Lesson to aspiring tech writers out there: If you want lots of feedback, write about Linux. Besides plenty of talkbacks on the Jpost site, I got a bunch of e-mail messages, each with something to say about my thoughts on Linux vs. Vista.
And the readers had plenty to say on the subject of if, when and how Linux will finally come into its own, grabbing a significant share of PC desktops. It won't happen until businesses adopt Linux en masse, pushing home users who need to duplicate their work environments to install it at home, said one. No, games will be the motivator; the more games for Linux, the more home users, and consequently the more pressure on businesses to adopt the OS of choice for home users. Linux is still not ready for prime time, said some - still too complicated and techie; nonsense, said others, it's ten times easier to install than Windows, not to mention more stable. Free software is the engine that will push Linux; as users pick up on free/open source apps that work just as well/better as commercial apps, they'll be more willing to give Linux a chance. Nonsense, say others; there are more than enough FOSS applications for Windows, and as far as the OS is concerned, if it ain't broke, there's no incentive to fix - or change - it.
And yet, I really do believe that the Linux revolution (or maybe evolution) is inevitable. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say, and as users try to upgrade to Windows Vista and experience the "benefits" of upgrading most of them didn't count on, I think at least some of them will be amenable to considering Linux. When they find that their memory, video card, and even PC processor just doesn't have what it takes to run the upgrade that they shelled out $100 for - and that they are expected to make costly hardware upgrades as well - it could just be the turning point for the more computer-savvy who have heard about this Linux thing.
But it's not just those seeking to upgrade who are in for an unpleasant and costly surprise. As a little off the cuff test, I checked out the Dell sales site and set up a purchase for a basic low-cost PC, the Dimension E521, which Dell was running a special on ($449 instead of $499). After I got through with the various components/upgrades - including those "recommended by Dell for use with Vista - my low cost Dell computer rang up at, would you believe, $1,408?! And that was with the minimum amount of stuff I felt was necessary for running Vista (2 GB memory, 160 GB HD, video card, etc., without any "fluff - although I did include a copy of Office 2007, which I assume most average users would go for (even if they had Office 2K or XP installed on an older PC). Of course, I wouldn't dream of trying to use this model with Vista, since the processor is merely an AMD Sempron. For Vista, you really should have a Pentium Core Duo for Vista. The cheapest such Dell is the XPS 410, which includes a 19 inch monitor, and which, interestingly, comes out to $1,408 as well for the 2 GB/256mb video card/Office 2007 configuration.
In other words, Vista is not just a software upgrade - it's a hardware commitment. And that is probably going to be enough to get folks upset, when they find out that a Vista-ready PC - upgraded or brand new - is going to cost more than they expected. I know some people are going to say that $1,400 isn't all that much for the computing power you get, and that a few hundred of that goes for Office and a monitor (in the E521's case), but even without those options it's clear that there is a price penalty of as much $300 to $500 for using Vista - because both those Dell computers off the shelf would run XP with no problem. And $300 - $500 is enough money for users, home and small business, to start considering their OS options.
In which case, a program called Wine, which allows you to run Windows apps in Linux, could turn out to be a switcher's best friend. More on Wine and adopting Linux next time.