Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 164 posts

Re: Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

#71

Post by smackfu »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #27

Last year I was on an aircraft watching the IFE, then it froze, I got a kernel panic, then it restarted, I was left looking at a Linux logo then the init output before being thrown back into the IFE interface. My point is that no general purpose OS is immune from fault. All you can really do is remove or disable things which aren't absolutely needed to get your work done. In this case they should have disabled Window…

I'm just surprised they don't hide the bootscreen given that the only troubleshooting the flight attendants can do is a power cycle.

Re: Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

#72

Post by krallin »

dhimes wrote: post #51
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #27

Last year I was on an aircraft watching the IFE, then it froze, I got a kernel panic, then it restarted, I was left looking at a Linux logo then the init output before being thrown back into the IFE interface. My point is that no general purpose OS is immune from fault. All you can really do is remove or disable things which aren't absolutely needed to get your work done. In this case they should have disabled Window…

I saw one boot last week on a Delta flight. I was very surprised to see Tux.

Same on United — we actually got to watch the full boot sequence (^ ^)

Re: Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

#74

Post by ollysb »

alexchamberlain wrote: post #18
jballanc wrote: post #16

A quick Google search of the phrase "build an animated display" with one of the following strings appended to the end reveals the answer, I should think: "raspberry pi" -- 1,060,000 results "linux" -- 4,890,000 results "os x" -- 6,910,000 results "windows" -- 32,800,000 results

There's an office near work that gives its receptionists Macs; it looks great, but an insane amount of money for the functionality they use I'm sure.

They have macs for the same reason fancy shops always have macs, they're a status signal and just look better.

Re: Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

#76

Post by stephen_g »

_random_ wrote: post #38
seivan wrote: post #2

Like anything shitty in tech being used, decisions pulled by non-engineers.

...who are good at estimating business value rather then playing with obscure unsupported tech.

No, usually they're going with the option that feels 'safe'. Things that tick the right boxes on paper, but may often end up being far more expensive/difficult to support etc. when it actually comes down to it...

Re: Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

#77

Post by bkm »

joosters wrote: post #12

Because the hardware support is good. Because the licensing costs are pretty small compared to the project costs. Because there is plenty of tech support available. Because Windows flash support is good. Because there are plenty of developers who will customize it for you. Because it is easy to add to the existing networking systems being used. There are plenty of reasons to choose Windows for this kind of thing. why…

The mousejiggler is probably because of AD group policy restrictions to screensaver configuration.

Re: Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

#78

Post by bkm »

mtgx wrote: post #45

Why not just use low-cost Android tablets, since those displays only need very basic full screen apps anyway?

Or even on those portable Android sticks. I fear this will commoditize the Digital Signage industry on the long run, Android devices need zero support and a fool can install the apps with the Play store. Plus Android devices often have very sophisticated GPUs, making them suitable for visuals.

Re: Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

#80

Post by jamesjguthrie »

simonw wrote: post #20
alexchamberlain wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an office near work that gives its receptionists Macs; it looks great, but an insane amount of money for the functionality they use I'm sure.

Alternatively, if it saves them a few days of work in lost productivity due to malware, viruses and unintuitive software, it's a great investment.

This comment (simonw's) should be the downvoted one and not its parent.

Edited for clarity.

Post reply on HN