Why Aren't Schools Adopting Open Source?

[Loren]

Why Aren't Schools Adopting Open Source?

 

Date: July 26th, 2009

Author: Jack Wallen

 

Link to article.

 

Recently, I had a bit of a run-in with my daughter’s high school. She was undergoing an eSchool class over the summer called “Computer Applications,” and it turns out the class only actually “covered” Office Suites, namely Microsoft Office. Now in our household we do not own a copy of Microsoft Office. Instead, we use OpenOffice and have never had an issue - that is, until now.

The setup

 

Before my daughter started in on her eSchool, I set up OpenOffice to save in all Microsoft Office defaults. I knew this way she wouldn’t have any problem submitting her work. My presumption was correct…at first. But there was a wrench inadvertently thrown in the works. This wrench came when my daughter was discovered stretching the truth about her assignments. She said she had completed them but they weren’t accepted. She said she HAD to have Microsoft Office. Knowing what the assignments were, I decided to call the instructor of the class. It turns out there were a number of interesting issues going on. First and foremost the instructor was only able to teach Microsoft Office because (1) that is what she had and (2) that is what she knew. This, of course, led me to a question that I had to share.

 

Why are schools in the States not adopting open source software? It’s happening all around the globe. Schools, universities, businesses, corporations, governments are all adopting open source software. So why can’t the U.S.?

Adoption = savings, freedom, updates

 

Here in Kentucky the public schools are seriously strapped for cash - to the point that arts, humanities, and teachers (a precious commodity) are being dropped to save money. I have a suggestion for the public school systems around the country - adopt open source software and you will save a lot of money. Not only will you save a lot of money, you will also be able to keep all of your software up to date.

 

While I was looking into this eSchool class for my daughter, I discovered that the class supported Microsoft Office 97-2003. However, all the instruction for the class (including screen shots) used Office ‘97. So any student using the latest version of Office was going to have trouble figuring out what they were doing. Imagine someone unfamiliar with the various interface metaphors having to figure out how to do something from an outdated manual! Or what about a student practicing for an exam using Office 2010 only to go to take the final exam on Office 97?

 

This would not be the case if the schools adopted open source software. No longer would schools be using out of date and unsupported operating systems (I know schools and institutions still using Window 98 because they can’t afford to upgrade). Every school would have the latest-and-greatest software and the students would be somewhat closer to the cutting edge.

No longer a given truth

 

I’ve had many a discussion with people about this in various sectors of the professional world. Nearly every person I spoke with agrees with what I assumed to be a truth: At one point teaching school-age kids Microsoft, and only Microsoft, software was a safe bet. But things have changed. No longer is it safe to assume that every business uses MS software. Although most businesses are still sticking with one form of Windows or another, many of those same businesses are adopting OpenOffice, Firefox, and more as their software of choice. And thankfully for the students (and users of all ages and sorts), OpenOffice has done a great job of creating an interface that anyone used to MS Office will be comfortable with. So the preconceived notion that schools HAVE to teach Microsoft Office is no longer a given.

What about the private schools?

 

I say “public” because the private schools aren’t having such an issue. Here in Louisville, KY there are a number of outstanding private schools. I have spoken with various IT department representatives and was shocked to find out that some of these rather costly private schools (one private school has a yearly tuition of $17,500 - that’s a HIGH SCHOOL, people) have already adopted open source software. And these wealthier schools aren’t just adopting OpenOffice. No, some of them are even encouraging the use of Linux!

What about other software?

 

I recently did a “10 Things…” article, “10 Linux (open source) applications that are perfect for educational environments.” While writing this article I discovered a vast amount of open source software for education, ranging from tools to help students in the classroom all the way to tools for managing an entire school. I was amazed at what I found. And all of it open source. A school can effectively be run seamlessly and not pay a single penny for software.

Where is the downside to that?

