Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have like ten years of experience in mixed setups. I have supported Windows since 3.1.May I try to shed some light into this?

Windows (from Microsoft, no OEM) could be really good, snappy and usable.

On the other hand what many users see is a locked down enterprise installation at work and a bloatware-ridden laptop from hp, dell or one of the other mainstream brands at home.

Furthermore a Windows installation (the OEM one ordinary people have to go through) can easily take 2+ hours. And then you have to pay up for and install office.

Compare this to any linux after Ubuntu (they weren't too bad before either) where installation takes 30 minutes and includes a decent office package.

Oh, -and multiple desktops, a sane system-wide package manager with upgrades.

Windows (as delivered by Microsoft) is neither slow nor bloated. As experienced by many end users it very much is.



> Furthermore a Windows installation (the OEM one ordinary people have to go through) can easily take 2+ hours.

Windows 8 clean installs are very quick indeed (less than 30 minutes in my experience) due to improvements MS made to the way files are copied. They claim most upgrades take 40-60 minutes. See http://arstechnica.com/business/2011/11/windows-8-to-have-fa...


OEM or sane?

(As can be seen from my comment history I like Windows 8)


A, also true.

I always custom install from a Windows disc, and throw away the "monstrocity" that comes pre-installed in the OEM machine.


> I always custom install from a Windows disc, and throw away the "monstrocity" that comes pre-installed in the OEM machine.

Sadly that's not an option for most people.

Why Microsoft hasn't punished the OEMs over the years for making them look ugly, slow and bloated is an unanswered question to me.

Luckily that means we now have several Linux distros to choose from.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: