A fresh outlook on computers: The OS doesn't matter

Adam Frucci from www.Gizmodo.com AKA: The cranky Windows guy just posted an article today explaining that he has switched to Mac. I found it refreshing to read because it makes a good point that your OS doesn't define you and in the end the OS you choose doesn't really matter.

I just thought I would share and see what everyone thinks. Since there have been several OS battles here lately I thought this might be a good way to find common ground.

 

Disclaimer: please,stay civilized

 

For simple needs it doesn't matter, but for me it does... I have different devices that use different standards, virtual machines I need to run, A/V encoding I need to do, and games I need to play; I am a busy computer user (especially when I play games!).

I would say that the author's point stands for certain computer uses; but for "power" users, not just any OS will do. This article is large an oversimplification b/c it ignores the above.

 

Most users know this and accept it.

It's the few fanboy's that think OS X/Windows is the be all and end all who cause alot of the issues. but it's usually the apple guys.

but it doesn't matter! SOLUTION: Linux!

Edit: this is of course for your average user

 

People who argue about which OS is the best are idiots, as are those who argue that the *way* by which a given OS accomplishes a given task is the best way. One the other hand, I think that people who argue about which OS is better suited for specific tasks have something to debate. In this regard they are certainly not equal.

 

correct line is-"The best OS for me is XYZ,since it does X,Y and Z better then others(again,for certain person).

 

I was impressed that he found the middle ground in the article instead of going pro Mac or PC. He switched because of issues he had with his Windows system attracting nut jobs who write viruses not because it didn't meet his needs. The switch isn't that difficult and for the most part OS doesn't matter for regular users.

I almost switched to Ubuntu instead of Mac but didn't think it was a perfect fit for me yet. Maybe my next system will be Linux, who knows. I never rule out any option for the future (including a return to Windows).

 

^ You should try out Fedora Core, it uses more "bleeding edge" software than Ubuntu, including the latest kernel. I'm running FC 11 right now as a VM, actually.

 

I'm with the "Loyalty to no brand" folks. I'm only loyal to my wallet. Back in the day, I had no issues switching from WordPerfect to Word, Quattro Pro to Excel, Intel to AMD, ATI to Nvidia, Windows to OS Warp.

Palm, Blackberry. Verizon, AT&T, Toyota or Honda. Costco vs Walmart. Exxon or Chevron. Starbucks or McDonalds. Whatever give me the most for my money.

 

I used ubuntu and kubuntu. They're basically the same os except that kubuntu is turned towards programming. However let me tell you that if you are going with linux, this means no 3d game for you. Windows and OS X are the main platforms for gaming 3-d games. But Windows is far more advanced because of it's open gl implementation. I find OS X + Windows to be the best configuration.

 

I like the best of both worlds approach; run more than one OS and use which ever one fits the bill for what you want to do.

My laptop is a HP running win XP and Vista; we have a brand new iMac at home with OS X and XP on it. Why not have your cake and eat it, too?

 

I use my computer for internet, documents, presentations, video, music, pictures and casual games. Gaming is what a console is for in my eyes. My Mac helps me do what I need easily and my XBOX 360 helps me game easily when I want to do that.

 

That is MS's and Apple's worst nightmare
(MS->linux and Apple->MS)

 

I think Microsoft's worst nightmare is "cloud computing." While there will always be OSes for performance reasons (everything always runs faster in native mode), Microsoft's worst nightmare is when another OS, like say a more "internet-aware" operating system starts to become relevant. An operating system that not only performs better, but syncs the information between all your devices more effectively. For example, an operating system where your open application's states are mirrored from one machine to another, whether you are at home, at work, in the library, at a friend's place etc etc. That same information is available on your phone. I think the article touches on the same idea.

The operating systems choice did not affect his workflow, for the storage of his information is largely Operating system independent. It would be nice if that were the case for myself. Until someone else comes out with the equivalent of Outlook on the other operating systems, my information is largely tied to Windows. Heck it's largely tied to Outlook. I can't even find an equivalent dayplanner that will stand toe to toe with Outlook.

 

uhh... kubuntu is basically ubuntu with KDE... and yes Linux is 3D capable, and 3D game capable... and Windows is not more advanced because of OpenGL, Windows OpenGL blows... Windows is better for game makers because of DirectX... most every game for Windows doesn't even use OpenGL.

