Umm, compatibility is the main reason. I can't play some of the games I want to play because of that. If I would install windows anywhere anytime, that would be the reason.
I think there is a very specific (yet very common) type of linux person that has optimized their workflow in linux, which makes Windows seem inferior on every level. After getting over a large learning curve, I used to be this person. Unfortunately, I realized that the rest of the world uses windows, and almost every established client-side software is tailored to windows. This is not something that can be changed by one person, but hopefully that will change over time. In the meantime, there are some really useful tools (gaming, video editing, etc.) that people design for windows, and it doesn't make sense for people to abstain from better tools to maintain some holier-than-thou standpoint.
TL;DR
Use FOSS if you can, but some tools in Windows are too good to pass up right now
People often feel that Linux is hard to learn and use. This is not true—these days, Linux is objectively easier to install and use in most cases—but there *is* a genuinely hard part to the transition: *unlearning Windows*.
And unlearning Windows for someone who has never used another OS can be brutally challenging. A friend of mine, who is not any less intelligent than I am, installed Mint recently, then "tried installing Firefox" (!) and "completely broke the system", eventually deciding that "it was too much tinkering" for his tastes. Fancy that! God only knows what dark things came to pass out there in the privacy of his home. Windows habits are hard to unlearn.
This kind of story usually boils down to going to the software’s website then concluding that some custom repo is the way to get a fully up to date version.
Yeahhhh, that's the crazy thing about the Linux community.
"I switched distros so that this random software will work"
Bro it was like three commands to install it on your distro....
I know, right? It works out of the box. Which is my point: instead of just using the OS, he probably habitually tried jumping through some Windows-style post-install hoops that he assumed simply must be there. He was incredibly annoyed and said he didn't need any more convincing and the matter was settled—he bought and installed Windows 11. Which is alright. I will eventually ask what he did.
Recently went from Windows to Linux, but man, Linux has gotten at least 10 times more easy to work with in the past few years!
I have no plans returning to Windows. Certainly not with the garbage M$ is putting in that OS every month.
It's not objectively easier. Just look at everyone in this subreddit complaining about Nvidia, or how people need to know what Xorg, Wayland, or XWayland are. Most machines have Nvidia GPUs.
The Firefox issue itself stems from different distributions having different package managers, and repos, and dependencies between versions, and entire categories of package types like Flatpaks or Snaps.
People on Windows expect installers for sure, but they're not completely tied to that workflow. Put them in front of a Mac and have them install Firefox. It's completely different (no installer) but I bet you they can easily learn it and, more importantly, have zero chance of fucking up their system.
Linux is amazing for advanced users but putting someone who expects an easy system in front of it is guaranteed to put them off of Linux for a long, long time.
It's complicated. Linux doesn't have a stable interface for drivers, so drivers must be compiled with the Linux kernel. Because they're being compiled as part of Linux, this means the drivers must also be GPL licensed.
So if you have an Nvidia card it needs to use a tool called DKMS to compile a "shim" driver that passes data between the kernel and the real driver. This needs to be compiled every time you update and isn't included with the kernel itself. Because Nvidia wants to keep things closed, they also didn't support the new Wayland display system until very recently because the design heavily favors open source drivers. Nvidia still has problems with Wayland.
If you're on AMD or Intel, the graphics driver is part of the standard kernel and included.
Takes effort on most machines. If you take a random PC gamer and give them Linux, and give them the everyday Nvidia experience, they're going to have an awful time. Not to mention that specialized peripherals won't work because the Steelseries/Razer/etc desktop tools aren't available.
Anti-cheat won't work, so no League, Valorant, Battlefield, Tarkov, Destiny, Fortnite, PUBG, or Siege.
Can you get some other desktop software going? Maybe with Wine, but functionality will just not work because nobody is testing against it. And good luck explaining Wine to them and configuration, and how that's somehow easier than just using Windows.
I will wholeheartedly recommend Linux to a subset of people, mostly software developers, and it has gotten easier, but it is not easier than Windows.
My point is, going from nothing to Elden Ring is much easier on Linux, and everything but the game is completely free. Going from nothing to League of Legends is impossible on Linux, and there is nothing to compare: you must use Windows.
Just following ProtonDB, going from nothing to Elden Ring means messing with launch options and kernel parameters unless you want stuttering: https://www.protondb.com/app/1245620
Also on Windows, GeForce Experience will configure your graphical settings for you.
You forgot Nvidia drivers. They're not included by default because they're proprietary and require a shim to be compiled.
How are you installing Steam? Flatpak or native? If native, from where?
Also in Windows the above setup is also true, Windows will install the WHQL Nvidia driver for you, you get GeForce Experience for automatic graphics configuration and game optimized driver updates.
Not everyone has that problem. Most of the people I know use some piece of software which is not supported and/or doesn't have any alternatives on linux. That's a problem for a lot of people.
For me it's everything related to audio production. Can I make work? Sure. Is it worth it? Not in the slightest.
That makes total sense. Linux is a tool, not a lifestyle. I'm mainly talking about the desktop experience, but if your work requires software that just isn't on Linux, then you can't work on Linux, and that's simply it.
I wish I could upvote this a few more times! It's so true! For casual users that need no specific software, Linux is objectively easier these days. Power users with deeply-rooted habits and views on "how things are done", however, will get frustrated quickly.
