The problem with this example is that I as a "carpenter" do not use only a Hammer for work I need other tools to get my job done so the OS is more like the Toolbox and the same goes for the garage the OS is not a piece of the house it is the whole house were I move from room to room for a specific function. Thus as with a house you need an architect so when using a program you will need a OS.

I understand what you're trying to say but think you're thinking is wrong as is your analogy.

The fins on cars are just as unnecessary as chrome wheels today, and while some cars have gotten smaller many have not and it's our love affair with larger cars, no matter what the cost, is analogous to a MUCH longer life for OS's than you might think. People like to have a traffic cop that provides some structure and sense of place.

Also novice users need the consistency of application behavior the OS can provide. Add to that the need to often use more than one application to get the job done, just as you need more than one tool to build a house, the OS provides for that common framework and communication.

Now sure the OS can be shrunk down as you said but the reality is people want a hub for their computing experience say nothing of the development savings a robust OS provides through it's many technologies, API's etc., while again this can be present in a smaller OS, more is better to users.

So while the fins are gone, a car is still a car, and the fins were nothing but eye candy anyway. Fundamentally, be it a car, the phone, or a TV, these products have not changed. They've just become more complicated, having more features, better experience, and greater connectivity. Hummmm....

You say these operating systems of today are more about ego and impressive size than about serving the user. I think you confuse a "largeness" of function with largeness of presentation.

I think people will always respond to what appeals to the senses -- and this is not only tactile or oral but also visual. The prevailing styles and standards of what we regard as appealing will change over time, just as fins on cars fell out of fashion and styles in clothing come and go -- but if our style preference goes from the ostentatious to the minimalist, it doesn't mean we no longer care about style but rather only that the CONTENT of our preferred style has changed.

Speaking of which -- in terms of OS presentation, Apple has been moving in a minimalist direction for years. It's Windows which is more obnoxiously in the user's face. I think people respond favorably to Apple's minimalist aesthetic, but we still tend to be wowed by impressive visuals too.

Unless you suggest a fundamental change in human nature over the next generation, I don't hold with your view that suddenly operating systems will cease to appeal to ALL our senses -- visual included.

To comments above.
That is exactly what I am not confusing, largeness of function versus largeness of presentation.

Functionality will and should increase but it should be unobtrusive. In other words, why do I need to see the covers of software zoom out at me when I want to look inside?

This is indeed a frill and equivalent to large fins on cars.

Ephraim Schwartz
Editor-at-Large
InfoWorld

An OS provides more than just a tool to the user. It is also a metaphor for a way of working with the computer. How we interact with it and the applications (the real tools). And while many of the battles in the OS wars as they exist today may not exist tomorrow, hopefully they will be replaced by other competitions. It is this competition between rival computing-world-views that leads innovation. While there may be big Egos leading the rivalry, the vision is to create a better experience for the end-user.

Telephone service is probably a good parallel. When AT&T ruled the roost, innovation was going from dial to pushbutton and the newest shade of avocado for the princess phone. Today, where telephone ends and computers and television begin is blurred. A single harmonious telephone system (like the future OS you envision) has given way to an exciting, innovative cacophony of conflicting egos each fighting to leave its mark on the way we communicate. Despite the noise, we are better off for their egos.

So...long live the Egos!

This link will prvide a better idea of what Cover Flow or "Quick Look" can really do. It doesn't just show you a large icon of the file.

http://images.apple.com/movies/us/apple/mac/macosx/2007/wwdc/apple-quicklook_672x416.mov

The problem here is not so simple. The simpler you make things for the user the more complex the operating system. I would disagree with the article because I believe that these operating systems will become very complex. Much more so than they are today. I don't know of anybody who would like to go back to the command line unless you have a specific reason to so. Having come from a development background I can tell you that any developer worth his weight needs to concentrate on the user experience. If the user isn't happy than you will find yourself looking for a new job.

Simple questions: how are the tools going to interoperate? Who will create the data structures that let them talk to each other and share each other's information? Who will create the user interface guidelines (or tools that create uniformity of some sort) that allow for a reasonably coherent interaction with your data?

Oh. That's right. The OS. Duh.

I'm sorry, this article is silly. Yes, the CANDY will go away, but the underlying system won't. As a matter of fact, it will get more complex so that the user system will be less complex (perhaps). But it won't go away.

I'm afraid I agree with the comments, not the article. In terms of Mac OS X, Apple and the media always focus on the pizazz, but the users tend to focus on the usefulness of what's underneath. And as other commenters have said, it takes a heck of a lot of complex code to make an operation appear seamless and unobtrusive to the common user.