 

If adopting open source software would allow schools to save thousands upon thousands of dollars per year (per school) I have to ask, again:

 

Why are schools across the country not migrating to open source software so they can focus the dollars spent on software in such a way to further the education of our children?

 

Educational institutions are supposed to be a pillar of learning and intellegent decisions. But it seems, as far as software is concerned, our educational system is consistently making some farily unintelligent choices.

 

 

Jack Wallen was a key player in the introduction of Linux to the original Techrepublic. Beginning with Red Hat 4.2 and a mighty soap box, Jack had found his escape from Windows. It was around Red Hat 6.0 that Jack landed in the hallowed halls of Techrepublic.

[Ouroboros]

I think the explanation is the matter of support. Both availability and cost of it.

 

The school either hire a low paid guy to call Microsoft for technical support (discounted, mass purchase), or they hire a more expensive Linux Tech guru with beard and long hair who is mostly busy with his side business writing Java EE applications.

 

For the board it's usually easier to sell package deals with a low pay employee, than the uncertainty of a Einstein 2.0 helping when things go wrong.

 

Think about this: if LinuxTechGuru gets sick, who will cover his position and fix the broken Ubuntu Server?

 

But if the janitor-tech gets sick or quit, what do you do? Just hire another one. Making a phone call is easy.

[PaulQ]

I think the explanation is the matter of support. Both availability and cost of it.

 

The school either hire a low paid guy to call Microsoft for technical support (discounted, mass purchase), or they hire a more expensive Linux Tech guru with beard and long hair who is mostly busy with his side business writing Java EE applications.

 

For the board it's usually easier to sell package deals with a low pay employee, than the uncertainty of a Einstein 2.0 helping when things go wrong.

 

Think about this: if LinuxTechGuru gets sick, who will cover his position and fix the broken Ubuntu Server?

 

But if the janitor-tech gets sick or quit, what do you do? Just hire another one. Making a phone call is easy.

 

You pretty much hit the nail on the head; most people think Microsoft only provides an Operating System. Well, they do, but more importantly, they provide cost-effective solutions. We also need to recognize the importance of adopting standards in the world of business. Microsoft Office wasn't always the standard; at one time, it was WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. The business world migrated over from WordPerfect and Lotus to Microsoft Office because it became so much better and much more cost-effective.

[qec]

I think the explanation is the matter of support. Both availability and cost of it.

 

The school either hire a low paid guy to call Microsoft for technical support (discounted, mass purchase), or they hire a more expensive Linux Tech guru with beard and long hair who is mostly busy with his side business writing Java EE applications.

 

For the board it's usually easier to sell package deals with a low pay employee, than the uncertainty of a Einstein 2.0 helping when things go wrong.

 

Think about this: if LinuxTechGuru gets sick, who will cover his position and fix the broken Ubuntu Server?

 

But if the janitor-tech gets sick or quit, what do you do? Just hire another one. Making a phone call is easy.

 

 

Very well said. The Open Source Community has to find a way to get past the cost effectiveness and reliability barriers they face. Idealism and a form of well thought out socialism engaged to bring down the Evil Empire, aka Microsoft, won't be the main things that will win the war they are fighting and have been fighting for a long ass time now. The model they have now will only work if everyone collectively buys into it, it needs to be modified in order for it to destroy the Evil Empire.

[Ouroboros]

Very well said. The Open Source Community has to find a way to get past the cost effectiveness and reliability barriers they face. Idealism and a form of well thought out socialism engaged to bring down the Evil Empire, aka Microsoft, won't be the main things that will win the war they are fighting and have been fighting for a long ass time now. The model they have now will only work if everyone collectively buys into it, it needs to be modified in order for it to destroy the Evil Empire.

And unfortunately, as soon as you have some open source support organization, the tend to become a company and profit driven pretty fast. Case in point: Red Hat. The only company which really merges the open source with business in somewhat balanced fashion is Sun Microsystems. Java is open source, and free. Even Objective-C, XCode, and OS-X (if you're a subscribing developer) is semi-open, at least more than M$.

