I know this is going to be a little odd of a point, but how
alternate is
alternate? An OS that's not
Mac OS,
Windows, or
Linux is going to severely limit a user's
technical support options,
software choices, and ultimately
usability of a
platform.
Linux is on the fringe end of every-day
usability, since there is some
software for it (including a
browser,
office suite, and a few other needed items). There is a reason why
Windows and
MacOS do well;
market share and
user base are not to be sneezed at. They have stood the test of
time, and have the history of user-end
software to show for it.
In a
research situation, people should be exposed to all sorts of
alternate (and non-alternate, under the same token)
operating systems. Be,
QNX real-time platform,
BSDs, etc. should be included in the choice of a system for learning, however, for doing work, it may be best to stick with a platform that has the
features,
software, and hardware support that you desire. It makes no sense to set up your
AOL-using parents with something other than Windows or Mac just for the
indignant sense of "
going against the grain", and giving them a "
learning experience". A computer is simply a tool; would you give your parents a tool that they could learn a lot about, or more easily use; given simply that this sort of learning does not interest them?
Alternate OS's are great for many things, and even better for the learner, as it forces them to think outside of the
mold, and to break
convention a bit (Be is a great example).
Windows and
Mac especially are designed to bring computing to the
masses, both at home, and in the
workplace.
When a co-worker asks to be "hooked up to the Internet" do you think he simply wants
TCP bits coming in across routers and through the
gateway? No, he wants to see sports scores, chat with his buddies over AIM, and maybe visit a few
*ahem* sites. How would
QNX help him in a
squeeze? How would he get support for that? Wouldn't
Windows 98 SE be a more sensible choice given your range of user, given the
common user scenario?
Usually when users come to me and ask what kind of computer they want, it comes down to a simple
choice:
Windows or
Macintosh. People who are using the computer just to use it as a tool (not as a way of life) do not care who builds their
software. If people want a better user experience, easier setup, and don't mind the higher price, then go with Macintosh. Otherwise, Windows makes
perfect sense. Sure, there are other choices, but when a problem comes up,
Joe Schmo the computer guy off the street or around the corner is not going to be able to help them. Let's not try to raise the user bar when it has no where to go; most users will sign on, leave their computer on, and check a web page now and again, or type a
paper. Until the average user wants to mess with their
mail routing, set up
cron jobs, and feels like patching their
kernel every now and again, then I'm going to suggest Windows or Mac* every time.
* Even now Mac OS X is a really great blend of the power of Unix, the control given to a consumer OS, and the amount of software needed to be useful and productive.