Although it’s impossible to estimate the market share of GNU/Linux, lately it seems that the very element that makes Windows and Mac OS “successful,” the marketshare that each OS (operating system) commands, is actually the main restricting factor in the development of these two OSes.
Earlier this month, Mike Halsey revealed an interesting point: Snow Leopard is really nothing more than just a simple service pack. However, (this comment is going to be so controversial) the same can be claimed for Windows 7. Think about how many times you’ve heard the comment (or a variation of said comment) “Windows 7 is everything Vista should have been,” and ask yourself if Windows 7 is really that different.
So Microsoft threw on the new Superbar and made it a little faster and a bit more compatible. Of course, a few new features can be claimed, such as “Jump Lists” (which we all know is just a slightly improved context menu), Snap, Preview, HomeGroup, and better Touch support. Even so, these two “new features” (Snap and Preview barely even qualify as features) that make networking a little easier and provide a slightly faster way to launch processes inside of an application fall under the same argument that applied to Snow Leopard. The Superbar is the only “new” feature that I can see, other than the previous small enhancements and a few other things. It’s basically just a compatibility and performance update with one new feature (service pack!).
However, this is no huge change like it was for XP to Vista, or Tiger to Leopard. Why? The answer is simple.
The individual end-user has become afraid of change. The PC and Mac communities have evolved to the point where if anything feels unfamiliar, then it will be rejected. It’s not Windows 7′s new features and improved performance that has separated it from Vista this time around, it is the fact that the shell is much more user friendly after Vista than Vista was after XP. If the user has to spend more than thirty minutes learning about new features, then the OS might as well have just stayed in stores. This is also why XP is still so successful; it’s not that users think that it’s better than Vista or 7, it’s that these users are not willing to upgrade because they simply do not wish to relearn how to use a new OS when the current OS works fine.
Of course, this doesn’t really apply to technical enthusiasts as we thrive on innovation; however, the fact is that such groups make up a very small portion of the population and the wishes of the community as a whole (which is basically your average Joe) is what Microsoft and Apple pay attention to.
Because of this, Microsoft and Apple are limited to small changes at a time in order to ensure that the average end user is happy and recognizes key new features and doesn’t have to “adjust.” Of course, for some users, this is not a bad thing. Nonetheless, for technical enthusiasts, this may be seen as the beginning of an end for Windows and Mac OS. That’s where GNU/Linux comes in, whereas the development on these two major OSes may very well grow stagnant in order to ensure that sales continue, GNU/Linux is not held back by the same factors.
If a user is not satisfied with a particular distro (distribution) of GNU/Linux, then they can easily switch to another distro and be done with it. For example, if a user did not like KDE, they could switch to GNOME, XFCE, or LXDE. Developers can risk losing these users because GNU/Linux is primarily free: it does not rely on the users approval for success. In order to stand out from the rest, a distro simply has to contain good code and unique attributes.
This is why Windows and the Mac OS has been lagging behind GNU/Linux since 2007 (examples being Compiz-Fusion, which Windows/Mac OS still cannot match, repositories, and similar programs). GNU/Linux forges ahead and users learn the new features that come with each update, whereas Windows and the Mac OS have to ensure that 99% of the users around the world will (pretty much) instantly realize how to use the new features that accompany each new release (of course, if you so wished, you could stick with one release of GNU/Linux and just take the security and program updates and not have to relearn anything, but where’s the fun in that?).
Basically, in a short summary, Windows/Mac OS have to worry about their public appeal more than whether or not the operating system is actually “new,” and GNU/Linux distros couldn’t care less about how the community at large sees their product, just so long as it’s innovative and better. This is why Windows and the Mac OS will always obtain new features after GNU/Linux.
