The Future
Windows gives you the widest software and hardware support with a weakness in security. Mac OS X gives you a secure user experience with nearly all the features of a Windows PC and superior capabilities in the Apple sandbox with the weakness of cost. Linux becomes the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none for the desktop giving you security and stability without the widespread compatibility of Windows or the user experience of a Mac. A decade ago, people would have said that Linux was ill-suited for “real” server work. Are naysayers of desktop Linux being as naïve? I don’t think so.
What About Netbooks?
The beauty of the netbook is that its purpose is not to serve as a true notebook or desktop replacement. HP has done the best job of positioning its Linux-based netbooks as offering a “Mobile Internet Experience.” Here’s an excerpt from its Web page:
| HP Mini 1000 | HP Mini 1000 with MIE | Typical Notebooks | |
| Size | 10” x 5” (fits in a purse) | 10” x 5” (fits in a purse) | 12” x 8” (fits in a backpack) |
| Ideal Uses | Checking e-mail Surfing the Web Viewing photos Watching videos Listening to music Playing casual games Using Windows-compatible applications | Checking e-mail Surfing the Web Viewing photos Watching videos Listening to music Playing casual games | Replacing your desktop PC Running office productivity software Editing photos and videos Playing mainstream games |
The key here is that HP isn’t positioning its netbook as a desktop alternative or even drawing attention to how the netbook is compatible with Linux applications. By promising only basic Internet features, anything else is just a bonus.
The Only Hope for Linux
The global economic crisis won’t drive users toward a “free” operating system. As I mentioned earlier, most people will choose to keep their existing computer. As money gets tighter, most people will look to eliminate uncertainty. With a PC, it’s a known entity. With a Mac, you have the Genius Bar for technical support. There is no local Linux guru. The only way Linux can reach the mainstream desktop is if that uncertainty is removed. For Linux to catch on as a desktop OS, it would take a store like Best Buy to make a commitment to push Linux at the mainstream.
It starts with the development of a new Linux distribution focused on the tools that HP has already identified as being important to most home users: office productivity and editing photos. Imagine a stripped-down distribution with Open Office, Evolution, Firefox, F-Spot, Gimp, Brasero, Banshee, xgl/Compiz, and essentially nothing else. Finally, lock everything down to ensure adequate security.
By pre-installing a very specific subset of Linux applications on a PC, users won’t be daunted by auto-updates reporting the installation of dozens of packages. More importantly, it allows Best Buy store associates to learn and demonstrate a very specific set of applications after a single day of training. Have a dedicated Geek Squad Linux person at every store. This person doesn’t need to be an expert–he or she just needs to be knowledgeable enough to help consumers with their Linux machine and how to configure VNC. Best Buy can then have a centralized team of expert technicians who can access/troubleshoot machines remotely.
Now offer this package as a “Blue Label” PC. They already have Blue Label notebooks. With all of the cost savings of going to Linux versus Windows, pocket the cash. Best Buy can sell these systems at the same prices as their Windows counterparts. That’s because these systems will include a free year of Geek Squad system support.
It’s a simple plan:
- Focused Linux distribution with a minimal install to improve speed and minimize the support needed
- In-store demonstration and support
- Remote Desktop Tech Support
- Bundled year of the service plan
The goal for Best Buy would be to break even in the first year, and then profit as home users renew their service plan.
Latest Software News
Latest Software reviews
- 17/01 – In Pictures: Dear Developers, 15 Games Worthy Of A Sequel
- 09/01 – Nokia Lumia 710 Review: Windows Phone 7 On A Budget
- 06/01 – Web Browser Grand Prix VIII: Chrome 16, Firefox 9, And Mac OS X
- 06/12 – Star Wars: The Old Republic: PC Performance, Benchmarked
- 11/11 – Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: PC Performance, Benchmarked
"For the average consumer, the transition to 64-bit means a more stable operating system."
Huh? There was silly old me thinking that 64-bit computing referred only to allowing you to address more RAM...
Such things were claimed about the switch from 16 to 32bit - the only difference is the amount of address space available. Stability and security still come down to the quality of the code written for them, not the system architecture as 32 and 64 bit systems are capable of being equally hardware-stable.
My 2009 predictions:
Business will stick with XP in the main until 7 is released and proven to be acceptable.
Home users will go with whatever is pushed at them.
Mac will continue to make obscene profits from great-looking but technically out-dated hardware. I will continue to not supply our staff with iPhones as the email hack is insanely inefficient compared to Blackberry for corporate mail. Hopefully I will stop getting harassed for them as the Storm and Bold 'berrys are released.
Linux will continue it's current trend of building on it's successful server-base. There will be a small incremental increase of desktop installations thanks to Asus E and other machines. People won't realise that their phone, car, fridge and watch have linux installations so they will continue to see it as the 'work ob teh debil'. Smart IT managers will continue to deliver colossal RoI with open source solutions where appropiate, but only in the minority of organisations as it requires them to actually do their job.
1)[quote]Machines with Windows XP RTM are infected at a staggering 33.8 systems per 1,000, while Vista SP1 brings this down to 4.5 per 1,000 and 2.3 per 1,000 (32-bit and 64-bit). As a group, Microsoft estimates 10 in 1,000 PCs as a whole have detected malware. quote]
Thats because people buy the tech without wanting learning how to use it safely, most computers users are bit like people getting drunk and having unprotected sex - both dont know what they're playing with and more often than not end up with a nasty virus from an unwanted download!
