• neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    I can list the biggest one without having to look: Because the most popular alternative has progressively gotten worse for the past 12 years, and what was once a quality OS (sure,it had its faults and flaws, but I’ll concede that Win7 was objectively a good OS) has now morphed into a combination of spyware and adware.

    • anamethatisnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Microsoft being uninterested in Windows Desktop and focusing on Saas and the cloud is indeed the first bullet point.

      1. Microsoft isn’t that interested in Windows
      2. Linux gaming, thanks to Steam, is also growing
      3. Users are finally figuring out that some Linux distros are easy to use
      4. Finding and installing Linux desktop software is easier than ever
      5. The Linux desktop is growing in popularity in India
      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Users aren’t finding it out. The distros just actually got usable and stopped being super elitists.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      what was once a quality OS (sure,it had its faults and flaws, but I’ll concede that Win7 was objectively a good OS) has now morphed into a combination of spyware and adware.

      The last objectively good Microsoft OS that didn’t have any significant user-hostile features was Windows 2000, IMO. Windows 7 – specifically, before invasive “telemetry[sic]” started getting backported to it from 10 – was just the last version before the hostility got bad enough to get me to switch.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Okay, let me rephrase: to the extent that any Microsoft OS could be described as “objectively good,” Windows 2000 was the last one of them.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Okay, let me rephrase for you: in choosing which of Microsoft’s stinking piles of shit was the least stinky, some people chose Windows 2000. However, most people just left the stinky area and didn’t look back.

        • Joker@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Windows 2000 was a good operating system by any measure. It was rock solid, capable, well-supported, could scale from desktop to large enterprise deployments and everything in between, reasonably secure compared to their previous operating systems, etc. I never did like Microsoft operating systems, but Windows 2000 was actually good. It was a breath of fresh air at the time. We had NT 4, which was stable and reliable, but was limited by a lack of DirectX and became cumbersome in large deployments. Then we had Windows 95/98/ME, which was the garbage that crashed all the time.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Windows 2000 was a good operating system by any measure

            ROFL