# Why do people use Windows?



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 25, 2016)

As homage to the other similarly titled thread, I think this is the third time I've ranted on this.

Why do big companies trust their critical computing needs to the Windows operating system? Some of you know that I own some fast food restaurants. Our online POS system is Windows based and we have far, far too many issues with it that are beyond ridiculous and, if such a thing were present in FreeBSD, I would not be here today.

We have issues on a monthly basis. Last week, we started getting errors popping up on our screen related to .NET programming. Why we, the user, are seeing these popup errors is anyone's guess. Then it was decided we needed new hard drives. Doing so, including building our POS system back up, took five hours. Why?

Of course, we can't get the drawer open, the automatic change dispenser now doesn't work, today's sales weren't transferred, and we can't enter inventory. Second tier support can't fix it so it's bumped up to senior level which hasn't called us back an hour later and, in the meantime, we can't take credit cards and have to hand calculate any sales that come in. Why?

This is the same hardware we've had for over a year. The same OS, Windows 7. Everything is the same but they can never have a smooth transition (we've been through this before).

We are now entering our eight hour of trying to get this to work.

I have never, ever had issues, ever, with any Unix, FreeBSD or Linux systems since I first started with it in 1992 but, with Windows, problems are the only constant. And I haven't even started on about my wife's laptop.

Thank you very much.


----------



## sidetone (Feb 25, 2016)

Windows restricts knowledge of the system's workings, by design. Also, if an open-source system fails, the burden goes to the computer engineers, not Windows. While FreeBSD is more reliable, this can be a liability on the contractors rather than Microsoft. Windows is easier to use, but your data is entrusted to Microsoft and there's more process clutter. It's also harder to start clean, to wipe out malware, on a Windows computer, than it is on any BSD. Starting clean is the only way to surely wipe out all malware. Does Microsoft staff think they know about every malware that will be invented before it is?


----------



## SirDice (Feb 25, 2016)

Windows gets a lot of the blame when problems are actually caused by crappy third party software. And there's a lot of crap software out there.


----------



## Cthulhux (Feb 25, 2016)

I've been using Windows as my main desktop system since 1996, mostly because it does what it should. The only thing missing for me every now and then is a better default shell, but the Powershell comes close to what I'm after.

I tried to switch to a different system a couple of times, but it's been lacking a good number of software. Windows just has the largest freeware and FLOSS market. Of course, after 20 years, I might just have grown into a workflow which I can follow blindly on Windows. Changing the system would force me to set up a new workflow for my everyday tasks. Probably not worth it. 



sidetone said:


> Windows restricts knowledge of the system's workings, by design.



There is not much that's hidden from the user, except the source code. 



SirDice said:


> Windows gets a lot of the blame when problems are actually caused by crappy third party software. And there's a lot of crap software out there.



Precisely; and that's not a Windows problem.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 25, 2016)

I just read that Win10 started showing you ads on the lock screen.
This may also raise a few question marks, but I can also imagine it will raise some expletives.

I'm the one on the deck chair at the side of the playing field with the cold drink in hand, watching the game unfold


----------



## SirDice (Feb 25, 2016)

Crivens said:


> I just read that Win10 started showing you ads on the lock screen.


I have several Windows 10 machines, both Professional and Home editions. There are no ads.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 25, 2016)

SirDice said:


> I have several Windows 10 machines, both Professional and Home editions. There are no ads.


There may be settings to suppress them. Since I avoid touching anything windows-like after 7 as much as possible, I can not commend from first hand experience.


----------



## PacketMan (Feb 25, 2016)

Cthulhux said:


> Precisely; and that's not a Windows problem.



But the new 100% disk utilization/busy issue, seen in Windows 8, and apparently Windows 10, is.    That was the straw that broke the camels back for me. Since abandoning Windows completely, and using FreeBSD OS and associated ports tree, my household has never been happier.


----------



## SirDice (Feb 25, 2016)

Crivens said:


> There may be settings to suppress them. Since I avoid touching anything windows-like after 7 as much as possible, I can not commend from first hand experience.