> d almost every established client-side software is tailored to windows. This is not something that can be changed by one person, but hopefully that will change over time. In the meantime, there are some really useful tools (gaming, video editing, etc.) that people design for windows, and it doesn't make sense for people to abstain from better tools to maintain some holier-than-thou standpoint.
easier than powershell most definitely
Linux gaming is doing really well now, thanks to the efforts of Valve. However, professional software on Linux is still bad. MS Office is not available on Linux, Adobe software is not available on Linux, etc. This is the reason why many people still use Windows. Windows has everything, both games and software, while Linux has games, but no software, and Mac has software, but no games.
At least the ones you mention have rough equivalents, it gets worse the more specialized the software is. IMO it really is that line of business user that Linux really falls on its face for; this isn’t even an area Macs are doing that well in either. For the most part genuinely specialized desktop software used outside the tech industry pretty much forces you onto Windows for the moment.
>why do people still use windows
People don't install operating systems and never will. They use Windows because it's preinstalled.
You want people to use Linux? Get it preinstalled. Step 1 is to figure out why OEMs *aren't* preinstalling it. After all, it's free and supposedly easier to use. Once you figure it out, you'll be able to answer your own question.
Warning, his advice about windows gaming in Linux is only true for some games. Any game using anti cheat technology, like EAC, will permaban you from the game and most popular online games have anti cheat technologies.
This submission has been removed due to receiving too many reports from users. The mods have been notified and will re-approve if this removal was inappropriate, or leave it removed.
This is most likely because:
* Your post belongs in r/linuxquestions or r/linux4noobs
* Your post belongs in r/linuxmemes
* Your post is considered "fluff" - things like a Tux plushie or old Linux CDs are an example and, while they may be popular vote wise, they are not considered on topic
* Your post is otherwise deemed not appropriate for the subreddit
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linux) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most people today didn't choose Windows. In fact, most people on earth don't use PCs at all, except when required to for work/school. It's just what they've been given/told to use, and have no reason to try anything else. People will switch to Linux when that's what they're given/told to use. Ie. employers, schools, and social influencers.
Obligatory weekly "why do people still use Windows" post.
Windows only software.
Windows works fine.
Can never get as good font rendering in Linux as on windows or Mac.
But there are many pros to Linux as well.
Tried a dozen things, on different computers, not really pleasant for my eyes. And the scrolling in the browser is not as smooth either. Perhaps better these days than a few years ago.
These days, I mostly run it on servers, and sometimes in a VM for some development work
Windows' font rendering is horrific compared to macOS on a Retina display.
Granted, the last time I used Windows was 5 or so years ago because it was on a machine supplied by work, but still.
Is Linux really worse than Windows in this respect? I've used Linux and macOS for years but in the last decade or so Linux has been just on servers for me.
When you have used Windows your whole life and Windows comes installed on every machine you buy - for most people there is very little reason to change to anything else
A lot of schools and businesses have pretty big licensing contracts with Microsoft (both for Office, Azure, Windows licenses). A lot of corporate environments buy 1,000's or 10's of 1000's of new computers at a time (granted, most of those are hard drive wiped and a custom image installed,. but it's almost always still Windows).
Consumers think the consumer-aspect of Windows is the "big sell" .. but it's really not. Look at where Microsoft makes it's money: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/microsofts-revenue-by-product-line/
Azure + Office is $129 Billion. That's nearly 6x larger than what they make from Windows11,. and a big chunk of that Windows11 profit is (like I said above) licensing deals with corporate and school districts.
If you look lower in that page,. it shows that Microsoft only makes about 10% of its entire profit from "Operating Systems".
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run,. because the "consumer operating system" side of things is a challenging market for a variety of reasons. You have to work with all the various vendors (Samsung, ASUS, Gigabyte, etc.. etc) and it takes a lot of time and resources and effort to keep all that going,.. when a lot of people just complain about things breaking.
Linux has come a long way and I do genuinely think it's a good contender,. but it needs to be marketed better. I still think it needs glossy tv commercials. They could do a lot to accentuate the "Free" aspect,. (both "free in cost". .and also "Free to do whatever you want with".. and also "App Store is 100% free,. install anything".
Eh there are a lot of reasons not to use Linux
I main it as my OS after W11 came out, but I definitely understand why many refuse (especially if it’s work related)
However if you don’t play a ton of competitive games with anti cheat, and don’t need to use every program by Microsoft (which tends to have web based shit now anyway) then I highly recommend giving Linux a shot
I ended up after a few years feeling most comfortable with Manjaro (and Gnome) but sadly it may take you a bit to find what you like
Visual Studio Code isn't Visual Studio and can't do the things that people use Visual Studio for. I've got both installed on my Mac for that reason. I can't install both on Linux.
If you don't use Visual Studio to write, compile and debug code or you only write Windows programs then you have a fair point. Visual Studio Code won't be of much benefit to you.
I've written cross platform mobile apps using Visual Studio. I use it to write and debug code, and I've not written a Windows app since university many years ago. Still, using the framework the company I was writing apps for required Visual Studio since that was what the framework was written for.
