And my new desktop will be...
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Sm@rt Partner
April 2, 2001 7:28 AM PT
COMMENTARY--People are always asking me what operating system I recommend for their desktop PCs. With the advent of MacOS X, KDE 2.0 and GNOME 2.0 for Linux, and the rapid approach of Windows XP, I've been getting more of those questions than ever.
Here's my answer: none of the above.
For most people, the best desktop operating system-in terms of applications, stability, and speed-is Windows 2000 Professional. <I personally favor KDE 2.0 on Caldera for my own use, but I don't make the mistake of thinking that what I like to use is best for everybody.
The sad truth is that Linux desktops, even when gussied up with KDE or GNOME with the Eazel Nautilus network user environment, aren't that useful to most people. If you use Unix, or you're a fan of Corel's WordPerfect Office suite, which runs on Linux, they're great. If you're not, forget about them.
The simple truth is that Linux, and the rest of the Unix family, simply aren't popular for desktop systems. Corel, the company that tried the hardest to bring out a commercially successful desktop version of Linux, fell flat on its face despite a pretty darned good package. I'll keep using it-and so will hundreds of thousands of Linux fans-but for the foreseeable future, Linux won't be appearing on many desktops.
In the wonderful world of Windows...well, I've played with the betas for Windows XP and if this is a step forward, then I'm Bill Gates., then I'm Bill Gates. (Does that look like a $5,000 suit I'm wearing in that photo??) For starters, the practical minimum to run it is a 300MHz-plus Pentium, which isn't too bad and 256MB of RAM, which is a problem. No, let me rephrase that: that's a real problem. I live on technology's leading edge; and only two of my 14 desktop machines have 256MB. How many office or home PCs have more than 128MB? Not many.
Also, there are enough changes in this version of Windows that many 9x, 2K, and NT applications will only run on XP under a "compatibility mode." Every time I hear a phrase like this, or the dreaded "emulation," I get nervous; because it usually means that the application will only "sort of" run.
And don't even get me started on XP's Product Activation "feature." I need a black-box program wasting cycles trying to ferret out whether I installed a program before-like on my laptop-like I need an automatic brake that activates whenever I go over 55 MPH.
Besides, all the real goodies, such as superior stability, are already in W2K Professional. The other so-called "advantages" in XP Professional-like the encrypted file system, remote desktop, Citrix and remote control program vendor killer, and C2 security-leave me cold. A few users will love these features; but I can't see most users giving a whoop about them.
And, finally, there's Mac OS X. Let me preface this by saying that I do actually like Macs (I have three); and I like Mac OS X. However, besides the teething problems of a new release, the only way you'll run your older applications is in a "Classic Bubble." And what's that? Well, a closer look reveals-oh no!-it's a compatibility mode, an emulation! Did I mention that there aren't many X applications around? And, that there won't be any in great numbers until fall?
While I'm at it, did I mention that you'd better have at least a powerful G3 and 128 MBs to make X go? That's not going to be running on my older model iMac anytime soon.
Believe it or not, I'm excited about OS X. I think the combination of a BSD kernel with a Mac style interface is the only real mass-market future for Unix on the desktop. But come on, if you want a Mac to run well today, you need to get MacOS 9.
And, of course, the truth is that for most of 2001, if you want a good desktop operating system, you need one that was out in 2000. The future is coming, but it's not quite here yet.
zdnet.com |