Ah, right. I did disable a lot of the stuff that was enabled by default. I don't have access now so I can't check but I do remember disabling pretty much everything in the "Privacy" settings. I also removed a bunch of applications that are installed by default, I don't use OneDrive for example. Some of them (including OneDrive) could be made easier to uninstall, or, at the very least, allow me to choose if I want it or not.

But other than that, I'm really starting to like Windows 10. Yes, I know, making a statement like that on a forum like this is like cursing in church.


----------



## protocelt (Feb 25, 2016)

While I use FreeBSD whenever I can I also like and use Windows 10 for some things. I also use OpenBSD. Being a fan and user of FreeBSD doesn't mean one needs to dismiss everything else. Nothing wrong with being pragmatic.


----------



## kpa (Feb 25, 2016)

To be honest, I like Windows 7 quite alot. It does the job it promises to do in a casual desktop use and isn't that obtrusive to the user if you set it up right. Later versions have that awful disaster of a GUI that I refuse to use.


----------



## sidetone (Feb 25, 2016)

SirDice said:


> Windows gets a lot of the blame when problems are actually caused by crappy third party software. And there's a lot of crap software out there.



That's especially true for 3rd party hardware drivers. The kernel has to be updated with the driver to use a piece of hardware.


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Feb 25, 2016)

I only use Windows for games, and for the Adobe Creative Suite (via VirtualBox). I've gotten so comfortable on the command line and with a tiling window manager that using a classic desktop-style interface for more than 30 minutes frustrates me. But while I don't care much for Windows or Microsoft, I do have to say that Windows 10 is pretty slick. Lots of stuff has been slimmed down without being overly dumbed down, and so far Windows 10 has shown much less enthusiasm about assuming what I want and doing it without me explicitly telling it to. Just because I've opened or closed my laptop lid doesn't mean I want to change the display settings on my external monitor, and just because I have updates pending doesn't mean I wanna toss out the last fifteen minutes of work to reboot and install them right this second...



Cthulhux said:


> There is not much that's hidden from the user, except the source code.



"Hidden" might not be a good word to use, but "obscured" sure is. I tend to get frustrated not because Windows can't do something, or even that Windows can't do it well, but because I have to dig through numerous layers of abstraction to get at what I want.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 25, 2016)

I'll repeat my question here with emphasis cause people seem to miss my point:



> Why do big companies trust *their critical computing needs* to the Windows operating system?



There are about 40,000 of these units networked to the mother ship and controlled by it. Even the web site runs on Windows and there are constant issues there.



SirDice said:


> Windows gets a lot of the blame when problems are actually caused by crappy third party software.



I agree but I question whether some of that crappy software exists _because_ of Windows. In our case, I _know_ the software is crappy to some extent but I see so many issues Windows related that I never or rarely see with Unix/BSD software. Not that it doesn't exist. I've just never seen it since 1992.


----------



## UnixRocks (Feb 25, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> ... Some of you know that I own some fast food restaurants. Our online POS system is Windows based ...


I presume this is software foisted upon your business by the fast food chain? If not, and you have a choice, maybe consider http://www.pass-port.com/distribution with PoS on Linux. The only Unix they support is SCO unfortunately.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 26, 2016)

UnixRocks said:


> I presume this is software foisted upon your business by the fast food chain?


Yes. I would never do such a thing to myself.


----------



## fnoyanisi (Feb 26, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> Why do big companies trust their critical computing needs to the Windows operating system?



1 ) The software that does the main thing running on these systems may be Windows only. This is one of the main reasons why many companies use Windows. In our office, we heavily rely on MS Office, which I thunk is a really good software, and some other software which are Windows only.

2 ) Many IT guys get MS certifications and people rely on these certificates to get jobs. Those very same people, with Windows whatever-version Server Certificate, won't prefer any FreeBSD machine over a Windows server, where they feel more comfortable.

