Start Menu Could Return to Windows in Spring 2014

[Xyos]

Windows Good. Metro Bad.

How is Metro Bad? Frees up the Desktop, quick application access, looks nicer.

 

[danwat1234]

Start8, ModernMix, etc, etc, 3rd party software FTW. Makes win8 look like win7 with the win8 kernel improvements.

WOW! Really?! It makes Windows8 look just like Windows7?! So the stupid ugly flat 80's skin on Win8 is updated to Windows 7 style? With all that work, hacks and crap.... there are two other options that are easier and cheaper:

Use Windows 7 or Use LinuxMint

Sure, with Windowsblinds you can bring back Aero too. It's free from bittorrent. It's easy too, unless the person trying to do this is a computer novice.
No fuss no muss. Configure it once, bam, it's windows 7 again with the kernel improvements of win8 and you never have to touch Start8 again, it runs hidden.

 

[kiniku]

Love Windows 8.1. Does more and does it better than Windows 7 ever dreamed it could. For you simpletons out there don't get lost in that hierarchical start menu.

 

[Max_x2]

Microsoft just runs around in circles. They need new leadership and they need it badly.

No one here is arguing for a return to XP in the literal sense, they simply think Windows 8 is a bloated monstrosity. Linux supports multi-core CPUs and SSDs just fine yet requires far fewer resources and storage space than Win 8.

Microsoft's problem isn't user interface, it's business model. As free alternatives gain ground in terms of user base and functionality, the paid OS model is going to be defunct and Microsoft doesn't have anything else profitable to fall back on. They need fundamental change and they need it fast.

And the biggest problem with 8 was never really the start menu, it's the lack of flexibility that came along with it. No one wants to be told that they have to use a tablet interface and full screen apps on a 27" non-touch monitor. Microsoft's arrogance for thinking they can dictate what is best for everyone was a huge blunder.

A clean install of Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit takes about 12-15GB of storage space. Depending on ram availability, it'll take between 1 (with 4GB total) to 1.7GB RAM (on 16GB total) on idle. Those figures are quite acceptable for today's hardware, where pretty much everyone has a multi-core, 4GB RAM machine with 500-1TB of storage space or more.

Furthermore, multi-tasking has greatly improved compared to Windows 7. Opening every single modern/desktop apps i have installed, takes only 5.7GB RAM on my i5 4670k with 16GB RAM with an average SSD. And it never slows anything down, ever.

I did try the latest ubuntu releases, and to be honest, it wasn't faster than 8/8.1. The way i see it, linux-like releases are great if your computer is getting old, or is under-powered. Else, it's a pain in the ass to setup and get it running the way you want it to run. Also, we have to admit that overall, Linux-like are usually not very user-friendly for the average Joe.

Like some said in this thread, i don't get all the hate people have for windows 8/8.1. Hell, even my 60 y/o non-tech-savvy mother understands how it works compared to, say, windows 7, and the learning curve was pretty fast.

Source: Windows 8/8.1 user on two different desktops (with 2 24" non-touch screens) since it was released, and on the Surface RT more recently.

 

[JD88]

A clean install of Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit takes about 12-15GB of storage space. Depending on ram availability, it'll take between 1 (with 4GB total) to 1.7GB RAM (on 16GB total) on idle. Those figures are quite acceptable for today's hardware, where pretty much everyone has a multi-core, 4GB RAM machine with 500-1TB of storage space or more.

Furthermore, multi-tasking has greatly improved compared to Windows 7. Opening every single modern/desktop apps i have installed, takes only 5.7GB RAM on my i5 4670k with 16GB RAM with an average SSD. And it never slows anything down, ever.

I did try the latest ubuntu releases, and to be honest, it wasn't faster than 8/8.1. The way i see it, linux-like releases are great if your computer is getting old, or is under-powered. Else, it's a pain in the ass to setup and get it running the way you want it to run. Also, we have to admit that overall, Linux-like are usually not very user-friendly for the average Joe.

Like some said in this thread, i don't get all the hate people have for windows 8/8.1. Hell, even my 60 y/o non-tech-savvy mother understands how it works compared to, say, windows 7, and the learning curve was pretty fast.

