What should an operating system really be?
John Dvorak has some provocative comments on operating systems in general, as well as Vista, in one of his columns at PC Magazine. He reminisces about what an operating system originally meant and contrasts that with what it has become. He begins:
Since the early days of DOS (and even with the Mac OS), there has been a slow shift within the operating-system concept from increased functionality to increased featurism, neither of which are needed. This has resulted in a strange situation where the monoculture of Microsoft Windows and the subcultures of Linux and Mac OS X have made the computing scene both stagnant and dangerous. Unless the computer is re-architected from scratch, which will not happen in the next 100 years, we are set on a path of never-ending misery. Windows Vista proves it.
In the beginning says Dvorak:
It began with DOS, which was a clone of CP/M before that. Each time a new version came out, it was for one reason only: to add the functionality of newer peripherals, disk drives, ports, and more. A new device would emerge from the labs, and it would be accommodated by an OS upgrade. At first the device would be accommodated by clever patches, and then the patch would be incorporated into a release of the OS.
If you were interested in weird new features, such as a GUI, these would be separate programs that run under the OS (not on top of the OS).
In fact, says Dvorak the operating system’s main function was to be a file loader.
Nobody running small desktop machines from 1975 to 1990 knew or cared that the OS was merely a file loader. In fact, nobody actually knew what that meant. Why did you need a complex OS on a microprocessor-based machine running Lotus 1-2-3 anyway?
But Microsoft changed all that:
Anyway, IBM began to develop OS/2, and Microsoft figured it had a better idea with Windows, both of which were more than file loaders (although not much more). Over time, the features of these new OSs became more important than the system’s performance or anything else. They would have glowing icons, transparent pop-ups, smooth scrolling, and all the things that used to be utilities sold by third parties.
Within no time, Microsoft decided that everything should be part of the OS, although these features had nothing to do with the OS. The company went to court to argue that the browser was part of the OS. Media players were part of the OS. One assumes that Microsoft would have argued that the word processor was part of the OS if it didn’t have a near monopoly on word processing already.
In ways nobody could have predicted, what was once an efficient file loader evolved into a clumsy monstrosity that required massive amounts of memory just to run. But did it ever become a genuine OS, or just a file loader with benefits? It became a clunker, in fact, with a pretty face and a high price tag like a Park Avenue hooker using too much makeup to hide the fact that she’s old.
As for Vista, he says:
Now we have Vista. It turns out to be nothing like what was promised. What a shock. It has a few new features, but I’d question if it’s actually more functional than what we’ve had before.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.