With the recent purchase of an iBook G4, I’m feeling a bit like I’m hearing multiple voices. I’m now running across three different operating systems, and it’s a bit confusing: Mac OS X, Red Hat Linux (soon to be Fedora), and Windows XP. What’s interesting is that each takes a slightly different take at computer usage, and it can be a little boggling. So yes, here it is, yet another Windows / Mac / Linux comparison. What better way to add to the general noise of the Internet. Yes, I’m a techie. No, I’m not a sysadmin. Let’s see how it goes. Fight!

Windows XP Professional

I’ve been an investor in Windows operating systems for years. I’ve gone from Windows 3.1, to Windows 95, Windows 98, 2000, and finally, XP. In that sense, you might say I’ve been firmly locked into the Microsoft upgrade cycle. Windows XP is clearly the best of the bunch.

To begin with, stability is actually a reality under Windows XP. I’d been enjoying the increased stability of Windows 2000 for a while now, and was glad to see XP keeping with the tradition. Yes, it actually can be more stable than 2000. Coming from years of simultaneous Linux use, this was a welcome relief after fighting through the dreaded blue screen of death, time and time again. It’s not perfect, but then again, none of the operating systems I’ve tried is. It’s nice to actually get work done, without worrying that random crashes might make me lose data.

Aesthetics are very important to me. If I’m going to be spending hours in front of a machine, it had better look good. It’s also quite pretty, once you get some customizations in there — give Stardock’s Object Desktop a whirl if you’re a Windows user, to see how well you can customize it. I always hate the default Windows stylings, so was quite pleased to be able to customize things the way I want. Much as I love it, however, it’s still not as pretty as either Mac OS X or even Red Hat Linux 9, believe it or not.

The software support is quite obviously the best of the bunch, given Microsoft’s extensive marketshare. It’s not hard to find software written for Windows. In fact, many companies don’t even consider other operating systems, so you might only find the application you like under Windows. Gamers take note!

On the flip side, I found myself needing to buy much software in order to get my computer relatively useful. Yes, I know you can do word processing with Wordpad. Sure, you can access the Internet and email. I just find myself needing to do a little more with my computer. When you buy Windows XP, you’re buying a basic setup, and it won’t come with many of the programs you might need. This leaves you with either the painful process of reinstalling the software you purchased, or reaching for your wallet in order to get a new feature. Using Microsoft will inevitably mean that you’re going to be spending more cash (and I don’t mean in terms of server licensing, which is a whole other story!).

As a desktop, Windows does quite well. Between the high availability of software support and the pretty ubiquitous experience with Windows, XP does a decent job of providing a simple interface that all have grown to know and love, for better or for worse.

I’m a bit slanted on the issue of Microsoft products as servers, however. Microsoft fanboys can skip this paragraph, because here is where I’ll make all my random, unsubstantiated claims. I’ve spent much time in the UNIX world, and am spoiled. Microsoft is expensive. Really expensive. It’s not as stable. It requires reboots after any patching. It takes a lot of hardware. Keep Microsoft on the desk, not in the rack.

Red Hat Linux 9.0

Come to the dark side…the evil world of free software! There is nothing evil about open source software, despite what Mr. Gates may say. I’ve been running Red Hat Linux since version 5.2, in varying roles of server and desktop. Red Hat 9 is pretty nice from an end user perspective, which makes it so unfortunate that it’s going away. It’s been replaced by Fedora, an open source project, but the jury is still out as to how fast they will be providing patches and updates. At least when I was paying for Red Hat Network, I felt like I had a sense of security.

Let’s talk about stability. Yes, Linux has it. It’s not as perfect as it used to be, though. I used to feel confident (back in the 6.2 days) that my computer would stay up, day after day after day. With 9, I kept wondering when kswapd would go ballistic and cause my computer to hang. Nonetheless, it was still solid compared to the Windows world, though Windows XP greatly narrowed the gap. While I wouldn’t run 9.0 on a production level server, I get the feeling it could do a decent job.

Red Hat 9 was my favorite Red Hat release (though I haven’t played with Fedora yet). This was because they spent some time really getting the interface pretty. The fonts looked so much better than in Windows 2000, that it actually pained me to use Windows. Windows XP is a little better, with its clear type support, but I liked the fonts in 9. Plus, Linux is all about choice, meaning that, if you were to invest the time, you could make any part of the Windows environment of your choice look how you want.

In terms of software, Red Hat comes packaged with a lot of software you want to use. Perhaps too much. Nothing galls me quite as much as the fact that Red Hat covers three separate CD-ROMs (not including the sources). If you’re looking for some quick, additional packages, you might check out FreshRPMs, which builds third party packages specifically for Red Hat, and for free. However, most software is written by programmers, for programmers. Just take a look at Freshmeat or Sourceforge. There is an impressive amount of software, much from the UNIX world, that you can download for free. Well, it’s free provided you can run configure, make, and make install, without errors. I’d certainly not want my mother to try to do that!