Source: Windows 8/8.1 user on two different desktops (with 2 24" non-touch screens) since it was released, and on the Surface RT more recently.

Those figures actually aren't acceptable in an age where SSDs are becoming standard. 16 GB for an operating system is a huge waste of space. Most Linux distros take up less than a third of that and are just as fully featured. The amount of sheer crap packed into Windows is astonishing.

Also, most Ubuntu based distributions are actually much more user friendly than Windows 8. The simplicity is unmatched. Sure getting them running perfectly on proprietary hardware setups designed for Windows (aka laptops) ins't always simple, but neither is a fresh install on Windows on those systems without getting proprietary drivers from the manufacturer. Getting the right drivers is actually easier in Linux in many cases. Installing on a desktop build is a breeze. Also, there is no antivirus to deal with or bloatware, spyware, malware, and so forth.

Most importantly, the UI of Linux can be customized to user taste. Windows requires the use of the Start screen no matter what. Once configured, the stability of Linux is unmatched, requiring virtually no maintenance. In short, there is nothing Windows does better than Linux other than software compatibility, most of which would not justify the extra money to the average user. The problem is that monopolies are powerful.

 

[sire_angelus]

i liked the fact that for once they were dictating like apple how you should use your pc/tablet, it was a strong move they did not believe in and i'm disappointed that they are backing away, i hated the "resize how you like" move(snap to only 1/3 was fine with me) and i hate the fact that they removed the messenger app, the centralized search, it was finally a ui that made sense.

 

[canadianvice]

You think start menu is better probably because you don't know how to organize the start screen. For me, I only put those I would most likely to use on the start screen, the rest are either left in "All Apps" screen or desktop. For those, I use often, I would made it medium size so that I could spot them right away. The others are all small size. Finally, I put them into 3 groups - Favorites, Productivity and Games.

Something tells me 50 tiles for games, 5 IDEs, important document locations gets a little unwieldy.

The start menu simply works better for my purposes. I can stick extra content in it to my heart's content and it never gets much worse.

I'd go with Linux Mint or whatever, but Gaming.

 

[Max_x2]

Sure getting them running perfectly on proprietary hardware setups designed for Windows (aka laptops) ins't always simple, but neither is a fresh install on Windows on those systems without getting proprietary drivers from the manufacturer. Getting the right drivers is actually easier in Linux in many cases.

I see. That actually explains a lot. Did you actually use/install/configure Windows 8/8.1? Because the experience you are describing, is a long way from what i've experienced. One example is Bluetooth. You don't need a driver anymore, it's built in 8/8.1. Graphics cards drivers are always on the manufacturer's website. Mobo's, same thing, as with pretty much any peripherals. Having to search for a wifi driver for a while on ubuntu (i think it was 12.04LTS), before finding out it's hit and miss anyway, on my friend's old laptop, that's unacceptable. So i advised him it would be better staying with Windows, even if it's a bit slower. Which he did.

Bare in mind that i agree that ubuntu and the likes are way more customizable, and smaller when it comes to storage (and RAM, for that matter). But honestly, the difference for me, is something like 1 or 2 movies (say 3-6GB each). No big deal. And to me, being free is not worth the hassle of setting it up, or breaking the os with a small customization so i can change songs straight from firefox (yes, it did happen to me).

Let's agree to disagree

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Maybe they could call The Rolling Stones again when they bring back the Start Menu the way it's suppose to be.

 

[spigias]

start menu to w8, too late i am returning to w7 with same serial number and i am not coming back. Grande Fail MS
also w8.1 is a joke, die buggy printer spooler

 

[belardo]

Windows Good. Metro Bad.

How is Metro Bad? Frees up the Desktop, quick application access, looks nicer.

Care to explain HOW MUCH more desktop space the Start Menu / previous UI used up any more space than METRO?

 

[belardo]

Start8, ModernMix, etc, etc, 3rd party software FTW. Makes win8 look like win7 with the win8 kernel improvements.

