I have several IT friends who, over the years, have battled with various operating systems. Their challenges generally led to Microsoft alternatives. In most cases, I understand their perspectives on Industry Standards versus created corporate standards that Microsoft tends to “re-develop.” Their view reflects the myopic way Microsoft does business. The consensus for most IT personnel is that the operator should have more control over their system than is typically provided by Microsoft.
Linus Torvalds, the man who created the now
Linux kernel, made his view clear in a film called
Revolution OS (see video). His view in the film, which I believe as well, argues that an operating system should be invisible to the end user. The operating system should run applications. His statement rings true. Microsoft has poured a lot of money in advertisement to brand their operating systems over recent years.
The decision on which operating system to choose has more to do with the ease of installation and user intuitiveness. Plus, when you add in the total cost you can see why Microsoft owns an almost 92% market share (
see stats). Linux has programs such as
Open Office which is freely available. However, the main problem with Linux has to do with its application and hardware installation, not to mention its nearly unlimited amount of distributions. (
www.distrowatch.com) (
You can compare basic distributions and their base or core distribution here) Each base distribution method has different ways of handling software installation and even changes on some basic user
desktops. This can cause users who may be good at managing one distribution to be unclear on how to handle another.
Macintosh’s © operating system is, by most industry standards,
an easier operation system to use. Users generally love its ease of use and simplicity in basic system management. The challenge with Macintosh is that it requires specific hardware platforms to run on, thereby pushing the cost of a system up higher than a typical PC.
Microsoft’s dominance of the market share has more to do with a combination of things. First, most end users don’t pay attention to separate costs when buying a computer. Second, the number of applications available is a factor. Because of the extended dominance in the market, there is a plethora of applications available for the Microsoft OS platforms. (
See CNET for various applications on each OS) Microsoft has developed an ease-of-use concept to allow the typical end user the ability to setup and install applications without much, if any, outside help. Most application developers have responded to this environment. Taking this into account and understanding it is an easier desktop environment (getting easier with each production change) to manipulate, the end user gets what they want.
Sure, Microsoft locks a lot of their system services and keeps users out of kernel or system manipulation. But, the typical end user doesn’t need to know or care to have access to them, thereby choosing Microsoft. IT people who like that control will always end up using a Linux distribution and people who just love total ease-of-use will pay the extra for Mac’s.
James Brun
Director of Information Technology
Beckfield College