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

151–160 of 164 posts

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

#151

Post by INTPenis »

My brother works for a digital signage company here in Sweden and combined with my experiences in IT I would say there simply isn't enough competence.

On one hand it scares companies because they think they can't find Linux people when they need them.

On the other hand the universities are crunching out .NET and Java coders who have no ideological reason to use Linux.

Something that could fill the niche here is open software platforms for digital signage. Because the more user friendly Linux gets, the more I'm seeing of it in Enterprise environments. So if only someone could make the Fedora or Ubuntu of digital signage using open source.

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

#153

Post by rythie »

I wondered this until we did it and then all of the suitable solutions used Windows (we are mostly a Linux house). We didn't want to build our own solution so just used that. We actually just use http://www.cool-screensavers.com/onlinews.html - I'd much prefer a HTML5 or even a flash solution, but I've never found a suitable one.

We've been running the same system for 6 ish years, sometimes people ask us to put powerpoint or videos on the displays, which would be more difficult if it was a Linux system.

The main problem with the displays is not viruses, but rather pop-ups telling you need to do some update or other (like the one shown in the article).

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

#155

Post by jbrooksuk »

MarcScott wrote: post #114
radicalbyte wrote: post #7

The total cost of using Windows is (probably) lower than using Linux. These displays are often custom work - building something like that is a couple of days work for a WPF or Flash (/Air) developer. The vast majority of those use Windows. And I've not even touched on the administration costs.. To be honest I'm more concerned when I see ATMs running Windows 98; at least these advertising displays can't do any real da…

It freaked me out when an ATM BSODed on me. Its happen when I've used a Tesco self-service checkout as well.

Tesco self-service checkouts break all the bloody time on me. Watching it reboot is kind of fun though.

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

#156

Post by boomlinde »

Spearchucker wrote: post #134
boomlinde wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

The problem is governance. The web sever needs to be patched, the web site configuration needs to be maintained, as does the web application. Bear in mind that a display doesn't live in an IT department, and that developers don't maintain apps - operations does. So if you compare the web server/web site scenario to a single, self-configuring native app (presumably a single .exe and a couple .dlls or something, the .e…

I guess if you're into Windows, setting up a web server actually _is_ a hassle to you. Rest assured that there are easier ways. If you simply want to use a web server for local sharing, forget about patching and "maintaining" the configuration. Just install it and you're done (or why not use the file:// URI scheme? I can't see any compelling reason not to in a non-interactive setup). As for maintaining the web application, well, only in the same sense you have to maintain your .NET application.

Also, pulling numbers out of nowhere isn't going to help your argument.

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

#158

Post by geon »

Spearchucker wrote: post #25
sillysaurus2 wrote: post #8

Because .NET makes it very easy for average developers to write GUI programs, and Visual Studio is what they use to write them. In theory, this developer could just use Mono to run his .NET app on Linux. But that requires them to learn how to do that. Personally, I've never found a clear tutorial on how to take a .NET GUI app that you've just written in Visual Studio and get it running on Mono. I haven't looked in se…

Not to detract from your points (you make good ones); web is probably not a good medium for such displays. Not always, at least. You'd want them to be reasonably functional without comms. Last I checked (I may be wrong), HTML 5 constrains local storage to 5Mb, which is precious little, if the display uses images/media.

> HTML 5 constrains local storage to 5Mb, which is precious little, if the display uses images/media.

You wouldn't use localStorage for images.

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

#159

Post by [deleted] »

boomlinde wrote: post #156
Spearchucker wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is governance. The web sever needs to be patched, the web site configuration needs to be maintained, as does the web application. Bear in mind that a display doesn't live in an IT department, and that developers don't maintain apps - operations does. So if you compare the web server/web site scenario to a single, self-configuring native app (presumably a single .exe and a couple .dlls or something, the .e…

I guess if you're into Windows, setting up a web server actually _is_ a hassle to you. Rest assured that there are easier ways. If you simply want to use a web server for local sharing, forget about patching and "maintaining" the configuration. Just install it and you're done (or why not use the file:// URI scheme? I can't see any compelling reason not to in a non-interactive setup). As for maintaining the web applic…

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by _mgr »

boomlinde wrote: post #156
Spearchucker wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is governance. The web sever needs to be patched, the web site configuration needs to be maintained, as does the web application. Bear in mind that a display doesn't live in an IT department, and that developers don't maintain apps - operations does. So if you compare the web server/web site scenario to a single, self-configuring native app (presumably a single .exe and a couple .dlls or something, the .e…

I guess if you're into Windows, setting up a web server actually _is_ a hassle to you. Rest assured that there are easier ways. If you simply want to use a web server for local sharing, forget about patching and "maintaining" the configuration. Just install it and you're done (or why not use the file:// URI scheme? I can't see any compelling reason not to in a non-interactive setup). As for maintaining the web applic…

If anyone I oversee actively decides to not patch and maintain a system within an enterprise network for any reason, they will find themselves back on helpdesk doing password resets until they learn better. Pentesters / hackers love using setups like you suggest as easy targets to provide them with perstitant backdoors.

3 and 5 years are the common life cycle's enterprise IT use when discussing any existing implementation or any new system design. These are not pulled from nowhere.

Post reply on HN