WOW! Really?! It makes Windows8 look just like Windows7?! So the stupid ugly flat 80's skin on Win8 is updated to Windows 7 style? With all that work, hacks and crap.... there are two other options that are easier and cheaper:

Use Windows 7 or Use LinuxMint

Sure, with Windowsblinds you can bring back Aero too. It's free from bittorrent. It's easy too, unless the person trying to do this is a computer novice.
No fuss no muss. Configure it once, bam, it's windows 7 again with the kernel improvements of win8 and you never have to touch Start8 again, it runs hidden.

Er... why bother with ANY of that.... which was the point. Just continue to buy Windows 7 for the same price or slightly lower and get the desired functionality rather than trying to shoe-horn a simulated 3rd party add-on which adds resources and isn't 100% compatible or the same thing.

 

[belardo]

I don't know if I'll ever understand the hatred for Windows 8. It seems like people simply don't want to adapt to change, and thus assume that the change is inherently bad, just because it's change.

er... huh? What? It has nothing to do with change. It has to do with change for the BETTER, logical design and functionality which is what Windows 8 IS NOT. Proper testing and not giving each other brown-noses at Microsoft would have realized this 6 months before release and FIXED the damn thing.

Gee... Windows 8 made me try LinuxMINT which was EASIER to figure out and MADE MORE sense in usage as a desktop OS than Windows 8. So NO, it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHANGE.

*PS: Unless you are older than me, I have used more different UI and OSes than you can think of. Like using the add-on from Stardock which made Windows 3.x a USABLE program launcher. (Yeah, Metro is kind of like Windows 3)... Windows 3.x was never an OS. It just launched GUI programs on top of the crappy sub-standard MS-DOS. Metro Launches Metro Apps ontop of a Windows OS.

 

[canadianvice]

Windows Good. Metro Bad.

How is Metro Bad? Frees up the Desktop, quick application access, looks nicer.

Care to explain HOW MUCH more desktop space the Start Menu / previous UI used up any more space than METRO?

Start Menu is less than a 1/5 of most screens. Start screen is 100%.
It's quite obvious...

 

[windows migration]

It is great to hear that Home button is back in windows.
<a href="http://win8migration.com/blog/">Windows 8 Update</a>

 

[urbanman2004]

The metro 'block shit' screen was anoying... Not saying it wasnt difficult to adjust to when I started using Win8 last yr but M$ was too arrogant to consider how their users would feel a/b & react to the change.

 

[cal90]

why fix what was broken windows 7 was and is perfect imo

 

[jimmysmitty]

While newer companies are producing lightweight OS, Windows is going as heavy as possible, with as much stupid features as possible... With customizability making a return, Windows is closing down on options...
I really don't get their business model, less features, slower, higher price, less option? That doesn't sound right...

Actually Windows 8 uses less resources than 7 does. It was in all the betas and talked about how it was using less memory than 7 in a clean install. I can verify it does. When I had 7 installed and running with less than what I have now I was using about 33% of 16GB at start. Now I use about 25% at start and am using 33% as of now with all my work apps open (one uses 1GB of RAM alone).

As for light weight, that's good and bad. Most of the light weight OSes, like Android, are not nearly as powerful as Windows. It is like say ARM vs x86. While ARM is smaller and uses less power it is also not nearly as powerful as a i3 even let alone a i7.

Start8, ModernMix, etc, etc, 3rd party software FTW. Makes win8 look like win7 with the win8 kernel improvements.

WOW! Really?! It makes Windows8 look just like Windows7?! So the stupid ugly flat 80's skin on Win8 is updated to Windows 7 style? With all that work, hacks and crap.... there are two other options that are easier and cheaper:

Use Windows 7 or Use LinuxMint

3rd party software FTL. Running software over the shell means issues will arise. I don't ever run anything over the shell.

Windows 7 is the same cost as 8 so it's not cheaper as you have to buy it and Linux doesn't support all the apps Windows does or games.