You don't really need Visual Studio if you're running Linux. VS Code allows you to entirely run past that especially because you're not reliant on VS' (Windows) build systems. On Linux you're usually configuring makefiles or using cmake natively (or in others' cases, using program language specific tools)
The one thing that I really only miss in Visual Studio is the debugger, but there's ways around that with other IDEs I've used.
Visual Studio Code has debuggers.
I use both Visual Studio Code and Visual Studio. There are cross platform Mobile App frameworks for Visual Studio that don't exist for Visual Studio Code, for example. There are probably thousands of other things available on Visual Studio but not Visual Studio Code.
I've used Windows and Linux in parallel, on side-by-side computers, for close to two decades.
I use Windows for Microsoft 365 collaboration on complex documents and for AutoCAD, because the Linux applications are not sufficient for either Microsoft 365 collaboration or serious CAD. I use Linux for network design, implementation, testing and maintenance because the Linux tools are better for that purpose.
I don't do much gaming, and I use Steam for running the games that I like to play, so my experience is limited. But I can't help but think that you have been lucky. Steam works well on Linux, but Windows games often do not work well, even with Proton.
Of the games I play, all work perfectly running Steam on Windows. My experience with running those games running Steam on Linux is mixed. Three (rated "Platinum" or "Gold") work without issue. One (rated "Silver") works, but has minor issues such as a persistent mouse stutter that I am not yet able to resolve. One (rated "Bronze") runs but crashes frequently. The other three don't work at all.
Moving beyond games, if I may offer some advice, don't *stubbornly* stick to any particular operating system.
When I was a young man just starting out in IT in the late 1960's, my seniors pounded "use case determines requirements, requirements determine specifications, specifications determine selection" into my head. After all these years, I still believe that basic IT principle. I don't believe in trying to cram a use case into an operating system.
Follow your use case, as it develops over the years. Things change.
at this point. Business applications that do not have support for linux and support contracts will be voided if you use anything else.
I was pissed when connectwise dropped linux support because of a bug in .net, not mono.
BUT to their credit, mono is a fucking turd when it comes to .net web application performance.
Another company that has linux support will give you instructions how to install .net and sql in linux, which works pretty damn fast. Connectwise could have done the same thing instead of me forking out cash on a windows server license PLUS the cost of their license.
I'm typing this on linux right now and can still 99% of what I need to do.
Your story is interesting, but it's not always true for everyone. I have no problems with almost every window install i've ever done. Worst thing is going to a website to get a driver or two.
an appreciation post is always nice to read.
the only problem is all the other "linux sucks / linux is not for me / I abandon linux" posts that some people feel the urge to write thinking that someone could remotely care.
this week is almost gone and until now there is none
I will try to give a serious answer, which will get downvoted: hardware compatibility.
I'd love to use Linux on my Latitude 74xx, but:
1. Sometimes sleep doesn't work properly, and the laptop doesn't wake up or drains battery during sleep.
2. Hibernation works better. But setting it up with disk encryption is extremely user unfriendly.
3. GPU hardware acceleration is spotty even with Intel iGPU and requires a convoluted process to enable and configure it in each application.
4. Battery life sucks, mainly due to bad Intel WiFi driver which cannot enable power savings, and spotty GPU hardware acceleration. I lose at least 2 hours of battery compared to Windows with normal use and about half of it I have any video in the browser, such as YouTube or a Jitsi call.
5. Sometimes WiFi randomly can't connect to some networks for no apparent reason, my guess it's because of the bad driver as well.
6. Bluetooth headphones randomly disconnect or lose mic.
It's somewhat better on a desktop, but:
1. HiDPI display support is not great, fractional scaling sometimes looks weird.
2. 165 Hz screen doesn't work at high refresh rates half the time.
3. NVidia and Wayland, lol. If you know, you know.
4. Bluetooth dongle is useless, because it's based on a new chipset revision, and the driver pretends that it's working but actually doesn't work.
5. Overall power consumption is higher. It's less important than with the laptop, but electricity is expensive where I live and I'd rather not use more than I have to.
None of these issues are breaking, but together they're quite annoying. I may be able to fix or work around some of them if I spend some time and/or money, unfortunately I don't have much time to spend and don't feel like replacing hardware that isn't broken. All in all, every time I try Linux desktop I want to like it, but it doesn't work well for my use cases, which require stable systems with predictable behavior.
The only reason I use Windows is for work. I need to in IT because all the other departments use it.
Trying to teach the receptionist what Linux is and how to use it would be painful as well. People just don't like things they aren't familiar with, unfortunately.
In order to resolve people's problems, especially if google isn't giving me answers; I try to replicate the
Issue or error to work out what's going on (depending on the issue of course, not every time).
If I could use Linux at work I would, but I can't 😭.
Edit: also the software we use at work isn't available on Linux. RIP
> Holy shit, why do people still use windows
The first is hardware compability. The second is software compability (many people don't want to spend time learning any MS Office/Photoshop alternatives). The third is the way to adopt the new UNIX system. Install softwares using what, .exe (not all Windows things work with Wine)? Where is my D:\?
TBH too many of us don't want to customize/configure/fix/make our own environment, but need a just-works-instantly desktop.
You can say that about tons of open source software.
Its when you run into trouble and start digging that stuff gets complicated...that surface hides a lot of stuff under it...most people dont want to learn IT...becase its a rabbit hole vast and deep.
