OS Comparisons From the BBC

igb writes "As part of their coverage of the launch of Vista, the BBC last week asked people to submit descriptions of the benefits and drawbacks of their chosen system, and today they've posted responses from two Vista users, a Linux user, and an OS X user. There's nothing earth-shattering here, but it's interesting to see the operating systems compared on a level playing field, and good that the BBC has given equal time to the major alternatives."

Comments

Not level

[suso]

I'm sorry but this is not a level playing field. What this is is acknowledging the competition so as to appear fair and silence advocates, but then show off the latest features of Vista's interface, but not show the same in Linux and OSX. They have been playing this game for long enough that they know that eye candy sells. For goodness sake a Linux user that I work with said he was going to buy Vista just because he thought the box looks cool.

Re:Mac user

[mr_matticus]

The problem is an issue of values. You assume that people value the ability to tinker over the value of what is essentially an appliance, which is not true--some people would prefer the Apple "just work" mentality. As computers grow more specialized (media servers, desktop workstations, mobile information devices, etc.), the desire for a self-contained, reliable, attractive solution will only grow.

Some people don't see open source as a virtue, and it's not simply because of Microsoft FUD. Most people I know honestly don't care because they don't want to have to dig around in the depths of the OS. They don't want to compile applications, and they don't care that the same source tree works on four different platforms thanks to elegantly designed tools. As long as there are Windows developers making applications that allow them to do what they want, it's an immaterial advantage. Some don't care that Linux costs nothing, because they never buy Windows either. It comes with their computer, so from their perspective, Windows doesn't cost anything either. If computer makers sold their machines at one price and offered to preinstall Windows for a separate fee, that act alone would be Linux's greatest boon in a decade.

Trying to "educate" users about how "wrong" they are is the fastest way to look like a pretentious computer geek and lose credibility. It's not about "seeing the light," it's about what values people have and which OS most closely matches. People here hate and mock attempts at religious conversions and many seem to resent government deciding what to do with tax dollars, but they have no such problem with pushing their Linux agenda on the masses.

Linux will always be relatively small because its virtues appeal only to a small portion of the population. It can't compete on ease of use with OS X, or the universality of Windows, or on cost with Windows (as long as Windows is bundled with PCs), or on the cohesiveness of OS X, or on many other fronts. Linux is great for tinkerers and those with an allergy to closed source; the rest of the population isn't broken because they don't care about those things.

Good money after bad

[element-o.p.]

It can't compete...on cost with Windows (as long as Windows is bundled with PCs)...

I disagree.

At face value, you are right. You buy a computer, it comes with Windows pre-installed, IE, Outlook, maybe even Office. You and I know that you paid for the software in the purchase price, you just didn't see that cost since you were going to pay it even if you wanted Linux or x86 Solaris or FreeBSD or... So, it looks like Linux can't compete on cost with Windows.

Then you get infected with a worm or trojan because the anti-virus software installed on your computer didn't come with free updates for then next N months. Now you have to buy a subscription to McAfee, or Norton, or Kaspersky (or if you're really smart Nod32, but I digress), and that is a re-occurring cost every year. Because you've done some homework, you also buy firewall software from McAfee or Symantec or (shudder) Black Ice. Yes, XP comes with a firewall, but you want the reporting features and ability to block by program that a commercial product offers. Oh, but you're getting a lot of crap in your e-mail, so you also buy mail filtering software. Then your thirteen year old, who knows way more about computers than you ever will (okay, this is /. so that's probably not true for this subset of computer users, but assume you aren't a geek for a minute) is taking programming classes at school, so you buy Visual Basic and Visual C++, and so on.

Now how much cheaper is that Windows computer than Linux? There are free (as in speech and as in beer) alternatives for each of these problems available for Linux.

So, yeah, the initial purchase price may be equivalent, but after that, you are just throwing good money after bad. But that's just my opinion. YMMV :)