Also, for everyone suggesting MS is dying by sticking to the pay model for Windows vs free alternatives, how many average users buy an OS? It ALWAYS comes preinstalled, so it's just as 'free' to them as OSX is to Mac users. And before anyone mentions how the latest version of OSX was free, so was 8.1 and it made more changes and added more features than OSX. OSX hasn't released anything beyond updates for years and has made you pay for them, while MS releases actual features for free until an entire new OS is released.

And I'm sorry, but Linux is still going nowhere on the consumer front. It's a usability nightmare once you get past the most basic of functions, and even those can get hosed up with bugs too often. Also, talk about UI changes! I've used a number of distros, and none of them are exactly lookers, and they change more often and in worse ways than Mac or Windows ever has.

Operating systems come already installed on store bought PCs, but the OEM still has to pay for them. OEMs are currently looking for ways to reduce costs and make hardware better in the race to the bottom that has occurred since tablets took over much of the market. For example, look at Chrome OS devices vs Windows devices in the same price bracket. They Chrome devices have about $50-100 worth of better hardware thanks to the OEM not having to budget so much for the now VERY overpriced Windows 8. Microsoft knows this which is why they are starting to offer Windows and Office free on lower end machines and tablets just to prop up their market share against Chromebooks and Tablets.

Linux has already won. There are more Android devices in this world than Windows devices and Chrome OS is catching fire. Microsoft is spending tens of millions on trying to bury it, but all they are doing is drawing attention to a competitor. The outdated business model of charging large sums for an operating system is simply not going to keep Microsoft floating in the long term and they know it, thus the transition to be more like Apple and Google. They have admitted as much.

Yes but its an inferior OS in terms of capability and mostly cloud based, which is a negative as well security reasons for businesses. Linux can have all it wants in the consumer end. Microsoft, and most tech companies, worry about the business end and I dare you to find a better solution than Microsoft has for a business.

My company sets up networks and using Windows Server with HyperVs, AD, GP and Exchange makes the entire thing such a simple easy to use and easy to fix network. Mac doesn't do that nor does Linux.

The metro 'block shit' screen was anoying... Not saying it wasnt difficult to adjust to when I started using Win8 last yr but M$ was too arrogant to consider how their users would feel a/b & react to the change.

They are focusing on a single platform. Right now you can use your Live account on any Windows 8 device and faves, pics etc are shared and you can use SkyDrive to move them to and from a 8 phone.

It looks like soon Windows 8 itself will be on the phones. They are smart in that they are unifying their platform.

why fix what was broken windows 7 was and is perfect imo

7 is a great OS but it is not perfect. Even though it introduced a more secure MBR, it still is not as secure as when using Secure Boot on 8.

As well 8 natively supports booting to GPT, 7 does not and would take a big overhaul to change and as well it has some updates for SSDs but 8 was designed around them.

And it's not about fixing, it is about advancing. DO you know how many people were saying the same thing when Windows first came out? No one wanted to leave their DOS based systems. "Why fix DOS it is already great" is the same thing that was said.

People didn't want to move to a new UI they liked what they had.

It is a vicious cycle but technology and software moves forward with or without people liking it. Kids born this year will never know what a Polaroid was or experience the fun of shaking it to make it appear faster because the company no longer makes them as everything is digital. It's sad but it is how technology works. What we knew and grew up with is not what will be there in 10 years.

 

[cal90]

While newer companies are producing lightweight OS, Windows is going as heavy as possible, with as much stupid features as possible... With customizability making a return, Windows is closing down on options...
I really don't get their business model, less features, slower, higher price, less option? That doesn't sound right...

Actually Windows 8 uses less resources than 7 does. It was in all the betas and talked about how it was using less memory than 7 in a clean install. I can verify it does. When I had 7 installed and running with less than what I have now I was using about 33% of 16GB at start. Now I use about 25% at start and am using 33% as of now with all my work apps open (one uses 1GB of RAM alone).

As for light weight, that's good and bad. Most of the light weight OSes, like Android, are not nearly as powerful as Windows. It is like say ARM vs x86. While ARM is smaller and uses less power it is also not nearly as powerful as a i3 even let alone a i7.

