« My experience with IBM Thinkpad Support--Thumb up or down? | Main | eBay Classic: Ryobi Router Table »
April 22, 2004
What Should Be Included in an Operating System?
As Microsoft includes more and more things in its Windows operating systems -- the most recent addition is a whole new set of security functions, like firewalls and pop-up blockers -- my mind keeps returning to the same question that I'm not sure has ever been resolved: what exactly should be included in an operating system?
Before I begin, let me make it perfectly clear that I am not, nor likely ever will be, a computer or software engineer. I don't have the slightest idea about the underlying architecture that governs modern operating systems. So, I am basing these comments on a "common sense" perspective, which may be very technically flawed (I'm sure someone out there will be more than happy to correct me);
It seems that there is a lot of junk in contemporary OS's that just doesn't need to be there, and Microsoft isn't the only culprit. Why should a web browser or a multimedia player or an email client or a word processor be necessary for a computer operating system to function? Just try to remove Internet Explorer or Outlook Express from your Windows machine (I know it can be done, but it's anything but trivial). Can I choose to buy Windows without these components for less money? No, at least not that I'm aware of.
Why are addressbook and calendar programs part of the Palm operating system? Can I buy/license Palm OS without these apps for less money than a normal license? I don't believe it's possible.
Heck, was it ever even possible to buy DOS without the "Edit" program? While a text editor certainly isn't required to function as an operating system, I doubt that you could get a discounted copy of DOS that didn't have this feature.
Now, I realize that an OS is a product, much like a car or a couch or a bicycle. In that sense, the manufacturer wants it to have the most appealing mix of features and price that will compel its customers to buy it. But what the software company wants to sell you is a different issue than what the operating system must include for it to function.
I have a hard time accepting the premise that I am required to pay for an unrelated feature that is bundled with an "operating system" that lies outside the core functionality of operating the system (i.e., managing hardware interfaces and what-not). I don't prefer Windows Media Player -- why do I have to pay for it? I don't prefer Internet Explorer -- why does the price of the OS include some portion allocated to Microsoft recouping the cost of developing it?
An operating system is like a car in some ways. Certain parts of it are highly integrated while others are very modular. In cars, and in many other tangible goods, the modular parts are easily replaced and/or optioned so as to not require being purchased in the first place. For example, if I want custom wheels or a custom stereo on my new car, the dealer will usually credit me for the factory wheels or factory head unit that would have come on the car by default. Microsoft, however, does not credit me for Windows Media Player or Outlook Express if I want something else (or nothing) instead -- I have to buy it as a bundle with no options...take it or leave it.
If that were the extent of the impact, I'd have no problems with it. However, when you combine the unwillingness to give customers options for purchasing non-core components with the monopoly power of the Windows operating system, you create a very unfair and damaging situation.
Imagine we were back in the days of a Ma Bell telephone monopoly. Imagine that if you wanted phone service at your house, you had one choice available to you: "phone service 9000." PS9000 is Ma Bell's only service product, and it includes every conceivable option available, such as voicemail, 3-way calling, caller ID, call forwarding, "wirecare," and a whole bunch of other services that you don't really need. But, you're stuck paying $94 a month for this mega-package even if what you want/need is just basic local phone service.
Society has said this is inappropriate on several occasions. For example, US law mandates that cable companies must offer a bare-bones "basic" cable service at a very low price. These local monopolies are not allowed to have just a single gargantuan cable package that costs $100 a month saying "if you want any part of cable service, you have to buy everything we offer." That's not allowed.
So why is Microsoft, a company already established as a similar type of monopoly, allowed to offer only one or two high-priced "mega-package" products? Both Windows XP Home and Pro are stuffed with nearly every possible add-on feature you can imagine. It'd be like the cable company only offering a $94 "Home" package (without HBO) and a $110 "Professional" package that includes HBO. Why is this OK for Microsoft, but not for the phone company or a cable provider?
Posted by Craig in Computing
and Industry
and Society / Politics
Comments
Well, one reason; "competition".
Remember, DOS wasn't the only OS back then. It was competing with CP/M. If CP/M decided to include it, DOS would have looked inadequate by comparison.
When Windows first came out, the standard was set to include NotePad, Windows Write, the Calculator, Paint, a basic Telecom utility, etc. etc. Why you ask? People with short-term memories forget that at the time, Windows compteted with Digital Research's GEM, and going back even further, VisiON set a certain bar for people expectations. Hell, in the classic marketing sense, Windows was 'competing' for the attention of DOS users, to try an convince them to move to the Graphical User Interface. So, what started as basic functionality to either compete or convince, has mushroomed to today's present situation. Much like government entitlements, once you start giving everybody something, you can't start taking it away.
But wait you say, there's no technical reason MS can't strip things out. True - but what if they did? In an era where just about every Linux vendor under the Sun throws in Star Office or other productivity tools to compete with MS, why on earth would a company offer a lesser product?
Lastly, the car analogy doesn't work. In your scenario, you asked the factory-authorized dealer to UPGRADE you to a higher-priced set of wheels. No doubt you probably could have purchased those wheels yourself somewhere other than the dealer for less $$. But Ford/GM/Toyota/Honda/BMW whomever doesn't CREDIT the dealer for those wheels he takes off you car, they just become inventory for the dealer. Dell wouldn't get money back from MS for removing the Windows Media Player, and installing the annual-subscripion version of RealPlayer for you at the time of purchase. They would (just like the car dealer) just have extra bits lying around.
Now granted, the dealer has the ability to go sell the wheels to someone else as stand-alone items apart from the car, but that's because the wheels have *value*. How could Dell sell something like that extracted version of the Media Player, when Microsoft in fact has deemed it a "free" product, available to anyone who wants to download it?
Posted by: Thom Kozik at April 22, 2004 6:30 PM
Thom, good point about the car analogy...there are some differences.
Posted by: Craig at April 22, 2004 9:01 PM
Another way of looking at this is that the apps you mentioned are so mediocre (and in Outlook Express's case a never-ending security hole) that they actually degrade the overall operating system's value. Were Microsoft to remove them, they would have to charge you more. :-)
Posted by: Mitch at April 23, 2004 8:55 AM
One of the primary reasons that many operating systems, and even many pieces of hardware are including more "non-OS" features is that people expect them.
For example, many folks who are middling computer savvy find that they need to (or want to) install a router in their home. There are many ways to talk to a piece of hardware. In the bad old days, it used to be jumpers and switches. For something as complex as a router, though, you really need a text interface.
So, the router manufacturer provides either a telnet or web-based interface, to make maintenance easier for the owner.
Ditto for operating systems. There has to be some graphic front end, for most people to feel comfortable with it. Why hasn't Linux stomped windows? Because most folks don't want to operate via the command line.
Now, you CAN build a graphic front-end to all of your maintenance programs, but that leaves you writing them over and over, for each system. That means you also have to concentrate on the look-and-feel of each one, to make sure you don't "surprize" the user.
D
Posted by: Doccus at April 24, 2004 12:01 PM