[Evildave]

TechieXP said:

The only way Windows won't recognize a drive is if your BIOS didn't either. Go lie somewhere else. Windows didn't see it...but magically Linux did? I've never heard of such a case.

Lots of cases. For instance, various motherboard and/or 'RAID' implementations need a driver for Windoze (or Linux) to recognize the controller. It's very possible for one OS to have the driver preloaded, but not the other. I've seen it both ways. Usually these are the kinds of installs where you need to stick a 'driver disk' into a drive, in order to install Windoze.

Windoze doesn't use the BIOS once the kernel is loaded (neither does Linux). The driver talks to the hardware directly. It's possible for the hard disk to boot, and then windoze gets control and won't recognize it anymore. Especially if you tweak (or stomp) a motherboard BIOS setting that changes the IDE/SATA behavior from one protocol/version to another that doesn't match the installed driver and/or its settings.

Calling someone a 'liar' is rude. Of course, calling someone a 'liar' because you're personally clueless is funny, so I guess it balances out.

[TechieXP]

yes I am aware of that.
I ran into that before too. But that isn't what he said. he specifically said it didn't reconize the drive...he didn't say he was using a raid controller and blah blah.

You are correct and I have ran into that too. But if that is what he was saying? That is how he should have said it.

[rgreen4]

Gentlemen, settle down. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

[hitokiri]

Well I do mean Windows would not recognize the drives, but I should have also said controllers which is really where the problem lied I think. And it was not a BIOS problem because the BIOS had them listed. WIndows would not recognize any drivers I tried to load either, it would just say there were no device drivers found on the disk. And yes, OpenSUSE did recognize all my drives and controllers right off the bat. I am not saying this out of a bias for Linux and a want to slander Windows, it didn't work, so instead of a dual booted machine I have a Linux based machine with Windows in a VM; and I ended up liking it better that way. Is that right for everyone, no.

I in no way critisized anyone for their preference of Windows. Like I said, use what you like. I am about the freedom of choice and that is one big reason I don't like MS and Windows. When programs can not be used cross platform it stifles innovation, which is only good for the company/person in charge which is MS right now. It is great that Windows came along, computers would not be as popular and cheap etc... as they are; and Windows is great for someone that doesn't know how to use a computer. But to say that that is a reason for nothing else to be desired by anyone, or that Linux can never be useable by the average user is a mistake in my opinion. And really, is learning something new that bad? I know a few people that started on UNIX and had to learn Windows, it was still hard for them to learn and they didn't like it as much, so they stick to what they know.

If I talk to someone who knows a good bit about computers and knows little if anything about Linux I will suggest for them to try it in a VM or on an old computer. I by no means think the average computer user should be forced to use linux, but for many people they can do the same tasks on Linux they can on Windows.

[rgreen4]

The only way I know of that happening is if you have the new Intel 82801 Advanced Host Controller Interface (AHCI) and it is set to raid, then you try to install Windows XP, which does not contain the drivers for this on the install disc. This is a controller that can be set to Raid or IDE emulations, and is about 3-4 years old. XP does not have the drivers on the install disc because it is an 8 year old OS. Instead, the drivers have to be installed during the XP install by pressing F8 to install 3rd party drivers at a point in the install process when they are asked for and they must be installed from a floppy (hey, it's an 8 year old OS). You would run into the same problem if the MB had SCSI disc controller for the boot drive, but I know of no consumer PC that way, as the SCSI drives which are found in commercial servers are just too expensive for the consumer market.

Windows Vista contains the drivers and will install them without any problems. However, if you want to change that setting after the OS is installed, you have to reinstall Vista, because the OS only installs the drivers needed, not all of the ones on the DVD.

Of course since you failed to give specifics about the motherboard and drives, the claim cannot be substantiated, but another clue is the fact that you are running a version of Linux normally found on commercial systems.

[TechieXP]

There is no single software I can think of that can't be developed to work on any other platform or OS if that is whet you are trying to say. There are plenty of applications that run in Windows that have Linux as well as OSX ports. The question is, is it worth it if you are trying to make money? And teh answer is NO. So thus no one want to spend time to code.