 

One other benefit M$ Visual Studio got over the other tools is the learning curve. I have studied Java, J2EE, Ruby, Objective-C (for Mac), XCode, NetBeans, MySQL, and other open or semi-open tools (including CygWin etc...), and so far, Visual Studio is 10 times easier to get started with, and get something completed, compiled, packaged, and deployed. I don't have to bother about Ant configuration or an App Server port. Just create a project, code, compile, and run! So that's the other benefit (for good and bad) Microsoft brings. It's very easy to find videos to explain how to use the tools, and how to program C#, and more. It's more coherent and uniform. I pick one tool. MSVS, and I'm done. But for Java, I have to figure out if I want to use Spring or JavaBeans or Enterprise Beans or Faces or ... and I have to get each package, install it, and configure it, and when new versions comes out, same story. Not saying that there's problems with M$ too, because there is.

 

One time M$ came out with a service pack for one of the versions of Visual Studio. I installed it, but I was short a couple of hundred megabytes. I started with 4 GB free harddisk, but it wasn't enough, because the stupid SP was 1 GB, unpacked to 2 GB, and needed yet another 2 GB to copy the install, and then it would install the files!!! So you needed like 8 to 10 GB to install a package which would replace an existing 2 GB software. Anyway, it crashed midway because of this, and then... computer bye-bye. It took me a week to fix. Thank you so fucking much, M$!!! So it's not all oh' happy days with them either...

[Thurisaz]

There's one more point to be made in support of M$, though it's usually applied only half-assed.

 

If M$ breaks down, you know whom to call, whom to make responsible for fixing it, whom to drag into court if it turns out to be their fault.

 

Yeah right, in theory. As if M$ could ever be sued for everything. But that's the underlying principle.

 

Now if your Linux server (with a shitload of office files) goes down in flames... who you gonna blame?

 

The half-assed about it all is, of course, that the morons keep claiming "Conclusion: M$!!!" when the conclusion could just as well be commercial Unix. Yup it costs a nice bit, but it's as stable et al as Linux, and in that case you can blame someone.

 

That said, there's more iX-knowledgeable persons out there than the average Joe thinks. Okay, not every university student who ever touched one of those systems becomes an iX-expert... but then, once a iX-system is set up, it runs rock steady unless the hardware fails. Talk about support costs you can save in the long run...

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Random thoughts on using Linux and open source programs...

 

With all OSs and programs there is a learning curve. The more that people use Linux, the more familiar they become with it. For those that love command-line, Linux can be heaven. Usually you will have to teach yourself, since even community colleges are not covering much Linux. I had some classes that touched on it, mostly to give us training in using vi editor, since it can save your ass when things go belly up.

 

I knew guys in my networking classes that were pretty adept at running Linux servers. However, I wouldn't want to hire them as a sysadmins because they were dodgy people. Technical knowledge is only part of being a professional. MS "experts" aren't usually any better. Having seen the MS support for some companies I have worked for, they must have taken whoever was first to apply. Bitchy, loud, arrogant, gross, annoying, etc.

 

I run Kubuntu on my laptop, and it takes care of itself for the most part. It works well and has plenty of toys to keep me happy. That said, many MS games won't work on it. They may run under a VM running Windows, but I haven't wanted to go that far yet.

 

Switching any organization to open source takes studying; demoing; running trials to see if it will actually work in your work environment; running the trials long enough to see if it will REALLY work in your environment and what the gotchas are; and deciding if the MS licensing fees are really worth what you are getting from them in terms of compatibility, ease of use (e.g., the Office 2007 interface is MS's way of saying "fuck you, we rule the world and we'll make it look how we damn well please, and who cares what you are used to"), features, support, etc.

 

Then again, the new version of Kubuntu has the latest KDE interface, and it is KDE's say of saying "fuck you, we'll make it look how we damn well please, and who cares what you are used to, and who cares if wireless and customizations don't actually work anymore". I had to wipe and reload to get rid of it. Not a happy user.

