12-Nov-2019 19:37 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Rant] Niche OS's for Mainstream Markets?ANN.lu
Posted on 03-Dec-2003 02:10 GMT by takemehomegrandma79 comments
View flat
View list
As the Windows platform is getting more and more bloated, infected with viruses, spy wares, ridiculous EULA’s and other unpleasant things, more and more people are looking for alternatives. And not only people, even large organizations and governments are searching for new solutions to meet their computing needs. This has made many people in the alternative computing market full of hope for a broad future acceptance of their favourite OS. Linux currently has a major momentum in this field (and not only in the server market), much thanks to its buzz word name. But other not-so-difficult-to-understand OS’s might as well be winning from this. What is stopping them? What is needed to make a former niche OS acceptable as a desktop replacement for Windows?

Genesi is pushing the concept of the “Super Bundle”, a way to make sure that general usability is brought to a custom OS. I have personally enjoyed that effort for my MorphOS installation, but as far as I understand, the Super Bundle is not meant to be limited to MorphOS alone in the future. It’s a *Pegasos* concept, and the Pegasos is a *hardware* platform that is supported by lots of OS’s.

The Super Bundle is great. But applications are only one piece of the “mainstream acceptance puzzle”, what other pieces are there? The desktop will be another. From a *Pegasos* perspective, perhaps some kind of a “Pegasos Open Desktop” standard could be created? I’m not talking about a technical solution here, not a low level technical standard or API, but rather a behavioural (and expectational (is that a word BTW?)) standard from a “Joe User” perspective. The goal would be to create a common set of desktop behaviours that leaps across the Pegasos flavours of all its supported Operating Systems, obviously somewhat inspired by Windows.

Because like it or not, the Microsoft Windows is the de-facto standard when it comes to desktop OS’s. Perhaps the looks and graphical design isn’t the most important thing here, variations in appearance and visual looks may be accepted, but “the masses” are used to the way things are organized and managed in the Windows desktop environment. Windows actually defines everyone’s expectations of a computer desktop today.

And what is that? You tell me! Is it the “My Documents”, “My Music”, “My Pictures” folders? Could be! The Start menu, the quick launch field, the tool bar, etc? Absolutely! Right clicking on an icon and getting a context menu (including the “properties” option)? Yes! Right clicking on the desktop to get the option of setting the looks of the desktop, the screen resolutions, the screensavers, etc? Sure! The list goes on (feel free to fill in the gaps).

Mainstream people expect a desktop to behave in a certain way (the *Windows* way), and I am afraid that the tolerance for alternative ways of doing things in this area may be low among mainstream users. On Linux we see different window managers and desktop solutions; some are obviously striving to emulate the windows behaviour in several ways. This is no coincidence IMHO, neither is the fact that the PocketPC grew so fast, and that Windows enabled cell phones are gaining acceptance rapidly. Branding is only a minor part of the explanation IMO, the “familiar feeling” of the user envireonment may be more important. That lowers any entry barriers for the customer.

Well, how could this be achieved on the Pegasos platform, to make its OS’s more usable for mainstream desktop applications? A beginning would perhaps be to define a set of core user expectations of a desktop’s behaviour, like I started above. This would be quite easy. The more difficult task would be to implement these features on the various Pegasos OS’s without damaging the respective OS native feeling and unique benefits. This would be a delicate balance between niche and mainstream, between tradition x and tradition y, between unique custom solutions (with high learning curve) and broad acceptance, between geek only and broad success.

Could it be done? How? Is this needed? Is it wanted?