I have never did any extensive coding. I have Visual Basic and Visual Studio and have only made some simple applications that I need. The most simplest app I made on my own was a program that could real the contents of a whole drive and create a file listing if specific file types. It would export txt, html and other formats.

Developing for Windows is simply more lucrative if what you have is worth anything to begin with. It insure you ake some huge capital right away. Then if you have the time you can spend some money and port what you made to another OS if you so choose. Most don't bec it just simply isn't worth the time.

Porting Office to OSX obviously has a benefit...for MSFT it is 2 fold...more money and more marketshare which eans even more money. The proble with software development is once a great software leads the group, others have a hard time penetrating the market. Thus Windows and Office will probbaly always have a huge share. However smaller divided markets like media players and browswer can find a fair niche.

I still thought ur problem was weird. I have the P5K Deluxe from Asus and it uses the JMicron controller. Though Vista and 7 both have the drivers, XP did not. However it still notice the drives. Windows has a routine that searches for drive in several ways. If you controller is both IDE and SATA compatible like mone is, Windows should still find the drives. I know there will be times it won't especially on older systems. I have used several controllers and I tend to stay with certain brands like Promise. However there are option you can use....Nlite. You can download the files for your controller and you Nlite to put them onto the Windows CD for you and simply reburn the image. Problem solved...5 mins of extra work but work it.

Sometimes things don't work...it is common amongst ALL operating system...in my experience Windows is more easier to deal with. Other who have experience with OSX and Linux will say the same.

I apologize for being rude to you in my previous post.

[TechieXP]

Yes I agree.

There are also ways around that issue too. If you installed Vista or even Xp using RAID and you want to switch to AHCI or vice versa, there is a way to do so with reinsyalling the OS. As long as you ahve you hands on the driver files you need to boot Windows in to Safe Mode with Commandline Support and manually copy the appropriate SYS and INF/INI files to the system folders.

I found that online bec I started off using RAID, but was told ACHI was better. I certainly didn't want too reinstall Vista and waste an activation.
The way I did it was rather complicated...
But there are places that explain other methods...like this one: http://forums.hexus....ich9-ich9r.html

[rgreen4]

I appreciate that info. I discovered the problem when members were attempting to downgrade laptops from Vista to XP and the XP disc would not recognize the HD. I have an HP m7690y Media Center that came with XP Media Center Edition and I then installed the Vista Upgrade supplied by HP. When working on a document, I attempted to install XP Home from an older copy I had (SP1) that had never been used, and it would not recognize the HD. I didn't follow up immediately, I just went on to something else. When the members starting asking for help, I researched it and found the problem. The problem is apparently unique to the Intel 82801 controller. I even have a document out there posted in Feb, 2008 discussing the situation and possible go arounds (I never did it, as it was extensive, and I'm happy with Vista).

[htyoung]

This is the thread that won't die. lol. I listened to the Linux zealots and installed linux mint as a dual boot on my laptop thinking "Wow, a whole lot must have changed in the last year or so." Nope. Still doesn't do anything I need it to do out of the box, still has Linux versions of Windows software that are like cheap ripoffs and don't work. Those are two big problems I have. Software quality. Because Windows is the standard, even most free Windows programs are good quality and do what they are supposed to do well. Linux software developers don't have time to polish programs I guess. Apple has too much time to do that. Can anyone riddle me this. Why is it, that Windows is the defacto OS, but when I log into Linux I have to work to get it to view and share with my windows 7 homegroup. As the standard, OS it should be one of those things that just work, like NTFS does with Linux now. I'm just saying. I know it's about being different, but even apple knows you have to work with Microsoft.

Commence the flaming Linux fans.

[hitokiri]

To clarify, I do have an onboard SCSI controller (adaptec), I was mainly trying to get Server 2008 installed and I tried several different ways to load the drivers including Vlite, but nothing worked.


