The PC OS debate, part 2

I’ve covered my views on security, now let’s take a look at ease of use. As hard as it may be to take, Windows is definitely the easiest to use versus Linux or BSD when it comes to beginner or average users. Maybe the work on making it easy to use is causing the Windows developers to overlook security but their work is paying off. Windows ease of use is one of the reasons that it became such a power house in the desktop OS market.

I know, some of you are saying “No, it’s because Microsoft forced their OS on the users.” I don’t think that’s really true. PC manufacturers chose to use Microsoft Windows because it was the easiest OS for the average home user to jump into and start using. PC manufacturers have a choice in what OS to include. They know that to get the sales, they have to offer Windows.

What makes Windows so easy to use? One thing is the interface. You don’t have a choice in the default interface but that makes it easier for a lot of users to move from one Windows PC to another. Users know where everything is going to be when it comes to start menus and icon meaning. You can install other interfaces, like xoblite, but that’s only post installation. Linux and BSD has many different graphical interfaces and some distros even install two or three in order to offer the user choice. Each interface has it’s own icon set and menus so that makes it slightly harder for someone to move from one Linux PC to another unless they stick with the same GUI.

NOTE: The Tango Desktop Project is a work in progress to standardize the look and names of icons used in open source software (KDE & Gnome desktop, applications, etc.).

Another plus for Windows ease of use is the file system heirarchy. Not much has changed in how directories and files are stored on a Windows machine since Windows 95. The file system itself (FAT 32, NTFS, etc.) may change but that is invisible to the end user. Linux and BSD have come a long way in standardizing their file system hierarchy but it can still be a little different between distros.

How about software installation? Windows wins by a hair here because installing software is as simple as popping in a CD that autoruns or double-clicking an executable (usually setup.exe). Different Linux distributions rely on different formats for installing programs. One distro may use RPM’s, another uses DEB files and some programs are not packaged so you have to run command line calls, or terminal commands, for the installation to begin. All of this is fine for advanced users but beginners and average users seem to prefer point-and-click.

Software is getting easier to install in Linux thanks to programs like Synaptic Package Manager. The problem is that a lot of the programs in the repositories are a version or two behind what is readily available from the software website. This is usually due to porting the install application to the distribution of Linux for which you are installing the software on.

One aspect that is sometimes overlooked is stability. Stability is a factor in ease of use because how many people enjoy having to reboot a crashed machine? Historically, Linux and BSD has dominated the stability factor. The gap was narrowed with Windows 2000 and especially with the release of Windows XP. In my personal experience, Windows XP is very solid and the only crashes I have seen are due to either bad drivers or bad applications. Is that the fault of the OS? If not, then Windows XP is just as stable as Linux. If so, then Windows XP is still slightly behind Linux and BSD.

Part 3 will look at compatibility. This will include hardware as well as software.

(Article 12, Day 13)

02.Apr.06 Articles, Operating Systems

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “The PC OS debate, part 2”

sligh | April 2nd, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Good article and right on course with what is happening. I don’t think I could have written it better myself. One very large part of MS power is . Look at who is selling XP! All the stores. It’s a massive power house for profit to be made! I don’t think that’s a bad thing . Rather I look at it as. Oh well give them what they want. People like that icon stuff . And the merchants need a Microsoft to keep the industry churning . Plus all the peripheral software ftp , zip, clean you HD, $19.99 stuff is a huge seller. I see it in people homes all the time. Americans are brain washed into thinking if you spend money you can buy your way out of ignorance. Spend 20 bucks insert disk click on icon . That fixes it!
Glad to read! Someone else notices too!
MG | April 2nd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Point and click is good, great and wicked, but I must disagree that software installation is easier on windows. Windows installation goes something like this: Pop in CD > Click through 5 dialogues, including one incomprehnsible EULA, wait for program to install.

Here’s my software installation (FreeBSD): As root, cd /usr/ports/typeofprogram/program && make install.

Sure, it’s more ”user friendly” on windows, but easier? No. They are two utterly and completely different concepts.
wyckedone | April 2nd, 2006 at 5:55 pm
MG:
Yes, you have to go through menus for installing software in many Windows programs but I’ve had menus in software I’ve installed on my Linux system (Ubuntu).

The main point wasn’t actually installing the software because some programs are just click and start (no installation needed) on Linux, BSD and Windows. The main point was for the times you have to know what installation to use (RPM, DEB, terminal commands, etc.) in Linux versus just running a single setup program in Windows. If only there was a way to standardize the installation file, like what the Tango Desktop Project is trying to do with icons/graphics. Then it wouldn’t matter what distro of Linux you are using; you would just download an installation file and install the program.

This was just an overall look at ease of use between Windows and Linux or BSD. You can always narrow it down to specific points where one is easier to use than the other.

Thanks for the information, though. I appreciate the comments.