2) Most people associate 64bit windows with flakey/non-existent drivers and software issues - not stability and security.
New Hardware, New Compatibility
Or page two of why to buy a mac.
Another example of an article trying to look fair while being pro mac.
The main issue with Macs is that their philosophy is "my way, or the highway" and its more like the computer leads you around by the nose rather than doing your bidding.
I really think the thing with Windows' domination is that the philosophies of our various software vendors goes a bit like this:
Mac: Do it our way.
Linux: Do it yourself.
Windows: We've done it for you.
No large companies really want to buy into the Mac's closed platform, not to mention Apple's own licensing really hindering the Mac's growth.
Linux, from my growing-every-day experience is the operating system that claims to do it all, pretty much does, but makes it really hard to do. Particularly things like Internet connection sharing/network bridging which I have yet to configure without it doing something strange.
Windows seems to be a quite polished from the end-user perspective, can be run on any X86 hardware you see fit and everything's extremely simple to do with an amazingly consistent user interface that you can use without even touching the command line.
Really it's not that Mac OS X and Linux aren't viable alternatives to Windows, it's that Windows is the 'happy medium' for the vast majority of users between a completely closed but insanely easy to use platform (Macs), and a completely open but very difficult to get to grips with platform (Linux).
Macs are for morons, Windows is for retards and Linux is for people who actually know how a computer works
For someone who has used linux for that long, I am somewhat surprised that the author has given this the review he has. I do not believe 2009 is "the year of the linux" but the sector could grow over the next ten years or so. Who knows?
Specifically part of the article is quote below...
"Imagine a stripped-down distribution with Open Office, Evolution, Firefox, F-Spot, Gimp, Brasero, Banshee, xgl/Compiz, and essentially nothing else. Finally, lock everything down to ensure adequate security."
Ubuntu 8.10 (this means it was released in 2008 in October) comes with Open Office, Evolution, Firefox, F-Spot, Gimp, Brasero, Rhythmbox Music Player & Compiz by default out of the box. Exactly what was stated was "needed" in the article.
it's all just there pre-installed (along with some games, a movie player, brasero cd/dvd burner, and Pidgin (msn messenger) amongst other things)
The installation is as simple as any mac/windows installation, it comes in both 32 and 64 bit variants and you either stick to the LTS (long term) releases released every 3 years, or upgrade the platform every 6 months as most people do!
For those that are not aware, software installation can be easy to if you want extra programs! just select the "package manager" and type what you are after (for example "wireshark" and click the "apply" button then it is installed for you).
Take a look at www.ubuntu.com, download it, and give it a try (you can dual boot it).
You have to question the impartiality of a journalist that waxes rhapsodic for five pages about obscure colour correction features and how the hardware has managed to catch up with the OS in the "Big Two" operating systems, and then gives Linux a single page, and spends over half of that page discussing why it isn't as good as Windows and OS X, instead of the ways in which it approaches or even exceeds their features. Approximately 20 seconds research is apparently more than he did - that's how long it takes to find a RAW plugin for GIMP.
Let's flip this over ; for the vast majority of users, the marginal return of choosing Windows or OS X over Linux is now solely about familiarity, intertia, and market control. All "standard" Windows users who only use their browser, email, and office applications would be served well by one of the desktop oriented Linux distributions, and more secure. Their upgrade cycles would be longer - they could spend the money and time saved buying and setting up a new computer, and research and buy a nice Linux-compatible printer. They might even do something new with their computer after browsing through the package manager.
I think some people don't give Linux a hard enough time... Tried Internet connection/network bridging with a crossover cable over a Linux distribution and tried to have it work exactly as it would in XP? Well first you have to install bridge-utils, before creating a bridge with the brctl addbr command, then configuring all the ethernet ports' configuration files you want to bridge with static IP addresses, adding the ports to the bridge, finding out you can't use the Internet on the computer you're using to bridge the connection any more, but it's okay, you can finally connect to Xbox Live!
I've still got no idea how to bridge a connection and have the network connection work on the host computer under Linux, under Windows it's 'highlight two or more network connections, right click and press "bridge connections".' Seriously, Linux is great and all but it has some horrific usability problems.
That said, Linux isn't the OS for people who know how computers work - it's the OS for people who know how Linux works.
Setting up Linux takes the expertise.
Using it for day to day stuff (web browsing, OpenOffice) just requires basic IT competence.
I work for Contact, a Mental Health Charity and we had an Ubuntu Linux PC hanging around to let our members access the internet. It worked well enough that our other 2 internet access PCs are going to be converted to Ubuntu Linux as well.
Installin Ubuntu is as easy as using it, if not easier! It's as easy as istalling windows (or mac osx)!
setting up Ubuntu takes putting a cd in and pressing return when "install" is selected and tpying your name and password in etc. That's it!
Setting up Ubuntu can be done by anyone, people just assume it is going to be difficult!
luckyluke699 has made some very valid points. I got Ubuntu ordered which was delivered to me for free. I then installed and within a few clicks i was up and running with much every already pre-installed. Unlike Windows where there's about 3hours of installation time awaiting u. Anyway, I also felt the article was a little pro-mac.