Yes, about all that old Windows 10 hardware.....

[uncle mark]

I haven't "configured" anything on this MX19KDE load since I installed it, and even then it was all a point & click operation.

Those of us who install our own OSs are a tiny sliver of the computing world. People buy a computer and run with what's presented to them. I've converted a handful of users over the years, but I was the one that did the install and initial setup of the desktop and menus and what have you. I then hand it over and tell them to give me a call if they run into a problem. I never hear back from them.

Windows became dominant when it became the default OS with the OEMs. That of course meant millions of users. Linux gains users one at a time.

[DukeComposed]

Those of us who install our own OSs are a tiny sliver of the computing world. People buy a computer and run with what's presented to them.

This exact point is outlined in He Who Controls the Bootloader, an article by Scot Hacker that was published in Byte Magazine in 2001. Hacker was the designated BeOS enthusiast, and he put together what is probably the definitive story on how Microsoft works with OEMs.

"It is statistically unlikely that a person purchasing a new computer is ever going to change its operating system -- the OS that comes with the computer you buy at the local computer mega-store is probably going to be the OS you use for years, if not forever. And while it is technically trivial for a hardware vendor to set up hard drives to dual- or triple-boot multiple operating systems, very few people have the interest -- or the huevos -- to repartition their hard drives and install additional OSes after the original point of purchase. Therefore, few things could be more financially critical to an operating system vendor than to have one's product pre-installed on consumer computers."

Edit: Added link to article

[siamhie]

Windows became dominant when it became the default OS with the OEMs.

I highly suggest the book The Microsoft File : The Secret Case Against Bill Gates. It explains how M$ became so dominant in the PC world.
I read it in 1998 (still own it) and it made a lot of sense when the Halloween documents were getting published around the same time.

The Microsoft File is an extraordinary fly-on-the-wall account of Microsoft's intent to monopolize the computer industry. Wendy Goldman Rohm
takes you to the inner sanctum of Microsoft, has you sit in on meetings between Microsoft and important customers and competitors, and looks
at the struggles of the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice as they try to develop a strategy to counter one of the most serious
charges of market manipulation since John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

[Arnox]

This exact point is outlined in He Who Controls the Bootloader, an article by Scot Hacker that was published in Byte Magazine in 2001. Hacker was the designated BeOS enthusiast, and he put together what is probably the definitive story on how Microsoft works with OEMs.

"It is statistically unlikely that a person purchasing a new computer is ever going to change its operating system -- the OS that comes with the computer you buy at the local computer mega-store is probably going to be the OS you use for years, if not forever. And while it is technically trivial for a hardware vendor to set up hard drives to dual- or triple-boot multiple operating systems, very few people have the interest -- or the huevos -- to repartition their hard drives and install additional OSes after the original point of purchase. Therefore, few things could be more financially critical to an operating system vendor than to have one's product pre-installed on consumer computers."

Edit: Added link to article

People didn't change their OS on their PC because for the longest time, besides maybe Vista, they didn't NEED to. Even the much maligned Vista, once you had the drivers for it and installed Service Pack 1, worked well, even if it was more heavy on the system requirements than XP. Again, you guys are being ridiculously critical of Linux in a Linux forum. This is a little silly.

[DukeComposed]

People didn't change their OS on their PC because for the longest time, besides maybe Vista, they didn't NEED to.

I have no idea where you're getting that idea. Upgrading Windows has been a storied event in PC ownership since the days of Windows 1.0. Even when moving from one version of Windows to another, it could sometimes go sideways. The need to change the OS from the one the PC had the day you bought it was, as it still is today, predicated by the promise of better performance, support, and new features that the company can't or won't backport.

[needmorebrains]

More fodder for thought;

Every single computer I have owned (fill in OEM here) with a pre-installed version of Windows on it (since about W95) had to be re-installed very soon after purchase due to improper file awareness. Most of the time, it was because the hardware was not identified properly, or a file was corrupt in the compressed file, and failed to expand properly, and that holds true up to today. Now when I used to build my own desktops, I loaded the OS (Thanks Comp USA or Best Buy), it always worked first time, every time. Funny thing is, I cannot explain why, so I am still mystified as to the exact cause(es) of these failures. Each was unique on it's own.

As I learned linux (starting with Ubuntu/Debian) and migrated to more peaceful distros (MX) I found that I had to be a real knucklehead to toast an install. Initial setup is a 100% understanding the structure of the file system and format your partitions properly! If we could only get over the naming conventions (which seems to turn Windows Wonks green at the gills): why is your file explorer not called "file explorer?" I think we could fair better in the explanation of why Windows is not the only OS.

