As a UNIX administrator, I work with Linux and Solaris. As an IT professional, I spend a significant amount of time working with Windows. As a Mac user, I frequently read about the latest virus/spyware/trojan/patch batch, sighing in relief that it's not my problem. Although I believe things are going to get tougher for Mac users in 2006, we still skate by most of the crud that makes life unpleasant for Windows users.
For several years now, I've been aware of a consensus that Linux is almost (but not yet) ready for use as a mainstream desktop operating system, because it's harder to use than Microsoft Windows & Office, and much harder to install. I recently got a new PC, and was quite surprised by how much trouble installing Windows could be. Even worse, the Windows installation required me to use the web several times. Had I not had other working computers and a working (broadband) connection, I would have been stuck trying to lift myself up by my own bootstraps. On the other hand, installing Linux on the same machine was painless (as it normally is, in my experience). After a hard look at the whole "Linux is not ready" idea, I no longer accept it.
Installing Windows: Not for Normal People -- When I mentioned how much grief my Windows installation was causing to a co-worker, he pointed out that relatively few Windows users ever actually install it. Microsoft goes to great lengths (including major lawsuits with governments and corporations) to ensure that Windows is pre-installed on most PCs. Statistically, more "installations" of Windows are handled by cloning an existing installed copy (called a "golden master") onto a hard drive than by actually running through the Windows installer, which isn't (intended to be) efficient for large numbers of machines. New PCs from OEMs such as Dell and HP are set up by imaging a master installation (often heavily customized), and IT staffs at large organizations prefer imaging as well, for time savings and consistency. One vendor estimates that 95% of their systems are immediately re-imaged by their (mostly business) customers. The remainder, the one-off installations, are a mixture of full Windows installations, Windows upgrades (discounted over full Windows licenses), and "Software Restores", using preconfigured custom re-installers.
Installing Windows is not a something users normally do. Further, PC vendors tend to ship machine-specific Software Restore CDs (as does Apple), which don't use Microsoft's installer. OEMs don't do this because they like developing software they don't charge for, but to reduce support calls from customers in need of help with the Windows installer. Additionally, Microsoft pushes vendors towards machine-specific restore programs (often not even shipped on CD-ROM, but pre-installed on the hard drive), to avoid the proliferation of Windows installers, which can be copied, sold, traded, and pirated.
The New York Times recently reported that, rather than re-install Windows, a growing number of people instead choose to buy new PCs when their Windows systems become unstable (typically due to viruses and spyware). These people spend money on new PCs rather than reinstall Windows, which would remove any infections for free.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/technology/17spy.html
Installing Linux: Just Part of the Game -- On the other hand, Linux is still in the early-adopter phase, which means Linux users tend to be the types of people who install Linux (and Windows) a lot, for themselves (on multiple computers), friends, and co-workers (perhaps as the aforementioned IT staff). This means the various Linux installers get a great deal more exposure (compared to number of hours spent just using Linux) than the Windows installers.
When I considered these facts, I realized that many people casually assume Linux is harder to install and use than Windows without experience installing either. Additionally, Microsoft has demonstrated quite effectively that people don't actually have to install their own operating systems. Computer vendors are happy to do this, and IT staff can handle the details as well. This is not to say that Linux installations are consistently simple. Configuring X11 for the display and video card can be extremely complicated, but it's getting better, and it would be very easy for a Software Restore CD to include configuration files for one or many different hardware configurations. Since most Linux distributions already include a full set of drivers, it would be easy to add the configuration files for a broad range of PC models to existing install or restore CDs and DVDs.
Mac users tend to fall in between these two extremes. Most are satisfied with the OS as installed by Apple on their new Macs, but every time Apple releases a major system upgrade such as Tiger or Panther, the large number of people who rush out to get the new version makes headlines.
http://news.com.com/2102-1016_3-5690618.html?tag=st.util.print
Apple's Mac OS X installers have several substantial advantages over Windows & Linux installers. First, the number of supported systems and components is much smaller than on the PC side, which makes the installer smaller and simpler. This remains true as Apple switches to Intel processors, because Apple only supports Mac OS X on Apple computers.