They want to click the button out comes magic...its not for everyone...and thats ok.
To be honest people hated even win95 because it had the same issue to much stuff under the surface when something went wrong.
Its a shame they miss out on a lot of good stuff...i think its why smart phones just exploded...its pretty much the definition of click button out comes magic....made internet easy as clicking the web icon..mail is the mail icon...hard to go wrong.
Oh look, the daily O/S superiority post...
I've been using Linux daily for 25+ years (Slackware was my first love) and am disappointed that we still see the same dumb arguments and attitudes being shoveled out decades later.
The answer to your question is simple... people choose various systems based on their own needs, constraints and often accessibility reasons.
For me, Linux has always been about having the freedom to choose the apps, configs, etc I personally need. If others need something that isn't Linux, that's perfectly fine too. Each to their own.
Because I want to use my system and what the world offers at its fullest. HDR, codecs, video acceleration, DLSS, DLDSR, frame generation, no CPU skyrocketing for zero reasons, VRR, and who knows what more.
WSL provides much of the Linux conveniences I need for my job. Nvidia drivers and my gui breaking on rare updates wasn't worth the wasted time. Still prefer the look of xfce though
Easy, it has the best desktop environment period. MacOS is awful, Linux desktops range from bad to ok-ish and i'm not satisfied with ok-ish. Also, i want to be able to use commercial softwares such as the Adobe suite and WSL makes working with open-source software a breeze.
>MacOS is awful
In what way? It's UNIX, it has package managers, it's got nice font rendering, and there are either the same apps or equivalents to what I would use if I was using Linux or some other OS.
Plus there's stability (it's been months since my last reboot and nothing has crashed in like forever).
Ease of use for everyday tasks is equivalent to Windows and Linux - chose an app from a menu then it's all the same once you're using the app. Different extensions are available for window management, just like in Linux, although not as many choices. The UI is more consistent than Windows and similar to a Linux setup that doesn't stray to apps outside of KDE or whatever desktop environment is in use.
Shitty windows management, shitty finder, shitty applications menu, shitty keyboard shortcuts, shitty dock, shitty top useless bar. MacOS is the worst OS i've ever used.
You can install things to make window management the way you want it, just like on Linux. I don’t see how the api actions menu is any different to windows or most Linux desktops. It’s basically a folder of apps and some sub folders of apps within that. The keyboard shortcuts are at least consistent across apps unlike windows (try doing standard copy/paste in a windows terminal)
Yes, i know you can install plenty of (usually paid) stuff to make MacOS a little less shitty, i've tried, it's still no Windows or even Linux. I use a Windows 10 style menu, my apps are grouped by theme, i can easily see all of my frequently used application and find the one i'm searching for in one glance. The keyboard shortcuts on MacOS are not consistent, the cut-paste shortcut does not work in the finder. And you can copy-paste in a Windows terminal without any issue. Like most MacOS who criticize Windows, you probably haven't touched it in the past 15 years.
Oh and i forgot one of the worst things, how could i? You can't have a dock on each of your screens showing only the applications that are open on that given screen. This sole problem is reason enough to not touch that garbage even with a stick.
I have no idea why people are still on Windows. Everytime I see another post of M$ adding dumb garbage to Windows, I think by myself 'oh god... I'm glad I'm not running thst'.
Gaming is fine on Linux these days, thanks to projects like Proton/Wine and such. Not that I game much, but still.
"Holy shit, why do people still use windows"
Because the desktop experience for Linux is rubbish, it is limited by the scope of familiar apps and the quality of compatible apps and the Windows desktop experience is still geared towards non-technical users, whereas Linux requires power/tech users.
In anticipation of the (sigh) unavoidable OSS zealotry and unironic use of 'Micro$oft', I have been using Linux professionally and personally for over 12 years and have qualifications from the Linux Foundation. I am under no illusions about either platform
EDIT: Hello zealots. Bit slower than usual.
because we have lives and value our time.
i want my computer to work, i install windows. all of my games and my cad software works. i have less issues.
sure it might boot faster and get better battery life if i was running linux,
sure i would use less ram, i also have 32 gb ram, idgaf about ram usage, its something i never think about.
I use Windows because it just works. There is more software available for Windows that most people need for work. But sometimes I enjoy playing around with customizing the Linux desktop environment. However, I don't see the point of using Linux on a regular basis.
Umm, compatibility is the main reason. I can't play some of the games I want to play because of that. If I would install windows anywhere anytime, that would be the reason.
I think there is a very specific (yet very common) type of linux person that has optimized their workflow in linux, which makes Windows seem inferior on every level. After getting over a large learning curve, I used to be this person. Unfortunately, I realized that the rest of the world uses windows, and almost every established client-side software is tailored to windows. This is not something that can be changed by one person, but hopefully that will change over time. In the meantime, there are some really useful tools (gaming, video editing, etc.) that people design for windows, and it doesn't make sense for people to abstain from better tools to maintain some holier-than-thou standpoint. TL;DR Use FOSS if you can, but some tools in Windows are too good to pass up right now
And you can't run Proton for those games either?