3 ) FreeBSD is not well known. Even some CS graduates don't know about FreeBSD, it is BSD for them, and I bet on my head majority of them have never booted a FreeBSD machine before. They have heard about Linux, though.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 26, 2016)

fnoyanisi Your points have nothing to do with my question/rant and I didn't say anything about them using FreeBSD specifically. I'm saying, that in critical use, Windows is the worst thing you can use for mission critical operations due to its structure and focus and background.


----------



## fnoyanisi (Feb 26, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> fnoyanisi Your points have nothing to do with my question/rant.....


Sorry to hear that!

I have realized that taking "Bullet point 3" out from my previous post would make it a better fit to your answer? Just ignore that part


----------



## sidetone (Feb 26, 2016)

The title could more accurately reflect your chosen discussion.

(responding a little off-topic)


fnoyanisi said:


> In our office, we heavily rely on MS Office, which I thunk is a really good software, and some other software which are Windows only.



There's Wordperfect, which is professional, is full of features and many organizations like better. I don't know if it can be used in an emulator or not.

Wordperfect is commonly used in attorney's offices.


----------



## freebuser (Feb 26, 2016)

Corporate: Compatibility issue, because corporates used windows long time back and most of the programmes they use are windows based, it takes a lot of effort and cost to simply moved into another OS.

The recent development in Internet and smartphones helping most of the services to move into web based technology which will in future make the OS irrelevant.

May be at that time most of the corporates may use other OS's.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 26, 2016)

I've never known Word, or any typing program, to be mission critical to any business in the same way FreeBSD is to Netflix to deliver video to millions of users.


----------



## SirDice (Feb 26, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> I've never known Word, or any typing program, to be mission critical to any business in the same way FreeBSD is to Netflix to deliver video to millions of users.


Maybe not Word but try and take down an Exchange server and see what happens


----------



## PacketMan (Feb 26, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> I've never known Word, or any typing program, to be mission critical to any business in the same way FreeBSD is to Netflix to deliver video to millions of users.



I can't imagine big office law firms would agree with that.


----------



## scottro (Feb 26, 2016)

IMHO, fnoyanisi DID answer your question.  Big firms use it, and mission critical software is on it, because some essential program for a company is only available on Windows.  Your doctor, dentist, accountant and lawyer quite possibly have software, or even a custom VPN solution that only has Windows software.  There may be alternatives, but they're too busy keeping up with their own field, so the vast majority of them, will be using Windows.  

As for Netflix, a lot of that still runs on AWS Linux, though not Windows.  (Not to mention that it can only be played on FreeBSD through some Linux VM).  And there is some irony in that the millions of users of Netflix can't use FreeBSD to watch it. 

So, your first or second line in your original post answers the question.  Why do they use Windows? Your POS software (heh, I'm sure we all thought of a different meaning for the acronym) ONLY runs on Windows.  Why did the POS company only worry about Windows? Because it's the de facto standard. 

Solutions?  Push BSD (or Linux) to the vendors of both hardware and software.  While many other Linux distributions like to mock Ubuntu, I think it Mr. Shuttleworth's work in pushing it really helped get Linux more popular with both hardware and software vendors. I remember reading once--no idea where, but it was on the Internet so it must be true--that some vendor or another was quoted as saying that Mr. Shuttleworth had proved himself by making his money, so they were more inclined to listen to him.

So... all you millionaires reading this, you know what to do...go to the vendors and start pushing FreeBSD.

TL;DR It's a vicious circle--Windows is so widely used that many vendors only write software for it, and many companies might need that particular Windows-centric software, and this includes servers as well as workstations.


----------



## roddierod (Feb 26, 2016)

When ever I ask this question at work the number one answer is SUPPORT CONTRACTS.  And the only benefit I see is that if something goes wrong you can blame someone else.

Whenever one of our DBAs calls Microsoft support about SQL Server they rarely get an answer and rant about how useless it is. 

And let not forget about patch Tuesday...which keeps lots of people employeed testing what is going to break by applying the patch.


----------



## SirDice (Feb 26, 2016)

roddierod said:


> When ever I ask this question at work the number one answer is SUPPORT CONTRACTS.  And the only benefit I see is that if something goes wrong you can blame someone else.


