Linux vs. Windows Vista vs. Leopard

2008 will be a critical year for Apple, Microsoft, and the Linux contingent. If Apple can't significantly expand its presence by then in the PC market it is likely going to be finished with this segment. Its likely path in that case will be to focus more aggressively on the consumer electronics market it currently dominates.

I mentioned last week that I was planning to attend the Linspire-sponsored Linux Desktop Summit where the discussion would include reasons the folks who build PCs

don't want to do Linux. Indeed, some of the commentary at the event related to Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) and its vulnerability when it comes to large business and government accounts because:

There was also a lot of discussion about what Linux should become, with some of the most interesting commentary coming from Geoffrey Moore, author of "Crossing the Chasm," who was right on in stating that Linux is going in the wrong direction with respect to the desktop.

There was little mention of the Mac OS at the conference, yet, given the success of Linux against Unix (the Mac OS has Unix at its core) you would think that platform might make a better first target for Linux than Windows would.

Windows' Past Could Offer Lessons for Linux's Future

It was as fascinating to learn that Moore was an avid Linux supporter as it was to learn that he felt strongly it was on the wrong path for the desktop. He went into great detail as to how he felt that Microsoft was, like many of the large companies that hire him to consult, a dinosaur trying unsuccessfully to be fast moving and trendy again. He clearly felt that the company was vulnerable -- but not to Linux, considering what this system's desktop path seems to be.

Moore pointed out that things move slowly and that a good place to look for ideas for future products is among kids and young people -- and what they are currently using. Today kids are using devices like cell phones and iPods, often juggling several gadgets running at once. These devices are not all-in-ones, rather they're specialized to whatever the user wants to do. In short, they're nearly the opposite of what Windows currently is. What does that mean? It means Windows might be a poor model for future products. Future products probably won't be running on anything that looks like today's Windows.

All of this reminded me of the way in which Windows came about. Back in the 1980s, IBM's (NYSE: IBM) dominance was based on mainframes, and this firm was more powerful in its day than Microsoft is today. Companies like Fujitsu, Hitachi (NYSE: HIT) and Digital tried to make a better mainframe product than IBM. Digital even changed its name to "DEC" so it kind of looked like "IBM." Several firms actually attempted to steal IBM's proprietary technology so they could build competing products that they'd offer at lower prices.

Often people seem to think that just because they can sell something cheaper they have a major competitive advantage. For software, in particular, price is just one factor -- but it's often far from the most compelling.

As a result of focusing intently on price and IBM these folks fought over about 10 percent of the market. Some were successful in peripherals or emerging markets, but IBM actually remained dominant in mainframes.

In contrast, Microsoft, Dell (Nasdaq: DELL), and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) grew, not by making a better mainframe, but by helping to create and ride the next wave, personal computers. This was a wave Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) started but couldn't ride itself. IBM couldn't move fast enough, often crippled its own products to protect existing revenue streams and recently exited the PC market after admitting it couldn't compete.

Seeing Clearly

For the Linux set, focusing on Microsoft and Windows might mean those players will mirror the experiences of IBM's traditional competitors like Digital and face a similar end. To win, they need to focus not on where the market was, but where it is going, and they should do everything in their power to get there first even if that means finding a way to partner with Microsoft.

Shortly after the show last week I saw this post on the Groklaw Web site which advocates a boycott of Linux distributions and the hardware vendors who use them when FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) rules are not followed to the letter. This smacks of religious elitism -- and boycotts scare the hell out of hardware vendors, IT buyers, and consumers alike. As a result I have to wonder if it is even possible for Linux proponents to stop the infighting long enough to even think about the future, let alone get there first.

Mac OS Leopard: Feature Complete Vista?

No one seems to talk much about Apple Leopard, the next version of the Mac OS. This is primarily because Apple, unlike Microsoft, is not talking about this next generation platform publicly. Based on comments by Apple chief Steve Jobs it was slated to roll out about the same time as Vista originally was, but if what I'm reading is right, it too has run into problems and won't show up until late 2007. This OS was largely modeled after what Vista was going to be. However, unlike Microsoft, Apple did not cut features to make the 2006 date, a date that Microsoft has now missed anyway. As result, Leopard may look a lot like what Vista was promised to be and, based on how Apple developed the iPod, it may also be capable of building a media center offering that works.