That’s perhaps the flip side of software on the Linux side: I rarely buy software. It’s not that I’m a cheapskate, so much as that there’s just so much available for free. The only piece of software I bought was Crossover Office, which is a little bit ironic. I bought Crossover, a commercial application, so I might be able to run other commercial applications.

Red Hat 9 on the desktop? It’s possible. If you can get yourself away from the Microsoft herd for a little while, you might find that you can use Linux for your work without having to delve at all into Microsoft products. Email, Internet, word processing, spreadsheets — all of it has open source alternatives. However, I’ve searched far and wide, and haven’t found anything to really match Microsoft Excel.

Now as a server, Linux is outstanding. Again, though, I’m slanted, because I’ve been using Linux on servers for years. It’s just worked so well for so long, that it just seems natural.

Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther)

This brings us to my latest, Mac OS X. The last time I used a Mac was several years ago in college, way before the OS X days. Yet, I’ve always been a fan, in some way, of Mac’s structure. It’s elegant and standardized. Command-W does close window in pretty much every application. Command-Q quits. Simple.

I have not had my Mac crash yet in over a week of use, but none of the above operating systems have had any problems either. Stability doesn’t seem to be a problem, and is one of the features touted by Apple. So far, I think it’s quite merited. Despite launching dozens of applications, the system handled it all beautifully.

It is also the most pretty of the three operating systems I’ve tried. Right out of the box my iBook has been nothing but eye candy, and I can appreciate that. The only problem is that in large part, Apple takes a “my way or the highway” sort of approach. You can’t change much of the basic underlying design, short of changing colors. Good luck getting access to Apple’s Aqua core to modify it, too.

Installed software is perhaps one of the nicest features of this operating system. Where Microsoft took a “let them buy the extra software they need” approach, Mac went a different way. They really wanted to provide as much software as possible to handle the great majority of your computing needs. The standard fare of web browser, email, and chat programs are there, as well as iTunes, a digital music manager; iMovie, allowing you to edit movie clips; Appleworks, an office suite providing word processing, spreadsheets, database, presentation and more; as well as other applications. I have not had to buy any additional software in order to use this computer as of yet, though I may break down and buy Microsoft Office. Bonus: Microsoft Office runs better on Mac OS X than on Windows in many instances! Well, except for PowerPoint, but I never put much value in that program. The future of Office on Mac OS X appears murky, though. No need for CD burning software either, as between iTunes and Disk Utility, your burning needs are mostly satisfied.

You can additionally buy a lot of third party software, though there’s not nearly as much as available for Windows. In fact, it’s just a fraction. However, most of the major application developers are either developing for Mac, or keeping an eye towards it. (Well, except for when Apple burns bridges, like they appear to be doing with Adobe, their flagship third party software provider.)

There’s also a lot of open source software available as well. Mac OS X is based on a BSD core, so you can download a lot of UNIX software. While people are providing configurations for Mac OS X, the great majority of open source software still compiles better on Linux (duh). Look to projects like Fink to help you along those lines.

In terms of a desktop, Mac OS X is phenomenal. Between the eye to aesthetics and the pre-provided software, it does quite good on its own. Plus, it has the simpler-is-better philosophy of Apple behind it. I can give my iBook to someone and they can use it fairly well in just a little while. Expose is also amazing as a way of managing windows. I’d been using virtual desktops for so long, I hadn’t even thought that there might be a better way to handle window management.

I can’t speak to running Mac OS X as a server, though. I know it’s based on BSD. I know that they sell XServers. I just haven’t heard anything about it, nor have I ever seen it.

Conclusion

These three operating systems are at the top of their game right now, and getting better all the time. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. If I’m looking for something to be fairly reliable, handle RAID, and provide a bunch of always-on services, I’m going to go with Linux. If I’m looking for something that’s compatible with the latest hardware and software, I’m going with Windows XP. If I’m looking for something that just works and meets my existing needs (elegantly!), I’m going with Apple.

If I had to pick a winner, I’d pick Apple. Mac OS X is the sort of operating system that I always felt Linux was striving for, only Mac OS X works well. Linux was getting there, and is quite usable now. I’d used 5.2 for about a year at the start, before upgrading to 6.0. I can do work on Linux, and be quite productive. Yet, it always felt a little off. It always felt a little unpolished, unlike Mac OS X. I just wish the open source software availability and compatibility for Mac were a little better.

Sorry, Microsoft. You’re just not quite there. You’ve tried to revamp the look with Windows XP, and didn’t quite make the mark. You’re also not as concerned with security, and always about the almighty dollar. With all you’ve done to piss off the world, from horrific licensing schemes to embracing and extending protocols to death, I find myself making excuses to leave you. I can’t figure out why I’ve spent so much money on software, and find that one of the few redeeming reasons for staying on Microsoft. Why am I buying all this software in the first place?

Maybe next time I should compare Solaris, FreeBSD, and SuSE!