I don't consider Linux to be perfect, and yes there are very few programs that are produced for it, but it does what I need and does it cheaper and more efficient so I am happy with it. For one I haven't had a crash ever. Where I work one computer lab has dual boot Fedora/WinXP and I almost never have a problem from Linux, but there are always at least 2 blue screens from Windows. And as far as programs are concerned, we have several programs we use on Linux that are very high quality. Blender is one.

Variety is a good thing, I would not want a Windows lover to be stuck using Linux because it was what was popular. And even though Linux/Unix controls most of the server market, I am sure some people are glad that Windows Server is available too. I can definitely understand someone not liking Linux though, so don't get me wrong I'm not trying to degrade anyone for using Windows.

Of Course Google is getting into the OS game now with a Linux based OS (what else it is Google after all), and they have already begun throughing their muscle around, so in a few years maybe everyone can be happy lol.

[htyoung]

I thought that it seemed wild that Linux would all of a sudden control a server market that Microsoft has controlled so I looked it up with our friend google.

"Windows commands 65-70% of the corporate server operating system market, while the Linux share stands at 15-20%. Currently, Linux server shipments represent the fastest-growing segment of the market, Yankee Group says."
www.itfacts.biz/enterprise-server-os-market-shares-windows-65-70-linux-15-20/4320

This wasn't just one source, it's pretty much the number you'll see everywhere, though the older articles stated that Linux had a 10% share and Unix 20%.

So I dug a little further and eWeek announced that Linux is actually losing market share to Windows server again. [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Linux-Losing-Market-Share-to-Windows-Server/]

How, you might ask? Basically, Linux didn't magically start gobbling up Microsoft's market share for all those years. It basically took the 20% of market share that used to be Unix servers, and now Microsoft is eating away at the Linux market share. Which makes sense because Microsoft is well tied into the business world with licenses and contracts. If most business workstations are Windows workstations, then of course you can use that to get customers to buy Windows Server. You already have most of the IT certification training based on Windows and active directory. And of course, if businesses deal with vendors like Dell, or HP, and HP has contracts with Microsoft, then they can tie them into Windows server as well.

The sad thing is they count iPhone OS and Android in the OS market shares, so even though Linux has finally passed 1% of market share, to Microsoft's 88% of consumer OS market share, a good deal of that is from people like me who have Android phones. Actually, if you look at the consumer OS numbers, Microsoft isn't really losing any market share. MacOSX has gotten about 1% more of the market, while Linux has gained about 0.20% over the last 10 years. It's just that they add in the iPhoneOS, iPod Touch, and Android into the numbers. So basically, Windows is still dominating the PC market, but Apple has taken over the consumer device market and Android is chasing them to the tune of being about half of Linux Market share. iPhone is only about 1/10th of Apple's market share.

As for Chrome OS, have you actually read about it. It's going to be a web based browser OS mainly for Netbooks. Unless people all of a sudden decide all they want to do is surf the internet, I don't think Google is trying to compete with Apple or Microsoft. I think they're positioning themselves to takeover a niche (netbooks), while it is popular, and maybe try to compete if cloud computing becomes popular. The problem will be the same problem that keeps Microsoft at 88% market share. They've done their research and have deals with hardware vendors. Notice that Apple didn't even try to enter the market because noone would buy a $900 netbook. The question for chrome would be, will they be able to sell a device that won't let people install all their favorite windows software, or mac software. To that point, Google is making their OS apps browser dependant so if they fail as independent OS tools, they will work as browser based Windows/Mac software. How about that.

Well, I guess all this Linux talk has made me decide to play with my Linux Mint 7 64 bit box. See if I can get it to play the big brother streams on Realplayer superpass without having to search google to find out how to do it. That would be the most epic win I've experienced for Linux since getting AWN to help make my installs look like MacOS.