One of the interesting features expected to be included in Leopard is a true hardware virtualization layer, probably at least partially leveraging Intel's (Nasdaq: INTC) LG technology which should be nearly fully cooked by that time. Virtualization was supposed to be included in Windows Vista but it too slipped out of the product. As many have pointed out, virtualization could be a vastly more palatable way to gain Windows compatibility than Apple's Boot Camp now is.

One lesson that may come out of this is that removing a feature to make a deadline is a bad idea because there are dependencies that break -- and this breakage can dramatically reduce, if not eliminate, the time savings such a decision was expected to create. In addition, it makes the product look crippled -- and crippled products don't sell well. If the right people observe and learn this lesson it may result in better and timelier software products going forward from a lot of companies.

Despite all this, if this Leopard vs. Vista scenario plays out this will place the most competitive Mac OS in history -- on aggressively designed Intel based hardware -- against what may be the most competitively exposed Microsoft desktop OS since Windows Millennium Edition in the market, in the fourth quarter of 2007.

If Apple can't at least double its small share during this unique event it should abandon the Mac OS as a dead end, because this kind of opportunity will never come again.

If it does double share, which it could do by cutting a broad swath through the consumer market with a well designed media center-like product, it could dramatically change the market and remind the Linux folks that the desktop isn't about FOSS -- it's about selling the products consumers want to buy.

Looking Ahead: 2008

If the Linux set can't get over its internal problems it will be bypassed, likely by something else that better blends proprietary and open source components into solutions that more accurately meet the emerging needs for appliance-like products real people want to buy. If Microsoft can't find a way to become agile and customer focused again it will clearly be on the long slow path that IBM blazed -- and that Sun is already reaching the end of.

There is potential for 2008 to be a year of change, both positive and negative, for Microsoft, Apple and Linux. This is history in the making for all three entities and we are getting a chance to witness it.

The outcome will have a great deal to do with the quality of the decisions all parties make this year. The first decision all should make is to focus unwaveringly on their customers -- if they can figure out who they really are. Of the three entities, the only one that appears to clearly understands this, so far, is Apple.

Future products probably won't be running on anything that looks like today's Windows.

I pretty much stopped reading right there. How far in the future? Who is this goofball?

Any reasonably intelligent, patient person familiar with the workings of any one of the current, top graphical OSs can walk up to any of the others and figure it out pretty easily. They all use keyboards, mice and monitors for interfacing and thus, will all continue in the same basic functionality for the foreseeable future.

Until there are serious, serious changes and advances in hardware interfacing, the GUIs for all the graphical OSs will share the same basic functionality and continue to essentially look like they do.

Linux was too complicated for most users...in 1997.

It's much easier now.

You do have to be careful when buying hardware, although the hardware support is pretty good these days.

I can see an argument for home users to use Windows so they can just buy junk hardware and have it work half-way. But I can't see a reason to continue to use it for corporate desktops. It's just too expensive, both in licensing and upkeep.

A few years back I set up a Linux web server at work. Generally no problem. Very stable. Worked well.

Last year we decided to try some Linux systems at work. We had launched a web based version of our internal tracking system and figured we could save some bucks by going open source. Used Red Hat Linux and set up a few systems as dual boot. These were fairly new (none more than two years old) Windows machines. We put Linux on a separate, second, hard drive. On all four machines there was some sort of issue. CD-ROM drives may or may not be recognized and, if they were, they may or may not write to disk. Some printers worked with no issues, some seemed to work, but had problems with printing some reports, some refused to work at all. Video support was spotty. After a lot of research, downloads, and forum visits we were able to solve +90% of the problems, but it was hardly the plug and play experience we usually have with our Windows and Apple workstations. I will say that once up, the systems worked well and did not crash.

Hmm Interesting. What version of Red Hat did you use? I ask because while installing Fedora on my laptop, I have experienced none of those issues. I have two printers defined--one at work attached to a Windows machine over a Novell network, and one at home attached to a Win98 machine. Both work fine with no extra drivers.

My laptop uses a M10 ATI Radeon 9600 and I have had zero issues. I also have a DVDRW/CDRW drive and no issues.

I've needed no extra drivers once I installed the OS.

I'm just wondering if you used an older version of Redhat, rather than the curent one (at the time you installed it).

1. If you are a total novice (and cost is not a major factor) and just want to do specific tasks, i.e. e-mail, music, Internet, etc., Apple is the way to go. More expensive initially, but less likely to cause future headaches.