 

I guess thats the Adam's opinion, it doesnt make it a fact.

It depends on the person if the OS matters to them or not. And to me it matters.

 

Adam is not your prototypical office worker. He is not dependent on proprietary infrastructure has no need to maintain compatibility with existing infrastructure.

But he is a prototypical consumer level user.

 

Most people would be better off at least trying to run and really use a computer with neither Windows or MacOS on them for a few months. They'd be better overall users and more educated about their decisions.

The simple truth is, it's just a human interface.

A reasonably bright monkey can use any interface.

This doesn't mean that some people won't have their preferences and that environment (other computers around you) won't have an effect.

 

you guys have too much of free time...

 

I disagree here. Most people just don't have the time nor the economic incentive to learn a completely new environment. Nor should they be forced to. People will become better users when businesses make better products.

A good example is Windows home networking. Having home users have to deal with account permissions, IP addresses, and NetBIOS setting just to share files and their printer was a failure on Microsoft's part. They are FINALLY moving in the right direction with Windows 7's Homegroup. Windows Home Server is home networking done right and again, Microsoft moving in the right direction. If they only released Home server a year earlier, at the same time as Vista.....

 

i couldn't agree more with Adam. In fact, I'm always wondering why everyone is saying their OS is so great. I'm just a computer user and I use programs, not OS's to get my shtuff done. I have a MAC and a PC and I really don't give a rat's behind which one uses photoshop, firefox, office, etc. I'm just an average guy, I guess, but what's the big deal with the OS?

 

+1 for that. I love cloud computing.

 

Microsoft has been developing a "cloud" OS over the past few years. Basically, the personal computer will become a "thin" client and will connect to a main "cloud" computer where all the data and work will be. Perhaps Microsoft will not be late with "cloud" like they were with the internet.

 

Are they still planning the pay per use model though? That would be a hard sell.

 

hmm, idiots dont know how to make a case, or arguing as the matter of fact. Discussing about which OS is best, is another matter all together. That is what being techies is all about!

same as above. I call this "exchanges" of belief and experiences.

Now we are talking

cheers ...

 

Better hope no one in the HCI field heard you

I disagree, consumer satisfaction in using an interface plays a huge role in which product a consumer chooses to use. Just because most interfaces are possible to use doesn't mean that there isn't a huge gap between a good interface and a mediocre one.

I also think that the average person will find using Linux/Unix quite frustrating. It's not for the non tech savvy.

 

The pay per use patent application by Microsoft was thrown out in the USA.

 

why be so modest?

use all of them (all OSes); gobble them all. *yum* *yum* *yum*!

no compromise.

 

Just because they can't patent the process doesn't mean they can't do it.

 

While Microsoft has been developing a "cloud" OS, the personal computer will NOT be a thin client. This is a strong misconception of cloud computing.

The available processing power on the client computer is something programmers will always take advantage of in their programs. And it is unlikely that will change in the next ten- twenty years. Many programs run much faster locally, and that will not change in the foreseeable future. What cloud computing truly is is more than the simple "terminal/mainframe" concept. Rather is the concept your information follows you where ever you go. While you take notes, you can draw on information from the internet without having to fire up a seperate application, copy and paste, and match the formatting to the destination. The word document you are working on your laptop will move seamlessly to your phone. It will even remember where you cursor was. The channel you are watching will follow you from your living room to your bedroom. Its not so much the client computer is becoming irrelevant. I think it is much bigger than that.

People are more mobile now than ever. They carry more electronic devices than ever. This is a post-modern society where the faster the information we need gets to us, the better. No longer should we have to fill out 2 page forms every time we go to the doctor. Why should we carry coins and dollars to use the vending machine? Why must we still keep track of all of our paper receipts to claim a warranty repair? And why doesn't my car already drive itself? Why doesn't my computer automatically make sure if this business trip interferes with my kid's soccer schedule? Cloud computing is about merging the information you have in 20 different places and having it at your finger tips.

 

I learned a great deal more about English in Spanish class than I ever did in any English class.

Most <insert OS here> users both prefer and are satisfied by something that they have no comparison for. They use <insert OS here> because they have little experience with anything else and are comfortable with the one they have used for so long.

