“Everyone should switch to Windows Vista, but wait until SP1.”
“This year, Linux will reach the mainstream desktop.”
“The number of Macs at major universities is almost at 50%.”
It doesn’t matter whether your favorite operating system is Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux or you want a computer that just works—technology pundits are always writing about the “next big shift.” Every year, the predictions are the same: Windows users are frustrated, Linux/MacOS will take over. During the final months of 2008, we thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at the state of personal computing and consider the future of each platform.
Indeed, 2008 is already shaping up to be a year of milestones. Microsoft Windows Vista reached SP1 status, making it the choice of new PCs across the board; AMD’s Radeon line once again became competitive against Nvidia’s recent GPU dominance; and the launch of Intel Core i7 marks the chip giant’s first major design change since the original Core Duo launch.
This has also been a year of transition and change for Apple Mac OS X and Linux. The release of Apple’s new unibody MacBook and MacBook Pro has created new interest in potential “switchers,” while Linux has seen its most mainstream success to date with the growing popularity of netbooks.
The question is: what will 2009 look like? Will Microsoft’s market share continue to erode after the lackluster release of Windows Vista and rising threats of malware? Will Mac OS X users still be willing to pay an “Apple Tax” and benefit from the relative lack of malware? Will Linux’ success with netbooks open the way for The Year of Desktop Linux?
For the record, I’m a user of all three operating systems. By this, I don’t mean “I’ve installed this OS or that one before.” I was predominantly a Windows Vista user, although I’ve switched to OS X 10.5 Leopard for my notebook and primary PC, leaving Vista on a HTPC only. My research workstation ran IRIX 6.5 from 2001 to 2004, and since 2005, I’ve done my work on Linux, beginning with Vector Linux, then SuSE, and now Fedora Linux.

Mac is comparing itself to windows OS or rather they should be. The Apple community is content believing that PC(Personal Computer) means Windows. They simply don't know the difference. Note to mac users: Macs are PCs also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
Also, listen to the music in the background. It's lullaby nature appeals to the mentality of Mac users as does the original color pallet 'box of crayons' in the system settings. They didn't design it that way by accident.
That's why Mac users love to boast about the commercials and their computers. Basic - ignorance is bliss.
It's not your fault though. It's not like personal computers have been widely available since the late 1970's but you haven't bothered to take one class on them right? You haven't?! That's a pity and thank you.
It's people like you who keep the entire PC(yes you too) technical community employed.
Malware? Yes. Anti-virus subscriptions? Not necessary but probably a good idea.
"The average Joe has already surrendered to the idea of having systems that crash every once in a while and the potential of malware."
But "system crashes"? The Windows Operating System is *very* stable and has been ever since the consumer versions switched over to the NT kernel with the release of XP in 2001. The OS doesn't just spontanously "crash" every now and then for no reason. I highly doubt the components that make up the core of OSX or a typical Linux distro are any more stable or less prone to crashes.
It's wrong to blame Windows when third party programs crash or poorly written drivers bluescreen. If I were to go crazy on my Ubuntu install and download stuff from all over the place, I would soon be in dependency hell and the whole system would break down. Same with OSX though the limited library of available software and the strict control enforced by Apple makes it a bit more difficult to do really stupid things on OSX.
In order for people to perceive Windows as more stable, we would have to grant Microsoft more control over what software, hardware and drivers are released for the OS which is probably not what we want as it would spell the end of independent developers, shareware and freeware. Microsoft has already taken steps into that direction by making signed drivers a requirement, and there's also the WHQL and Designed For Windows logo program - but who would want the Windows Logo program to become a requirement for releasing Windows software?
The price we pay for having a virtually unlimited software library and being able to buy cheap hardware from obscure asian companies with poorly translated driver control panels and manuals is the slightly reduced stability of the system as a whole (not of Windows itself).
Anonymous prediction for 2009 - 0.3%
So more stable? perhaps, but certainly not in my home.
It is getting better every version that launches, but still needs a lot of love. Wine use should be simple and stealthy. That is, put a x86 windows cd, and wine detects and pulls out a auto run. You get the idea.
when that happens Linux will check mate Win/OSX. Compiz/Fusion is already prettier than OSX (and with great promises) and the system is much safer. And faster.
Lets wait and see.
Mac is comparing itself to windows OS or rather they should be. The Apple community is content believing that PC(Personal Computer) means Windows. They simply don't know the difference. Note to mac users: Macs are PCs also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
Also, listen to the music in the background. It's lullaby nature appeals to the mentality of Mac users as does the original color pallet 'box of crayons' in the system settings. They didn't design it that way by accident.
That's why Mac users love to boast about the commercials and their computers. Basic - ignorance is bliss.
It's not your fault though. It's not like personal computers have been widely available since the late 1970's but you haven't bothered to take one class on them right? You haven't?! That's a pity and thank you.
It's people like you who keep the entire PC(yes you too) technical community employed.
Dunno about all below the wine, as I don't use linux for anything other than firewalls. But I don't think wine will ever get to a level that allows linux to replace windows. Mac OS has a chance - but only if they somehow can make game developers compile mainstream games for the mac.
Though the article in general is very well written, I still find it fails on one simple aspect. Gaming. Every single pc I've built in the past 5 years was expected to play pretty much any non-top-tier game. Ie. not crysis, but if hugo or pixeline, or any other childrens game, was shipped with some magazine or put on discount, the people I built the computers for, expect that the software will work. That can't be realized on a mac unless it runs windows - at which point there's no reason to buy the more expensive mac.
