Advertisment

New-generation Operating Systems

author-image
PCQ Bureau
New Update

All major operating systems have announced new versions. While you can discuss how one is better than the other in this aspect or that, what is interesting to note is that all of them seem to be following some common paths, even as they go their

divergent ways. While the implementations and the names may be different, the end result is often similar, if not actually the same

Advertisment

There was a time when there was only one operating system (OS) that mattered–Unix. Then there was a time when only Windows mattered. Those days are long gone, and the world has come to realize that one size cannot fit all. So, grudgingly though, you have learnt to live with, and learn, multiple OSs. This in itself is a tough task. And when all of them come out with new versions, one after the other, you begin to wonder whether it is to get some perverse pleasure. New versions of almost all Linux distributions have just come out. Mac OS X has been released and Windows XP is due in about six months (and some of us have had a go at it already). NetWare 6 is also due sometime soon.

Jokes apart, the release of a new version of an OS is an exciting time, for you are exposed to new possibilities, new functionalities, and, of course, new reasons because of which your system can crash. It is exciting for aficionados of each OS to find out and argue about how their favorite is better at this or that little task. While they will do this till the end of time, we have discerned some common trends across all the new arrivals.

For starters, all of them seem to have polished up their user interface no end. Smoother, clearer, sharper, more colorful screens, even for text, have become the order of the day. The most stunning one in this respect has no doubt been Mac OS X. And the others are not all that far behind. Even the Linux GUI, whether it be Gnome or KDE, has improved many fold. In the last version, NetWare had done away with most of their clunky, text-based install screens. We have not yet seen their new version, but hopefully more work would have gone in that direction by the time the final release is out.

Advertisment

It is by now standard that all OSs are Web-enabled. Simple as it may sound, it has required some serious reengineering to happen under the hoods of almost all competitors. Windows has had to change its naming conventions almost completely, and NetWare and the Mac OS have had to embrace TCP/IP. Also, Internet and IP configuration have become a breeze.

Talking of configuration, it was not all that long back when an OS install would take at least a couple of tries and scores of configuration screens. Today, whichever be the OS of your choice, most devices on your system, right from the graphics card and hard disk to modems and scanners and storage devices, are auto-detected and installed. The problems Linux had with Windows modems are also being solved elegantly. We have not yet been able to check out how the new Mac OS works with non-Apple hard disks and the like. Most standard configurations, like the Internet and network, have also become a lot easier to do. Windows has always had a lead in this, but now the others have also caught up, if not gone a step further.

There was a time when the names Windows or Mac OS stood for one OS and every one knew what that was. Then there came Linux with its multitude of distributions, and Windows also went into that mode with different versions aimed at different markets. The Mac is also going that way, albeit in lesser measure, with a Mac OS Server version in the works. NetWare, it seems, is the only one that has resisted the urge to spawn variants. Will it continue to resist or will the new version go with the crowd? That remains to be seen.

Advertisment

At least two of the OSs we are discussing here, Windows XP and Mac OS X (and to some extent Linux, because of the new kernel), are significantly different from their previous releases. The Mac OS X code is completely new from the older Mac OS, built as it is upon Free BSD, while Windows XP is based on Windows 2000 code and not on Windows 9x code. Hopefully, this should give the OSs more stability if nothing else. 

And finally, one commonality that we could have perhaps done without–all of them have become resource hogs. Mac OS X requires at least 128 MB of RAM and will not work on the PowerPC processor or older. You can forget running Linux in all its glory on skimpy hardware. And Windows has always had the dubious distinction of leading in resource requirements. But no one seems to be complaining about increasing resource requirements, what with the price of those very resources going down.

There are many OSs that we have not covered in this issue. There is a whole lot of action on the embedded systems front, which we covered in our last issue (May 2001). In the mainstream, there is Solaris, which came out with a new release sometime back. There is SCO, which has just demonstrated a new version of AIX, that we have not yet had a chance to lay our hands on. Of the many distributions of Linux, we could cover only one in detail and we chose the dominant one first. Hopefully, we should cover some of the others in later issues. BeOS showed a lot of promise and potential, but the company has been having a hard time organizing financing. There has been some talk that Apple may buy Be much like it bought Next. But nothing has come of it, and one guess is that a new release is perhaps not top-most on Be’s agenda. And then there are always those who would miss OS/2. For die-hard OS/2 fans, here is some thing that they may not be aware of–OS/2 is still alive and kicking. Wonder where? In bank ATMs.

Krishna Kumar

Advertisment