• White Papers |
• Bloggers |
• Video |
• Webcasts |
• Events |
• Solution Centers |
• Newsletters |
• Magazine |
• RSS

Windows vs. Linux vs. OS X

CIO John Halamka reviews the desktop operating system contenders in search of the next-generation office computer.

By Meridith Levinson

PAGE 2

Introduction (Part 2)

Halamka admits to a bias against Microsoft: He thinks the
complexity of the Office product suite hampers its performance and makes it more vulnerable to viruses and spyware. Halamka says that at a dinner with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in 2004, he told Ballmer that he doesn't use 80 percent of the features in Office and suggested that Microsoft develop a simpler, more secure and reliable product (Ballmer's response, he says was to cite statistics that indicated lots of users like 95 percent of Office's features). Halamka is also skeptical of Microsoft's future in creating simpler, more reliable products, given Bill Gate's upcoming retirement and the company's appointment of Chief Technical Officer Ray Ozzie to succeed Gates as chief software architect. (See our story "Beyond Vista" for more on Microsoft's future goals.) "Ray is brilliant, but his two products, Lotus Notes and Groove Networks, are both huge systems that taxed networks. So what's the likelihood of Microsoft coming up with a simple, reliable product suite? Pretty low," Halamka says. Meanwhile, Halamka notes the rise of Google and Linux as credible challengers to Microsoft's dominance and Apple's adoption of Intel chips as a way to boost the performance of its products and enhance their potential to be used in a corporate environment.

Few companies are seeking alternatives to the Microsoft desktop, according to Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates, an IT research company based in Wayland, Mass. "People are risk averse. They don't like to try new things. It's inertia that holds Microsoft in place," he says.

Even organizations that are seriously investigating Linux and Apple tend to keep their evaluations on the QT, according to Rob Enderle, an IT analyst. Enderle says that public companies don't like to publicize their experiments because if their attempt to switch from one operating system to another fails, they want to be able to quickly and quietly sweep the project under the rug—lest they draw negative attention or jeopardize their relationships with existing vendors.

Halamka tested the operating systems himself before testing them with users because he wanted to know firsthand what problems users might encounter and get a sense of whether his IT department will be able to easily and cost effectively maintain the platform. He conducted the experiment before the release of Apple's Leopard and Microsoft's Vista operating systems for two reasons: He had the time in his schedule to learn the nuances of the different operating systems, and he prefers testing established, stable technologies rather than new releases.

"Being a CIO in 2006 is a lot harder than it was two years ago," says Halamka. Users don't tolerate even three minutes of downtime, he says, and IT budgets aren't growing with users' demand for bandwidth and storage. "CIOs who are budget constrained have to ask themselves if their organizations could save a couple hundred thousand dollars a year by using an open-source product that's almost like Microsoft office," he says. "This is about making sure industry can do what it needs to do better, faster, cheaper and more reliably."

<< Introduction    |   On to the reviews: Mac OS X: Looking Better for Business >>

 

Email

Print

Comments

Share [+]

Digg This

SlashDot

LinkedIn