 

I hope to do a brownbag session at work to introduce people to using Linux on home computers. One good way to do this via a "live CD" that you boot with and doesn't install anything. You can get the look and feel of a variety of Linux distros this way, and if anything goes wrong, just reboot and it is back to normal. They even make server versions like this. Store the customizations on a flash drive and you are good to go.

[Guest Marty]

When I was in school, everything was Mac Classics and before that, Commodore 64's. I graduated HS in '95. It's a shame to see Windows has taken over the school system...

 

Another thing to keep in mind, if you train students on a certain platform/OS, guess what they will pick when they get out in the real world and need to set up a workspace? Just like xtians, there is a thought that if you hook 'em young enough, they'll stick with the product forever. I learned this at my tech school, when one company's equipment was featured over another. Even though the latter was more of an industry standard, the former had struck up a deal with the school to get their machines in the labs...

[Guest Davka]

Microsoft Office wasn't always the standard; at one time, it was WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. The business world migrated over from WordPerfect and Lotus to Microsoft Office because it became so much better and much more cost-effective.

 

Meh. The reason they became the leader had nothing to do with better software. It's because MS bundled Word (and sometimes Office) with Win95 and Win98 as a matter of course. Just as the world began to go to a graphics-based GUI, first-time PC users were provided with a built-in word processor. It's the same reason that IE took market share from Netscape: most users don't know buggy bloatware from decent software, they just know what came with their computer.

 

Schools can't go to Linux because it takes actual IT people to service. But there's no reason they can't go to OpenOffice, or any other open source project that runs on Windows (and there are a lot). The reason they don't change is, quite simply, because the computer teachers generally don't know shit. This is part of a larger problem: school teachers are no longer acquiring a decent education in colleges. Semi-literate, ignorant teachers are becoming more and more common. Instead of requiring a Master's in education, schools need to start hiring based on entry testing. If you know your shit, teach it, regardless of your degree. If you don't know your shit, stay the hell away from my kids.

[Ouroboros]

Schools can't go to Linux because it takes actual IT people to service. But there's no reason they can't go to OpenOffice, or any other open source project that runs on Windows (and there are a lot). The reason they don't change is, quite simply, because the computer teachers generally don't know shit.

There's one more reason why schools teach M$ Office, because most of the time when companies list qualifications required for a clerical position M$ Office will be one of them. So sure, the schools could educate in Open Office or any other product, but companies still will ask for M$ Office qualifications. And this goes for Windows too. So it's not only about what is the cheapest solution for the schools, but what are they supposed to teach you to use in the work field.

[PaulQ]

Meh. The reason they became the leader had nothing to do with better software. It's because MS bundled Word (and sometimes Office) with Win95 and Win98 as a matter of course. Just as the world began to go to a graphics-based GUI, first-time PC users were provided with a built-in word processor. It's the same reason that IE took market share from Netscape: most users don't know buggy bloatware from decent software, they just know what came with their computer.

 

No, it really was actually better. Wordperfect for Windows came out, but it was buggy. So was Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows. Microsoft loaded up MS Word and Excel with so many new features, and they were practically flawless. I was there in the middle of the changeover, working in the industry. I had a keyboard with the macro template overlays for WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. Changing over from WordPefect for Windows to MS Word was like night and day; there really was no comparison. Microsoft practically reinvented the word processor. So much so, that even Apple customers were demanding a version for the Macintosh. It was remarkable how MS Word went from a dog to a star overnight, but it happened.

 

The turning point was Microsoft Office version 4.0. Word was at version 6.0 in this package. If you can get your hands on an old Windows 3.1 system running Office version 4.0, you'll see that it compares favorably even with modern office suites (unlike most other apps, which are seriously dated in Windows 3.1). I would go so far as to say that MS Office 4.0 was responsible for many businesses switching over to Windows 3.1 from DOS.