It's funny though, every EULA I've read states that the manufacturer isn't responsible or liable for any errors in the software. So even if you have an expensive support contract and things go haywire you still can't sue Microsoft (or any other "big" name) for it.

NB. You can get support contracts for FreeBSD too. Does anyone have one? I'm wondering what their experience is.


----------



## kpa (Feb 26, 2016)

SirDice said:


> It's funny though, every EULA I've read states that the manufacturer isn't responsible or liable for any errors in the software. So even if you have an expensive support contract and things go haywire you still can't sue Microsoft (or any other "big" name) for it.



If that's true then why do people keep quoting it as the reason for not using open source software that has no legal entity behind it?


----------



## protocelt (Feb 26, 2016)

kpa said:


> If that's true then why do people keep quoting it as the reason for not using open source software that has no legal entity behind it?



I always found that to be a load of crap half the time. Support contracts, unlike EULAs, are used mostly for accountability purposes that can be legally enforced. This is of obvious advantage to a business. Plenty of businesses that use open source as part of or even their whole product offerings offer support contracts. Canonical and Red Hat just to name a few well known entities.

EULAs do not prevent you from suing regardless of what the EULA says. In simplified terms my understanding is they only, depending on the context, potentially make your chances of winning in court much harder if held valid. A lot of EULAs have been deemed invalid in court. I can't think of any off the top of my head but a quick Google search should easily bring some up.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 26, 2016)

scottro said:


> As for Netflix, a lot of that still runs on AWS Linux


Video distribution, as I mentioned, is strictly with FreeBSD.

I see some people have brought up the "if something goes wrong, we can sue Microsoft". Yeah. Right.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 26, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> I see some people have brought up the "if something goes wrong, we can sue Microsoft". Yeah. Right.


You sure can do this, whereas with open source you can go p*ss up a rope (as they say). The effect is largely the same, but that is not how management sees it most of the time. The "we can sue someone" is some kind of "it was not me, I wasn't even close! And the check is in the mail!" cargo cult to make the bad effects manifest somewhere else. Given a certain difference is size, this is total nonsense.


----------



## fnoyanisi (Feb 26, 2016)

kpa said:


> If that's true then why do people keep quoting it as the reason for not using open source software that has no legal entity behind it?



Because corporate companies want to deal with corporate companies only. That's why Red Hat has made a success in the gnu/linux world. On the other hand, Ubuntu has helped gnu/linux to be a more widely known OS.

Coming to drhowarddrfine's OP;

Another reason I can think of is that Microsoft provides integrated solutions, such as Exchange Server + LDAP Authentication + Lync Communicator (and this can be integrated to desk phones), www proxy etc... companies do not want to bother with "hacks" to make these ecosystems work seamlessly. These systems/software may not involve in "mission critical" tasks, but lead "microsoftication" (I made this up, but you know what this means?) of the whole system. 

I work for a telco operator which provides wireless and DSL solutions to customers. Most of our OSS (Operation and Support System - they are critical systems, one OSS goes down, then you have no mobile coverage/DSL service in one part of the country) systems run on UNIX-like systems (there are some SunOS systems, as well as Linux machines)

Big enough companies (Netflix, Google, Yahoo) who have enough IT/engineering resources definitely choose any UNIX-like system (name it linux, FreeBSD, or any commercial UNIX), or develop their own OS based on one of the FOSS OS'es. But mid-small range companies rely on "turn key" solutions, and at best make a support contract with an IT firm, that's it.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 27, 2016)

To be clear(er).

As I said in my original post, this is the third time I've gone off about this here. It's a rant, a rhetorical question, that needs no answer or explanation.

What I'm trying to say is, for a company to use Windows for critical operations is a serious error in judgement. I see more problems for companies in a multitude of situations that all have Windows at their root.


----------



## Crivens (Feb 27, 2016)

I would say that you are very likely correct in that, and also that you are far from alone with that position - here at least. That may explain why the thread does not work as expected. It is, however, a mark for the community here that the thread is as it is now. Well done, I'd say.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 27, 2016)

Corporate IT's solution to the problem we're having: they're FedEx'ing a whole new unit to us overnight. The problem is so bad, they didn't even want to touch it themselves.