PS. I actually wish Apple would release MacOS X for the PC. It basically runs on PC hardware anyway. I get that they don't want cheap hardware causing people's computers not to work like it does with Windows, but MacOSX is the best version of *nix out there really. It's like Linux if Linux really had developer and vendor support. I think that's a partnership that might actually do some damage to Microsoft. If Apple got together and tookover Linux (of course bye bye open source), but they'd have the resources to make it a mainstream OS, market it and sell it to the masses in snooty upscale stores at ridiculous prices. Then perhaps if enough people bought their PCs, they'd make them affordable and end the routine of making them too expensive and then holding out on features to get people to buy the next expensive version a little later.

[TechieXP]

One thing you need to realize, any OS based on Windows Vista won't work with legacy based devices. Windows Vista, 7, Server 2008 will usually not work with older XP hardware. Windows 2000 had limited legacy support, which made it incompatible with a lot of devices. Which is why MSFT rushed to get XP out.

When you want to use these latest OS's with hardware, you really have to check MSFT compatinility list to see if the hardware will work, vs finding out teh hard way. Another option is to identify the hardware you are going to use and look it up using google.

If the hardware is not support by the vendor, MSFT isn't going to support it either. You have to realize, that as new hardware is released, older hardware is dropped. However I have found places online where many have created versions of Windows that have been Nlite'd into having a long list of drivers that have been placed into Windows.

THe best way to be safe is to follow this rule. Whatever OS the hardware came with? That is basically the only OS it will work with. However there are other options. One thing you can do is find your Windows XP drivers for the SCSI Controller. And place the drivers onto a floppy and try installing Vista/Server 2008 and see if you can use them. If not...that is just how it is. XP hardware is 10 years old...Your best bet is to install Windows 2000 Server and then upgrade it too 2008.

[TechieXP]

That's some good research.

Let me start at the bottom and work my way up. Apple isn't afraid people would just install OSX on cheap computers, what they are afraid of is OSX will be install on lower cost computers preventing the need to pay Apple's cost for the exact same hardware. Which is where most people seem to believe Apple has better hardware. How can it be better when it is exactly the same. All they do is use a fancy case.

II see what you were saying about other OS being included with Windows and OSX and Linux. If you look at OS's as a whole then yes as far as name and in name only. But each is in a segmented market. It is obvious iPhone OS doesn't directly compete against Windows. It compete against MSFT with there mobile OS, Windows Mobile. As does Android, Blackberry and others. Th eOS that is on the Touch is the same OS on iPhone. IT is a variant of the same OS that bore OSX.

When netbooks were introduced they came with Linux. Windows easily took over not just bec it was familiar, it was bec Linux simply sucked. Most people aren't going to understand how to install applz in Linux bec it isn't always point and click like Windows. Yes as many linux users know, there are packages that install like Windows does, but not everyone is going to know that and how can they. But you can't convince people of that. In order for an OS to have a measure of success, Apple already set the bar of how it needs to be...Windows met and exceeded that bar by a landslide and it is actually easier to use than even OSX in many ways. If Google wants to be successful they at least have to be equal or better than OSX which is nothing more than a ban od NIX based operating systems and the NextStep OS Steve made when he left Apple.

If Google doesn't accomplish that it won't matter how secure it is, it will fail. I am betting Google watch teh failure Linux had on netbooks and how Windows took over so easily.

As you stated...with Chrome being geared to the web, they do not directly compete against Apple or MSFT when it comes to desktop appz...but it will with applications that cen be web based. office appz can be web based...as you should know there is a web version of Outlook. MSFT is already moving Office to the web with Office Live. MSFT already has a scale down version of Windows that could easily be put on the web...they could amplify Windows Mobile, or use Windows Embedded as you stated. And they already have the hardware partnerships Google is trying to get.

