Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. It’s an old phrase -a cliche, really – but the popularity of the phrase (and its various incarnations) is due to a core of truth. History does indeed teach as many things, and failing to learn those lessons can cause us to make avoidable mistakes.

It’s hard not to feel a wave deja-vu while reviewing the latest reports on the topic of mobile OS market share. Despite the release of the iPhone 4 on Verizon, Android continues to surge forward, and has now obtained the number one seat – brushing past not Apple but rather RIM. Nope, Blackberry isn’t dead – it’s just not very sexy.

The real story, however, is that iPhone market share seems to have flatlined.

Let’s see. Apple, which enters the market with a revolutionary computing product, saw tremendous initial success while competitors struggled to find footing. But a new product has risen to fight Apple’s offerings, and it is doing well. It’s strength is its relative open nature; while Apple likes to tie its operating systems and hardware together, the newcomer is happy to let anyone run its operating system. The result is arguably a less cohesive experience, but the wide range of selection seems to be overwhelming Apple by sheer numbers. And there are some users who absolutely prefer the competitor, as the wider selection of hardware and software makes it appeal to markets Apple has little clout with.

We’ve seen this movie before; it’s the story of Microsoft vs Apple. We all know the ending, and it’s not pretty for Apple faithful. Now, the flick is being remains. The actors have been switched around a bit – Microsoft, old and wrinkly, has been replaced by a fresh newcomer called Google – but plot is otherwise similar.

Learning from History: The Risks of the Apple Way

Apple’s single-minded approach to product development is well respected, as it should be. Apple has made, and continues to make, some the best products in the world – not only in the smartphone market, but also in computers.

Yet Apple’s approach creates risks. One risk is the possibility of product failure, an issue that has wounded the company severely in the past. The PowerBook 5300, for example, severely hurt Apple when it was released in 1995. The company was forced to recall numerous laptops, and left Apple with a series stain its reputation as well as its balance sheets. Although modern Apple is arguably a more agile and responsible company, everyone makes mistakes. The reception problems of the iPhone 4 are one example; now, imagine if a problem of the scale had impacted the processor or the display.

The other problem is Apple’s inability to fill the needs of large portions of the market. Apple’s sales of the iPhone have been outstanding, but there is still little doubt that the iPhone remains a luxury item. The base price of $200, and price of $300 for the model with expanded memory, clearly put the iPhone 4 outside the reach of many.

Even those who cannot afford it may not want it. Jobs was widely panned recently because of his dislike of phones with displays sized beyond 4 inches. He didn’t think such phones would sell, but recent reports have shown that they’re doing well. Flash is also an obvious example and point of contention. If you want Flash, you can’t buy an iPhone. Period.

Similar, but Not the Same

The weaknesses outlined above are a big deal, because they give competitors room to grow, even if they show up for in the market substantially later than Apple. Android’s market share growth is rather astounding not only because of its speed, but also because it’s happened during a period where Apple’s been stronger than ever before.

However, the downfall of the iPhone as the dominant smartphone is not guaranteed. It’s only possible. While Apple could do well to learn from history, Google also needs to learn – if they don’t, they could have trouble keeping their market share gains.

One problem, obviously, is fragmentation. Google’s Android operating system is a messy beast. It’s handed out to anyone, who can then do whatever they want with it, regardless of the quality of those changes. The Windows market had these growing pains in the 1990s, when computers came with pre-installed software libraries that could number over 40 CDs (back then, you usually received a disc version of any software installed on your PC). Microsoft nipped that problem in the bud, but it was never a real threat, because it only became an issue after Microsoft had emerged victorious.

Google has the issue now, however, while Android is growing. It’s a problem that can severely impact the quality of the Android phone experience. My Thunderbolt, for example, came with a pre-installed Blockbuster app that was bugged, and would run a background service that kept the phone awake even though the Blockbuster app had never run. Updating the Blockbuster app fixed the problem, but I was only able to reach that solution after much research. Someone who is less technically savvy would no doubt be left wondering why their phone’s battery doesn’t last more than six hours.

