Apple computers, which is a higher market share than Linux, are more expensive. That’s what I was getting at.
Windows became dominant because of enterprise software sales 20 years ago. Now everything runs in an electron wrapper that can run on any platform or in the browser.
PCs don’t even have optical drives anymore. No normal consumer even knows how to install a program today, let alone is considering legacy program compatibility when making a computer purchasing decision
I am qualifying my statements based on interactions with my coworkers of whom I deploy and manage their PCs. I could probably install mint on 50% of their PCs and the only reason they’d notice is because Microsoft office looks different and is called Libre Office for some reason
OEMs pay MS to put it on the computer. Why do you think that is?
As if Linux PCs are more expensive?
Apple computers, which is a higher market share than Linux, are more expensive. That’s what I was getting at.
Windows became dominant because of enterprise software sales 20 years ago. Now everything runs in an electron wrapper that can run on any platform or in the browser.
PCs don’t even have optical drives anymore. No normal consumer even knows how to install a program today, let alone is considering legacy program compatibility when making a computer purchasing decision
I am qualifying my statements based on interactions with my coworkers of whom I deploy and manage their PCs. I could probably install mint on 50% of their PCs and the only reason they’d notice is because Microsoft office looks different and is called Libre Office for some reason
No. If it did Google would be winning with their incredibly weak Chromebooks.
What is a “normal consumer”? All of them? No. Enough of them that many platforms are dependent on that knowledge, yes.
That sounds like an extreme bias.