First of all, before I even start this article, I have to admit that I’ve been a Windows user since Windows for Workgroups (3.11) and Linux user for over 8 years (when installing it consisted of downloading a ridiculous number of 3 1/3” floppies over a 14.4kbps modem to install from ). I’ve seen the evolution of Windows to what it is now, and the changes of early Linux distributions to what exists today. And I say that – very firmly – Windows is obsolete.

What do I mean, Windows is obsolete? I don’t mean that “Windows” is going away any time soon, or that it’s unusable, or that a Linux desktop is necessarily better – just that, in its current form, it will not last much longer. Like the days of the DOS prompt that are now long gone (which doesn’t compare to a Linux console), the days of Windows are numbered.

And if even I know this, then surely the higher-ups in Redmond know this too and are planning for this eventuality.

The situation is, basically, this: normal, non-technical people don’t care about operating systems. They don’t care about the underlying details of how their new whiz-bang gizmo works with their computer, or what the name of the program is that is playing a DVD on their new HDTV, or what company developed the latest driver that makes their new Half-Life 5 video game play smoothly. Normal people just don’t care.

People that do care or are hobbyists or programmers or anything that fits outside of the harry-homeowner-type person that just wants a computer to do some basic tasks won’t be included in my claims. And the average Joe will have one BIG characteristic regarding computers that is the basis for making Windows obsolete: He’ll want to be able to do certain things with his computer (which is why he bought it in the first place). He will want to do those things using whatever program the computer has with it (or was purchased separately), and that’s it.

This means, for example, if a young blossoming writer decides that having a word processor is a must, then he/she will look for a computer with a word processor. And guess what? Windows is not a word processor, it doesn’t have one, and probably never will. A word processor is what the user wants, not Windows, but in order to get the word processor, he/she must purchase Windows also. Essentially, in this case, Windows means nothing to the user – the word processor does (whether it’s Word, Wordperfect, Openoffice, or whatever).

Another example: suppose that an older user with very little computer experience wants to use email to communicate with relatives far away. What does the user want? A way to write email (and Internet access). So what is Windows to this user? Again, Windows doesn’t do anything visible for the user. The Internet and Email are not Windows and have nothing to do with it. Again, the user purchases this Windows thing so that they can use a different kind of communication tool.

And a third example: a user is running a small business and wants to do some basic accounting and create a small database to keep track of contacts and communicate with them. What does Windows do for you, in that case? Nothing. It cannot help you communicate with your clients, calculate expenses, write invoices, receive checks, or anything else the user wants – without purchasing the tools the user originally wanted in the first place.

So, what I’m getting at is really this: Windows, by itself, is almost useless to the user that buys a computer to do some type of work. In the three examples above, the user has a goal that is not met by purchasing Windows : the purchase is seen as a necessary expense to get the tools or communication that the user really wants.

And what this means is – with the existence of the Linux desktop – that Windows will have to drastically change to be more useful. People do not buy PCs because they want to buy Windows, they purchase it for the software tool they want to use on it.

And this leads to the following possibility: As a part of that “normal user” crowd, if I (as a home user) want a computer with a word processor and speadsheet program, a typical offering of a Windows PC with a word processor and spreadsheet installed could cost:

MS Config 1
$400 PC cost
$100 Windows
$150 MS Works (spreadsheet and word processor)
Total: $650
And if the user wanted more than the simple functionality offered with MS Works, a more powerful combination (which is the standard for most users) would look like:

MS Config 2
$400 PC cost
$100 Windows
$500 MS Office
Total: $1000
What if the user were presented with a second choice, which cost the following:

MS Config 3
$400 PC cost
$0 Windows
$0 MS Office
Total: $400
Would any sane person the more expensive versions of the same thing?  Most likely not. The third option, the cheapest of the three, could be restated as:

Linux
$400 PC cost
$0 Mandrake Linux Desktop
$0 OpenOffice
Total: $400
So, for a person simply wanting a professional spreadsheet program and word processor, the last option is by far the most attractive. If I were a small business wanting this and choosing one of the other oprions with Windows, tack on an extra $200 for the “professional” version of Windows.

In comparing the $1000 and the $400, you get the following things with both:

– User support
– Bug fixes and updates (although the MS option limits the duration of updates to the life cycle of the product so that you will, eventually, be using an obsolete OS and office suite).
– Professional office tools
– Licenses for use (although with the MS option, you are only allowed to use the office suite with a single person).
The point of this simple comparison is this: by NOT using Windows, you open the possibility of spending less money for essentially the same thing, with less restrictions. And this is the reason that Windows is obsolete in its current form.

For the situation to change, Windows would have to do what a standard Linux Desktop does: become instantly useful to the user. Tools that normal people want to use should already be included. Spending $150 or $500 more to give Windows functionality is what will kill Windows.

So what is Windows missing? A quick perusal through the applications on My desktop show some of the more notable things that Windows simply doesn’t have that would make it less useless:

–A complete office suite (including automatic PDF generation and support of open document formats)
–A project / time planner
–A mail client with integrated calendar, task lists, contact database, news reader, and synchronization options
–A modern web browser (i.e. that supports web standards and tabbing)
–A ftp program
–A DVD player that doesn’t restrict what you can watch
–A decent graphics editor supporting modern image formats
–A complete package for burning CD’s and DVD’s (VCD, data, etc)
–A chat client that works with Yahoo, AIM, MSN, etc
These are just items that a normal user might want. A “power user” might want these things (also not included with Windows, but are included with or available with a standard Linux distribution):

–A powerful editor with formatting options
–A compiler for C and C++
–A development environment
–A good binary / hex editor
–Hundreds of useful command line tools (grep, cat, strings, awk, etc etc)
–Additional programming languages: Perl, Python, etc
–A HTML editor
–A suite of compression tools
–A debugger
–A financial and accounting suite
–Data plotting utilities
–Powerful mathematics packages
–Desktop publishing application
–A program for 3D modeling
The list goes on and on – this is only the beginning of what is available. Of course, these more “specialized” tools aren’t always wanted by a normal, every day user.

In conclusion, it seems obvious to me that Windows has to change or risk becoming obsoleted by the much more useful solutions out there today. The momentum build-up of polished free alternatives will affect the future of Windows without a doubt. And if anything, this is only a good thing for future Windows users – when the expectations of the normal user are raised enough to seek for alternatives, Microsoft will be forced to increase the quality of their current OS – by making it more useful.