[uncle mark]

People didn't change their OS on their PC because for the longest time, besides maybe Vista, they didn't NEED to. Even the much maligned Vista, once you had the drivers for it and installed Service Pack 1, worked well, even if it was more heavy on the system requirements than XP. Again, you guys are being ridiculously critical of Linux in a Linux forum. This is a little silly.

Vista got a bad rap because Intel talked MSFT into lowering the minimum hardware requirements so the OEMs could move a bunch of old CPUs they had on hand. On proper hardware it was a perfectly fine OS as far as Windows goes. I used it in my workplace for a number of years without issue.

[artytux]

I remember Vista it ran very well maybe I didn't have old cpu (didn't know about that fact) only problem was Windows Corporation kept changing the settings to their printers default settings, I made and had running printer to suit my workflow so Windows Corporation install went out the . . . and dived into Linux and Huh my settings stayed as is after many update now that's what a computer should do after all it is my computer meant to run the way I setup and not the Windows Corporation computer and here with Linux I've stayed .

[DukeComposed]

Every single computer I have owned (fill in OEM here) with a pre-installed version of Windows on it (since about W95) had to be re-installed very soon after purchase due to improper file awareness. Most of the time, it was because the hardware was not identified properly, or a file was corrupt in the compressed file, and failed to expand properly, and that holds true up to today.

That is highly unusual. Major OEMs like Dell, HP, Gateway, and so on don't individually install Windows on each machine. They build a base image with all the added stuff, the unhelpful "Dell(TM) Awesome Center" software pre-installed, and they add all the drivers into the image that they then have written onto the disks before they get installed. You shouldn't have driver problems with the default install of the OEM-provided OS, so if you've had bad images on literally every disk you've bought it sounds like you may be the common factor, or something happening with delivery of the machines along your mailing route, or a huge magnetic iron deposit under your house, or something. Having no machines with the pre-installed OS working correctly out of the box just seems improbable considering the volume of devices the big OEMs produce.

Drivers used to be much harder to manage in the era before you could download something like Snappy Driver Installer Origin and get really extensive device detection for all of the unique buses and ports in an obscure, one-off Dell Dimension model that was only sold to people in Nebraska and in Utah, for four months, in 2003. There were serial port drivers to worry about, LPT drivers, something called a UART. You might have separate physical cards installed in the machine for video, sound, network, and maybe even one for a joystick. It was nuts. And you couldn't always trust Windows to find its own drivers for you, which meant you kept the "Drivers" CD that came with the machine, forever, in case you needed it.

Now that pretty much every machine just has USB, HDMI, and DisplayPort ports, any conventional install of Windows or Linux is going to work on most consumer-grade machines built from ten to one or two years ago. Manufacturers aren't including as many weird devices as they used to, motherboards have more integrated onboard devices than ever, and the era of just making everything a peripheral with its own extra ISA or PCI card is over. This all makes it far less terrifying these days than it used to be to wipe the hard disk and replace the OS on a new machine.

[AK-47]

People didn't change their OS on their PC because for the longest time, besides maybe Vista, they didn't NEED to. Even the much maligned Vista, once you had the drivers for it and installed Service Pack 1, worked well, even if it was more heavy on the system requirements than XP.

The same will apply for Windows 11. People won't change the OS because they don't NEED to, unless they don't like its invasive features. In many cases, they won't have much choice, as Linux cannot readily support all hardware or run the programs that Windows can out of the box.

Again, you guys are being ridiculously critical of Linux in a Linux forum. This is a little silly.

Where has anyone on this thread been ridiculously critical of Linux? This isn't about "Linux sucks", but what will happen when Windows 10 goes end of life. As a dev I can say there are a lot of sucky things about both operating systems (eg. Linux case-sensitive file system and use of magic numbers rather than extensions, and Windows requiring activation and having a piece of hell known as the Registry). But that's not what this thread is about, and I don't know anyone who has been ridiculously critical of Linux in this thread.

That is highly unusual. Major OEMs like Dell, HP, Gateway, and so on don't individually install Windows on each machine. They build a base image with all the added stuff, the unhelpful "Dell(TM) Awesome Center" software pre-installed, and they add all the drivers into the image that they then have written onto the disks before they get installed.

The best OEM images I have come across are the ones from Panasonic for their Toughbooks, with no crapware, but useful tools (such as the PC Information Viewer, which is a lot like our QSI utility).

Drivers used to be much harder to manage in the era before you could download something like ... and get really extensive device detection for all of the unique buses and ports in an obscure, one-off Dell Dimension model that was only sold to people in Nebraska and in Utah, for four months, in 2003.

And even back then, it was still easier than installing drivers on Linux.