The PC OS debate, part 3 (final)

Now that we’ve got security and ease of use out of the way, let’s take a look at compatibility. Compatibility encompasses two things: hardware and software. Hardware compatibility will mainly deal with driver issues and software compatibility will deal with software used in the majority of households and businesses.

Hardware
Windows dominates in the hardware compatibility area. This is especially true when it comes to new hardware that is released post OS release. Virtually every piece of hardware that is released is designed to work with a Windows release (9x, 2000, XP, etc.). Rarely do we see hardware on the self that has a sticker showing compatibility with a Linux or BSD distribution.

I don’t believe this is really an OS issue, though. I place the responsibility on the hardware manufacturers because they are the ones that create the drivers. Linux and BSD systems almost always rely on the open source community to create drivers for new hardware. The release date to get a driver for a new network card, for example, is hard to announce because the chipset can be slightly different or a complete design change.

There are some manufacturers that do release Linux drivers. ATI and nVidia are graphics chip manufacturers that do a good job of releasing Linux drivers in a timely fashion for their hardware. Broadcom, a network card chip maker, is horrible when it comes to releasing drivers for their wireless products because the drivers are non-existant. Linux users must rely on 3rd party programs, like NdisWrapper, to get their wireless Broadcom NICs working.

Maybe the problem is simply not enough request for the support. The manufacturers may believe that because Linux and BSD are a small market, compared to Windows and Mac, the effort to create the drivers is not needed. They seem to be relying on the open source community to fill the void, which they are doing quite well.

Software
I would almost call it a draw between Windows and Linux. Why? Because there are so many programs out for Linux that will read/write files that work in programs written for Windows. OpenOffice is a great example. OpenOffice.org will read/write files that are compatible with Microsoft Office Word, Excel and PowerPoint (2.0 added support for MS Access).

There is an alternative in Linux for almost any program used in Windows. Open source programmers do an excellent job of giving functionality to the *nix crowd so that they don’t have to have a Windows machine. Even if you want to run programs in Linux that were written for Windows, there is a program for that. CodeWeavers CrossOver Office, available for a fee, is designed to be a bridge for Windows software to run on a Mac OS X or Linux system. There is also a program called Wine, free and open source, that gives an application layer to allow Windows programs to run on Linux machines.

You can browse what applications work with CrossOver Office and Wine at the following locations:

CodeWeavers application compatibility database
Wine application compatibility database

Conclusion
So what OS is the best? Obviously, it would be……

I can’t answer that for you. The end user must decide what OS fits their needs and their level of skill working with the system. Maybe there isn’t a perfect, one OS solution. I think this might sum it up pretty well for a professional environment*:

Windows 200x for domain controllers because AD makes handling accounts very easy.
A Linux or BSD box for all file and printer servers because you can beat on them day after day after day and they’ll keep smiling.
A Windows box for most design and development (mainly because of Dreamweaver and Photoshop).
Linux for most workstations (or maybe MacOS).
Linux or BSD for Web servers and most other general servers just because things work out of the box for the most part and patches will be available quick.

PC’s for the home are the wild card. They could really go either way between Windows and Linux for average users. Again, it comes down to what fits their need and comfort level.

*Partially quoted from a conversation with Rollie Hawk.

(Article 13, Day 14)

03.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.

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

darkfusion | April 4th, 2006 at 2:08 am
Great job overall wyckedone . I really enjoyed reading them. As for what OS I choose its more like a dual boot . Like you said windows wins hands down for design and development . But as for my primary OS its gotta be ubuntu for my day to day task .
Lineman | April 4th, 2006 at 4:21 am
For my general stuff, I dual boot between Debian and Windows 2000. The problem in doing that is if a client has a problem, I end up having to reboot in Windows half the time.

On the other hand, when I stay in Windows I want to throw my laptop all the time every time some site locks up Firefox.