Maybe the article author agrees that we're talking about the disappearance of the OS from visibility. But wait, the article also argues that current OSs have large teams with big ambitions. Hang on...making the OS invisible isn't going to change that! Future operating systems are not going use less disk space or RAM, so the garage space and gas guzzling analogies fall flat.

I also disagree with the real world tool analogy. Cheap tools look cheap and break early. Professional tools often have extra attention paid to ergonomics and finish, and they often end up looking better as a result. There has been an industrial design revolution in many tools that used to be treated as "utilitarian," like crane cabs and hospital equipment, making them clearer, more appealing, and easier to use without detracting one bit from function. In addition, thanks to companies like Apple, tool makers are now more aware of the importance of branding in their designs. So we are going in that direction, not in another one.

I think readers are missing my point, see comment directly above.

I did not say the OS will go away.
I did not say complexity will go away.
I did not say functions will decrease.
I did not say we need to go back to a command line.

I said the UI will become simpler.
I said like a command line, one word commands, either spoken, written, or gestured, might be the solution.

I said we don't need the graphical frills the OSes have now. A simpler look and feel is what I was calling for.

Today's operating systems are in your face. I am saying the operating systems of the future will be less obvious.

Ephraim Schwartz
Editor-at-Large
InfoWorld

The zoom of the app's logo is simply a way of letting the use know that the command has been accepted. The splash screen of the apps are simply there because todays computers are not fast enough to boot straight into some apps.

Don't know where the frill is here.

I would hope that in 20 years we'll be conversing with our hardware. For this to happen, parts of the OS will have to be vastly more complex than what we have now. It may appear "smaller", but there will be lots more going on under the hood. Count on it.

Ephraim, I fully agree.

Blondes use a pencils...

You people all think way too much... OSes are doing me just fine. After all, I found you forum didn't I?

I complety fail to understand your analogy comparing the bloatedness of the os compared to fins. Fins are strictly a design preference that can be changed easily and still have a useable car. What can you easily change to make the os disappear and still have a computer that functions better than what we have now. The os to me seems more like then engine in a car. We may only care about getting from A to B but I am sure all car companies still boast greatly how fantastic their 'new' engine is in order to make that sale...sorry but marketing how great this new os is going to last a long time no matter how large or small the os may end up...

Ephraim--

Give up. The people you're trying to talk to here live on another planet where the simplicity of what you're trying to say cannot be understood. In fact, what seems most apparent from many comments is that there are a lot of people out there who think very much like the teams working on the OSes you describe. See 'underwear, caught up in'.

Do all of them work for Microsoft, do you think? ;-)

I suspect the confusion (and yes, I believe the problem is confusion not argument) is the distinction between complexity and sophistication. I believe what Ephraim is saying is that OSes will become more sophisticated - perhaps anticipating needs, perhaps a more seamless audio-visual environment, but certainly giving us a smoother user experience.
Sophisticated does what's needed and no more. Operation is easy and direct, often anticipating needs and bundling the messy parts neatly under the covers. Contingencies are anticipated and handled without user intervention. The difference is more like a toaster than toasting bread over a campfire. Sure the campfire is fun, but who wants fun when you're trying to get to work?
Getting to sophisticated isn't easy; I've often said I look forward to the day computers are really useful. We're not there yet, but we are getting closer. What I want is an assistant I don't have to remember to carry, one that can understand verbal requests and gestures, one that can automatically interact with other intelligent systems as needed. I don't want to have to think about setup, security or maintenance - it should recognize me as being me, the authorized user. Further, it should be able to integrate or acquire the software tools needed - if I want to design a shed in the back yard it should be able to measure the site visually as we walk around, understand requirements from context and image the finished product - preferably with a hologram projected on the site. When computers can do all this, manage my schedule and not make me lug around an 8 pound hunk of plastic and metal they'll be useful. Until then we'll use what we have and complain a lot.

Yes, Randy Grein, see above, nailed it. That is exactly what I was talking about in the original blog.

Thanks, Randy.

And yes, dark1p, I thought what I was saying was pretty simple also.

I think perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that I was making a prediction from an end user perspective and those who commented were reading the blog from the perspective of a developer.

Ephraim Schwartz
Editor-at-Large
InfoWorld

Randy,
What else do you want this device/entity to do?
Write classical music, turn into a beautiful woman? tell you the meaning of life? I don't think we are talking about computers or operating systems anymore. It sounds like a science fiction movie written by a non-technologist.

