042809.1443
I’m a windows guy. I like to have options in my computing platform because I want to customize my computer experience exactly how I like it to maximize productivity. There is no question the Windows platform is compatible with the widest array of hardware and software, allowing me to configure my user experience to match specific needs. One would assume, if you have a platform that offers so many choices, there is no need for any other. However, some users require fewer options, while others require even more options. I believe that the fewer options a user has when interacting with their technology, the easier it is to use. Conversely, the more options a user has, the more difficult that technology is to use. Furthermore, technology cannot both be easy to use and have many options (technology that is difficult to use with few options is just poorly designed). Thus there is, an inverse relationship between ease of use and functionality, and this relationship is irreconcilable.
Let us compare Mac, Windows, and Linux. Mac is undeniably the easiest of the three to use. It comes installed with pretty much any program you need to get going (strangely enough no games, save chess, and no drawing programs like MS Paint). The GUI is universal, so once a user learns an app, say iTunes, the skills are directly transferable to iPhoto, Safari, Mail, and other apple programs. Apple however, is a closed platform, meaning that it lacks robust 3rd part support and most every aspect to the operating system one way or another is approved by Apple. This creates a very solid and stable system, but it is very difficult to stray too far from the Apple approved path. Therefore, Mac’s ease of use means that it is less functional
Windows is by far the most compatible platform. Just about every single application and hardware works on windows. This means that Windows users can configure their system exactly how they need to run. As a system builder, I have built computers that are solely designed to play games. Of course it can do everything else any other computer can do, but I chose specific parts to maximize processing efficiency, graphics, and sound encode/decoding. I also designed the computer in my project studio that is built to endure high level of processing for extended period of time. The drawback is the lack of standards creates the potential of system mishaps and blue screens. Windows has been trying and failing to create the universal GUI Macs have, but their lack of innovation in this department makes it difficult to create a unifying trend among apps. Thus, if you have 10 programs on windows, you will have to learn 10 different interfaces. Thus, Windows is the middle of the road. It is an open platform, which makes it the most functional operating system, but the lack of a unifying interface makes it more difficult to use than Mac.
Finally, Linux is the most configurable system. Every aspect of the computing experience can be modified exactly to your liking, even down to the placement of your minimize, restore, and close buttons. Though Linux lacks the robust hardware support of Windows, it does have a bevy of free software to customize the user experience to customize their user experience to their liking. This makes Linux a somewhat closed system because it if fully integrated into the open-source community. Also, Linux is compatible with almost all the same internal hardware as Windows allowing similar configurations for personal, enterprise, or server use. However, Linux isn’t what I’d call out-of-the-box usable, though recent versions of the most popular distribution Ubuntu is getting increasingly better with this. For example, in order to play a DVD movie, you have to grab CSS decryption software and codecs from the repository. Some applications require that you go and manually find its dependencies and compile the package to install it. Despite the excellent GUI in Ubuntu, a user needs to be able to use the terminal to get the most out of it. Between a completely configurable interface and a wide variety of software (which is 99% free) Linux is the most functional system. But it is also the most difficult to use.
We can’t have our cake and eat it too. A platform can either let the user define their experience, or create the user experience for the user to enjoy. Though the relationship is in my opionion irreconcilable, creating a unifying experience that helps to mask a platform's short commings is essential for an enjoyable user experience.
Is one model better than the other? That is debatable, but what is empirical is Apple’s stock has increased (albeit mainly from iPhone sales) while Microsoft has lost money for the first time in 23 years. Linux is increasingly becoming more popular for netbooks, phones, and is now making a presence on laptops from Dell and HP. What this indicates is middle of the road is not good enough anymore, and Microsoft is in trouble. Somehow, Microsoft has to create an interface that creates a unifying experience. Mac does this with its GUI. iTunes, iPhoto, the iPhone all look the same. They share the same name. In Linux, the unifying factor is its vibrant and passionate open-source community. Microsoft lacks this. What they do (and it continually disappoints me) is emulate rather than innovate. They see Mac using a universal GUI, so they poorly implemented it with the ribbon interface. Windows Media Player is a cheap iTunes imitation. Microsoft really has to go to the drawing board and create mind-blowing new technologies, or they will find themselves in an unrecoverable flat spin.
