On most days, that is.
Posted on 11/29/2006 2:54:07 AM PST by Swordmaker
A celebrity CIO reviews the desktop operating system contenders in search of the next-generation office computer
Introduction
John Halamka has a penchant for experiments with new technologies. In 2004, the now 44-year-old CIO of the Harvard Medical School and CareGroup, which runs the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who is also a practicing emergency room physician, was one of the first people to have an RFID chip containing a link to his medical records implanted in his body (it's near his right triceps.) Next April, he and Harvard geneticist George Church will become the first humans to have their DNA sequenced and their full genetic makeup posted on the Web.
But as a health-care administrator, he's not solely interested in testing the cutting-edge, Orwellian technologies that make headlines. The PCs inside the hospital have to work too. So when Halamka's laptop running Windows XP interrupted several presentations with inopportune antivirus and application updates, he decided his next big initiative would be to determine which desktop operating system—Windows XP, Apple's OS X or Linux—is the most secure, most reliable and easiest to use in a corporate environment.
For three months, Halamka ditched his Windows laptop. He replaced it first with a MacBook running OS X. Then he spent a month using a Lenovo ThinkPad X41 running a dual-boot configuration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation and Red Hat Fedora Core. Finally, he took up a Dell D420 subnotebook running Microsoft's Windows XP. After evaluating all three to determine which worked best for him, he plans to begin testing his preferred setup with users, most of whose desktops currently run Windows.
Halamka judged the three operating systems according to a variety of criteria including their performance, user interfaces and enterprise management capabilities, such as the ability to configure applications, easily organize file systems, and establish granular security control. We followed Halamka's progress, and now we have his conclusions. We've also ask three other experts to take a look at Halamka's findings and add their own insights.
< snip >
This is an excerpt, read more at Window vs. Linux vs. OS X
Home Premium, Business and Ultimate are only your "real" viable alternatives... I'm personally leaning toward Home Premium
On most days, that is.
The computer on which I type this response from the office uses 9.1.
Not a desktop operating system! nice try and thanks for playing but people are not buying server 2003 to run desktop applications..
WinXP 64bit Pro was released in April of 2005.
Recompiling an OS for 64 bits does not a new os make, thats like saying extending hardware support makes a new os..
Windows Vista: On November 8, 2006
So I can buy my vista desktop from dell right now?
Microsoft started development of Vista long before XP came out, its not like you dont start your next project until the current one is done.
Easy. Jobs is in the business of selling computers: specifically, the Apple Macintosh in various forms.
Gates is in the business of selling software that runs on Dell computers, HP computers, John Doe computers, and Apple computers.
I know, we're left with five versions. And OS X simply has one full-powered version that's already shipping in systems costing less than their Windows counterparts.
OS X also has only one server version (sold in 10 CAL and unlimited licenses). Currently, Windows 2003 server has seven versions (small business, Web, standard, enterprise, datacenter, cluster, storage). I wonder how many Vista server versions there will be.
What's that got to do with "maintaining functionality"?
Adding a Wacom bluetooth tablet is a NEW function that was not supported in OS X.1. There were and are Wacom tablets for OS X.1 and even for OS 9 that functioned wirelessly... just not with bluetooth. They were just as "functional" on those platforms.
If you want to ADD functionality, then, yes, you have to upgrade.
This is just more evidence that .x upgrades were upgrades that added functionality. BECAUSE there is new functionality in upgraded versions of OS X, software and hardware makers incorporated it into their products. Do you think that a Windows 95 computer can use USB easily?
this one is MUCH more economical and doesn't require bluetooth but still requires OSX 10.2.8+ MR. OSX 10.1 would need to shell out an extra $120 or whatever
No ideas... thats not my thing. :)
What would happen if Gates opened up a "hardware" company and didn't allow anyone to use his "windows" but his company? OR IF he integrated Zune software into Windows Media player? uhh huh... we all know... but apple's allowed to do it..
LOL!
This guy seems to be most upset that his XP machine interrupts him with updates.
