Does The Operating System Let You Get On With Things?

What do we want our PC to do? More precisely, what do we expect from an Operating System? With Microsoft's latest offering - Vista on the horizon I have to wonder is there any real tangible benefit to the home user for this latest version of Windows. It appears if I want to avail of everything Vista has to offer I will need to at least upgrade my current notebook if not replace it. But why would I go to all this additional expense when I wont be doing anything new? I will reserve judgement until I have had a chance to use it myself. However, I do question the need for creating a resource hungry beast for the sake of it. PCs are seriously powerful these days, but why the hell does the bulk of that power need to be consumed by the OS? Realistically, we should use the PC for the applications not for the operating system. After all, you don't go to a recital to hear the conductor - he may be one of the most important components but the music and the musician are the reasons for your attendance.

PC Tasks

In my opinion it should be the same with the PC. The OS is a means to an ends. The OS should be a help not an obstacle. For an average Family PC, you would like your PC to be able to carry out the following functionality:

1. Email
2. Web Browsing
3. Instant Messaging
4. Word Processing
5. Simple Spreadsheet functionality
6. Calendar Scheduling
7. Photo Editing
8. Music Editing
9. CD/DVD Ripping & Burning
10. Simple Gaming

So there you have it my personal top ten list of the most common PC activities. For me the interesting thing about this list is that email, web browsing, Instant Messaging, Word processing, spreadsheets, scheduling can all be done on line. These are technically known as "thin client" installs. In other words very little (if anything) needs to be installed on your PC (the client). With less being installed on your PC less resources consumed (e.g. processor power, memory, storage capacity). Of course you will need a broadband connection, but this is fast becoming the norm for computer users anyway.

Editing (photos & music), ripping and burning, and gaming can require substantial resources - but nothing a 4-5 year old PC on average cannot handle. Therefore, why on earth do we need an OS that is designed to do so many tasks that are unnecessary for the average user? A system that consumes so much power that we have to upgrade just get the PC to do the tasks it was already doing before?

Windows

As Windows has evolved from 3.1 to XP Microsoft have improved their operating system each time (with the exception of Windows ME). XP is a very good OS. Yes it has its flaws - security equivalent to Swiss cheese. From and end-user point of view the major break-through was that it was stable! No reboot required whilst writing a letter. The OS that doesn't get in the user's way is a winner. On the positive side XP looked good and was stable. On the down-side it needs more space, memory and processor power to operate (i.e. more money). But does it do anything more than its predecessors? You may say that you can play the latest games etc. However, this is thanks primarily to the hardware in your PC not the OS. I bet the things you did on your Windows 98 PC are the same as those you carry out on your Windows XP machine. The only difference is that you don't have to reboot several times just to complete the task!

So is stability the holy grail for home users? No not quite. Another characteristic of all versions of Windows (including XP) is the way it slows down after a few months of use. Now I'm pretty good at carrying out regular maintenance on my PC - defragging the hard drive, clearing out the temp files, cleaning the cache. However, none of this returns XP to its state when it was installed. The only way to get back to this state is to format the hard drive and re-install Windows - not something to be undertaken lightly! Why does this happen with Windows? The answer is a little blurry in that no one seems to have a definitive answer. The installation and subsequent removal of additional software always leaves remnants behind no matter how careful you are. Windows XML code gets bloated over time clogging up the system. Perhaps Vista will prove to be different - only time will tell.

Linux

Linux users will tell you that their OS already meets this criteria. To date Linux hasn't been ready to be unleashed onto the Home user because too much configuration is required to get it to work properly. To be embraced by the masses the transition from Windows to Linux needs to be seamless (or a close as possible to seamless). I read great things about Ubuntu and SUSE. However, I can't get them to run on my Dell Notebook. I would consider myself to be technically "handy", not a guru but handy. Therefore, if I can't get an Operating System to work on one of the most common makes of computer hardware then that OS is not yet ready to be unleashed on the masses. There are umpteen versions of Linux, the vast majority of which are still in the domain of the computer geek. There are a few - Linspire , Xandros and Mandriva which have set themselves up as a credible alternative to Windows.

The interface on each is very similar to Windows, the application suite offered ticks all the boxes I've listed above. It is much more secure than Windows, it is very stable, and my understanding is that it doesn't slow down overtime. (I haven't dipped my toe into Linux long enough to give a definitive answer one way or another). The one area where Linux still needs to make up ground is in relation to hardware recognition. When you install Linux it may recognise and work with some of your PC's hardware but maybe not all of it.

As Microsoft cut their ties in July 2006 with Windows 98, 98SE, and ME, Xandros offered these users a helping hand. They've offered US and Canadian users of Windows 98 and ME a chance to purchase Xandros Linux at half price . So users of these machines have a chance to get a brand new operating system packed with Bells and Whistles, which is fully supported, stable, secure and doesn't require an upgrade of their hardware. What a smart move by Xandros. If the installation is as straight forward as Xandros claim then these Windows users who switch will have added a new lease of life to their old PCs.

The requirements for a family PC should be:

• Start quickly
• Look fresh
• Surf securily
• Run feature-light applications
• Shut down quickly

Mac users may read this and say that Apple have been providing this service for years. That may well be the case, but my bone of contention is the PC. Let's optimise the family PC and let it stay optimised irrespective of usage because the processor is fast enough, there is already enough memory and sufficient storage space to allow you to achieve this.