On Friday 26 July 2002 09:49 am, Daniel Taylor wrote: > If they are end-users why should they have to care about the OS? > > I think that it is totally unfair that computer _users_ need > to worry about administering their own boxes and as such the > OS they have matters. It doesn't much matter what you think or do not think is fair. The fact of the matter is that there are millions of end users in the world who are using computers in a small work environment and/or at home, where there is not the benefit of a full or part-time system administrator (professional or otherwise) to do their administering for them. Those people have to do it themselves, and such being the case, they have to worry about the OS. > If the Interface follows the rules they have learned, why should the OS > matter? Ideally, an OS would be like a car. All cars have the same basic interfaces, which work in basically the same way. The frills may work differently, but are generally self-explanatory. Operating systems have not reached this level except for the most basic tasks, such as launching an application. For example, if you have to install software on a machine, it is in most cases significantly different between Windows, MacOS, and *nix. There are exceptions to this. The install for StarOffice on Linux is much the same as for Windows, and the issues that would be considered by a "real" administrator are generally explained onscreen, so that any user with an intelligence greater than 3 can make an informed decision that applies to his/her situation. You are mostly right that if the user interface follows the rules they have learned, the OS shouldn't matter. My point is that the user interfaces of the various consumer operating systems are not, nor does it seem likely that they ever will be, written to a standard such that installation, configuration, and day to day use are all done in a specific way. Indeed, using computers would become very boring if they ever did. Respectfully, Dan Churchill