Start8, ModernMix, etc, etc, 3rd party software FTW. Makes win8 look like win7 with the win8 kernel improvements.

WOW! Really?! It makes Windows8 look just like Windows7?! So the stupid ugly flat 80's skin on Win8 is updated to Windows 7 style? With all that work, hacks and crap.... there are two other options that are easier and cheaper:

Use Windows 7 or Use LinuxMint

3rd party software FTL. Running software over the shell means issues will arise. I don't ever run anything over the shell.

Windows 7 is the same cost as 8 so it's not cheaper as you have to buy it and Linux doesn't support all the apps Windows does or games.

Also, for everyone suggesting MS is dying by sticking to the pay model for Windows vs free alternatives, how many average users buy an OS? It ALWAYS comes preinstalled, so it's just as 'free' to them as OSX is to Mac users. And before anyone mentions how the latest version of OSX was free, so was 8.1 and it made more changes and added more features than OSX. OSX hasn't released anything beyond updates for years and has made you pay for them, while MS releases actual features for free until an entire new OS is released.

And I'm sorry, but Linux is still going nowhere on the consumer front. It's a usability nightmare once you get past the most basic of functions, and even those can get hosed up with bugs too often. Also, talk about UI changes! I've used a number of distros, and none of them are exactly lookers, and they change more often and in worse ways than Mac or Windows ever has.

Operating systems come already installed on store bought PCs, but the OEM still has to pay for them. OEMs are currently looking for ways to reduce costs and make hardware better in the race to the bottom that has occurred since tablets took over much of the market. For example, look at Chrome OS devices vs Windows devices in the same price bracket. They Chrome devices have about $50-100 worth of better hardware thanks to the OEM not having to budget so much for the now VERY overpriced Windows 8. Microsoft knows this which is why they are starting to offer Windows and Office free on lower end machines and tablets just to prop up their market share against Chromebooks and Tablets.

Linux has already won. There are more Android devices in this world than Windows devices and Chrome OS is catching fire. Microsoft is spending tens of millions on trying to bury it, but all they are doing is drawing attention to a competitor. The outdated business model of charging large sums for an operating system is simply not going to keep Microsoft floating in the long term and they know it, thus the transition to be more like Apple and Google. They have admitted as much.

Yes but its an inferior OS in terms of capability and mostly cloud based, which is a negative as well security reasons for businesses. Linux can have all it wants in the consumer end. Microsoft, and most tech companies, worry about the business end and I dare you to find a better solution than Microsoft has for a business.

My company sets up networks and using Windows Server with HyperVs, AD, GP and Exchange makes the entire thing such a simple easy to use and easy to fix network. Mac doesn't do that nor does Linux.

The metro 'block shit' screen was anoying... Not saying it wasnt difficult to adjust to when I started using Win8 last yr but M$ was too arrogant to consider how their users would feel a/b & react to the change.

They are focusing on a single platform. Right now you can use your Live account on any Windows 8 device and faves, pics etc are shared and you can use SkyDrive to move them to and from a 8 phone.

It looks like soon Windows 8 itself will be on the phones. They are smart in that they are unifying their platform.

why fix what was broken windows 7 was and is perfect imo

7 is a great OS but it is not perfect. Even though it introduced a more secure MBR, it still is not as secure as when using Secure Boot on 8.

As well 8 natively supports booting to GPT, 7 does not and would take a big overhaul to change and as well it has some updates for SSDs but 8 was designed around them.

And it's not about fixing, it is about advancing. DO you know how many people were saying the same thing when Windows first came out? No one wanted to leave their DOS based systems. "Why fix DOS it is already great" is the same thing that was said.

People didn't want to move to a new UI they liked what they had.