I disagree a total novice will think he is invincible,
stat them off with WinXP and a good security suite, teach them early.

It was prior to the latest release (Fedora 5) and I remember that one of our issues was that the version we had just bought on disk had already been updated and we had to do some initial downloading to bring it up to date. I was the project manager and was overseeing the employees doing the installs. All were experienced computer users, but none were professional techs. It was important to us to see how easy it was to install, so the users handled the install. These guys had worked with Macs and Windows machines and were pretty comfortable with installing software and hardware. Like I said, most of the install went well, but each machine had at least one issue. These computers were from Dell, Compaq, and Gateway. I suspect that proprietary hardware may have been to blame in most cases, but it was still an issue.

I would not feel comfortable recommending Linux to someone buying their first computer. Such a user would be more comfortable, in my opinion, with a Mac or Wintel.

I am an OLD computer user. Based on my experience, motivates me were the killer applications at the time. That is what moved me from the Apple II+ to the severely limited early PCs.

At this time and place, I see no killer applications on any platform. I am using Macs now because of the unsolved virus problems with MS et al.

Perhaps the next really killer application will be a combination of everything that the kids want and love.

A word in passing: I was told by knowledgeable people that when your code got around 90.000 to 100,000 lines that no one could keep track of it all (including all of the constants). I understand that MS is now pushing 500,000+ lines of code in their applications. This implies to me that no one knows what is happening in it.IMHO

...he version we had just bought on disk had already been updated and we had to do some initial downloading to bring it up to date.

That's pretty typical. Even Windows has its patches that users should DL before using.

I suspect that proprietary hardware may have been to blame in most cases, but it was still an issue.

I suspect that as well from your description. I haven't been very happy with any of those brands. In fact, I've stayed away from Compaq since the day I couldn't re-install Windows from its own recovery disk due to hardware issues.

Based on commodity hardware, though, Red Hat (and Fedora) installs pretty much automatically. I've found that it's usually easier to install RH and Fedora than it is to install Windows.

Good point. I have clients, however, who are very much in the mind that a computer should be like a toaster. It should do a few things really well, it should be easy to use, and they don't care how it does it. That would be a classic Apple customer.

Other clients more correctly think of the computer like a car. While they don't exactly know how it works, they realize there is maintenance involved and a general understanding of its operation will make for a better experience. These guys can use either Macs or Windows, but Windows is generally preferred.

Taking the car analogy further, a Linux user is a guy who likes to get under the hood and add after-market parts. Not a bad thing, but not everyone is like that.

you should give Mepis 6.0 beta2 a try it should be out tomorrow. distrowatch.com, I'm using beta1 right and its really cool and easy and I'm a Linux noobie(sort of). I tried Linux a few years ago(RedHat and Mandrake) and gave it up because it was to hard, but it has improved a lot. Mepis is really nice its a live CD so you can test it out without installing it on your hard drive, if you like it, it has a very easy program to install and give you a bootloader to dual boot windows or Linux. I was skeptical until I tried it and played with it for awhile.

I would guess that if you were building a computer from scratch and had a list of Linux compatible hardware, it would be a much smoother install. Still, there are issues with popular hardware, cameras and MP3 players come to mind, that would frustrate a novice after the initial installation.

The Linux community does seems to be addressing these issues, but the general hardware manufacturers seem to be slow in providing Linux drivers, if they provide them at all.

Enderle is considered the most uninformed pundit in the business. Last year, he wrote that Microsoft was the original designer of the Mac.

Enderle lies without compunction. There are no reports that Leopard has run into trouble. As usual, Apple will demonstrate some of Leopard's features at the WWDC developer's conference this summer. Apple is in a strong position to release Leopard when the market conditions are ideal - which will be just before Vista is released.

If Apple can't at least double its small share during this unique event it should abandon the Mac OS as a dead end, because this kind of opportunity will never come again.

Apple will continue to focus on quality and profitability. Marketshare is a secondary consideration, but Apple has increased about one percent over the last year, and continues to have about ten times more users than Linux.

Apple will not abandon the Mac OS X platform. Linux will not abandon Linux. Microsoft has already abandoned Longhorn once.

Seamonkey is worthless to me without a fully functional calendar. I just migrated to Mozilla App Suite version 1.7.13 (end of life) and installed the version of the calendar at the link below, and it seems to be OK so far.

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/calendar/xpi/windows/calendar_windows_20050111.xpi

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.