02-08-2015, 09:55 AM
I suppose you could put it that, but I'd prefer to be a bit more even-handed.
Windows doesn't - unless it's changed recently - make any attempt to understand Linux boot managers, and I think that is actually fair enough. When they write an installation routine and commit it to CD/DVD, it has to work reliably for the life of the OS - 13 years in the case of XP. In that time, competing boot managers might change considerably, and Microsoft would have to update their installation routines and ship new CD/DVD media for people to use - or support the downloading of ISOs containing new builds - or incorporate the updates into a new service pack and expect users to "slipstream" new media themselves (been there, it's not straightforward!). From a commercial point of view, it would be a lot of work, just to support a tiny proportion of their market. A lot of work to support a competitor. Not exactly a good business decision!
Contrast that with Linux, where new distros are being released all the time - every 6 months, of course, in the case of Ubuntu - so it's much easier for them to ensure they are compatible with other OSs that they have to co-exist with. Linux is growing in popularity, but in the desktop arena it is very much a minority OS, and is likely to remain so for many years - while they have that position, then of course they will have to ensure that they "play nicely" with other OSs. Again, it's a business decision. You can bet that it would be different if the situation was reversed!
In practice, as I said earlier, it's very easy to ensure that Windows can coexist with Linux.
I use both Windows and Linux (even the Unity desktop manager in some cases!), and both have pros and cons, and neither is perfect. It's important to remain objective - which rarely happens in Windows vs Linux conversations because many people have strong opinions. With that in mind, please let's try to keep this thread on-topic
Windows doesn't - unless it's changed recently - make any attempt to understand Linux boot managers, and I think that is actually fair enough. When they write an installation routine and commit it to CD/DVD, it has to work reliably for the life of the OS - 13 years in the case of XP. In that time, competing boot managers might change considerably, and Microsoft would have to update their installation routines and ship new CD/DVD media for people to use - or support the downloading of ISOs containing new builds - or incorporate the updates into a new service pack and expect users to "slipstream" new media themselves (been there, it's not straightforward!). From a commercial point of view, it would be a lot of work, just to support a tiny proportion of their market. A lot of work to support a competitor. Not exactly a good business decision!
Contrast that with Linux, where new distros are being released all the time - every 6 months, of course, in the case of Ubuntu - so it's much easier for them to ensure they are compatible with other OSs that they have to co-exist with. Linux is growing in popularity, but in the desktop arena it is very much a minority OS, and is likely to remain so for many years - while they have that position, then of course they will have to ensure that they "play nicely" with other OSs. Again, it's a business decision. You can bet that it would be different if the situation was reversed!
In practice, as I said earlier, it's very easy to ensure that Windows can coexist with Linux.
I use both Windows and Linux (even the Unity desktop manager in some cases!), and both have pros and cons, and neither is perfect. It's important to remain objective - which rarely happens in Windows vs Linux conversations because many people have strong opinions. With that in mind, please let's try to keep this thread on-topic