Another problem with Android is a lack of quality first-party software. Window’s long-term success is, in my opinion, partially due to the wide range of first-party software, such as Microsoft Office, that is available from Microsoft. The strength of this software gave Windows a edge over the competition, as users could count on Windows providing them with needed functionality. The Android Market, by comparison, has been a disaster. Without proper software support, Android’s success will have limits.

Conclusion

I’m not going to predict the future, and the point of this article is not to flatly say that Apple is doomed and Android is destined for success, or vice-versa. I only want to point out what history has taught us. The future of Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android is the responsibility for the people heading those companies, and no one else. Will they make the right decisions? I don’t know. I do know, however, that the competition is far from over, and Apple’s supposedly unassailable hold on the market has turned out to be anything but.

Netbooks, more than any other type of computer sold today, are heavily effected by the operating system they run. Everything netbook performance to battery life can is tied to the operating system being used. Choosing the right operating system can mean the difference between a netbook which enjoyable to use and one which isn’t.

So which is the best? I am going to take a look at Linux (Ubuntu and Jolicloud), Windows XP, and Windows 7 to find out. The answers here may surprise you, but they backed up by extensive testing conducted by myself and by other websites.

Performance

Let me say, before I go further, that testing Linux is problematic because Linux has no set standard and is often customized by its users. There are hundreds of Linux variants in existence and some users modify them so heavily that they are unrecognizable from the version originally installed. For reference, I am speaking from my experience using Ubuntu and Jolicloud and from the benchmarks found on other websites, which generally use Ubuntu as their standard. My Windows testing is using Windows XP with Service Pack 3 andWindows 7 Home Premium with Aero turned off.

The objective performance tests I did involved boot times and system hibernation. Despite Ubuntu’s reputation as a “light” operating system, I found Ubuntu to be fare poorly in these areas. On my test system, a Samsung NC-10, booting Windows XP took 57.6 seconds. Ubuntu actually took longer, at 63.4 seconds, while Windows 7 took 64.2 seconds. Jolicloud, the other Linux variant I have, was the quickest of all, taking only 28.2 seconds. Hibernation showed a similar trend, with Windows XP taking 16.3 seconds to resume, Windows 7 taking 19.4 seconds to resume, and Ubuntu taking 23.8 seconds to resume. Hibernation doesn’t seem to work with Jolicloud on my Samsung NC-10, so I have no results.

In terms of the subjective user experience, I found the performance of Ubuntu to be on par with Windows XP and Windows 7. I could not tell much difference in terms of how fast the operating systems felt. Jolicloud actually felt slower, but the user interface of Jolicloud is not the best, and I believe that contributed to the feelings of sluggishness more than anything. The biggest surprise of the testing was Windows 7, which I installed on my NC-1o for the purposes of this test. Windows 7 didn’t feel any faster than the other operating systems, but it didn’t feel slower either. I had expected it to really drag my netbook down, but in fact it seemed to operate without problem.

Battery Life

My battery life testing was performed over several weeks during “normal use” consisting of web surfing. I allowed my NC-10 to drain its battery completely each time and I then recharged it and used it for the next test. I used the default battery settings for each operating system.

The best battery life of the test came from Windows XP, which allowed my NC-10 to stay active for 333 minutes before going dark. Windows 7 was trailing by a fair bit at 314 minutes. Battery life on Ubuntu was poor, and worse with Jolicloud. During my web surfing test I was able to achieve 288 minutes of battery life with Ubuntu and 253 with Jolicloud. The Jolicloud result was particularly disappointing because the operating system is supposed to be built with netbooks in mind.