What many Linux pushers fail to see, they assume that just bec Linux is free...it should be easy for them to just implment it in any business and you simply cannot. If a business has built there work around MSFT applications, you can't just tear it down and start over. An example of that is this. When the World Trade Center was being constructed, Asbestos was outlawed...the building were at least 70% complete...so what do they do tear it down and start over? NO! They simply stopped using it and continued construction with other fire retardent materials. The cost for a large company that has 50,000 employees would be so huge that it is cheaper to keep what you have...which is why Linux can get in. A small business can do it, but then another problem is presented. MSFT makes for many businesses customized software for their business...so do many other companies. When a software is designed to work with its fioundation for one OS...trying to make it work with another is costly. That is why many complained when they couldnt use there DOS programs in Windows 2000. Those programs were wriiten for DOS and a rewrite was simply not worth the cost. Imagine the cost to make those same progarms for Linux? Staggering. So they ahve no choice but to keep Windows. Also as I was trying to tell another guy, it cost more to have an IT staff that can implement and deal with using Linux over Windows. A network guru who can work with Linux and Windows commands asalary of over 100k. Based on the size of some IT staff, you think they want to be paying that kind of money? That is why many Outsource. MSFT got there first and no one is going to just take them down. They may eventually fall...but not anytime soon. I find it so funny that as soon as someone says they are going to compete against MSFT...there are so many haters that they immediately think MSFT is doomed. Wshful thinking is one thing, reality is something else.

To beat MSFT at their own game it would talk more than just a good idea....it needs to be a masterpiece and at teh very least support what MSFT already has 100% so that present stuff works. That is one reason OSX is getting a bit better...OSX supports Exchange and other MSFT technologies....without that in a Windows world you are simply a niche player. Apple is basically hanging on my a MSFT thread.

Google being new to this areana can't possible take on MSFT head on...if Linux,Sun, Apple and even IBM couldn't have a success at it and they have plnty of money, why do people think Google has some magic powder?

[hitokiri]

I don't believe MS will fail completely, no, but eventually and probably in less time than you think, they will be forced to compete with someone else and that is good for everyone. Google, unlike Apple and IBM, does not manufacture hardware. And IBM can't even be considered a competitor in average desktop computers. They may have a hard time at first, but I would not bet against them gaining a foot hold. Google didn't get to be the giant it is by paying people off or simply becasue there was no legitimate competition, they got there because people like them, and their products work well.


No site I could find except one listed the percentage of Linux based servers out there, only market share of linux servers sold. And that relies on companies buying computers from companies that report to the surveys. That doesn't take into account all the servers already running Unix based OSes, or ones that were not bought from big name companies. Plus you don't have to register Linux so it is really hard to say. The exception was PCworld itself in a piece with Microsoft's CEO: Here, in which he states Windows accounts for 40% of servers.

And as of 2008, 5/10 of the most reliable web hosting companies run Linux, 3/10 FreeBSD, and 2/10 Windows, according to Netcraft. Windows only commands about 1% of the top 500 supercomputers, Linux 443 of them and Unix 22. And there are thousands of companies that use Linux (and not just for servers): Amazon, E-Bay, E-trade, the NYSE, the US Department of Deffense, the NSA, various other international governments, Wal-Mart, the USPS, Sony, Cisco, NASA, Ferrari, Toyota, Mercedes (and several other car companies), CERN (Large Hadron Collider), the London Stock Exchange just decided to switch because their Windows based system crashed, Burlington Coat Factory, Panasonic, US Federal Courts, Travelocity, Goggle, Lowe's Home Improvement and the List goes on. It is also very popular in the entertainment industry with Disney/Pixar using it, DreamWorks, and a long list of major blockbuster movies (including Lord of the Rings and the Star Wars prequals) that were made using it.

Sure there are probably plenty of other Major businesses and governments that run Windows, but my point is that if Linux sucked so bad there would not be so many big companies and government organizations that use it.

[rgreen4]

Very deceptive. Yes today's "supercomputers" run a variant of Linux, but it replaced Unix. Duh!

MS would rather have the market of 500 million desktops than 500 million dollar computers.

After all the number 1 name in "supercomputers" is no longer in the desktop/laptop business - IBM.

Then you list all the large installations with dedicated programmers and system information staff to keep Linux working and customize it for their application. Which makes the point many have been trying to point out - Linux is fine if you have a support staff to customize it, but if you are by yourself at home, without being a programmer, then a Windows variant is the better alternative.