It is a vicious cycle but technology and software moves forward with or without people liking it. Kids born this year will never know what a Polaroid was or experience the fun of shaking it to make it appear faster because the company no longer makes them as everything is digital. It's sad but it is how technology works. What we knew and grew up with is not what will be there in 10 years.

i completely agree with what you said however my post why fix what's not broken more or less is refering to features breaking stability among other issues. example being i had to upgrade my wireless card in my workstation to be able to have wifi and use an operating system that produces bsod errors when hibernating, sleeping, and restarting an os where 5 times out of 10 windows explorer crashes among other issues. windows 8 and 8.1 are great i will not deny that however i will deny their stability and i will argue that they were realeased way to early hence the issues previously noted above, like any new software out there new features bring about new issues you bring one thing in to break another as seen with linux as you mentioned ( i have a linux box well ubuntu with 13.10/14.04 ) on a lighter note i agree and sympathise about technology i would be so bold as to add to what you said and say in about 20 30 years from now everything will be touch and the youth of that era wont know what a mouse is.
Besides as a personal preference i would rather use a computer with everything working so i can work and play my games without have to worry about rebooting and loosing yet another feature after an update.

 

[JD88]

Actually Windows 8 uses less resources than 7 does. It was in all the betas and talked about how it was using less memory than 7 in a clean install. I can verify it does. When I had 7 installed and running with less than what I have now I was using about 33% of 16GB at start. Now I use about 25% at start and am using 33% as of now with all my work apps open (one uses 1GB of RAM alone).

As for light weight, that's good and bad. Most of the light weight OSes, like Android, are not nearly as powerful as Windows. It is like say ARM vs x86. While ARM is smaller and uses less power it is also not nearly as powerful as a i3 even let alone a i7.


Also, for everyone suggesting MS is dying by sticking to the pay model for Windows vs free alternatives, how many average users buy an OS? It ALWAYS comes preinstalled, so it's just as 'free' to them as OSX is to Mac users. And before anyone mentions how the latest version of OSX was free, so was 8.1 and it made more changes and added more features than OSX. OSX hasn't released anything beyond updates for years and has made you pay for them, while MS releases actual features for free until an entire new OS is released.

And I'm sorry, but Linux is still going nowhere on the consumer front. It's a usability nightmare once you get past the most basic of functions, and even those can get hosed up with bugs too often. Also, talk about UI changes! I've used a number of distros, and none of them are exactly lookers, and they change more often and in worse ways than Mac or Windows ever has.


Yes but its an inferior OS in terms of capability and mostly cloud based, which is a negative as well security reasons for businesses. Linux can have all it wants in the consumer end. Microsoft, and most tech companies, worry about the business end and I dare you to find a better solution than Microsoft has for a business.

My company sets up networks and using Windows Server with HyperVs, AD, GP and Exchange makes the entire thing such a simple easy to use and easy to fix network. Mac doesn't do that nor does Linux.

They are focusing on a single platform. Right now you can use your Live account on any Windows 8 device and faves, pics etc are shared and you can use SkyDrive to move them to and from a 8 phone.


And it's not about fixing, it is about advancing. DO you know how many people were saying the same thing when Windows first came out? No one wanted to leave their DOS based systems. "Why fix DOS it is already great" is the same thing that was said.

People didn't want to move to a new UI they liked what they had.

It is a vicious cycle but technology and software moves forward with or without people liking it. Kids born this year will never know what a Polaroid was or experience the fun of shaking it to make it appear faster because the company no longer makes them as everything is digital. It's sad but it is how technology works. What we knew and grew up with is not what will be there in 10 years.

Anyone buying a Windows PC is most certainly paying for the operating system. That cost is incorporated into the MSRP. It's not like the OEMs magically get those licenses. In today's race to the bottom, that puts Microsoft at a huge disadvantage. Just look at how Chromebooks stack up to comparable Windows machines. Much better build quality and specs for less money. Microsoft's business model is fundamentally broken.

All of those products you say your company uses are either proprietary Microsoft garbage or legacy stuff that can be replaced by cloud based solutions. It's the fault of you and your business for living in the past. Saying something like exchange is necessary is like saying a VCR is necessary. There is a very large number of successful businesses and organizations that operate just fine without touching a Windows PC. Look at Google for example. They won't even let their employees use Windows due to security issues.

As for single platform, nobody does that better than Google. Hell my Android device integrates better with my PC than a Windows phone would. Both Apple and Google have Microsoft crushed on this point.