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Bill Hoggett03-Dec-2003 02:02 GMT
Comment 2JoannaK03-Dec-2003 02:45 GMT
Comment 3Anonymous03-Dec-2003 02:54 GMT
Comment 4gary_c03-Dec-2003 03:13 GMT
Comment 5Kjetil03-Dec-2003 06:20 GMT
Comment 6Anonymous03-Dec-2003 07:06 GMT
Comment 7hammer03-Dec-2003 07:38 GMT
Comment 8Amon_ReRegistered user03-Dec-2003 07:39 GMT
Comment 9Anonymous03-Dec-2003 07:45 GMT
Comment 10Atheist203-Dec-2003 07:48 GMT
Comment 11treqie03-Dec-2003 08:12 GMT
Comment 12Raffaele03-Dec-2003 08:17 GMT
Comment 13Daniel Miller03-Dec-2003 09:03 GMT
Comment 14Don CoxRegistered user03-Dec-2003 09:40 GMT
Comment 15Don CoxRegistered user03-Dec-2003 09:46 GMT
Comment 16takemehomegrandmaRegistered user03-Dec-2003 09:56 GMT
Comment 17takemehomegrandmaRegistered user03-Dec-2003 10:36 GMT
Comment 18takemehomegrandmaRegistered user03-Dec-2003 10:39 GMT
Comment 19opi03-Dec-2003 10:50 GMT
Comment 20itix03-Dec-2003 11:41 GMT
Comment 21Don CoxRegistered user03-Dec-2003 11:53 GMT
Comment 22Raffaele03-Dec-2003 11:59 GMT
Comment 23Don CoxRegistered user03-Dec-2003 11:59 GMT
Comment 24Don CoxRegistered user03-Dec-2003 12:03 GMT
Comment 25Raffaele03-Dec-2003 12:17 GMT
Comment 26Raffaele03-Dec-2003 12:24 GMT
Comment 27takemehomegrandmaRegistered user03-Dec-2003 12:28 GMT
Comment 28takemehomegrandmaRegistered user03-Dec-2003 12:47 GMT
Comment 29Atheist203-Dec-2003 13:29 GMT
Comment 30Raffaele03-Dec-2003 13:30 GMT
Comment 31Kolbjørn Barmen03-Dec-2003 14:27 GMT
Comment 32bbrvRegistered user03-Dec-2003 14:38 GMT
Comment 33Kjetil03-Dec-2003 14:52 GMT
Comment 34Kjetil03-Dec-2003 14:58 GMT
Comment 35Kjetil03-Dec-2003 15:15 GMT
Comment 36Anonymous03-Dec-2003 15:42 GMT
Comment 37Anonymous03-Dec-2003 15:52 GMT
Comment 38Ilwrath03-Dec-2003 16:55 GMT
Comment 39Bill Hoggett03-Dec-2003 17:06 GMT
Comment 40Kjetil03-Dec-2003 17:18 GMT
Comment 41TEST03-Dec-2003 17:46 GMT
Comment 42TEST03-Dec-2003 17:47 GMT
Comment 43Joe "Floid" Kanowitz03-Dec-2003 17:57 GMT
Comment 44Bill Hoggett03-Dec-2003 18:08 GMT
Comment 45Don CoxRegistered user03-Dec-2003 18:13 GMT
Comment 46Bill Hoggett03-Dec-2003 18:59 GMT
Comment 47Kjetil03-Dec-2003 20:03 GMT
Comment 48Bill Hoggett03-Dec-2003 20:53 GMT
Comment 49greenboyRegistered user03-Dec-2003 23:05 GMT
Comment 50Anonymous04-Dec-2003 03:08 GMT
Comment 51hammer04-Dec-2003 03:30 GMT
Comment 52hammer04-Dec-2003 03:41 GMT
Comment 53hammer04-Dec-2003 04:01 GMT
Comment 54hammer04-Dec-2003 04:09 GMT
Comment 55hammer04-Dec-2003 04:27 GMT
Comment 56Anonymous04-Dec-2003 07:50 GMT
Comment 57Kolbjørn Barmen04-Dec-2003 10:09 GMT
Comment 58Bill Hoggett04-Dec-2003 11:15 GMT
Comment 59bbrvRegistered user04-Dec-2003 12:18 GMT
Comment 60Abuse04-Dec-2003 12:26 GMT
Comment 61Abuse04-Dec-2003 12:30 GMT
Comment 62Kolbjørn Barmen04-Dec-2003 12:34 GMT
Comment 63Kolbjørn Barmen04-Dec-2003 12:58 GMT
Comment 64NekoRegistered user04-Dec-2003 13:03 GMT
Comment 65Bill Hoggett04-Dec-2003 13:18 GMT
Comment 66Kolbjørn Barmen04-Dec-2003 13:48 GMT
Comment 67Bill Hoggett04-Dec-2003 13:58 GMT
Comment 68bbrvRegistered user04-Dec-2003 15:07 GMT
Comment 69Mikael Burman04-Dec-2003 16:54 GMT
Comment 70Bill Hoggett04-Dec-2003 20:42 GMT
Comment 71takemehomegrandmaRegistered user04-Dec-2003 21:14 GMT
Comment 72takemehomegrandmaRegistered user04-Dec-2003 21:31 GMT
Comment 73takemehomegrandmaRegistered user04-Dec-2003 21:40 GMT
Comment 74takemehomegrandmaRegistered user04-Dec-2003 21:57 GMT
Comment 75Daniel Miller05-Dec-2003 01:22 GMT
Comment 76Kolbjørn Barmen05-Dec-2003 08:46 GMT
Comment 77Christian KempRegistered user05-Dec-2003 08:46 GMT
Comment 78Bill Hoggett05-Dec-2003 09:08 GMT
Comment 79Don CoxRegistered user07-Dec-2003 13:19 GMT
Back to Top