After all, I have 5 Windows based PC's in a network with one Linux device - my NAS. It runs on a Linux variant, but I wouldn't count that as a Linux PC. Linux has a lot of uses in dedicated devices where the OS is on a chip and there is no or limited interaction such as NAS devices and the like. But in a general consumer market like the PCs, it's usability is it's achilles heel.

[hitokiri]

True, and I have never said Joe weblogger would like or should use Linux. If they want to fine, if they don't fine. It really doesn't bother me if someone likes Windows. But to say that since 90% of the desktop market is Windows therefore Linux is crap and will always be, is false and that is what I am arguing against. You do not have to be a programmer to use linux. When I started using it I had no programming knowlege what so ever and I still don't know enough to make a simple program without a lot of help. Anything that would require a lot of technological experience to do on Linux is going to require the same experience on Windows. I don't know where people get this "you have to be a programmer to use Linux" stuff from. And I have had plenty of problems with windows that I needed help to solve.



People seem to think that since MS and Windows are predominant now and have been for a while, that no change will ever happen. That the 90% of computer users using Windows are loyal to MS alone and would never forsake them for another OS. Linux may not be ready for the majority of those people, but there is nothing to stop it from becoming ready. The majority of people do not care whether their computer says "Windows" or "Linux", they care that it does what they want. I know Linux can't do a lot of the things Windows can for various reasons, many of which are not a problem with Linux itself, but in time it will be able to.

[Evildave]

A 'support staff' to customize it???
Puh-lease!

You either have NEVER used a Linux in the last ten years, or you're so inflexibly wired to Microsoft's UI that you could never adapt to anything, which seems unlikely as you'd as happily run Windoze Shista or '7', which twisted the UI into loops and broke all manner of software. That leaves the 'other' alternative, being a tireless 24/7 defender of the Micro$uck windoze logo must be a burden, huh?

I suppose if someone is a clueless idiot who can't use a search engine, they'd need a 'support staff'. Of course, you'd probably need a 'support staff' to do anything with Windoze, your cellular phone, help to flush the toilet, wipe your butt, etc.

There are so many compiles and custom distros of Linux because it's damned easy to make one and very well documented. They even have a GUI to customize and build the kernel.

Realistically, Joe Dumbnutz computer user ain't the target for a custom kernel compile. He'll grab an ISO, burn it (if he has even that much knowledge), boot it, and install it if he likes what he sees, he'll install it and keep it. Done.

Open source will quietly and gradually take over. Windoze has dropped well under 90%, and continues to fall. 3% a year sounds like so little, but since the market is growing and 1% is over 10,000,000 people, they're bleeding out over 30,000,000 users a year to other platforms. Any business that wasn't a crooked monopoly would crumble under that kind of loss, but not Micro$uck.

People continue to slowly wake up and realise what a threat closed-source proprietary software is not only to individual privacy and security, but to NATIONAL security. Dependence on corporations like Micro$uck or BIG OIL are definite problems that won't go away soon... but we can certainly take steps now to ease the transition to a way of life that doesn't destroy the world and our very souls.

Be owned by Micro$uck if you like, but don't call Linux 'hard to use' unless you want to sound like a moron.

I drove an Audi, but a BMW is too hard to drive!

I operated a Zenith TV, but the Samsung TV was too hard!

I used a GE toaster, but this other one I got is too hard!

[rgreen4]

All you have to do is read some of the comments and the attitudes of the Linux heads. After more than a decade of being free on the market, it's up to 1% market penetration - Wow. If Linux was half as great as the proponents claim it to be, or half as easy to use as they claim, then something else must really be wrong. There is a decided lack of drivers. The only OS with a greater lack of drivers is OS/X and they admit they only provide drivers for the hardware they sell with their machines.

No, the reason there are hundreds of distro is not because it is so easy to modify, which it may be, it's because the Linux business model is anarchy - design your own and put it out. What you then have is confusion and lack of documentation. If you want to find a book on Windows, you have several dozen to choose from. If you want a book on Ubuntu, as I did, there was basically one, and rather than a consise how to book, it was more of a how I installed it on one machine book.