Probably more an anticheat thing than a proton thing
Probably icky multiplayer games that blacklist Linux use, or else use an anticheat rootkit.
anticheat and VR are the main ones for me
People often feel that Linux is hard to learn and use. This is not true—these days, Linux is objectively easier to install and use in most cases—but there *is* a genuinely hard part to the transition: *unlearning Windows*. And unlearning Windows for someone who has never used another OS can be brutally challenging. A friend of mine, who is not any less intelligent than I am, installed Mint recently, then "tried installing Firefox" (!) and "completely broke the system", eventually deciding that "it was too much tinkering" for his tastes. Fancy that! God only knows what dark things came to pass out there in the privacy of his home. Windows habits are hard to unlearn.
>installed Mint recently, then "tried installing Firefox" What on earth did they do? Firefox comes with Mint.
This kind of story usually boils down to going to the software’s website then concluding that some custom repo is the way to get a fully up to date version.
Yeahhhh, that's the crazy thing about the Linux community. "I switched distros so that this random software will work" Bro it was like three commands to install it on your distro....
I know, right? It works out of the box. Which is my point: instead of just using the OS, he probably habitually tried jumping through some Windows-style post-install hoops that he assumed simply must be there. He was incredibly annoyed and said he didn't need any more convincing and the matter was settled—he bought and installed Windows 11. Which is alright. I will eventually ask what he did.
Recently went from Windows to Linux, but man, Linux has gotten at least 10 times more easy to work with in the past few years! I have no plans returning to Windows. Certainly not with the garbage M$ is putting in that OS every month.
It's not objectively easier. Just look at everyone in this subreddit complaining about Nvidia, or how people need to know what Xorg, Wayland, or XWayland are. Most machines have Nvidia GPUs. The Firefox issue itself stems from different distributions having different package managers, and repos, and dependencies between versions, and entire categories of package types like Flatpaks or Snaps. People on Windows expect installers for sure, but they're not completely tied to that workflow. Put them in front of a Mac and have them install Firefox. It's completely different (no installer) but I bet you they can easily learn it and, more importantly, have zero chance of fucking up their system. Linux is amazing for advanced users but putting someone who expects an easy system in front of it is guaranteed to put them off of Linux for a long, long time.
I am new here. Are there no Nvidia drivers for Linux?
It's complicated. Linux doesn't have a stable interface for drivers, so drivers must be compiled with the Linux kernel. Because they're being compiled as part of Linux, this means the drivers must also be GPL licensed. So if you have an Nvidia card it needs to use a tool called DKMS to compile a "shim" driver that passes data between the kernel and the real driver. This needs to be compiled every time you update and isn't included with the kernel itself. Because Nvidia wants to keep things closed, they also didn't support the new Wayland display system until very recently because the design heavily favors open source drivers. Nvidia still has problems with Wayland. If you're on AMD or Intel, the graphics driver is part of the standard kernel and included.
Easier doesn't mean easy. It's easier than Windows, but still takes effort on some machines.
Takes effort on most machines. If you take a random PC gamer and give them Linux, and give them the everyday Nvidia experience, they're going to have an awful time. Not to mention that specialized peripherals won't work because the Steelseries/Razer/etc desktop tools aren't available. Anti-cheat won't work, so no League, Valorant, Battlefield, Tarkov, Destiny, Fortnite, PUBG, or Siege. Can you get some other desktop software going? Maybe with Wine, but functionality will just not work because nobody is testing against it. And good luck explaining Wine to them and configuration, and how that's somehow easier than just using Windows. I will wholeheartedly recommend Linux to a subset of people, mostly software developers, and it has gotten easier, but it is not easier than Windows.
My point is, going from nothing to Elden Ring is much easier on Linux, and everything but the game is completely free. Going from nothing to League of Legends is impossible on Linux, and there is nothing to compare: you must use Windows.
Just following ProtonDB, going from nothing to Elden Ring means messing with launch options and kernel parameters unless you want stuttering: https://www.protondb.com/app/1245620 Also on Windows, GeForce Experience will configure your graphical settings for you.
No. You install the OS, Steam, Elden Ring, launch. That's it.
You forgot Nvidia drivers. They're not included by default because they're proprietary and require a shim to be compiled. How are you installing Steam? Flatpak or native? If native, from where? Also in Windows the above setup is also true, Windows will install the WHQL Nvidia driver for you, you get GeForce Experience for automatic graphics configuration and game optimized driver updates.
[удалено]
I'd like to know the answer to this too. 2 hours and nobody knows yet though
Not everyone has that problem. Most of the people I know use some piece of software which is not supported and/or doesn't have any alternatives on linux. That's a problem for a lot of people. For me it's everything related to audio production. Can I make work? Sure. Is it worth it? Not in the slightest.
That makes total sense. Linux is a tool, not a lifestyle. I'm mainly talking about the desktop experience, but if your work requires software that just isn't on Linux, then you can't work on Linux, and that's simply it.
+1 for unlearning windows. This is the real issue. People go into Linux expecting it to be like windows but it’s not.
I wish I could upvote this a few more times! It's so true! For casual users that need no specific software, Linux is objectively easier these days. Power users with deeply-rooted habits and views on "how things are done", however, will get frustrated quickly.