 

I find myself wondering, when did it become not okay for a company to want to make a profit on the software and services they sell?

[Guest Davka]

Meh. The reason they became the leader had nothing to do with better software. It's because MS bundled Word (and sometimes Office) with Win95 and Win98 as a matter of course. Just as the world began to go to a graphics-based GUI, first-time PC users were provided with a built-in word processor. It's the same reason that IE took market share from Netscape: most users don't know buggy bloatware from decent software, they just know what came with their computer.

 

The turning point was Microsoft Office version 4.0. Word was at version 6.0 in this package. If you can get your hands on an old Windows 3.1 system running Office version 4.0, you'll see that it compares favorably even with modern office suites (unlike most other apps, which are seriously dated in Windows 3.1). I would go so far as to say that MS Office 4.0 was responsible for many businesses switching over to Windows 3.1 from DOS.

 

Ah, you're talking Win 3.11 - I never did bother with that OS, just stuck with DosShell and WP / Lotus. I figured that if I wanted a clickable GUI, I would buy a Mac and have a color screen.

 

I always assumed that the real changeover happened with Win95, by which time WP for windows was working quite well. But since Word was so ubiquitious, it was easier to ditch my old processor and go with Word, since everyone could read my documents.

 

I still remember WordStar and Textra, and having to save everything as a non-formatted aasci file in order to submit articles. When MS put out Word with Win95, we suddenly had an almost universal format that everyone could read. Word 6.0 was a great word processor, which is why it still survives in the form of WordPad.

 

Today's Office makes me want to scream and tear my hair. Why does MS persist in fixing things that aren't broken?

[chefranden]

...This is part of a larger problem: school teachers are no longer acquiring a decent education in colleges. Semi-literate, ignorant teachers are becoming more and more common. Instead of requiring a Master's in education, schools need to start hiring based on entry testing. If you know your shit, teach it, regardless of your degree. If you don't know your shit, stay the hell away from my kids...

 

People that go to college to be teachers learn pedagogy, which is as near as I can tell the art of making a child sit down and shut up without the application of violence. One of my sons ex-girlfriends went through college to be an English Lit teacher. My son swears she didn't read a book the whole time she was in college and she graduated with a B+. She's been teaching about 10 years now, so I figure she must be good at making kids sit down and shut up.

[BlueGiant]

As far as cost goes, you should also take into account that Microsoft also has a steep discount program for educational users, as well as a tendency to donate large sets of its software to educational institutions, up to the undergrad level.

 

A FOSS system, while nice in theory, has the reputation of being touchy/needing expert maintainence. Whether or not this is true, the perception is there (in my current experience, the line between the two is not that great once the software is installed, Linux needs to get their installers down at this point).

 

I'm surprised though that Word was having problems with OO docs, I've usually seen this the other way around.

[Vendredie]

You want the real reason why schools don't adopt open-source?

 

Schools don't adopt shit, that's why. Schools hate change. The only reason a school would ever change is because "the students are out of control". Half the time, students are out of control because the school won't enforce the rules it already has.

 

Schools want to be stuck in the 20th century. Some want to go back to the 19th century. They like computers, but they don't like the baggage that comes with 'em, like the internet and any software that wasn't around until after, like, 2002.

[greenhunter]

You want the real reason why schools don't adopt open-source?

 

Schools don't adopt shit, that's why. Schools hate change. The only reason a school would ever change is because "the students are out of control". Half the time, students are out of control because the school won't enforce the rules it already has.

 

Schools want to be stuck in the 20th century. Some want to go back to the 19th century. They like computers, but they don't like the baggage that comes with 'em, like the internet and any software that wasn't around until after, like, 2002.

 

or could it be that the "bill and melinda gates foundation" donated the computers? then it means you are required to go micro$oft products

 

(this statement was typed on a mac keyboard on a mac computer, since i don't have the time to go into linux)

[Guest]

The reason they don't change is, quite simply, because the computer teachers generally don't know shit.