Your final comment about advancing is really tough to swallow when you're the one advocating for the bloated and ancient Windows incumbent and not the much more streamlined and advanced Linux and cloud based solutions. I think it is you who lives in the past Jim.

Linux has already won on the consumer front with Android and now Chrome OS. Anything heaver can easily be tackled by a full Linux distribution. Gaming is about the only area I can think of where Windows is still necessary.

 

[canadianvice]

Why do people keep offering linux as a solution. It isn't.
It still has a piss-poor game library, it's UI often leaves a lot to be desired, and the installation process could be far easier.

I've tried Linux, and every time I've gone back to Windows. It's simply better - easier to use and really not that hard to keep functioning perfectly. Maybe when Linux gets a game library that's worth the trouble I'll switch, but until then it lacks a lot of key applications - like OpenOffice/LibreOffice is horrible compared to MS Office.

 

[cal90]

Why do people keep offering linux as a solution. It isn't.
It still has a piss-poor game library, it's UI often leaves a lot to be desired, and the installation process could be far easier.

I've tried Linux, and every time I've gone back to Windows. It's simply better - easier to use and really not that hard to keep functioning perfectly. Maybe when Linux gets a game library that's worth the trouble I'll switch, but until then it lacks a lot of key applications - like OpenOffice/LibreOffice is horrible compared to MS Office.

Amen to that. Maybe if steam can get most of their titles ported over to their Debian based OS I may consider it as a viable alternative

 

[JD88]

Why do people keep offering linux as a solution. It isn't.
It still has a piss-poor game library, it's UI often leaves a lot to be desired, and the installation process could be far easier.

I've tried Linux, and every time I've gone back to Windows. It's simply better - easier to use and really not that hard to keep functioning perfectly. Maybe when Linux gets a game library that's worth the trouble I'll switch, but until then it lacks a lot of key applications - like OpenOffice/LibreOffice is horrible compared to MS Office.

The library of games is constantly growing and the UI sucks compared to what, Windows 8? Anyone that uses Linux knows that the UI is able to be customized without limitation. It can look and act however you want it to.

Google Docs and the Word Web Apps work just fine on Linux and are more than enough for the needs of most people. Windows really isn't necessary for anyone other than those needed very specific software or games.

 

[canadianvice]

Why do people keep offering linux as a solution. It isn't.
It still has a piss-poor game library, it's UI often leaves a lot to be desired, and the installation process could be far easier.

I've tried Linux, and every time I've gone back to Windows. It's simply better - easier to use and really not that hard to keep functioning perfectly. Maybe when Linux gets a game library that's worth the trouble I'll switch, but until then it lacks a lot of key applications - like OpenOffice/LibreOffice is horrible compared to MS Office.

The library of games is constantly growing and the UI sucks compared to what, Windows 8? Anyone that uses Linux knows that the UI is able to be customized without limitation. It can look and act however you want it to.

Google Docs and the Word Web Apps work just fine on Linux and are more than enough for the needs of most people. Windows really isn't necessary for anyone other than those needed very specific software or games.

"Is enough for most people" yet the operating system is decidedly not designed for most people (I can stick virtually anyone on Windows without much worry - Linux would be murder). Let's not cherry pick - it's a whole package and should be considered as such. Plus, why should I have to do everything in the cloud? The only thing the cloud is good for is syncing data, not creating documents.

Linux is simply inadequate. As I've said many times before, when I'm not constantly compelled to go back to Windows (I've never even really split over the games, though I probably would at some point). Linux offers me no tangible benefit without more difficulty.

Linux controls a very small market share (and please, don't bring up the Android technicality - you've made it onto phones. Amazingly powerful devices, those are) for a reason. It has everything going for it otherwise - it's free. Price from my experience is basically the only thing the masses care about or understand. If it's cheap, they want it, even if it's a netbook for max-graphics Diablo 3.

My main problem with Linux is the work required - why switch operating systems to do more work? Don't kid yourself - the games library comparison is silly - If I have 1 game, and I then have three, I've just experienced 300% growth, which is pretty impressive. Linux is basically the same way.