Second, because Apple controls both hardware and software, Apple-supported drivers are basically a non-issue. Apple simply provides all drivers for all supported Apple equipment, on the disc. For non-Apple equipment, Apple also provides good generic drivers for standard devices such as mice and hard drives. Of course, things aren't perfect. Drivers for components which aren't standardized, such as printers and specialty equipment, may be simply unavailable on the Mac, although there are sometimes workarounds like Gutenprint, included in Mac OS X as GIMP-Print.
http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Third, most Apple installations are single-partition and single-OS.
Disk partitioning is not simple, and multi-booting (putting
Linux and Windows on a single PC) can be extremely complicated.
Because APM (Apple Partition Map) lacks the problematic
limitations of BIOS-compatible old-style PC partitioning, and
even more because Macs have historically not been multi-boot
systems, partitioning has historically not been a problem on the
Mac. Now that Apple has introduced Intel Macs which use EFI
(Extensible Firmware Interface) instead of BIOS or Open
Firmware, and added support for GPT (GUID Partition Table)
partitioning, things are more complicated. Despite this,
avoiding old-school fdisk-style partitioning
should avoid most of the aggravation of Windows/Linux
multi-booting. On Mac-only Intel systems, partitioning is
almost trivial, as it has been all along on Mac-only
PowerPC systems (and before that 68k systems).
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-2.html#ss2.11
name for BIOS-style partitioningTo examine the Windows installation experience, here is a run-down of my recent experience installing both Windows and Linux on the same PC. Note that the Windows installation was unusually bad, but it demonstrates many of the pitfalls. This nightmare made me appreciate Red Hat's and Apple's installers. Considering this along with other operating system installations I've done, I see no advantage for Windows over Linux, and a marked disadvantage compared to Mac OS X.
In this recap, I'll skip various dead ends that wasted my time, because they aren't particularly interesting and the aren't particularly interesting, but please keep in mind that this description is edited for brevity -- my actual experience was worse. Not all of this is Microsoft's fault. Most of my problems were caused by Compaq and eCost, although Microsoft has to shoulder a share of the blame for problems it only contributed to indirectly, as the controlling player in the PC industry.
I ordered a $300 PC, a 1.7GHz Pentium 4 based Compaq Evo 500 Small Form Factor desktop model, refurbished, from eCost, for $307 with shipping. I actually received a 1.8GHz Evo 510 SFF, without any explanation. It arrived at my home with 256mb RAM, 20gb HD, CD-ROM drive, and Windows installed. The computer is small and quiet (although much bigger than a mini), and is now ns2.reppep.com (running Linux).
I don't much like PCs or Windows, but I maintain all my own systems; currently between work and home, that includes 5 Macs, 4 PCs (3 working), and a Sun (I got rid of the SGI). I run Windows XP on one for Windows-only applications, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 on another for testing, and RHEL4 on ns2 (replacing a Dell server with FreeBSD, where the hard disk died). The Dell was big & noisy enough that I decided to replace it rather than just the dead disk.
http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/
http://www.freebsd.org/
I sometimes find it valuable to have Windows available. A few years ago I put Windows on a FreeBSD system to watch a friend being interviewed on CNN Asia and send him the Windows Media clip. Unfortunately, when I installed Windows, it overwrote the boot sector and made FreeBSD unbootable (Windows does this to other operating systems; Linux and FreeBSD do not). This problem is fixable, but means that standard operating procedure for multi-boot systems is to install Windows first, and other operating systems afterwards.