Today's OSs pretty much look the same, work the same, and are just different-colored and decorated screwdriver handles.

I completely understand that someone likes using a purple screwdriver handle over a black one... I can even tolerate how someone thinks the purple or black screwdriver handle benefits them and allows them to work easier.
However, the talk of how one or the other is "loads better" due to a label is madness.

I think this is conditioning... people seem unable to program a VCR, DVD-RW, or DVR and yet children do this easily. (its "too hard" or "requires too much tech savvy") It is about fear and a resistance to change, not about the product or actual comparative ease-of-use.

You know that MacOSX is just a GUI on top of a modified version of FreeBSD right?

Using Ubuntu is pretty much the same as using MacOSX or even Windows now. If you can handle concepts like "click" and "drag" and "double-click" you will be fine.

 

I can only speak for myself but in the years i've been a computer user, i've never found osx itself to be much of a turn off.

The holier than thou attitude of a large majority of mac users i deal with on a daily basis on the other hand, has always been the biggest turn off.

thats' just my experience though... so in the end i think what this guy wrote about is fairly common sense, but how it plays out in the real world when emotion is involved is quite another story.

 

Thats me in a nutshell. I choose OSX because I find it satisfying in the way the interface performs my everyday task, but I use windows for the games I like to play.

Yes, i'm good with computers for the most part. But I am not "tech savvy" in the ways I would need to be to effectively use Linux/Unix, so I don't.

I'm sure if I worked at it I could be, but i'm a simple user and that just works for me.

 

Considering that users perceive 99% of the state of their PC through the monitor, the appearance of the OS and applications can be pretty darn important. Your right that the inner workings of many operating systems share similar implementations. However, users do not interact with their systems at a low level but at a high level. For the most part, this interface is visual. The OSX platform does a very good job in having interface standards and most OSX apps have very good, intuitive, and recognizable interfaces. This is one reason why many like the "OSX package." In Windows, there are no standards and may apps have god awful interfaces (not to say that there isn't a lot of very good Windows Apps).

As far as the Linux interface favoring only the tech savvy, it's not just that the average joe has been conditioned to use a particular interface and therefore finds the Linux interface "worse," but many operations require a somewhat deep understanding of a Unix system. For example, lets say I want to install an app I just downloaded. Are you telling me for the average joe, opening up a terminal and executing a make command is more intuitive/learnable than being guided through an installation wizard? Do I really need to explain how the visual difference of both of these interfaces effects usability?

And by the way, I'm quite aware that OSX is built off of BSD. However, the difference with OSX is that you don't have to be familiar with a Unix terminal to effectively use the operating system. Linux is more powerful in that it gives the user a lot of flexibility in customizing the interface, but if the user doesn't really know what they are doing, they are not going to have a good experience with Linux.

Your screwdriver analogy is not really valid in this case. A user interfaces with a screwdriver by holding the handle. Most of the design of the interface is put into the handle, not the color with is largely irrelevant. On the other hand, the visual appearance, including the use of color, is very important with software. A more valid analogy is that a user prefers screwdriver A or screwdriver B as the handle on screwdriver A fits his/her hand in a better manner. Likewise, this same user may prefer OS A over OS B due to a more comfortable interaction (where appearance is a factor).

 

Linux is not hard to use if it is configured correctly. My mother, who never used computers before, easily learned how to use applications like Firefox in Linux just like in Windows Vista/XP.

Linux is only a little bit harder in terms of installing applications and drivers. Most non-techies do not even know how to do this in Windows anyways. In some distributions like those based on Debian, it is very simple to update if you know the commands. Some GUI tools in certain flavors of Linux make it very simple to update and install applications.

Once Linux is setup correctly, it is not that difficult compared to another OS.

 

I totally agree here. Users interact with OSes at a high level rather than at a low level. And they should have no need to interact at a low level. You buy a computer to help solve problems in your life, not to bring new problems into your life.

A good interface has no need for manuals. Good programmers have this attitude where "if the user needs a manual to use my interface, then the interface is not good enough." They make a good point. If the interface isn't powerful enough to shield a user from the underlyings of a program, then is it the fault of the user or the fault of the interface? My email program can configure itself to pull down my email when given just my login info and the address of the server. I don't need to tell it which interface or which socket to use. And it shouldn't have to.

