Support nightmare
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Apr 28, 2009 3:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:But Silver sees some big downsides. "You'll have to support two versions of Windows," he said. "Each needs to be secured, antivirused, firewalled and patched. Businesses don't want to support two instances of Windows on each machine. If a company has 10,000 PCs, that's 20,000 instances of Windows." |
| bigg Apr 28, 2009 7:09 AM EDT |
This is not the same, however, as running 20,000 instances of Windows on 20,000 PC's. It's 20,000 instances of Windows on 10,000 PC's. There will likely be additional problems that result from the virtualization aspect, running two instances of Windows at the same time. The good thing is that by forcing users to get used to running multiple OSes at the same time, they open the door to also running Linux as the second OS. They have a very good reason to do so - it's far more secure to make purchases and do other sensitive internet transactions using Linux. Obviously not as secure as just running Linux, but definitely more secure than using Windows. |
| tracyanne Apr 28, 2009 7:18 AM EDT |
Of course this will only be available on the more expensive versions. The "plebs" will get Windows 7 and lose all or most of their existing software, take it or leave it. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 28, 2009 10:50 AM EDT |
> take it or leave it. And we all know that upgrading Windows has no learning curve or support costs. After all, if there was, people would have one less objection to changing to something ELSE. |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2009 1:20 PM EDT |
> Windows 7's virtual 'XP mode' could mean support nightmares There are a few unnecessary words in that headline. Namely, 7's, virtual, XP, and mode. |
| tracyanne Apr 28, 2009 5:07 PM EDT |
@Bob, One of my little Old Ladies was telling me last night that she finds her childrens' computers hard to use (they are all Windows), that she thinks Linux is actually very easy. She was telling me that, in fact, she has arguments with her children, who are obviously trying to get her to go back to Windows. She told me that she flatly refuses to to use Windows. The other thing she has done is talked her friend into getting her computer upgraded to Linux. Apparently it wasn't difficult at all, after she showed her friend how easy Linux is to use, as her friend is "Sick and Tired" of the problems she's had with Windows, and the money she has had to spend keeping it working properly. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 28, 2009 6:10 PM EDT |
TA, my mother says the same thing. The one and only problem she has is wireless networking, but she'll be in this part of the world for a visit in May, and I hope to be able to get wicd working again. That's it. Her one and only complaint. But as far as "ease of use" goes, Linux lends itself much more readily to consistency of interface than Windows, since the interface is not integrated into the OS. Change the OS all day long, keep the UI that suits you. |
| nalf38 Apr 29, 2009 2:32 AM EDT |
I don't see how this is any different from what Apple did with the PPC version of OSX. I'm not a mac user, so I don't know if running OS9 apps under OSX was easy, but I don't remember any sort of outcry, but it was probably easier than using Sheepshaver. This seems like a much better path for MS, rather than crippling their OS for the sake of legacy compatibility. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 29, 2009 5:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:There are a few unnecessary words in that headline. Namely, 7's, virtual, XP, and mode. You're forgetting "could" :-) |
| jdixon Apr 29, 2009 9:36 AM EDT |
> You're forgetting "could" I was being generous. It's an occasional bad habit. :) |
| gus3 Apr 29, 2009 11:21 AM EDT |
OS9 apps under OSX on Power was easy, but slow, and there was an outcry. Apple did what they could to inconvenience users who refused to upgrade their apps. The Adobe Photoshop users were particularly unhappy about the performance, IIRC. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!