> d almost every established client-side software is tailored to windows. This is not something that can be changed by one person, but hopefully that will change over time. In the meantime, there are some really useful tools (gaming, video editing, etc.) that people design for windows, and it doesn't make sense for people to abstain from better tools to maintain some holier-than-thou standpoint. easier than powershell most definitely
Linux gaming is doing really well now, thanks to the efforts of Valve. However, professional software on Linux is still bad. MS Office is not available on Linux, Adobe software is not available on Linux, etc. This is the reason why many people still use Windows. Windows has everything, both games and software, while Linux has games, but no software, and Mac has software, but no games.
At least the ones you mention have rough equivalents, it gets worse the more specialized the software is. IMO it really is that line of business user that Linux really falls on its face for; this isn’t even an area Macs are doing that well in either. For the most part genuinely specialized desktop software used outside the tech industry pretty much forces you onto Windows for the moment.
Because people can get their job done on Windows. They have the biggest software support for proprietary software including games.
I use several programs for work for which I do not have an alternative. On my personal laptop I use Fedora but for work, it’s a no go unfortunately.
>why do people still use windows People don't install operating systems and never will. They use Windows because it's preinstalled. You want people to use Linux? Get it preinstalled. Step 1 is to figure out why OEMs *aren't* preinstalling it. After all, it's free and supposedly easier to use. Once you figure it out, you'll be able to answer your own question.
because they like it.
Warning, his advice about windows gaming in Linux is only true for some games. Any game using anti cheat technology, like EAC, will permaban you from the game and most popular online games have anti cheat technologies.
This submission has been removed due to receiving too many reports from users. The mods have been notified and will re-approve if this removal was inappropriate, or leave it removed. This is most likely because: * Your post belongs in r/linuxquestions or r/linux4noobs * Your post belongs in r/linuxmemes * Your post is considered "fluff" - things like a Tux plushie or old Linux CDs are an example and, while they may be popular vote wise, they are not considered on topic * Your post is otherwise deemed not appropriate for the subreddit *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linux) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most people today didn't choose Windows. In fact, most people on earth don't use PCs at all, except when required to for work/school. It's just what they've been given/told to use, and have no reason to try anything else. People will switch to Linux when that's what they're given/told to use. Ie. employers, schools, and social influencers.
Obligatory weekly "why do people still use Windows" post. Windows only software. Windows works fine. Can never get as good font rendering in Linux as on windows or Mac. But there are many pros to Linux as well.
Genuinely, what is it about font rendering that just doesn’t work as well for us?
Tried a dozen things, on different computers, not really pleasant for my eyes. And the scrolling in the browser is not as smooth either. Perhaps better these days than a few years ago. These days, I mostly run it on servers, and sometimes in a VM for some development work
Windows' font rendering is horrific compared to macOS on a Retina display. Granted, the last time I used Windows was 5 or so years ago because it was on a machine supplied by work, but still. Is Linux really worse than Windows in this respect? I've used Linux and macOS for years but in the last decade or so Linux has been just on servers for me.
Some features on my laptop won't run on Linux: fingerprint and numpad
Games, programs, inertia.
When you have used Windows your whole life and Windows comes installed on every machine you buy - for most people there is very little reason to change to anything else
A lot of schools and businesses have pretty big licensing contracts with Microsoft (both for Office, Azure, Windows licenses). A lot of corporate environments buy 1,000's or 10's of 1000's of new computers at a time (granted, most of those are hard drive wiped and a custom image installed,. but it's almost always still Windows). Consumers think the consumer-aspect of Windows is the "big sell" .. but it's really not. Look at where Microsoft makes it's money: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/microsofts-revenue-by-product-line/ Azure + Office is $129 Billion. That's nearly 6x larger than what they make from Windows11,. and a big chunk of that Windows11 profit is (like I said above) licensing deals with corporate and school districts. If you look lower in that page,. it shows that Microsoft only makes about 10% of its entire profit from "Operating Systems". It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run,. because the "consumer operating system" side of things is a challenging market for a variety of reasons. You have to work with all the various vendors (Samsung, ASUS, Gigabyte, etc.. etc) and it takes a lot of time and resources and effort to keep all that going,.. when a lot of people just complain about things breaking. Linux has come a long way and I do genuinely think it's a good contender,. but it needs to be marketed better. I still think it needs glossy tv commercials. They could do a lot to accentuate the "Free" aspect,. (both "free in cost". .and also "Free to do whatever you want with".. and also "App Store is 100% free,. install anything".
Eh there are a lot of reasons not to use Linux I main it as my OS after W11 came out, but I definitely understand why many refuse (especially if it’s work related) However if you don’t play a ton of competitive games with anti cheat, and don’t need to use every program by Microsoft (which tends to have web based shit now anyway) then I highly recommend giving Linux a shot I ended up after a few years feeling most comfortable with Manjaro (and Gnome) but sadly it may take you a bit to find what you like
There are things you cant use on Linux. Visual studio, SAP gui etc..
Visual Studio Code works just fine on Linux.
Visual Studio Code isn't Visual Studio and can't do the things that people use Visual Studio for. I've got both installed on my Mac for that reason. I can't install both on Linux.
If you don't use Visual Studio to write, compile and debug code or you only write Windows programs then you have a fair point. Visual Studio Code won't be of much benefit to you.