Ephraim,
The small possibility that your article actually made sense, and all the readers missed it, was eliminated by your agreement with Randy's post.

Anybody notice the behemoths are the result of sloppy coding? I am an old timer, started with analog computers and moved to digital when we were lucky to get a 4K partition to run in. Getting a compiler written on a single 80 column card, or a program written in machine language required thought, planning and elegance. I don't see that in today's programmers - just because you have unlimited memory and storage doesn't relieve you of the obligation to write tight elegant code. UI, functionality, whatever - require forethought and planning, not "commando raid" programming.

This is the biggest load of bs I've read in a long time. An operating system is a foundation, and as long as people build (applications) on top of that foundation and expose it to new security risks, it will continuously need to be updated--thus it will NEVER be embedded, because updating firmware is risky at best, for the average user. Not to mention the fact that a robust and secure OS will never fit in firmware. The last time that happened was with MS DOS 3.11, if I recall correctly, and that was on a Tandy THX, back when we had 1 floppy disk and 640 Kilobytes of RAM, with no hard drives, or maybe 10MB if we were lucky and rich. So don't babble or try to be a futurist, it just embarrasses yourself beyond belief.

In response to this comment from javadeveloper:
Ephraim,
The small possibility that your article actually made sense, and all the readers missed it, was eliminated by your agreement with Randy's post.
Posted by: javadeveloper at June 27, 2007 12:47 AM

Let me try this analogy.

Let's say I am in a restaurant and I have a choice of getting service from two different waiters.

I will get the same exact service from both waiters. Both will give me a menu, take my order, bring my order and ask me if I find everything satisfactory with the same high level of service.

However, every time waiter one comes over there is a fanfare of music behind him. He is dressed up in some outrageous costume. One time he dresses like Henry the 8th and there are two guys
behind him holding up his ermine lined purple robes.

The next time he comes in as Christopher Columbus in a mock boat which is wheeled in on roller skates. Of course he takes my plates off the deck.

Get the picture?

The second waiter is dressed simply in a white jacket and plain slacks and asks "may I take your order?"

No music, no costumes. I get what I want and I barely notice him.

If I had these two choices I would choose waiter number two.

Do you get it now, "javadeveloper"?

Ephraim Schwartz
Editor-at-Large
InfoWorld

OMG, you're an editor at large? Holy frikin crap. Info World has problems, big problems. LOL

Are you kidding me? Do you seriously think that Microsoft is paying millions of dollars every year in payroll to people that are out to do nothing more than create an OS that boosts their ego, or that of their company's? Is that what you're selling here? Do you think that millions of companies and hundreds of millions of people will buy software that is not overwhelmingly function over form (not counting the few Macheads that consider form paramount, and function peripheral)? And supporting such a goofy, unsupported notion with an even goofier analogy about waiters and singing is ludicrous. A LOT of people will choose the waiter that puts on a show and makes an event of dinner over that little guy that comes around only to bow silently and scrape up our crumbs. Any day of the week. And I guarantee you, those same people will give him/her a larger tip and recommend the place to their friends. This is why people go to Mexican restaurants instead of Taco Bell, and to In and Out Burger instead of McDonalds. Ambience is as important as function, and has nothing to do with ego. This is a blog line that should be deleted relatively quickly (and not just the opposition to it, but the whole darn thing).

To Butch - people choose a Mexican Resturant over Taco Bell for the quality of the food - similarly I choose an OS for the quality of its ability. I don't need a sombrero on a waiter to enhance the food experience -

“The best number for a dinner party is two - myself and a damn good head waiter”

Butch,
Okay, believe it or not we can agree on something. I hope.

That something is obviously people are different.

I prefer the silent waiter and you prefer the waiter who puts on a show.

That's great. But I don't call you ignorant or say as you did it is the biggest load of bs...etc.

Ephraim Schwartz
Editor-at-Large
InfoWorld

Responding to Butch:

"Do you seriously think that Microsoft is paying millions of dollars every year in payroll to people that are out to do nothing more than create an OS that boosts their ego, or that of their company's?"

In a word, yes.

Each of the sucessive generations of Windows has added much in the way of eye candy and additional features, which do nothing to enhance the functionality of the core function of an operating system. These features, never the less, have been promoted as the reason that such-and-such OS is better than so-and-so.

"Do you think that millions of companies and hundreds of millions of people will buy software that is not overwhelmingly function over form?"