I’m a windows guy. I like to have options in my computing platform because I want to customize my computer experience exactly how I like it to maximize productivity. There is no question the Windows platform is compatible with the widest array of hardware and software, allowing me to configure my user experience to match specific needs. One would assume, if you have a platform that offers so many choices, there is no need for any other. However, some users require fewer options, while others require even more options. I believe that the fewer options a user has when interacting with their technology, the easier it is to use. Conversely, the more options a user has, the more difficult that technology is to use. Furthermore, technology cannot both be easy to use and have many options (technology that is difficult to use with few options is just poorly designed). Thus there is, an inverse relationship between ease of use and functionality, and this relationship is irreconcilable.
Let us compare Mac, Windows, and Linux. Mac is undeniably the easiest of the three to use. It comes installed with pretty much any program you need to get going (strangely enough no games, save chess, and no drawing programs like MS Paint). The GUI is universal, so once a user learns an app, say iTunes, the skills are directly transferable to iPhoto, Safari, Mail, and other apple programs. Apple however, is a closed platform, meaning that it lacks robust 3rd part support and most every aspect to the operating system one way or another is approved by Apple. This creates a very solid and stable system, but it is very difficult to stray too far from the Apple approved path. Therefore, Mac’s ease of use means that it is less functional
Windows is by far the most compatible platform. Just about every single application and hardware works on windows. This means that Windows users can configure their system exactly how they need to run. As a system builder, I have built computers that are solely designed to play games. Of course it can do everything else any other computer can do, but I chose specific parts to maximize processing efficiency, graphics, and sound encode/decoding. I also designed the computer in my project studio that is built to endure high level of processing for extended period of time. The drawback is the lack of standards creates the potential of system mishaps and blue screens. Windows has been trying and failing to create the universal GUI Macs have, but their lack of innovation in this department makes it difficult to create a unifying trend among apps. Thus, if you have 10 programs on windows, you will have to learn 10 different interfaces. Thus, Windows is the middle of the road. It is an open platform, which makes it the most functional operating system, but the lack of a unifying interface makes it more difficult to use than Mac.
Finally, Linux is the most configurable system. Every aspect of the computing experience can be modified exactly to your liking, even down to the placement of your minimize, restore, and close buttons. Though Linux lacks the robust hardware support of Windows, it does have a bevy of free software to customize the user experience to customize their user experience to their liking. This makes Linux a somewhat closed system because it if fully integrated into the open-source community. Also, Linux is compatible with almost all the same internal hardware as Windows allowing similar configurations for personal, enterprise, or server use. However, Linux isn’t what I’d call out-of-the-box usable, though recent versions of the most popular distribution Ubuntu is getting increasingly better with this. For example, in order to play a DVD movie, you have to grab CSS decryption software and codecs from the repository. Some applications require that you go and manually find its dependencies and compile the package to install it. Despite the excellent GUI in Ubuntu, a user needs to be able to use the terminal to get the most out of it. Between a completely configurable interface and a wide variety of software (which is 99% free) Linux is the most functional system. But it is also the most difficult to use.
We can’t have our cake and eat it too. A platform can either let the user define their experience, or create the user experience for the user to enjoy. Though the relationship is in my opionion irreconcilable, creating a unifying experience that helps to mask a platform's short commings is essential for an enjoyable user experience.
Is one model better than the other? That is debatable, but what is empirical is Apple’s stock has increased (albeit mainly from iPhone sales) while Microsoft has lost money for the first time in 23 years. Linux is increasingly becoming more popular for netbooks, phones, and is now making a presence on laptops from Dell and HP. What this indicates is middle of the road is not good enough anymore, and Microsoft is in trouble. Somehow, Microsoft has to create an interface that creates a unifying experience. Mac does this with its GUI. iTunes, iPhoto, the iPhone all look the same. They share the same name. In Linux, the unifying factor is its vibrant and passionate open-source community. Microsoft lacks this. What they do (and it continually disappoints me) is emulate rather than innovate. They see Mac using a universal GUI, so they poorly implemented it with the ribbon interface. Windows Media Player is a cheap iTunes imitation. Microsoft really has to go to the drawing board and create mind-blowing new technologies, or they will find themselves in an unrecoverable flat spin.
