Will Windows 7 Promote Linux Adoption?

And before Windows 2000 hit its expiration date (2001! ha!) did it promote Linux adoption?

Ken Hess and Dani Web aren't doing anyone a service with tabloid-quality articles like this.

I have no intention of reading a post written by someone on "the list", but I can say that XP promoted Linux adoption by at least one person.

> Did Windows XP promote Linux adoption?

No so much so by itself, but the product activation it shipped with made more than a few people switch. Of course, that was nothing compared to what Vista did.

I can answer yes, XP did increase linux adoption. Not that everyone may be pleased that I switched to Linux, but XP SP1 was the exact reason I switched. So honestly XP did encourage my linux adoption, or rather it demanded that I do so. It had nothing to do with product activation, rather product devastation, SP1 turned my computer into a brick.

Quoting: but I can say that XP promoted Linux adoption by at least one person.

Two.

Three (my brother).

Good to know these things. I almost put in a line about "I love linux as much as the next guy, but..." just to draw some lightning, and maybe some feelers from real sockpuppets, but I'm now glad I didn't.

My rather limited experience with Windows (at work) just makes me value Linux more and more. Go Slackware! Go Arch!

I´m now doing more Windows (and NetWare) support than I´ve done in years. It´s a product of the economic slowdown and how really depressed the tech sector is right now. Anyway, the more I work with Windows the more I can understand why anyone would put up with it unless they are totally clueless about the alternatives. Windows servers and workstations need way more care and feeding (plus the occasional rebuilding) than similar Linux boxes. The cost to businesses in personnel alone should be driving companies and organizations to Linux.

The only thing I can see is that the combination of ignorance, intertia, and maybe an under the table payment here or there is awfully powerful.

> My rather limited experience with Windows (at work) just makes me value Linux more and more. Go Slackware! Go Arch!

I made the decision to go full Slackware for my home use when I saw Windows 98 and realized the way Microsoft was going. Windows 95 came on thirteen floppies, from a quick web search, and took up about 20 MAB of hard disk space. You could run it on a 50 MB drive. Windows 98, which was essentially a service pack for Windows 95, needed something like 150 MB to run well, and integrated IE. That was all I needed to see to dump Windows.

I actually liked both Windows 95. It wasn't exactly stable, and the tcp/ip stack was an add on, but it was usable. Likewise, Windows 2000 was a significant improvement over the Win9x series in terms of stability, but kept their best features. I consider Windows 2000 to be the best version of Windows ever released, and would use it by preference when I have to use Windows. Unfortunately, it's not supported by most software nowadays, so I've had to pretty much drop it for XP.

Well, speaking for over 40% of the world population here:

Windows XP didn't promote Linux because it worked quite allright, and most important it was a breeze to crack (using the FCKGW!)

Quoting:using the FCKGW!

Funky Cracker Killing God-awful Windows?

One can only hope.

SP1 was around when I switched, but I removed XP from my pc the day after SP2 was released. Finding out it would crash whenever I right clicked anywhere on the desktop was what led me to ditch it entirely.