 

Ha! I remember we hid our computer teacher's manual one day and she couldn't teach the class!

 

She used to pronounce it "ana-lodge" instead of "analog"...would drive us crazy!

[Thurisaz]

I find myself wondering, when did it become not okay for a company to want to make a profit on the software and services they sell?

 

Is it okay for anyone to charge you (loads of bucks) for shit?

 

If M$ would do its job I'd be fine with them wanting a good price for that job. 'nuff said.

[Ouroboros]

Today's Office makes me want to scream and tear my hair. Why does MS persist in fixing things that aren't broken?

Agree. Vista and the new Office sucks. There is a reason why they tried to fix these to look this way... they wanted to attract the Mac users. So in the process of attempting to be more "Mac"-ish, they lost a large number of old users. I got my first Mac because of Vista, so did my sons, my neighbor, working buddies, and many more who I know. Funny. Instead of getting Mac people switch to M$, M$ users switch to Mac.

[PaulQ]

Is it okay for anyone to charge you (loads of bucks) for shit?

 

It most certainly is okay for anyone to charge whatever they want for their "Shit," just as it's okay for me to choose to pay for and accept, or refuse to buy, their shit.

 

Fact of the matter is, many businesses have run off of Microsoft systems for years, if not decades; so it can't be as shitty as people pretend it to be. OTOH, I've only ever seen one business that used Macintosh; it was a travel agency...and they went bankrupt a couple of years ago.

 

Agree. Vista and the new Office sucks. There is a reason why they tried to fix these to look this way... they wanted to attract the Mac users. So in the process of attempting to be more "Mac"-ish, they lost a large number of old users. I got my first Mac because of Vista, so did my sons, my neighbor, working buddies, and many more who I know. Funny. Instead of getting Mac people switch to M$, M$ users switch to Mac.

 

I've been running Vista with Office 2003 for over a year on my notebook with no complaints. My wife runs XP on the desktop with Office 2003 and on her netbook without any problems. OTOH, I've run the Mac OS, and honestly do not understand what all the hype is about. My sister needs to pay for an upgrade for her Mac OS from Apple in order to run the latest version of Firefox. My son's computer, which is running Windows 2000, which predates my sister's Macintosh OS by a couple of years and updates itself for free, can run the latest version of Firefox; the same version as I run on Vista. Hmm, Microsoft's looking pretty good in her eyes.

[Thurisaz]

Fact of the matter is, many businesses have run off of Microsoft systems for years, if not decades; so it can't be as shitty as people pretend it to be.

 

Fact of the matter is, the damage done by M$'s willful incompetence and arrogance caused and still causes mindblowing financial losses to every business using their trash. What I've seen just in the few years I worked for Volkswagen (that sold its soul to M$ long ago and now can't change to anything else because all "support" (Ha! As if that would be worth being called "support"!) immediately ends the very moment you introduce even one non-M$ system into the whole thing that is connected to the M$ machines, however remotely and indirectly)...

 

Just to give one example: Volkswagen bank, some years ago while planning a major revamp of their IT infrastructure, wants to introduce roaming profiles and asks M$ about how feasible this is using their trash. M$ of course says "no problem at all!". Bank starts to - among other things - use Outlook .PST files as generic file storage for all employees.

All the while M$ knows that their crappy .PST files are not safe for use via network. We are talking about several years M$ knew that this whole thing would go down in flames one day. M$ knew and said not one word. Need I describe all the chaos everywhere in the bank when the .PST files finally got too large and the shit hit the fan?

 

Yes one can make a M$ environment work. If one is okay with incalculabe additional costs to keep the piece-of-shit running, including 3rd party stuff you don't know shit about when you buy the M$ pack (in the above example, the .PSTs had to be replaced with a 3rd party archiving system. I don't even want to know how much this cost the bank).