----------



## PacketMan (Feb 27, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> What I'm trying to say is, for a company to use Windows for critical operations is a serious error in judgement. I see more problems for companies in a multitude of situations that all have Windows at their root.



Judgement involves making decisions based on a lot of facts.  Multimillion/billion dollar companies need an OS that they know will have tremendous support in the mass market. If a really great new application gets written they know their OS (Windows) will likely get it first. They also know that IT staffers that have Windows skills are a dozen a dime.

I challenged one of our 'good guy' IT guys one day, about converting the organization to Linux. For every really good argument I could toss at him he could counter that with a better argument.  It was also interesting to hear what sounds like a complex licensing scheme that helps keep you 'loyal'.

Personally I think with the right shift in marketing effort, FreeBSD could really explode at becoming the choice OS for the cloud/CDN/NAS-on-steroids appliance market. Servers that have a hard core heavy-duty requirement to have the power to serve gazillions of users simultaneously.


----------



## Tang3nt (Feb 29, 2016)

SirDice said:


> I have several Windows 10 machines, both Professional and Home editions. There are no ads.



Yeh there are: http://thehackernews.com/2016/02/windows10-lock-screen-ads.html

Depending on your settings...


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 1, 2016)

As of 10AM this morning, I still don't have a completely working system. They can't get the receipt printer to work. Windows says it's there but "unavailable". IT says our cable must be broke. Hardware says the port or drivers are wrong. Software vs Hardware. Windows vs Reality.


----------



## Crivens (Mar 2, 2016)

Any chance to send a bill to the ones forcing ahem.. offering you that solution?


----------



## beastDemian (Mar 6, 2016)

I, in particular, keep a Windows box (my desktop computer) for several reasons:

1) FreeBSD does not run on Haswell (yet... the I915 patch works -at least the bits I've tried-).
2) Steam does not have a native FreeBSD port.
3) I have to use applications that are only available on Windows.

When point 1 is fixed, I'll install FreeBSD on my spare HD. Point 2 might be a problem for a while. I don't think point 3 is going to be fixed.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 6, 2016)

beastDemian 

I can't think of a single reason to run Windows just so one can use Haswell. Unless it's for games but most people who use Windows wouldn't even have a computer if it weren't for games.

I have not used Windows since 2004. I don't know of any reason to and I run two businesses.

Now that I have that partial lie out of the way. My franchised restaurants use Windows for the POS system and I don't know why. It's one of the biggest thorns in our side but it's not my choice and I have no alternative.

My wife uses QuickBooks for our accounting but only because our accountant uses it and it makes it easier to transfer all that info to him. If I took the time, and knew enough about all that, I'd bet that's not really necessary, though. That, too, has caused issues and I spend more time fixing her Windows issues than anything else.

For that matter, nothing she uses otherwise is Windows-only and, if I could, I'd take her off that in a heartbeat.



But for my personal and business use, I have no use for Windows.


----------



## forquare (Mar 6, 2016)

I haven't run Windows at home since 2006 when I bought my first Mac. Between 2006 and 2010 I may have used Windows on a handful of occasions, my main systems were Mac and Solaris.

Since 2010 I have only used Windows at work. At first because there was specific software for interfacing with onboard train signalling equipment, and log analysis; since 2013 I've been given a Windows laptop to administer RHEL servers, which seems bonkers to me…


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Mar 6, 2016)

I think people here know the difference between hardware and software. Of course many knowledgeable Windows users do too, but the vast majority of the general population don't really - so they buy a computer and guess what's it's go on it? That's the end of that story. The bottom line for the general public is that in the budget range which they find reasonable, and given their knowledge level, they don't have a choice.

I've never used it myself, so I shouldn't comment further in this particular thread.


----------



## ANOKNUSA (Mar 6, 2016)

OJ said:


> I think people here know the difference between hardware and software. Of course many knowledgeable Windows users do too, but the vast majority of the general population don't really...



