There's always going to be a lot of debate as to which operating system is best. You can go on and on about how this one can do this, or that. Which one has more software to choose from. Which has more peripherals you can hook up to it. But the truth is, the best one will always serve the consumer. It's not enough to have cards for this, or software for that. If it isn't done in a way that is seamless for the user, it's just hype.

A real "best" operating system wouldn't require special drivers for anything because the best operating system would promote standards. For example, there are standards for communications between computers. For most of us this is known as TCP/IP, or, more commonly, the internet. I've oversimplified, but the point is all modern computers can talk to each other over a network. It is a standard form of communication.

Imagine if all devices spoke this language over various connection types. There's no reason to limit TCP/IP communications to ethernet. There's firewire (IEEE1394), and USB. Both can be used to carry TCP/IP connections.

I own three different digital cameras. I have a Hewlett-Packard, a Canon, and a Kodak. To use the HP I had to install special drivers to get the images directly from the camera to the computer. The Kodak and the Canon appear as a disk drive on the computer. I just drag and drop the images from the camera to the computer. It's true, however, that if I use an RAM card in the Hewlett-Packard, I can simply put that card in a card reader; wait, that isn't user-friendly at all. That's another device I had to buy because HP decided it's too good to stick to a communication standard.

I don't use the HP anymore. Canon and Kodak, at least with these two devices, have it right. They addressed the needs of the user, rather than getting fancy with their implementation. In fact, I can't think of why HP chose to make it more difficult. It doesn't really solidify their place in the market to make it more difficult. It's not like it forces people to have to use their product. It meant more work for them as well.

I think you see the point now. The operating systems we have to choose from today have gone the way of the HP camera. They're meant for dominating a market. They care more about their competition than the users. They want to shut the other out. But when it comes down to it, the Mac is clearly more user-friendly than the Windows bearing machine (the "PC").

Me, I'll stick with Linux. I'm comfortable with it. It definitely is focused on the user more than the company... there is no "company." I can't recommend it for the general population though, because it can be more difficult to use than the Mac. And why?

Because they insist on naming great applications in the most vague ways possible. You can't wish to be mainstream, and then name an image editing and manipulation package "The GIMP."

The OS that makes everything it does revolve around the user will win in the end; be that next year, or ten years from now. Right now, we're all losers.