[Guest]

Today's Office makes me want to scream and tear my hair. Why does MS persist in fixing things that aren't broken?

Agree. Vista and the new Office sucks. There is a reason why they tried to fix these to look this way... they wanted to attract the Mac users. So in the process of attempting to be more "Mac"-ish, they lost a large number of old users. I got my first Mac because of Vista, so did my sons, my neighbor, working buddies, and many more who I know. Funny. Instead of getting Mac people switch to M$, M$ users switch to Mac.

 

Ha! Another thing is we used to call Windows '95 Macintosh '88 in school. They are always ripping off Mac. From what I've read, Windows 7 tries to rip OSX off even more; it's even got a dock now!

 

Funny thing is, all they get from Mac users is a few chuckles and some rolled eyes...they'll never attract us until they develop a working OS, not a P.O.S. It's not the "look" of an OS that attracts Mac users, it's the fact that it works...

[PaulQ]

Fact of the matter is, the damage done by M$'s willful incompetence and arrogance caused and still causes mindblowing financial losses to every business using their trash.

 

An argument which falls flat when all I need to do is find a single business using Microsoft products which posts regular healthy profits. In fact, it's not difficult to do this at all; I only need to look at the credit union where I do my banking. Regularly posts profits, and using Microsoft products.

 

Ha! Another thing is we used to call Windows '95 Macintosh '88 in school. They are always ripping off Mac. From what I've read, Windows 7 tries to rip OSX off even more; it's even got a dock now!

 

Those of us who actually worked in the industry at the time recognized that Windows '95 actually very closely resembled OS/2 Warp 3 in appearances rather than anything Apple ever came out with. We also recognized that OS/2 was far superior than anything Apple came out with, and was better than any Windows product.

[Thurisaz]

Fact of the matter is, the damage done by M$'s willful incompetence and arrogance caused and still causes mindblowing financial losses to every business using their trash.

 

An argument which falls flat when all I need to do is find a single business using Microsoft products which posts regular healthy profits. In fact, it's not difficult to do this at all; I only need to look at the credit union where I do my banking. Regularly posts profits, and using Microsoft products.

 

Note the fine print

 

I did not say that you cannot make any profit if you use M$. What I did say is that you can expect huge additional costs that you wouldn't need to shoulder if you would use an operating system instead of M$.

 

Besides, even with M$ you can have an IT infrastructure that is very secure - I see it every day with my current workplace - but only if you buy a whole arse full of third-party software to do the stuff that a decent operating system/office suite/et cetera should do all on its own already. Again, huge additional costs.

[Guest]

 

Ha! Another thing is we used to call Windows '95 Macintosh '88 in school. They are always ripping off Mac. From what I've read, Windows 7 tries to rip OSX off even more; it's even got a dock now!

 

Those of us who actually worked in the industry at the time recognized that Windows '95 actually very closely resembled OS/2 Warp 3 in appearances rather than anything Apple ever came out with. We also recognized that OS/2 was far superior than anything Apple came out with, and was better than any Windows product.

 

Well, I'm only 32, so I have no idea what OS/2 Warp 3 is/was. My first computer experience was with a commodore 64, then we got a Colleco Word Processor. In school, we all had Mac Classics in computer lab, the front office, etc. and when I graduated HS and went to Full Sail, we used Mac exclusively. That's where I learned the "Win 95/Mac 88" thing, but I hadn't really worked in Windows until after I graduated Full Sail and came home to find my dad had bought a Windows 95 machine. I definitely felt that Win 95 was a very cheap rip off of Macs OS (forget what it was circa 96ish), and every new version of windows that comes out has "new" features that Mac OSX has had for at least 2 versions, and the Windows are never as good as the original Mac version.

 

P.S. I remember we watched some promo video about Win 95 that used the cast of Friends to tell us how great Win 95 was. The whole class would chuckle from time to time at the campy-ness of the film, but also, even a computer novice like myself could see these great new features they were all drooling over were already in our Macs.