If we imagine a future version of flash, silverlight, java or any other internet based system could address the hardware in a pc via a standard interface - like directx or opengl etc but on the actaul hardware, instead of on the gui. And without the programmer needing expert knowledge of the limitations of the features, then virtualization won't even be needed. Stuff would just run directly on hardware. A bit like a seamless window on a citrix system, but with the hardware being used locally, and the drivers being a bunch of software embedded in the hardware burried beneath the gui.
But that probably won't happen for another 10 years, so windows is safe, even with a complete idiot at the wheel.
Malware? Yes. Anti-virus subscriptions? Not necessary but probably a good idea.
"The average Joe has already surrendered to the idea of having systems that crash every once in a while and the potential of malware."
But "system crashes"? The Windows Operating System is *very* stable and has been ever since the consumer versions switched over to the NT kernel with the release of XP in 2001. The OS doesn't just spontanously "crash" every now and then for no reason. I highly doubt the components that make up the core of OSX or a typical Linux distro are any more stable or less prone to crashes.
It's wrong to blame Windows when third party programs crash or poorly written drivers bluescreen. If I were to go crazy on my Ubuntu install and download stuff from all over the place, I would soon be in dependency hell and the whole system would break down. Same with OSX though the limited library of available software and the strict control enforced by Apple makes it a bit more difficult to do really stupid things on OSX.
In order for people to perceive Windows as more stable, we would have to grant Microsoft more control over what software, hardware and drivers are released for the OS which is probably not what we want as it would spell the end of independent developers, shareware and freeware. Microsoft has already taken steps into that direction by making signed drivers a requirement, and there's also the WHQL and Designed For Windows logo program - but who would want the Windows Logo program to become a requirement for releasing Windows software?
The price we pay for having a virtually unlimited software library and being able to buy cheap hardware from obscure asian companies with poorly translated driver control panels and manuals is the slightly reduced stability of the system as a whole (not of Windows itself).
I use Linux and Vista. I like both.
The real thing is though, I like to play recent games, and often, and I like new hardware. Well, Linux nor Mac can handle that, at all, at launch. Windows is the only answer. The only choice there. Doesn't mean I like it, but then again, Vista 64 sp1 has been FANTASTIC. So I can't complain about it, yet.
Cheers,
Hospitals using windows proves its stability. Please. That's not apples-to-apples comparing. That's a locked down environment. Put windows into the real world, on someone's desk in their house and it has serious problems. Windows has a blue screen of death. Do Macs??? Does linux??? No.
Also, stating that linux only has one mature browser is complete garbage. Firefox is a fine choice of browser. But, even better is Opera, which is available for the linux platform, as are several others.
You start with:
This can be set against a key sentence on the next page:
Based on this and the article as a whole success is equivalent of mainstream. I think that's an example of flawed logic. In many other technical areas we're used to have different niches, but when it comes to computer operating systems for desktops it suddenly becomes a question of being mainstream, not about technical strength or the diversity of user preferences.
It's kind of strange that a user of Linux, I'm refering to the author, falls into the trap of seeing only two extremes: "technology geeks" and "mainstream users". The interesting conclusion of this is that the world of computer users already consists of a strangely large portion of "technology geeks". According to gathered statistics it seems like Ubuntu and Fedora alone have about 18 million users at the moment. Don't try to convince me that all of those are "technology geeks".
I don't expect any special Linux year on the desktop, and to me that's an irrelevant question. Even if we only limit our interest to actual statistics, should every product, in this case operating systems, on the market attract mainstream users? To me that sounds like a malfunctioning and boring market. Let's say only 10 or even 5 % will be attracted by Linux for desktop, why is that a failure? Or why should Linux try to be just another OSX or Windows?
That Linux is little bit of everything is true, but it's also fair to add that the user is enabled to perfect it to his liking. Hence I agree with the conclusion of what possible can be done, but not under the already flawed pretext of "the only way Linux can reach the mainstream desktop".
All your suggestions are good in a way, but there's no need to become overly concerned about being mainstream. Why? To really see the beauty of Linux demonstrate on a bad ass system and show how it makes those CPU and GPU cycles kicking ass. Attract more of those not particularly geeky users, but folks with a profound interest in computing. How will that benefit Linux? Because every user of Linux has a tendency to interest somebody else, and that single Linux users with fairly good talent for computing will be far better than any support you can get for Windows. Windows support isn't very good for the mainstream market, if it doesn't cost you money you run the risk of getting a lot of bad advices.
Maybe it will eventually become easier to make Linux succeed on the desktop as a business model. First though lets stimulate the community interest, let the army of Russians who will grow up using Linux at school dig in deep and contribute, because with a little bit bigger young user base there's nothing to worry about. Linux isn't dependent on 5, 10 or 50 % of users because on average a single Linux user contribute far more than even groups of Windows users.
Mainstream isn't the only option.
Linux and OSX have different ways of giving you the information that a Windows BSOD does.
When you see a BSOD in Windows, it's a sign of a severe hardware or software problem. If I see a BSOD on my desktop Vista system (last time I did was about three months ago when looking for the max stable overclock) I immediately begin a thorough process of troubleshooting the hardware (RAM and CPU are prime suspects but other things like a failing harddrive or even PSU might cause it), software and drivers. BSODs should not occur at all on a normally functioning PC.
Also if you see a BSOD and it sais something about "nv4disp.dll" (for example) it is *NOT* "Windows" that has crashed, it's the Nvidia display driver. Nvidia's poor Vista drivers really gave the new OS a bad name in the beginning., though they have become better over time. There are other examples of poorly written drivers etc. causing stability problems and giving people the false impression that Windows itself is unstable and "crashes all the time".
That, and they cost 2 times more for crappier hardware.