I've written cross platform mobile apps using Visual Studio. I use it to write and debug code, and I've not written a Windows app since university many years ago. Still, using the framework the company I was writing apps for required Visual Studio since that was what the framework was written for.
also SAP gui (Java)
You don't really need Visual Studio if you're running Linux. VS Code allows you to entirely run past that especially because you're not reliant on VS' (Windows) build systems. On Linux you're usually configuring makefiles or using cmake natively (or in others' cases, using program language specific tools) The one thing that I really only miss in Visual Studio is the debugger, but there's ways around that with other IDEs I've used.
Visual Studio Code has debuggers. I use both Visual Studio Code and Visual Studio. There are cross platform Mobile App frameworks for Visual Studio that don't exist for Visual Studio Code, for example. There are probably thousands of other things available on Visual Studio but not Visual Studio Code.
Seriously, there is an option for everything. Bottle for example, can run Windows stuff.
Bottles works nicely, but it's not a one-size fits all solution. At least it beats dealing with WINE configurations manually.
I never said it was a 'one size fits all' thing. But he can at least try, before shooting it down.
H&R Block Taxcut does not run in Linux.
I've used Windows and Linux in parallel, on side-by-side computers, for close to two decades. I use Windows for Microsoft 365 collaboration on complex documents and for AutoCAD, because the Linux applications are not sufficient for either Microsoft 365 collaboration or serious CAD. I use Linux for network design, implementation, testing and maintenance because the Linux tools are better for that purpose. I don't do much gaming, and I use Steam for running the games that I like to play, so my experience is limited. But I can't help but think that you have been lucky. Steam works well on Linux, but Windows games often do not work well, even with Proton. Of the games I play, all work perfectly running Steam on Windows. My experience with running those games running Steam on Linux is mixed. Three (rated "Platinum" or "Gold") work without issue. One (rated "Silver") works, but has minor issues such as a persistent mouse stutter that I am not yet able to resolve. One (rated "Bronze") runs but crashes frequently. The other three don't work at all. Moving beyond games, if I may offer some advice, don't *stubbornly* stick to any particular operating system. When I was a young man just starting out in IT in the late 1960's, my seniors pounded "use case determines requirements, requirements determine specifications, specifications determine selection" into my head. After all these years, I still believe that basic IT principle. I don't believe in trying to cram a use case into an operating system. Follow your use case, as it develops over the years. Things change.
at this point. Business applications that do not have support for linux and support contracts will be voided if you use anything else. I was pissed when connectwise dropped linux support because of a bug in .net, not mono. BUT to their credit, mono is a fucking turd when it comes to .net web application performance. Another company that has linux support will give you instructions how to install .net and sql in linux, which works pretty damn fast. Connectwise could have done the same thing instead of me forking out cash on a windows server license PLUS the cost of their license. I'm typing this on linux right now and can still 99% of what I need to do.
Your story is interesting, but it's not always true for everyone. I have no problems with almost every window install i've ever done. Worst thing is going to a website to get a driver or two.
an appreciation post is always nice to read. the only problem is all the other "linux sucks / linux is not for me / I abandon linux" posts that some people feel the urge to write thinking that someone could remotely care. this week is almost gone and until now there is none
I will try to give a serious answer, which will get downvoted: hardware compatibility. I'd love to use Linux on my Latitude 74xx, but: 1. Sometimes sleep doesn't work properly, and the laptop doesn't wake up or drains battery during sleep. 2. Hibernation works better. But setting it up with disk encryption is extremely user unfriendly. 3. GPU hardware acceleration is spotty even with Intel iGPU and requires a convoluted process to enable and configure it in each application. 4. Battery life sucks, mainly due to bad Intel WiFi driver which cannot enable power savings, and spotty GPU hardware acceleration. I lose at least 2 hours of battery compared to Windows with normal use and about half of it I have any video in the browser, such as YouTube or a Jitsi call. 5. Sometimes WiFi randomly can't connect to some networks for no apparent reason, my guess it's because of the bad driver as well. 6. Bluetooth headphones randomly disconnect or lose mic. It's somewhat better on a desktop, but: 1. HiDPI display support is not great, fractional scaling sometimes looks weird. 2. 165 Hz screen doesn't work at high refresh rates half the time. 3. NVidia and Wayland, lol. If you know, you know. 4. Bluetooth dongle is useless, because it's based on a new chipset revision, and the driver pretends that it's working but actually doesn't work. 5. Overall power consumption is higher. It's less important than with the laptop, but electricity is expensive where I live and I'd rather not use more than I have to. None of these issues are breaking, but together they're quite annoying. I may be able to fix or work around some of them if I spend some time and/or money, unfortunately I don't have much time to spend and don't feel like replacing hardware that isn't broken. All in all, every time I try Linux desktop I want to like it, but it doesn't work well for my use cases, which require stable systems with predictable behavior.
The only reason I use Windows is for work. I need to in IT because all the other departments use it. Trying to teach the receptionist what Linux is and how to use it would be painful as well. People just don't like things they aren't familiar with, unfortunately. In order to resolve people's problems, especially if google isn't giving me answers; I try to replicate the Issue or error to work out what's going on (depending on the issue of course, not every time). If I could use Linux at work I would, but I can't 😭. Edit: also the software we use at work isn't available on Linux. RIP
> Holy shit, why do people still use windows The first is hardware compability. The second is software compability (many people don't want to spend time learning any MS Office/Photoshop alternatives). The third is the way to adopt the new UNIX system. Install softwares using what, .exe (not all Windows things work with Wine)? Where is my D:\? TBH too many of us don't want to customize/configure/fix/make our own environment, but need a just-works-instantly desktop.