Somebody should tell him that he can turn that feature off and do his updates manually. Some CIO.
Z-z-z-z-z.
Echo, that tablet works quite nicely even with Mac OS 8.6... its the SOFTWARE they are bundling with it that wants the upgraded OS X.2.8. It will work just fine with the software versions that worked with OS X.1 or .2 or .3 or .4. The hardware will work fine. The software wants some of the NEW functionality that was added in OS X.2 and may need a fix that was added in X.2.8.
Quite frankly, any Mac user that opts to use a Wacom tablet can affored to upgrade and $120, $240, or $360 is probably pocket change for him.
I just pulled out an old Wacom I last used on a PowerMac 6400 with OS 9... I plugged it in to my OS X.4.8 G5 and was recognized immediately and it worked perfectly.
Echo, you are spouting your ignorance of Macs again. Don't try to tell us, who have used Macs for years, what any particular version is capable of. We know. You don't.
Because, unless you are either in the Vista beta program or have a volume license, it is not available yet.
This guy seems to be most upset that his XP machine interrupts him with updates.Somebody should tell him that he can turn that feature off and do his updates manually. Some CIO.
Poser, I just reread through the entire WindowsXP section of Halamka's article and do not find anything like that in it.
Can you help me by pointing me to the section where he complains about being upset with being interupted with updates and where he indicates he doesn't know what to do about that issue???
Workarounds: Halamka made two decisions that helped him prevent annoying operating system and application slowdowns, lock-ups and interruptions that cramp his computing style.Having used XP since 2002, he's noticed that the more applications he installs, the slower and more unstable the operating system becomes. So to keep it in tip-top shape, he's keeping his software stack simple. He vowed to install as few additional applications as possible and to install only Microsoft manufactured and branded software at that (except for Firefox).
The other action he took was to create two separate log-ins: one with administrator privileges, which he would use on the rare occasions when he wants to install new software, and one with no administrator privileges, which he uses on a daily basis. The latter prevents websites he visits from downloading Active X controls. Halamka says these Active X controls, in addition to creating security holes, can introduce the software conflicts and hardware incompatibilities that cause crashes and slowdowns. The user-only log-in also prevents his computer from automatically downloading software updates from Microsoft at inopportune moments, like during presentations.
By taking those steps, Halamka says he's achieved "a version of XP that actually hasn't crashed in 30 days. "As long as I keep [the OS] in that totally static state, it'll be OK."
This is the only mention of "interuptions" in the entire article.
From the description of how he set up his Windows laptop, it looks to me, someone who works in enterprise IT, that he KNOWS what he is doing.
You dismiss the entire article by putting up a "Strawman," misrepresenting what the article says, and then you shift to an "Ad hominem" attack on the CIO of an organization with at least 18,000 computers. Echo Talon is busy using Red Herrings...
Um... From the very first page of the article.
" So when Halamka's laptop running Windows XP interrupted several presentations with inopportune antivirus and application updates, he decided his next big initiative would be to determine which desktop operating system—Windows XP, Apple's OS X or Linux—is the most secure, most reliable and easiest to use in a corporate environment."
I think I saw it again in another section as well.
His motivation for the whole thing was "when Halamka's laptop running Windows XP interrupted several presentations with inopportune antivirus and application updates."
I have had XP do the same thing. I turned off the auto updates on my presentation computers. No more problems with interruptions.
If you had to configure 200 or 2000 or 20,000 varied computers on your in-house network to Linux, training the users, and then handling the incompatibility problems that will inevitably arise, you would not say that.
TANSTAAFL... especially in IT.
OK... let's demand that Gates allow WMP with DRM to run on Apple's... or demand that Gates let Zune software run on Apple's and iPods.
Oh, by the way, it is INDEED illegal to run Windows on all those PCs... unless you buy a license from Microsoft. If you run it without permission from Microsoft then it is just as illegal as running OS X on that box without permission from Apple.
Even running Linux requires that you agree to the GNU License. It has a cost as well; you give up something when you agree to it.
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.