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

101–110 of 164 posts

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

#101

Post by jonknee »

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.

An insane amount of money? iMacs start at $1,299 which is probably around what a pay cycle for the receptionist would run. Seems like a cheap way to make a first impression (not to mention IT savings for the years the machine is used).

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

#103

Post by bediger4000 »

excitom wrote: post #50
_random_ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

".NET makes it very easy for average developers to write GUI programs" - it makes it easy for any kind of developer, that's the defining characteristic of best frameworks.

It makes it so simple, any idiot can write a GUI program ... so you get GUI programs that look like they were written by idiots.

I suspect that a lot of Director-level people in large companies don't see things this way. I don't have any direct evidence (i.e. PowerPoints), but all other evidence points toward someone sold Microsoft .NET as a "you can have cheap labor doing everything!" solution in the early 2000s. Folks who were middle managers back then have risen into Director and Executive Director roles, and since they're busy with office politics, haven't paid attention to anything else. They still think that a MS Studio installation can help a bad developer make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

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

#104

Post by dhimes »

krallin wrote: post #72
dhimes wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (^ ^)

I was surprised how long it took- several minutes.

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

#105

Post by ams6110 »

terhechte wrote: post #21

I've worked for quite some time in the digital display industry, at a company which has a very feature rich, Mac OS X based digital signage solution [1] with high profile customers such as Mercedes-Benz, or Disney. Since the company is small, it is easy to be part of all steps of the process, including marketing and sales. I learned a lot about B2B buying behaviour while I worked for this company. We oftentimes ran i…

Where I work they have a few gratuitous large-screen displays that in reality just suck up electricity while presenting slides about how "green" our IT organization is.

They use Mac Minis, with full-screen Chrome to run the slideshow, and I often see error messages on these (though typically from having dropped the wifi connection and not from an OS panic or other real error).

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

#106

Post by Spearchucker »

ams6110 wrote: post #97
Spearchucker wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web server means additional complexity both to deploy and maintain. After 20+ years in the corporate world I can guarantee that an alone-standing native client it going to beat anything with a web server.

A lightweight local web server is not going to be any more complicated than a stand-alone program that does the same thing.

The web site you build does the same thing that the standalone app does. The web site is hosted by the web server. That's an added piece of software to maintain and configure, over and above the web site itself.

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

#107

Post by camus2 »

terhechte wrote: post #21

I've worked for quite some time in the digital display industry, at a company which has a very feature rich, Mac OS X based digital signage solution [1] with high profile customers such as Mercedes-Benz, or Disney. Since the company is small, it is easy to be part of all steps of the process, including marketing and sales. I learned a lot about B2B buying behaviour while I worked for this company. We oftentimes ran i…

Hi , what technology do you use ? Flash,Java or something else?

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

#108

Post by boomlinde »

Spearchucker wrote: post #87
krallin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an expert in embedded displays, but I assume you'd simply run a webserver on localhost.

Web server means additional complexity both to deploy and maintain. After 20+ years in the corporate world I can guarantee that an alone-standing native client it going to beat anything with a web server.

"Beat", how exactly? 20+ years in the corporate world doesn't mean much if you can't back your opinion up with proper arguments.

Besides the confusing fact that you bring HTML5 local storage into the equation for some reason, a local web server doesn't necessarily mean more complex deployment/maintenance than maintaining a .NET application.

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

#109

Post by qas1981 »

I think its really about lowering barriers to entry. The more people that understand how to operate a system decreases risk. Plenty of people understand Window OS and how to run an application. With this knowledge everyone just can be an expert on how to operate the displays.

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

#110

Post by ollysb »

stephenr wrote: post #94
ollysb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or because, you know, they find that paying a little more up front gives them a better overall product - longer usable life, less maintenance, etc. Just because you don’t see the point of an Apple product beyond “ooh shiny” doesn’t mean others don’t. I work for a global company where > 50% of people work from home offices and > 90% of our staff use Macs. I can only actually think of 2 specific people (out of 200+) th…

I'm pretty much a self-confessed apple fanboy :) but I do recognise that a machine that's going to be used for a single task without any great hardware requirements could be pretty much anything and do the job reliably.
Post reply on HN