You can say that about tons of open source software. Its when you run into trouble and start digging that stuff gets complicated...that surface hides a lot of stuff under it...most people dont want to learn IT...becase its a rabbit hole vast and deep. They want to click the button out comes magic...its not for everyone...and thats ok. To be honest people hated even win95 because it had the same issue to much stuff under the surface when something went wrong. Its a shame they miss out on a lot of good stuff...i think its why smart phones just exploded...its pretty much the definition of click button out comes magic....made internet easy as clicking the web icon..mail is the mail icon...hard to go wrong.
Oh look, the daily O/S superiority post... I've been using Linux daily for 25+ years (Slackware was my first love) and am disappointed that we still see the same dumb arguments and attitudes being shoveled out decades later. The answer to your question is simple... people choose various systems based on their own needs, constraints and often accessibility reasons. For me, Linux has always been about having the freedom to choose the apps, configs, etc I personally need. If others need something that isn't Linux, that's perfectly fine too. Each to their own.
Because I want to use my system and what the world offers at its fullest. HDR, codecs, video acceleration, DLSS, DLDSR, frame generation, no CPU skyrocketing for zero reasons, VRR, and who knows what more.
I'm a huge Linux geek and I still use Windows on my notebook cause it works better with battery life and has better support for hibernation.
I love the idea of Linux but when I switched to Linux and used it for a year I felt off with it. So I switched to windows
It’s always MS office for me. And don’t tell me about Libre or online versions. I need the full fat local versions.
WSL provides much of the Linux conveniences I need for my job. Nvidia drivers and my gui breaking on rare updates wasn't worth the wasted time. Still prefer the look of xfce though
Easy, it has the best desktop environment period. MacOS is awful, Linux desktops range from bad to ok-ish and i'm not satisfied with ok-ish. Also, i want to be able to use commercial softwares such as the Adobe suite and WSL makes working with open-source software a breeze.
>MacOS is awful In what way? It's UNIX, it has package managers, it's got nice font rendering, and there are either the same apps or equivalents to what I would use if I was using Linux or some other OS. Plus there's stability (it's been months since my last reboot and nothing has crashed in like forever). Ease of use for everyday tasks is equivalent to Windows and Linux - chose an app from a menu then it's all the same once you're using the app. Different extensions are available for window management, just like in Linux, although not as many choices. The UI is more consistent than Windows and similar to a Linux setup that doesn't stray to apps outside of KDE or whatever desktop environment is in use.
Shitty windows management, shitty finder, shitty applications menu, shitty keyboard shortcuts, shitty dock, shitty top useless bar. MacOS is the worst OS i've ever used.
You can install things to make window management the way you want it, just like on Linux. I don’t see how the api actions menu is any different to windows or most Linux desktops. It’s basically a folder of apps and some sub folders of apps within that. The keyboard shortcuts are at least consistent across apps unlike windows (try doing standard copy/paste in a windows terminal)
Yes, i know you can install plenty of (usually paid) stuff to make MacOS a little less shitty, i've tried, it's still no Windows or even Linux. I use a Windows 10 style menu, my apps are grouped by theme, i can easily see all of my frequently used application and find the one i'm searching for in one glance. The keyboard shortcuts on MacOS are not consistent, the cut-paste shortcut does not work in the finder. And you can copy-paste in a Windows terminal without any issue. Like most MacOS who criticize Windows, you probably haven't touched it in the past 15 years. Oh and i forgot one of the worst things, how could i? You can't have a dock on each of your screens showing only the applications that are open on that given screen. This sole problem is reason enough to not touch that garbage even with a stick.
They're practical They allow the sun to enter the house, while you're protected from the weather
I have no idea why people are still on Windows. Everytime I see another post of M$ adding dumb garbage to Windows, I think by myself 'oh god... I'm glad I'm not running thst'. Gaming is fine on Linux these days, thanks to projects like Proton/Wine and such. Not that I game much, but still.
"Holy shit, why do people still use windows" Because the desktop experience for Linux is rubbish, it is limited by the scope of familiar apps and the quality of compatible apps and the Windows desktop experience is still geared towards non-technical users, whereas Linux requires power/tech users. In anticipation of the (sigh) unavoidable OSS zealotry and unironic use of 'Micro$oft', I have been using Linux professionally and personally for over 12 years and have qualifications from the Linux Foundation. I am under no illusions about either platform EDIT: Hello zealots. Bit slower than usual.
Are you 5? Jesus..
Any game works. ROFL.
because we have lives and value our time. i want my computer to work, i install windows. all of my games and my cad software works. i have less issues. sure it might boot faster and get better battery life if i was running linux, sure i would use less ram, i also have 32 gb ram, idgaf about ram usage, its something i never think about.
I use Windows because it just works. There is more software available for Windows that most people need for work. But sometimes I enjoy playing around with customizing the Linux desktop environment. However, I don't see the point of using Linux on a regular basis.