Wired desktops have little trouble connecting to a network, but wireless laptops have a lot of trouble because of drivers for the wireless chips, especially notorious are the broadcom chips. The "fixes" that are put forth have more arcane instructions that the Hogwarts instructions manuals. The whole problem with the Linux development teams, is that they are going in different directions and only work on what they want to work on. Yes they have made progress in recent years, the installation of devices and programs is at least as easy as it was under Windows 3.0.

Windows may have lost 3 percent of the consumer market in the last year, but they didn't lose it to Linux. When those people have to have their Macs worked on and find they get soaked again, they may come back. There have been several that have posted that they had gone to Macs, but have come back.

If Linux works for you great. Windows works for me, so after trying Linux and finding it troublesome and crude in it's program install process, I formatted the drives and put the CD's away. Fool me once shame on your, fool me twice shame on me. I will not fall for the mantra of the Linux zealots a second time. Call me what you want, but as far a Linux is concerned you can color me gone - back to Windows full time.

[htyoung]

LOL. Linux users are like fat women who don't like cute blondes.

As for the market share, you have to read between the lines. Windows, Mac Os, and Linux are listed, with Windows within 1% of where it has always been, Mac OS is less than half a percent better, and Linux is about 2 tenths of a percent better than it has ever been. Between the lines, iPhone and iPod Touch as well as Android Phone OS are included in most counts as consumer devices, and pretty much account for Linux and MacOS growth overall. Add to that the fact that 1% of computer users are now using Windows 7 beta, meaning a pre-release OS now has the same market share as an established niche OS (Linux).

Also, open source is the reason Linux exists, and also its handicap. In a capitalist society where money talks, free = second rate. No vendors or developers will really waste their time developing software to sell to people who only use the OS because it's free and you can take their software (which they need to make money on to stay in business), modify it and give it away for free as your own. Cough....Ximian desktop...cough...corel linux...cough...Sun. The best chance for Linux would be to team up with some deep pocketed company that closes the source, sues all other distros out of existence and then plays hardball with Microsoft for vendors and developers. Which of course will be the fault of Google's OS. Just like Android can't compete with iPhone (I own an android phone that I wish was better) because its apps and open source nature can't compete with Apple's closed fist system, Google, won't be able to compete. When it comes down to it, it's all about money and free just doesn't cut it.

You 1% of computer users who play with Linux, enjoy. I just couldn't survive if everything wasn't supported by my computer. I watch too much streaming video, play too many games, actually get to chat on all the instant messengers with a webcam, and have not had a single crash on my beta version of the next version of my OS, which is being called a Linux / MacOS killer.

[Evildave]

Yeah, if Bill Gates is what you consider a 'cute blonde' you can have... her. It's not like you can do better.

Normally, I'd just give you the graph, but the 'market share' site is broken, so here's the figures from two years ago ago, a year ago, and now.

http://marketshare.h...qpsp=102&qpnp=1
http://marketshare.h...rame=M&qpsp=115
http://marketshare.h...qpsp=124&qpnp=1

July 1997:
Windoze: 93.22%
Mac: 5.99%
Linux: 0.46%

May 2009 (latest available)
Windows Down to 87%
Mac's up to about 10%
Linux is up to about 1%

Apple adding around 40,000,000 users to come up with 100,000,000 users, and Linux doubling its client-side user base to 10,000,000 users is no small achievement (while maintaining its LEAD in server installations). All the while, Micro$uck managed to lose or fail to grow market share for 60,000,000 users. Just a drop in the bucket. Drip...drip...drip... In a few years, I can hardly wait to hear the Windoze lusers sniff how they OWN 40% of the market, and how all those damned Chinese, Europeans, Russians, Africans and Latin Americans are unfairly skewing their numbers down.

Oh, another one! 'Metric's TOO HARD! Wah!'

You can learn the standard now, or you can wait and be in the same bus as the 'too hard' people. The shorter bus, at that.