On 2008-08-29, Ezekiel <zeke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "baldwinlinguas" <baldwinlinguas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:493858f0-36dd-41a1-8f59-110f529468c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>> Personally, I don't understand why anybody thinks they need
>> Windows OR "Windows Apps".
>
> It's not all that difficult to understand. There are many apps that either
> only exist for Windows or the application of their choice happens to run on
> Windows.
...assuming their choice isn't more than just a reaction to FUD.
>
>
>
>> My company runs all gnu/linux and FOSS software.
>> We don't use wine, crossover office, or any other
>> emulator, and have no need for any
>> proprietary/windows-only applications.
>
> Well I'm sure that your 3-man company that operates out of your home (not an
> insult - a fact) does not have the same needs as a company that has hundreds
> or 10's of thousands of employees.
...which are what exactly?
Sure there's plenty of "domain specific" software that's bound to be
Windows only. This stuff may well be Windows95 only depending on how
eager they are to keep up with the new and shiny. It may even be a
DOS application.
A company with thousands of employees are far more likely to
deploy on some sort of inherently OS neutral appserver platform
just for management and cost containment purposes.
It's the 3-mom operation that's going to have the windows only
vertical apps that run locally for no other reason than the
fact that a client-server or 3-tier setup doesn scale down well.
>
>
>> The majority of our clients are using Windows,
>> but we've never had any compatibility issues
>
> So why do a majority of your clients use Windows?
>
>
>> 1) We're quick and efficient (no crashes, downtime,
>> viruses, blah blah).
>
> So are most large companies that have a competent IT staff.
Been there. Done that. Seen otherwise.
Try to tell it to people who haven't worked IT in Fortune 100
companies and similar places.
>
>
>> 2) We're secure.
>
> So are we. I'd actually bet that we are a lot more secure than you.
>
>
>> 3) Because we don't spend thousands on software licenses
>> every year, our overhead is lower than competitors,
>
> The amount of money that companies spend on software per employee works out
> to a small fractions of one percent. If that software boosts their
> productivity by just 1 or 2% then then software has more than paid for
> itself.
With commoditized applications, such benefit highly dubious.
OTOH, if that principle were really followed then you would see
more DOS WP5 type diehards gaining traction in the buying proces.
[deletia]
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