These tests seem to show that users will be best off with Windows XP if battery life is a concern and worse with a Linux variant. There is one variable, however, which I must remark on. The battery management software which is available for the Samsung NC-10 is for Windows XP and Windows 7 only. I did use and install it, as would anyone else who purchased a netbook. This could very well have been responsible for the large difference between XP and Ubuntu. I think that this best represents real world usage well, but I’m sure some crafty Ubuntu users who have created custom power management schemes will disagree with me on that point.

Compatibility Issues

Ubuntu has the most seamless driver installation process which I have ever come across. In fact, I think it is easier to install drivers in Ubuntu than in Windows XP or Windows 7. The problem is that many drivers are simply missing in Ubuntu or don’t seem to work correctly. I never was able to make my webcam and my Bluetooth work with Ubuntu. Jolicloud was a lost cause as well. Also, as mentioned in the battery life section, the Samsung software which would normally be used with my netbook is not available for any version of Linux. This means that I could not use the Samsung power saver software, the display manager, or any of the recovery assistance software.

That isn’t as much of an issue for me because I have a fair grasp of what I am doing and I keep good backups. I could also probably, with some time and effort, find and install a Ubuntu power saving scheme which would make up some of the battery life difference. The problem is that the vast majority of netbook users do not want to bother with having to do this. They simply want something which works well with a minimal of confusion. I must admit that even though I am fairly tech savvy, but I still find Linux confusing. I can’t imagine giving a netbook with Ubuntu installed to my mother or even my wife. They would both be going at it with a hammer within a few hours.

Verdict

On the whole, I think that Windows XP is the best netbook operating system currently available. Windows boots quickly, resumes from hibernation quickly, has no compatibility issues, and displayed the best battery life. I should note that I’m not arguing that Windows XP is a better operating system for, say, a normal desktop. The interface features introduced by Windows 7 are amazing and having installed it on my desktop computer I would never go back to XP on a desktop. But those features don’t translate well to my netbook. It simply doesn’t have the screen real-estate or the power to make use of them.

As for Ubuntu and Jolicloud, well, I can’t recommend them. Linux variants have always been a niche and that remains true. For a crowd of true believers who see the open nature of Linux as a paradise there is simply no other choice which makes sense. But I personally don’t want to have to customize my operating system just so that it can compete with XP’s battery life. I also find the problems with my webcam and Bluetooth unacceptable, as I use those features frequently.

So, Windows XP earns my recommendation. I’m sure many readers will disagree, particularly about my verdict on Ubuntu. Feel free to vent in the comment.

Further Reading

For some additional information about netbook operating systems please see the below articles. Note that they do necessarily agree with my opinion, so they’re a good place to gain some alternative views.

Legit Reviews: Windows 7 Versus Windows XP

Anandtech: OS Mobility Explored

Tom’s Hardware: Windows 7 vs Windows XP – Which Belongs on your Netbook?

In November of 2009 Google announced its intentions for the Google Chomre OS. This was not an official release. The full version of Google Chrome OS is, according to Google, not to be released until late in 2010. However, Google did release the source code for developers, which means in effect that Google Chrome OS is available for those who wish to use a beta version. Currently the Google Chrome OS can be downloaded from Gdgt and requires VMplayer to run.

With the Chrome OS now available, many tech-saavy individuals are wondering they should download it rather than paying to upgrade their netbook or nettop to Windows 7. It does seem like an appetizing thought. This article details the many differences between the two operating systems so users can know what to expect.

Interface

Google’s Chrome OS is radically different from any other operating system ever released. The only real application which runs on the Google Chrome OS is Google’s Chrome web browser. In essence, the Chrome web browser is the entire operating system. Everything is accessed through the web browser including all applications because the only applications which Google Chrome is built to use are web applications. For example, on a normal Windows based system someone who wants to write a letter would open Microsoft Word. On the Google Chrome OS that person would need to use Google Docs through the Chrome web browser. Even the operating system’s few offline functions, like accessing USB drivers, are accomplished through the browser.