The Compaq came with a Windows XP Pro Product Key (really a serial number), glued to the case, and one CD: "Compaq Operating System CD, Microsoft Windows XP Professional / Only for use with Compaq Restore CD". I put this in the PC, booted it up, and got a message telling me to boot from the Compaq Restore CD, which eCost did not provide. The Evo 510 is about 3 years old, so it didn't come with Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Windows XP. A new Windows XP system without SP2, connected directly to the Internet, is likely to be broken into and under a criminal's control in less time than it takes to download all Microsoft's suggested patches.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm
Not realizing how much trouble installing Windows would be, I repartitioned the Compaq's hard drive to hold both Linux and Windows (destroying the installed copy of Windows in the process). If I had realized how precious a fully installed and configured installation of Windows is, I would have gotten a Partition Magic CD from work, and repartitioned the drive without destroying Windows. Alas, I did not know any better then, and I wasn't aware of SystemRescueCd, which I could have immediately downloaded and used as a free alternative to Partition Magic.
http://www.partitionmagic.com/home_homeoffice/products/system_performance/pm80/
http://www.sysresccd.org/
I had a generic Windows XP Pro (SP1) install CD, from the last time I installed Windows at home. I put it in the PC (with the Ethernet cable disconnected for security) and started the installer. Unfortunately, it got stuck at "installing drivers", and kept cycling the Windows advertising without advancing through the installation process. I shut down and quit for the night. I tried the next day with an XP Pro SP2 CD from work. No joy, as we use the Volume installer for XP2, which wouldn't accept my (non-volume) Product Key.
I next brought home a normal (non-volume) XP install CD with SP2. This completed installation (finally!). Then Windows popped up a notification that it was "optimizing" my display, and everything got very very ugly. Despite the installer running and looking fine, Windows decided that I had an unsupported video card, and switched to basic VGA mode (640x480, with 16 colors). Note that although Windows defaults to this configuration if it can't recognize the video card, Windows is not designed to actually run this way. Configuration windows are too wide to fit on the screen, and the default color Windows theme looks bizarre with only 16 colors. I couldn't do much except install drivers. Even worse, the network interface was not recognized, so the PC couldn't connect to the Internet to get the drivers.
If this had been my only computer I would have been stuck, and had to either a) get a new Restore CD from HP (who bought Compaq) or eCost, or b) give up on Windows. Fortunately I had a working Mac, so I went to www.hp.com and looked up "Evo 510 SFF". I found 10 different graphics downloads and 6 different network downloads! I read a bunch of documentation for the PC, none of which identified the components used. I was more than a bit frustrated.
http://h18007.www1.hp.com/support/files/EvoDesktop/us/locate/64_4358.html
Linux to the rescue! I downloaded a Knoppix (Linux) CD-ROM image, and burned it on the Mac. I booted the PC from the Knoppix CD, and it immediately identified a common Intel 845G video chipset & Intel PRO/100+ Ethernet interface. I made a note, went to hp.com, downloaded Compaq's Windows XP drivers, and burned them onto a CD. I installed the drivers and rebooted. After reboot the display was much better, but it still didn't recognize the Ethernet card. On the Mac, I downloaded a different Compaq Ethernet driver for Intel chipsets. I installed the alternate driver, rebooted, and cursed. The Ethernet controller was still unrecognized.
http://knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html
I visited www.intel.com, got Intel's driver, and installed. This time the PC recognized the network card. Hooray!
Note that the PC's Ethernet cable was still disconnected at this point, because Windows PCs without the latest patches (even with SP2) are not safe on the Internet. Fully patched PCs aren't really safe on the Internet either, but they're less unsafe. I temporarily plugged the PC in behind my Linksys router, which provides some protection from Internet attackers, but let the PC reach Windows Update. Running Linux, Mac OS X, or FreeBSD on a system directly connected to the Internet isn't as much of a risk.
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/
Internet Explorer (IE) has a very complicated security preferences area (which strangely lacks decent cookie control), with multiple trust zones and a long checklist of what's allowed for sites in each zone. I went here in an effort to protect myself from malicious web sites. I started by locking everything down (choosing higher security levels than the defaults), but Windows Update didn't work. I got an error page telling me to trust 3 URLs for Windows Update, but after allowing those URLs I got another similar page with 3 different URLs. Complicating the process is the fact that IE applies some strange transformational rules (not normal regular expressions) to the URLs entered in the dialog box, so I got unexpected errors about mysteriously overlapping URLs.