While no interface will ever be perfect, we should shoot for perfection. Any other goal guarentees we hit lower than perfection.

 

If computers were appliances that offered the same functionality, connectivity, interoperability etc, the OS would not really matter.

But to most folks, computers are not appliances and saying the OS doesn't matter is a crock.

Each OS has different strengths and weaknesses, most programs that run on them are closely tied to the OS, and interoperability and compatability across OS's and programs varies wildly. So for most of us - the OS matters.

The closest I've seen to appliance utopia is the Netbook market where users with very limited needs (Office like applications, Surfing, Messaging, and Email). But even in this simplest case each OS imposes its own limits on the software you can use and its level of interoperabiity with other hardware and software. So even hare OS can matter.

I'm somewhat of a power user doing a wide variety of things on my computer (regularly using over 80 3ed party application in addition to many OS maker apps). I ran Windows for many years because none of the other OS's would do everything I needed to do. But I was never happy with Windows due to its quality issues a few years ago when OS X finally offered all the functionality I needed I switched. As a result I am a much happier user but at this point I do use some software that only runs on a Mac and some software that only runs on a PC (via a VM) so unless I want to use multiple PC's, a MAC is my only real choice. If my needs were more limited I could also be happy with only Windows or only OS X or only a different Linux flavor. But most folks - including myself - are not in that boat so OS still matters a great deal.

 

jim I kinda agree with you on OSs - they all work more or less, Windows is just kinda more annoying and has more issues than OS X. But OS X is nowhere near where I'd say it's "easy" to use, it still has a zillion features and still has lots of stuff that can go wrong where I have to go and fix it for my wife (for example).

My main beef with Windows is migrating to new machines, which happens for me every 2 years. Windows really has not solved this (at least in XP) whereas on OS X it's a complete non-issue. You can take a brand new Mac and with the help of migration assistant are ready to continue your work where you left off in under 2 hours. And that's with all applications, settings, and the myriad of customizations I have done to my machine.

For the end user though, the OS is pretty irrelevant. Most normal people I know do three things with their machines: Web, email, and Word. And watch a few movies, maybe. All of these activities work equally well on Windows and OS X.

 

that was my deciding factor of why I switched to Mac the viruses and numerous vulnerabities that windows has

 

What a ridiculous article.

All he's saying is that because everything HE does is online, it doesn't matter what OS HE uses because there's essentially a browser on them all.

Great, for HIM. The BS comes when he makes out like that statement applies to everyone.

How about you give a graphic designer a Ubuntu laptop and see how they get on? How about you take someone who spends all day with complex macro enabled spreadsheets and give them a mac and see how they get on?

Since most applications aren't multi-platform, and even when they are there are pretty huge differences between the versions (Take Microsoft Office 2008 for mac as an example), the OS is pretty vital for most people.

Stupid article that uses a logical fallacy to reach too general a conclusion.

Epic epic FAIL.

 

For all you cloud computing fans,

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2008/12/hp-cloud-computing-interview.ars

This is probably one of the better articles I've read about the future of cloud computing. It is an interview with HP's CTO Russ Daniels. There is a part II and IMO is more interesting.

http://www.winsupersite.com/alt/keith_curtis.asp

The last part of this article really hits home. His opinions about data and protocols really highlights the biggest obstacle to getting the information we want, the way we want, on time.

 

Saying what OS you are more suited to use is just plain lazy, and expected from most (not all) of the fine "journalists" at Gizmodo. Many are excellent, some are useless.

Of course your OS doesn't define you, the only people that think that are the people that post valuable comments on Youtube and whatnot. But, the way you use a computer is important, and for a huge majority of people's general computer use, the OS can be a huge factor.

Honestly though, you could sit down and easily become adjusted to any particular system, as a human, that is to be expected. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Frucci to the first discovery of human's amazing ability to adapt to their surroundings.

As some have mentioned: I think many people would be perfectly happy with an extremely basic quick booting OS of which there are already many flavors of, usually if not always based on Linux. But the reason that hasn't really happened yet is that a lot of people want to be able to do a crapload of things with their computer. Which is good.