What this means is that the Google Chrome OS is the first true cloud operating system. The interface is very slick and easy to use, and fells somewhat similar to using Android on a smart phone, although more polished. Everything looks very clean and because you’re using the Chrome browser to accomplish every task there is little confusion about where you need to go to accomplish something. It is intuitive, particularly for a pre-release version of a brand new operating system.

However, most of the functionality becomes disabled if an internet connection is not available. This is obviously a big difference from Windows. Although Windows 7 revises the task bar so that it is based more heavily on the use of Icons, it is still a taskbar and functions much as it always have. The taskbar is, in my opinion, a far better method of handling multi-tasking, but Chrome does look very elegant so long as you’re not one to open twenty applications at once.

Performance

When it comes to speed during regular tasks there is no doubt that Google’s Chrome operating system is the clear winner. Because it is built for such a specific purpose a huge amount of fat can be trimmed away. The Google Chrome OS only really needs to worry about the Google Chrome browser and what it is doing. The Chrome OS loads in the blink of an eye, compared to Windows 7 which can take about a minute to boot into the login screen. There is even an overall snappier feel which is similar to the feel of using Windows 7 on a good solid state drive.

That said, the fact that all applications are accessed through Google Chrome makes many other performance measures irrelevant. The Google Chrome operating system can’t run offline games, can’t utilize complex database programs, and can’t be used for video editing. This means that Windows 7, despite feeling slower in many respects, wins by default in the many categories of performance where the Google Chrome OS chooses not to compete.

Security

One problem with cloud computing is the possibility for security to be compromised. The Google Chrome OS appears to be taking security very seriously for this reason and it has a number of security features which are rather innovative. One is that, due to the constantly online nature of the Chrome OS, the operating system always keeps itself updated. There is no option to download new updates – you simply must. The Chrome OS also takes a look at itself during this process to make sure nothing appears compromised. If anything seems to have been tampered with, the Chrome OS grabs corrected code from the internet and repairs itself.

Google Chrome also has an advantage because nothing except for the operating system’s core components run locally. Since all applications are web applications it is very easy for the operating system to detect a program which is not supposed to be running and kill it before it does anything malicious. This is a luxury that Windows 7 simply can’t have because applications are stored on disk and Windows 7 is therefor required to give them some level of trust.

The only downside is that low-tech security breaks can be a larger issue. In theory, someone using Google Chrome OS is effectively guarding their entire computing life with a password. Should someone find that password out they would be able to access absolutely everything without physical access to the victim’s computer or even an online connection to the victim’s computer.

But don’t discount Windows 7. With automatic updates and user account control Windows 7 is the most secure version of Windows yet. In addition, the maturity of Windows 7 gives some comfort. Remember, the Google Chrome OS is currently a pre-release version, and even when the Chrome OS is put out for mass consumption it will still be the new kid on the block. New code is bound to have bugs, so some security holes are likely.

Verdict

The usefulness of Google’s Chrome OS will ultimately depend on what exactly you intend to do with it. It isn’t hard to see that in all three areas – interface, performance, and security – the overall tone indicates that in the battle of Google Chrome OS vs. Windows 7, the Chrome OS scores some victories. The interface of the Chrome OS is sleek and simple, the performance is snappy, and security is tight. That’s not to say Windows 7 is bad in those areas, because it isn’t. But the Chrome OS is better.

However, the Chrome OS is also limiting in what it can do when compared to Windows 7. If you can’t run it in a web browser you won’t be running it in Chrome OS. Period. And you’ll need to always be connected to the internet to gain any use from a netbook or nettop using the Chrome OS. If you just want to do some offline writing, Windows 7 will let you, but Chrome OS won’t.

But as it turns out, the battle of Google Chrome OS vs Windows 7 isn’t one at all. Being a pre-release version that isn’t exactly easy to install, the current Chrome OS is free. And it is expected to remain free even after the public release. In addition, the very small size of the Google Chrome OS means that it can easily share a hard drive with another operating system. So rather than picking one, do yourself a favor and learn to love both.