OS Smackdown: Linux vs. Mac OS X vs. Windows Vista vs. Windows XP

Computerworld - Since the dawn of time -- or, at least, the dawn of personal computers -- the holy wars over desktop operating system have raged, with each faction proclaiming the unrivaled superiorty of its chosen OS and the vile loathsomeness of all others.

No matter how fierce the language or convincing the arguments, however, these battles began to seem somewhat irrelevant to regul working stiffs. While Mac OS, OS/2, Linux and many other desktop operating systems have all had their devotees over the years, the truth is that the majority of home and business users have simply used the current version of Windows as a matter of course.

Windows Vista has changed all that. Never has a Microsoft operating system been greeted with such a lack of enthusiasm from consumers and business alike. Wheter it's because of Vista's confusing array of versions, its hefty hardaware requirements, its driver issues or its invasive security features, users are resisting the upgrade to Vista and considering other options, from Mac OS X to Linux to just sticking with Windows XP, thank you very much.

Suddenly, the OS wars have a new revelance.

That's why we've asked four experts to lay out their best arguments in support of their desktop operating systems of choice:


- James Turner for Linux
- Michael DeAgonia for Mac OR X
- Preston Gralla for Windows Vista
- David Ramel for Windows XP


Each is positive that his operating system is the best and will try his hardes to convince you of that -- and is not above taking a few swipes at the competition. These are not rational, disengaded reviews; these are opinionated essays meant to sway your point of view.

When you've read all the arguments, you make the call by voting in our reader poll -- and of course we welcome your own arguments in the comments area as well.


By Michael Deagonia, Preston Gralla, David Ramel and James Turner, www.computerworld.com

Despite the hype, Google Chrome browser slow to gain adaption

Positioning itself as a reluctant entract to the market, Google stated dramatically that it had no other choice given its deep dissatisfaction with existing browsers, specifically with their speed and performance running Web applications. This browser wasn't a side project, Google said, but rather a serious endeavor with far-reaching implications for the future of its online services and applications.

It was an epic move: the mighty Google, Like Achilles, marching into battle. The problem is, Chrome hasn't precisely turned things around as the mythical hero did, mercilessly and unequivocally, on behalf of the Greeks against the Trojans.

With a modest market share of about 4 percent, Chrome, which was launched on Sept. 1 last year, hasn't yet come close to approaching market leader Internet Explorer, nor the second-most-popular browser, Firefox. "To date, Chrome really hasn't had the success that I suspect Google had anticipated for it," said Sheri McLeish, a Forrester analyst.

As it turns out, Chrome has more than a few Achilles heels.

For starters, it doesn't exist for Mac OS and Linux users, two camps full of technology enthusiasts and early adapters. The Mac OS and Linux versions are delayed. To make matters worse, the doors of most workplaces, particularly large enterprises, remain closed to Chrome because it lacks basic features that IT departments need.

While google will remedy these two issues at some point, there are other obstacles to Chrome's adoption that may be harder to fix.

One is the widespread ignorance among many consumers about browsers, and their tendency to default to the one that comes with their PC. Another issue goes back to a question asked repeatedly at Chrome's launch: Does the world need another browser? Or put another way: Does an improvement to justify switching to it?

Google certainly didn't help Chrome's chances to sprint out of the gate by releasing it as a beta product that was quite rough around the edges. Not only was Chrome unstable and buggy at first, but it didn't play well with many Web sites, including some of Google's own, because Google made its release a surprise and didn't give webmasters advance notice to adapt their sites.

By Juan Carlos Perez,www.infoworld.com