Eventually, I got IE configured to WU could do its thing. Unfortunately, this required trusting the non-SSL WU sites, despite a MS warning in the dialog box not to do so. WU is not fully SSL-enabled, and MS obviously knows this is a bad thing, but still hasn't fixed it.
I ran WU and got a bunch of patches; installed; rebooted. Ran WU again, patched more, rebooted again. Ran WU again, and sighed in relief, as no more patches were needed. In fairness, Apple also sometimes requires a couple Software Update & reboot runs on brand-new installations of Mac OS X -- some patches must be installed before other patches are available via Software Update. Red Hat recommends a reboot for kernel upgrades, but never two.
At this point (a week after starting) I had a working Windows XP Pro installation with SP2 and all patches, proper 1280x1024 resolution with thousands of colors, and a functioning network connection. I moved the PC to its proper network connection (outside the Linksys), on the big scary Internet.
A few weeks later, I got a customer satisfaction email from eCost, asking me to rate my experience. Surprisingly, it asked that I not immediately send in a negative review, but instead first give eCost a chance to fix anything I was dissatisfied with, and provided a phone number. I called the number, and explained to the rep that I hadn't gotten a needed CD. He told me he'd speak to the product manager at eCost, they'd sort it out, and someone would call back that day. I never heard back, and decided not to waste any more time on eCost. I clicked a negative rating link in the email, but the URL wasn't valid.
Vendor Dissatisfaction -- Here's a recap of what the various companies did wrong and right (more wrong than right, alas).
eCost: They didn't include the Compaq Restore CD (which probably would have avoided most of my problems), send me the CD when requested, or even call me back as promised. These are very serious. Less serious: they didn't ship what I ordered, but shipped a faster machine instead (a wash); and they sent a broken BizRate link.
Compaq (HP) screwed up in several different ways. They designed a computer for Windows XP (it says so on the case!), but used components which Windows XP (even SP2) doesn't recognize directly. Compaq/HP provides several different video driver downloads, but no guidance on which is appropriate (I had to use Knoppix to find out). They provide several network drivers (again without identifying which is needed), which don't work! Compaq/HP provides no Linux drivers for the Evo 510 at all. Searching through hp.com, the search engine suggests at least 3 different versions of the video driver, two obsolete. The built-in low-quality "beep" speaker apparently cannot be shut off, and doesn't mute with earphones plugged in (this may be standard, but it's still a pointless nuisance).
Microsoft: The latest Windows XP SP2 CD installer doesn't recognize my Intel 845G video controller or Intel PRO/100+ network interface -- both are very common components, and have been since long before Service Pack 2 was released. Running Windows XP in VGA mode (its default, per design) is remarkably unpleasant. Lack of network support is more serious, as it prevents the computer from downloading drivers -- this is a serious bootstrapping problem. I've since been told that Microsoft may recognize standard Intel 845G & PRO/100+ parts, but perhaps Compaq tweaked the device IDs in a way that Windows cannot recognize (but Knoppix can). Microsoft's critically important Windows Update website doesn't meet their own security standards, and is incompatible with stronger security in IE.
Intel had both drivers I needed. They weren't easy to find, but they were much quicker downloads than Compaq's, and they worked (unlike Compaq's)!
Note that I bought this PC primarily to run Linux, not Windows. I like FreeBSD, but don't have any particular need to use it any more, and I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux daily as part of my job.
PC are saddled with some ugly legacies. The BIOS standards don't
properly handle hard disks over 8gb, due to limitations in the
Cylinders/Heads/Sectors interface used between PC boot loaders
and the BIOS; there are workarounds, but BIOS-based PCs still
need a fake (bogus) partition map for compatibility reasons.
