Why Operating Systems Matter

By Daniel Miessler on October 28th, 2007: Tagged as Geek | Science

implant

How quickly can you access the exact piece of information that you need at any given moment? How easy is it to harness the experiences and knowledge of others and incorporate them into your own schema?

I’ve been thinking a bit about why some people care so much about operating system upgrades, and I think the answer is so simple as to be elusive:

For those who use computers to enhance their own abilities to learn and grow, an operating system upgrade equates to an upgrade of one’s own mental abilities. It’s all about improving your ability to create, absorb, manipulate, and store ideas and information for easy retrieval.

A good way to think of this is like an AI brain implant in the future. Imagine you have an AI1000 that allows you to interface with Google just by thinking. But imagine that it takes a full 3 seconds and a lot of effort to get the implant to accept your request and go off to do your work.

Now imagine that the new AI5000 comes out that brings response times down from 3 seconds to .1 second, and it also allows you to incorporate the results in a much more integrated fashion (almost as if you produced the answer yourself).

That’s an upgrade.

It’s not just improving your implant, but rather your overall performance as an intellectual. And that’s what we’re doing with our current OS upgrades as well, just to a much lesser degree. That’s why upgrading your operating system matters; it’s because the operating system — even as disconnected as it is from us today — represents an extension of our overall abilities as thinkers and creators.:

  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • description
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!

Viewing 11 Comments

    • ^
    • v

    Except Operating Systems these days only get slower and use more system resources for things that I don't care about, such as pretty interfaces.


    So seeing as (from my point of view) operating Systems aren't getting any better, since they're just adding eye candy and (primarily) things which have no value to me, OS upgrades are pretty irrelevant.

    • ^
    • v

    Operating Systems NEED to become irrelevant at this point in computing. They should start to become more transparent to the user, smaller in footprint, and more self healing. Eye candy without real benefit to the end user is distracting and ultimately disappointing to the end user.


    One does not upgrade one's ability to learn with an OS update. All one does is introduce a new interface in which they have to learn to navigate to get to the information they want to learn. Learning to operate new OSes is a ridiculous waste of human energy because ultimately it does nothing beneficial for the end users. This is why text books and lectures are still the standard teaching tools. The learning curves on the interfaces are practically zero.


    People perceive OS upgrades and important because that's how they are marketed. Rarely does an OS actually improve ones quality of life.

    • ^
    • v

    Ahhh, so if I upgrade to Vista I can Google quicker? Well, that increases the number of Vista upgrades sold by MS. To 1.

    • ^
    • v

    Nah, I meant "good" OS upgrades.

    • ^
    • v

    Oh please tell us what you think a "good" OS update is and why.

    • ^
    • v

    How about I show instead of tell?


    Vista bad. Leopard good.


    I'm here all week.

    • ^
    • v

    I assumed you would cite Leopard and knock Vista. My wife uses a powerbook running Tiger everyday for both professional and personal reasons yet she ambivalent about Leopards release.
    I consider her an intellectual and so do her peers. She's constantly working to improve herself both professionally and personally but working under your theory, she is not going to progress as quickly as someone in her same field who is using Leopard?
    BTW - for what it's worth, she works in the technology field with educators all the way from pre K through to higher ed.


    I see OSes as tools boxes and applications as the tools. At the end of the day it's really about the application, not the OS.

    • ^
    • v

    And how about the Finder? How about keyboard shortcuts?


    Of course most functionality comes from applications, but guess what the main thrust of Leopard is? Updated applications. That's what an Apple OS release mostly IS.


    Look, you don't have to go to the extreme with my post. All I'm saying is that our computers are extensions of our brains. Storing, creating, and experiencing larger amounts of information, that's what we do with computers. So when you can do those things better, or simpler, or faster -- that's an upgrade to our overall ability to do those same things.

    • ^
    • v

    @Jim


    I do agree that our tools need to be invisible. That's why the AI5000 in my example is an upgrade from the AI1000.


    My favorite tool in the world right now is actually Quicksilver by Blacktree software. It works under this same premise: get the tool out of the way and just think about what you want to do rather than what application you are supposed to do it in.


    Interesting.

    • ^
    • v

    Yes, I've used Quicksilver extensively in the last few years. I'm very familiar with it. It's a fantastic tool. But I would argue that some folks are just as productive without Quicksilver. The Finder is an application, not part of the operating system and are keyboard shortcuts.


    I'm sorry, I didn't think I was taking your post to an extreme. There is no solid, objective, study that proves Leopard will make people any more productive than Tiger or that Vista makes people any less productive. I think if such a study existed Apple would jump all over it.
    At it's truest definition, operating systems are not updated applications such as iChat or Safari. They are much more invisible than that. And that where the problems lie. Today, for the most part, users are buying into updated applications, not operating systems. Innovations in iChat do not make for an innovative OS. Apple, MS and most Linux distros all suffer from the same problem. The underlying core operating systems are either out dated, lacking innovation or poorly implemented.

    • ^
    • v

    I think that you are missing one important point in this article. People who are around their computers all day integrate their OS into their ego. Emotionally, when they upgrade their OS, they upgrade themselves. It is not any different then people who buy clothes for the latest fad; they don't need a new clothes but they buy it because it makes them feel up to date and hip.

 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

My Twitter Microblog

    Discovered Content


    About dmiessler.com

    This site is an avatar for my own self-assigned life purpose--an attempt to model the world in the most accurate way possible, and to do so without bias or fear of unpleasant truth. I desire to develop, articulate, and perpetually improve models of how things work, and then to use that understanding to increase happiness and reduce suffering. I seek those on similar paths and thrive on sharing an appreciation of the interesting and beautiful with others.



    Blog
    Study
    Writing
    Infosec
    Technology
    Politics

            

    Top Original Content


    Security & Technology

    Philosophy & Science

    Culture & Society

    Blog Archives