If that is what is provided to the market, then the public has to buy it, unless they can find a way to do without. (And in many cases doing without is not a realistic solution.)

"And supporting such a goofy, unsupported notion with an even goofier analogy about waiters and singing is ludicrous. A LOT of people will choose the waiter that puts on a show and makes an event of dinner over that little guy that comes around only to bow silently and scrape up our crumbs. Any day of the week. And I guarantee you, those same people will give him/her a larger tip and recommend the place to their friends."

A problem with analogies is that they don't always mirror the original situation exactly. To make this analogy fit a little better; what if you had to eat once or twice at this restaurant every day. Would you still prefer all the flash, and presentation? Every single time you went there? Maybe you would, but I (and I believe most people) would get tired of it very quickly.

"This is why people go to Mexican restaurants instead of Taco Bell, and to In and Out Burger instead of McDonalds. Ambience is as important as function, and has nothing to do with ego."

Quality of food has already been mentioned, but as to the point about ambience, I disagree. It is not as important as function (or quality), and ego is a component in its makeup. (Be it pride of heritage, peculiarity of personality, pretentiousness etc.)

"This is a blog line that should be deleted relatively quickly (and not just the opposition to it, but the whole darn thing)."

Oh Please!!!

I agree, that the OS's of the future will be less complicated to handle and more intuitive. Most likely some of them are going to be inside smaller "Consumer" type of devices or computers. With or without phone and other functionalities.

Taking the car analogy you might think New Mini or Smart compared to an old Cadillac or Hummer.

However, the add-on, gadget and tuning industry you mention as a thing of the past, I don't think will ever go away. If you want a Mini today, you can also choose between hundreds of designs, stars, stripes or banners or even put those up yourself, if you like.
iPods, Mobile Phones and other new devices also come with Thousands of different ways to change their look, color, shape, endurance (against dirt ;-) and similar things.
That is just like the old tuning people did in the 50s and still do, while others started to build computers in their garage (and subsequently founded companies like Apple ;-)

Unless we really want to become more like a BORG society or Matrix, I am also not too sure about a future OS being all Web-based and controlled by just one or very few companies and networks, but where a future OS requires more power and information e.g. to answer your spoken question, it'll sure also look that up somewhere to keep its own size reasonable.

About the waiter analogy - some people actually like "flair". The same ones who like that stupid paper clip helper in MS-Office. Superficial cuteness is more important to them than what lies underneath. Go figure.

> Instead our grandchildren will be using discreet, unobtrusive
> operating systems that will be invisible to the naked eye.

I am using that now. The operating system that Mac OS X runs on is called Darwin and hardly anybody even knows about it, that's how unobtrusive it is. It is also open source, it is so transparent it is invisible to the naked eye. The most important part is that it doesn't crash or act up, so we get to ignore it. In fact, over the last few years when a Mac has gone bad for me it's always a hardware problem, bad RAM or bad graphics adapter or bad power supply. Apple's core OS is more reliable than hardware.

In Mac OS X you work with applications all the time, including the Finder and Dock. You don't talk to the kernel, you don't go into the System folder, you don't know any of that. The OS is even more invisible in the iPhone.

So I'm saying your eerie future is already here for some time now.

It's a good thing I refuse to judge food and operating systems like 'Butch' does. I'd be stuck with bland, second rate imitations of the real thing, sold by virtue of it's flashiness, rather than intrinsic quality.

Ephraim is right - the OS should fade into the background and 'just work', not be some distraction to satisfy the simpleminded ("Look at the shiny colors!!!") or a source of hours of calming fun configuring a print driver conf file in vi.

Microsoft seems so paranoid about Apple that they feel compelled to out-flash MacOSX. As such, engineers that should be tasked with improving reliability are instead designing features that have NO direct impact on the stability of the OS. Example: Embedded windows in POS terminals. Count the number of crashed self check out terminals in the local supermarket the next time you are there. They are almost ALL based on some form of Windows, and they are almost ALWAYS crashing, or crashed. If more time were given to increasing the stability of the kernel of the Windows OS, perhaps these hard failures could be avoided, or at least dealt with in a more graceful manner than a hard reset by a disgruntled supermarket clerk.

I agree with others - the 'fins' analogy is not correct. The 'fins' of the old Caddys were not part of the basic OS, if you will. They were like Wall Paper, or a desktop widget. Decorative, but useless or nearly so. The V-8 under the hood was the core technology, and it took years to develop and was a very refined and reliable system, used in dozens of products before it ended up in a strange vehicle like the '59 Cadillac.