Why people don't switch operating systems

Doing any non-trivial activity requires effort. WRT switching to Linux, the activities involved include: researching which distribution to choose, researching which software to use, researching and learning how to operate the software, operating the software and modifying programming code. All these activities require effort and time. You may even be able to exchange effort with money to get these activities done.

The problem is, many users demand to have completely operational systems with minimal investment to themselves. This will never be because software designed for general consumption will always be inadequate for somebody. The user should invest some effort/time or money fixing up their problem but they do not want to do this.

>The problem is, many users demand to have completely operational systems with minimal investment to themselves.

You aren't paying attention. I have seen people go to tremendous effort to set up their computers and to learn the ins and outs of the software they use. Watch a salesperson getting their Goldmine or Act! just so, or a small businessperson tweaking Quickbooks.

My partner and I have a beautiful HP server courtesy of a client who got so fed up with Win 2003 Server, that he switched over to Macs. If you haven't noticed, Mac market share has been rising steadily over the last couple of years. Mac may be "the computer for the rest of us", but it's still a jolt for somebody moving over from Windows.

The real problem is that nobody wants to invest the time or energy unless they see a good reason to do so. So far, a switch to Linux hasn't promised most people a return sufficient to cover their investment.

> The real problem is that nobody wants to invest the time or energy unless they see a good reason to do so. So far, a switch to Linux hasn't promised most people a return sufficient to cover their investment.

Or, as I've seen in several cases, once a person has made the investment to learn enough about Windows and whatever software is required to perform the tasks they want or need to do, they are not willing to make the additional investment required to switch to Linux, even when they readily admit that there are good reasons for doing so and realize that they would be better off making the switch.

>even when they readily admit that there are good reasons for doing so and realize that they would be better off making the switch.

It's a matter of sufficiency: Does the return justify the investment? It's tough to overcome "the Devil you know".

Don't you think a lot of it is just plain lack of awareness? Linux is still nearly invisible in the Muggles world.

> Linux is still nearly invisible in the Muggles world.

So, what did you think of the last book, TC? :)

jdixon, I haven't read it yet. I wait til books go on sale :)

> I wait til books go on sale :)

Meredith likes the British editions, and since that makes shipping most of the cost, there's little use in waiting. We just finished it last weekend.

It was pretty much everything that I could have hoped for. I expect the series to be a classic on the order of (at least) A Series of Unfortunate Events. A Christmas Carol might be a better equivalent. I doubt it will reach anything like the status of The Lord of the Rings though.

>Don't you think a lot of it is just plain lack of awareness? Linux is still nearly invisible in the Muggles world.

In a way, doesn't that validate the choice to stick with Windows. If Linux were a compelling choice, not merely an alternative, word would get out. People have a way of wanting to grab their neighber and say, "Hey! Look what I got."

Quoting:People have a way of wanting to grab their neighbor and say, "Hey! Look what I got."

I do that. I'm forced to deal with Windows at work, but anyone within earshot knows why reliance on proprietary systems is evil. I wear Tux on my t-shirts regularly, and I don't know how many Knoppix CD's I've handed out. At least where I work, Linux isn't simply "an alternative." It's known as a feasible system, useful for everyday work. It's only The Man and His Board of Directors that are too cowardly to eject the Proprietary Mafia.

Oh, I should add that this is in a technological backwater hick-town.

Quoting:People have a way of wanting to grab their neighber and say, "Hey! Look what I got."

That's exactly the problem. In order to make huge strides, you first must have "mind share". That is, the general consensus must be that Linux is the up and coming, greatest thing since (your favorite vice here.) As long as it is seen as an "alternative" to Windows, uptake will be slow.

>As long as it is seen as an "alternative" to Windows, uptake will be slow.

Yes. It must be seen as attractive and compelling enough to be worth the trouble of switching.

That's especially true because a "safe" alternative exists: the Mac.

With a Mac, people get cool hardware from a company they've heard of, and a system that's been around and used by non-techies for years.

Quoting:With a Mac, people get cool hardware from a company they've heard of, and a system that's been around and used by non-techies for years.

But even Apple can't settle on which hardware to use for the Mac. So far, they've used Motorola, Power, and Intel. A MacOS 1 program won't run in OSX, or even OS9.

Yeah, it's the "legacy support" argument, but one thing MS has done pretty well is legacy support: IIRC, a program written for DOS 3.2 will still run in Vista.

*cough* I have programs for 98 that wouldn't run under XP, I have no reasonable expectation that they would magically start working again under Vista. On the other hand I don't have any expectation of running Vista either so the point is moot.

Quoting:I have programs for 98 that wouldn't run under XP, I have no reasonable expectation that they would magically start working again under Vista. On the other hand I don't have any expectation of running Vista either so the point is moot.

You mean Vista won't run under XP?

/snicker

>But even Apple can't settle on which hardware to use for the Mac. So far, they've used Motorola, >Power, and Intel. A MacOS 1 program won't run in OSX, or even OS9.

So? I seriously doubt that anybody considering a switch from Windows to Mac will be looking for an old Motorola machine.

Seriously, you're thinking like a geek, not like somebody who just wants to do things with their computer.