[off-topic]
I think if they have to use a computer regularly, they understand the difference well enough. They just don't really get the notion of "portability," and think the operating system (software) is tied to the computer they bought (hardware). My mother and grandmother are that way: if I run into a bug in a single program, they say it's because I had the audacity to use an "incompatible" operating system. If they've got malware, it's because there's a design flaw in the computer that didn't protect Windows properly, or the people who made Windows for their model screwed up an update somewhere. Despite her years of problems with Windows malware and my years of insistent suggestions, my mother put off buying a Macbook or Chromebook (what she has now) because she was absolutely positive that any files created on one system would be useless on any other. Her office used Microsoft Word on Windows, so that's what she needed too, because she believed the only alternative to losing work every few weeks was to have no work at all.

I think this is just part of the default human psyche. They don't really understand this tool, but it's basically essential to modern life.  Yet they don't want to devote the relatively large amount of time and energy they could spend on other pursuits to learning about that tool. There's a natural psychological conflict in that, and to deal with the anxiety people simply shift blame for problems with the tool onto the tool itself rather than their own (arguably innocent) incompetence. Of course, sometimes the tool really is shoddy, but it's hard to distinguish when it is and isn't if one always defaults to an assumption.
[/off-topic]


----------



## beastDemian (Mar 6, 2016)

drhowarddrfine said:


> I can't think of a single reason to run Windows just so one can use Haswell. Unless it's for games but most people who use Windows wouldn't even have a computer if it weren't for games.



I could have gotten an older processor, but I didn't think it was worth it. I do use Windows for gaming and modern games (like Mortal Kombat X for example) requiere a powerful CPU. I really don't think it is a good think to purposefully buy old processors when you can just buy the new ones. Besides lack of Haswell support is supposed to be temporary (and if the -x11 mailing list is any indication, 11.0 will include Haswell support).

On the other hand, I use programs that are only available for Windows and have no equivalent/replacements on FreeBSD or even on Linux. I understand the Windows hatred, but as of today it's a necessary evil for a number of disturbing reasons (the most prominent for me is having to install software released by the Argentinean equivalent of the IRS - who is full of people that think the only OS to ever exist is Windows -). You can't even run them properly on Wine under Linux. It's been tried and they fail horribly.


----------



## Maxnix (Mar 7, 2016)

ANOKNUSA said:


> I think this is just part of the default human psyche. They don't really understand this tool, but it's basically essential to modern life. Yet they don't want to devote the relatively large amount of time and energy they could spend on other pursuits to learning about that tool.


People should be educated to the use of technology and telecommunication devices. Usually the average user doesn't understand the impact and the consequences that the use of computers could have on real life (from a simple chat to home banking), because is not aware of the power and the value of information, and what means dealing with, not paying enough attention to and protecting it carefully.

EDIT.


----------



## Oko (Mar 7, 2016)

Maxnix said:


> People should be educated to the use of technology and telecommunication devices. Usually the average user doesn't understand the impact and the consequences that the use of computers could have on real life, because is not aware of the power and the value of information, and what means dealing with it.


+1

Well said!!!


----------



## tingo (Mar 7, 2016)

In large parts of this world, people are free to do as they wish. You can't force them to listen to your "should", "must" or other beliefs that you think (or know!) is good for them. You can only hope to get them interested enough that they listen, and want to know more.


----------



## Oko (Mar 8, 2016)

tingo said:


> In large parts of this world, people are free to do as they wish. You can't force them to listen to your "should", "must" or other beliefs that you think (or know!) is good for them. You can only hope to get them interested enough that they listen, and want to know more.


I apologize for my post. I should have known better. I know that it is election season here in old good U.S. of A. and some people are fresh from primaries. Of course you are 100% right. All citizens are free to chose to remain ignorant and that is their constitutional right.

@admins
Now do you think that this thread has run its course and it might be a good time to close it?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 8, 2016)

Yeah, it's gotten way off course.


----------



## Crivens (Mar 8, 2016)

Thread closed on wish of OP.


----------

