the media. They'll accept that the software vendor has the right to examine the contents of the drive and change or remove content without warning. They'll accept that nothing really works correctly unless they use the media programs, web browser, email client and word processing software also sold by the same vendor. They'll accept that they can't be safe unless they run background security software at all times - antimalware, antivirus, software firewalls. They'll accept that incremental upgrades that do little except fix the numerous problems introduced by the last release are actually full OS upgrades, and happily pay full price for them. Backwards compatibility means that much to so many people, especially in the corporate world. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who works in a large company or government position - we FINALLY got an updated web browser on the thin client image here, and gosh it's IE7 because they haven't finished "testing" IE8 to see if it works with the internal websites (completely ignoring the "compatibility mode" IE6 rendering engine built into the damn thing!) and if you want to buy anything other than a WinXP system good luck with that.
There's a downside to this of course. The OS is not as robust as it could be, because backwards compatibility often means code fragments live on in version after version - which means that any bugs or vulnerabilities in the code also are propagated down the line. I noticed while playing with Vista prerelease builds a few years back that Vista used the exact same dialog for new font installation as Windows 3.1 - I did a side-by-side screenshot comparison of the install dialog, in every version of Windows I had available, and it hadn't changed one bit, right down to the Win 3.1-style dropdown list to select the directory path. Is it fixed in the final build of Vista? Or in the final build of 7? Who knows, I didn't bother to muck with either OS to find out. I figured if something that blatantly obvious to the end user could go on unnoticed for that many years, god only knows what other legacy code is living under the hood, waiting to destroy my machine.
Apple isn't a serious contender for corporate use partly because of backwards compatibility. You have an old copy of some Mac software? You better have an old Mac to run it on. Anything predating OS X won't run on a newer machine, unless maybe it's a PowerPC and has Classic installed - but then you still run into problems with System 7 or 8 software not working correctly. You can't legally emulate old Mac hardware, and Mac software won't run on non-Apple machines (not any more, not without some serious hacking, and not without some problems even then, and of course it isn't legal according to the software TOS agreements). Apple's philosophy is simple: We sell hardware. We include an OS to make the hardware useful. We tie major OS improvements to major advances in the hardware. We won't bother ensuring that old stuff works, because our job is to get you to upgrade to the new hardware.
Linux has a better shot at moving into the corporate world. While both Apple and Linux make life easier for administrators simply by not being as vulnerable to attack as Microsoft, Linux offers the advantage of low cost of entry. Even paying for support from Redhat or Ubuntu is cheaper than paying for Apple or MS support. The downside there is that, because MS is the de facto business standard, Linux is constantly playing catch-up: To interact with other businesses, they must be able to send compatible files. Microsoft keeps even their "open standard" XML-based Office files just confusing enough that OpenOffice developers must scramble to make compatibility changes with each new Office release, and by the time they're done Microsoft has made more changes, sparking another round of catch-up. There are places where Linux is making inroads, outside of server-class systems. I noticed a few years ago that Lowe's home improvement stores were running a Gnome desktop on all the employee terminals in the store. It's encouraging, but I would have been very surprised if the computers in the back offices were running something other than Windows.
posted by caution live frogs at 8:59 AM on November 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Microsoft has also engaged in a substantial amount of anticompetitive behavior via tying, rent-seeking, etc. This is a minor factor; the major one is that most people and institutions find Windows "good enough" and it doesn't take much to merely maintain an existing huge market share for two decades.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 8:16 AM on November 5, 2009 [5 favorites]