BIOS boots by running a program in the first block of the disk,
which means only 446 bytes are available for the "stage 1
bootstrap" program (64 of 512 bytes are used for the maddeningly
primitive partition table). This means that booting a PC must be
a multi-stage process, and using 5 or more partitions requires
at least two different partition tables. It's a mess. The simple
rule of thumb I learned several years for ago dual-boot Windows
& Linux is: put a Linux /boot partition first
on the disk, then put the Windows C: drive (which must end
before the 8gb mark on the disk), then put whatever else you
like. With newer PCs, this limitation has largely been worked
around, but it's fundamental to BIOS, like the old 640k memory
maximum. Intel's EFI replaces this horribly limited environment
with a much simpler and more flexible environment, more like
Open Firmware in many ways, which is why Apple uses EFI and
doesn't provide old-style BIOS in the new Intel-based Macs.
http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/firmware/
Now that I had the desired partitioning, and Windows installed on a
suitable C: partition, I was ready to install Linux. I had
copies of the 4 RHEL4 CDs, downloaded and burned. I booted from
CD 1, picked my partitions (set up before installing Windows),
and ran through the Windows installer. RHEL4 recognized &
correctly auto-configured my video card & display, as well
as the Ethernet interface. I answered configuration questions
and fed it CDs. Less than an hour later, installation was done.
I then clicked on the up2date icon in the taskbar,
entered Red Hat Network account info, and let
up2date download & install patches. I then
rebooted to use the new kernel installed by
up2date, and configured the firewall (in the file
/etc/sysconfig/iptables).
If I couldn't use a RHEL license from work, I might have stuck with FreeBSD or tried Ubuntu (completely free) or CentOS (a free Linux distribution derived from RHEL). I do, however, have access to educational licensing for RHEL. Our pricing is excellent -- a subscription to "RHEL Academic Server", which gets us RHEL Advanced Server without support, costs $50/year. This product competes with the very expensive Windows 2003 Advanced Server (I was unable to find educational pricing online) and Mac OS X Server (more expensive for education). Red Hat Academic Desktop costs $25/year. List price for Windows XP Professional is $300 (including limited support), and J&R quotes $90 for an academic license. Note that XP licenses are perpetual, while Red Hat subscriptions require annual renewal.
http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/details/academic/
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/
http://www.microsoft.com/Education/USAcademicPricing.mspx
http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?ln=en-us&prid=3518&gprid=185522
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/default.mspx
If you were wondering why RHEL4 comes on 4 CDs, while Windows XP comes on 1, it's because RHEL4 includes a great many free applications, including OpenOffice.org (also available for Windows and Mac OS X). In contrast, Microsoft would prefer that every Windows user separately purchase and install Office and a variety of (separately sold and installed) MS products. In fairness, there's a significant amount of redundancy in RHEL, but it still includes much more capability than Windows.
Mac OS X As an Alternative -- Mac OS X obviously wouldn't run on this system, but if I hadn't wanted a PC, a PowerPC Mac mini with the bundled Tiger OS would make a dandy DNS server and be even smaller. An Intel-based mini would be somewhat more expensive, but smaller -- they weren't available when I purchased, though.
An important part of the Apple experience is that Apple makes a point of including all relevant drivers with each OS upgrade, so a Mac OS X 10.4.5 DVD includes all the drivers for all supported systems shipping as of the date 10.4.5 was finalized. Apple thus avoid all the disconnects between limited Microsoft installers, integrated components such as video and network interfaces (from companies like Intel, nVidia, and Via), vendor documentation (provided by HP/Compaq, Dell, etc.), and vendor installers. This is managed by coupling the core hardware with the software and providing good generic drivers for the rest. This whole experience made me thank Apple again for taking care of drivers, so I don't have to. This simplicity can break down with third-party hardware, but Apple's very successful at ensuring the basic experience is a good one, and people who don't buy peripherals from other vendors don't have to worry about driver compatibility. For people who do want non-Apple hardware, choices are much more limited than on Windows (or Linux), but drivers (when available) are rarely the source of confusion and frustration they can be under non-Apple operating systems.
