Live data from Hacker News

Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

shkspr.mobi

21–30 of 164 posts

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

#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 into the situation where a potential customer really liked our solution, but wanted to run Windows instead of Mac OS X (this was arguably a lot tougher in 2005 when we started, and less so after the iPhone hit). There were a variety of reasons for this:

- Windows was the OS that the company was also using for employee machines, so they knew it.

- The IT department only wanted Windows machines on their network (our grand solution for this was that our machines were sold with direct support and did not need to run on the customers network, which also removed a lot of security pain)

- The customer was afraid of Mac OS X because they thought it would not be stable enough

But most importantly, it came down to simple risk aversion. The employee at a big company that was internally responsible for the 'digital signage' project, would base every decision on which choice would be less risky for his carreer in case the project fails. Lets say they roll out digital signage, and it costs a lot of money, and it doesn't work right. In that case, the employee needs to be able to defend himself against all sorts of questions: "Why was this product chosen", "Why was this vendor chosen", "Why was it implemented in this way", etc. In that case, being able to answer "We choose Windows, because it is the de facto standard" is better for the career than having to say "It seemed to be a stable product". Out of this reason alone, we found companies would choose a solution where they knew that it was far worse (less stable, less flexible, less features) simply because on paper it looked less risky.

[1] http://www.videro.com/

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

#22
Honestly, even if it was using Linux, there could be a million ways for the app to crap out and show dubious messages.

Doing it this way was probably the easiest way in the mind of the responsible engineer and i am sure it generally works fine.

That MouseJiggler thing is pretty lame though ;)

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

#23

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.

You are forgetting the IT support headache for 2 Windows PC while the rest of the company might be using Macs

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

#24

I'm not a fan of Windows, but when I saw this post it reminded me of a picture I took at 30th street station in Philadelphia. I guess this was an attempt to use Linux for an visitor information kiosk. http://imgur.com/oULGTjJ

You want some information, visitor? Well here you go. Enjoy.

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

#25

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.

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

#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 Windows explorer (which, by the way, is supported) or used one of the specialized cut-down versions of Windows (e.g. Windows Embedded 8).

PS - Although I will readily admit that Microsoft makes it insanely hard to licence Windows Embedded, particularly for SMBs. But Microsoft's licensing is far harder than it needs to be across the board, they have an old-mode mindset where they can charge more if they make the whole process harder.

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

#28
I did once have a Linux boot screen come up on the Coca-Cola sign at Piccadilly Circus (with two penguins, it was a dual CPU back in the day), after a power cut. Alas I didn't have a camera with me. After that I moved the boot console to a different output. Back in the day when I was in this business flash was the big thing that pushed people to Windows as people wanted to do flash content as thats what Ad agencies could produce.

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

#29
post #10

People use what they know. Given a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you work in IT for any length of time, you come across people who use Excel as a text combiner to parse tabular text in ways similar to how a regex could, or have similar convoluted workarounds for any number of tasks. In some ways, these are quite clever hacks. In other ways, it's kind of sad as it obviously shows how badly GUI-centric "It's…

I would argue that Windows is a great platform for such displays. Not sure how many of these were written, but knocking up an attractive list template in XAML and binding it to a list is a walk in the park. Dev cost must be next to nothing. Call it what you will, but it's the front-end I'd prefer to develop such displays on. WinRT makes such a use case even more compelling. And Mono unfortunately doesn't support WPF.

Yeah, XAML is basically a better HTML. Vector-first and has containers that actually align things the way you want.

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

#30
When you don't know why this is, you are either a passionate hobbyist or you don't see reality. Choosing an operating system is nothing you should do for the sake of it. Not everybody is as passionate as you and want to memorize CLI commands. Why do you think Windows and iOS are so successful? Most developers feel like most end users, they don't care as long as it runs and it can be easily operated. And this is a wise attitude.
Post reply on HN