Since the big announcement about switching to Intel chips, lots of people have wondered what this would mean for the Mac. In terms of the normal installation experience, not much. Apple still ships Mac OS X Installer DVDs with the new Intel-based Macs. The included iLife software is Universal Binary, and runs with full native performance on both PowerPC and Intel Macs. Apple still designs the base hardware, and provides a complete set of drivers in the installer.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
In terms of drivers, supporting G4/G5/Intel Core systems is not that much different than supporting G3/G4/G5 systems, so (now that Apple is past the initial migration hurdle) Mac users will still be free of most of the driver headaches that can beset Windows and Linux users. On the other hand, Mac drivers are still unavailable for many devices. None of this is a real change.
The other question raised by Apple's move to Intel is: what about running other operating systems on Macs? A year ago, there were two popular hardware platforms: Intel's x86 architecture (including AMD and other compatible processors), which could run Windows, Linux, and various exotic operating systems (such as various BSDs and Solaris); and Mac systems, which could run Mac OS X (or Classic for older Macs), and a few Linux and BSD flavors.
With the Intel Macs, Apple has again jumped out in front of the rest of the PC industry. PowerPC Macs used Open Firmware to manage booting, and mainstream PCs use the antiquated and troublesome BIOS (Basic Input/Output Subsystem). Apple's Intel Macs instead use EFI, Intel's Extensible Firmware Interface, designed to avoid most of the pitfalls of the BIOS. As with USB, floppy drives, and AirPort, Apple has taken the lead, and now gets to wait for the rest to catch up. This time we're waiting for Linux and Windows to run on Macs (booting on EFI, or inside a virtual machine), instead of waiting for peripherals vendors to start producing USB or 802.11b products. Apple's plans don't depend on multiple OSes running on Mac hardware, but having Windows and Linux compatibility on Macs will be extremely useful to its customers.
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
When Apple released the x86 iMacs, nothing but Mac OS X would run on them, because there was no compatible version of Windows, or Linux. As EFI support arrives for non-Apple operating systems, they should gain the ability to run on Macs. EFI support was a planned feature for Windows Vista, the successor to XP, but has been dropped by Microsoft, in favor of continuing to use the legacy BIOS support on (non-Apple) EFI PCs. MS hopes to eventually support booting directly from EFI on 64-bit versions of Windows Vista, but that excludes all the current Intel Macs, which use 32-bit processors. By the time Vista is available with support for EFI booting on 64-bit machines, at least the Power Mac and Xserve successors should be ready. It's unfortunate that the current systems won't boot Windows Vista natively, but compatibility inside virtual machines (Virtual PC in 2007, hopefully VMware, and hopefully Xen) is actually more useful and convenient.
http://apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/print/E666E4A0A303D9AACA25712C008166C4
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1718137140
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/vmware/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060125-6045.html
Once virtualization support is sorted out, Apple will be in the unique position of offering computers which are more compatible than other PC vendors. Dells/HPs/Toshibas will run Windows and Linux. But Apples will run Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X as well. Apple is actively working to prevent Mac OS X from booting on other vendors' hardware (both technically and legally), primarily to avoid Mac sales being cannibalized by low-end PCs, but also, no doubt, in anticipation of being the most compatible PC vendor.
Conclusion -- Now that Apple's on the same hardware platform as the rest of the industry, it becomes feasible to do apples-to-apples comparisons. People have been arguing about whether Macs are more expensive than PCs for years, but a PowerPC vs. a Pentium processor was always a large intangible, fuzzing the comparison. The new intangible will be Mac OS X compatibility (once Apples and non-Apples can run Windows and Linux easily, at least via virtualization), but Apple is already price competitive.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/14/pricecomparison2/index.php?lsrc=mwrss
For the majority of people, who only use one operating system (including most Mac and Windows users), installing Mac OS X remains dead simple. For cross-platform users, willing to face the complexity of partitioning and multi-booting, or to afford software such as VMware, Virtual PC, or Xen (once those are available for Apple's Intel systems), Apple is quickly becoming more attractive. For a long time, using Windows or Linux on a Mac has required Virtual PC, both expensive and very slow. As a side benefit of the PowerPC to Intel migration, access to Windows and Linux on Macs is going to get much faster, with a variety of options. Good times.