srweight wrote:I am from an underdeveloped part of the world I guess (North Ogden UT) but I have no interest in Linux. It may become the industry standard and then I will move over but for now I will stay with my windows box.
I have a friend in Texas that lives and breaths OS2 - He really loves it and usings it everyday. I don't see these as reasons to move to OS2. I am sure that there are Mac users that would love to see the whole thing more to that. Those of us that are not greatly trained on computers (I have only been using them since the mid 70s) might find Linux and OS2 or the Mac OS as more than we are interested in learning on top of just tryiing to do a good job as STS.
Now 64 vs 32 is more interesting.
In some ways, I think that kind of highlights the real problem. In a perfect world, a STS wouldn't have any real need to understand the underlying OS. The real job of your OS is to run your software and be as invisible (transparent) as possible - if people don't even realize it's there, then it's doing it's job well. I see the real need for a STS in hardware maintenance (something breaks, needs to be identified and replaced) and in training on APPLICATION (not OS) use. The application deployment for the most part would hopefully be a pretty standardized affair - if things are regularly needed the church isn't deploying then things need to be reviewed and possible changes made. Now I can hear the thought banging around in everyone's head right now - "But you have to know the OS to in case of a software failure of some sort" or possibly "But you have to know the OS for basic maintenance - installing software, printers, etc." Well if complete backups are kept both locally and remotely (network backup) of important data then in case of failure you could fall back to the "insert CD, press a key" scenario as the pc is completely reimaged and ready for use again. Now this naturally requires the hardware element be standardized and/or controlled to be successful, but I think the church is largely already doing that anyway. In terms of the OS interface - it needs to be simplified as much as possible. Particular OS familiarity doesn't necessarily mandate use of a particular OS as the interface and the OS are two elements that are much more loosely coupled than one might think - the host of "Windows like" interfaces available for X-Windows demonstrate this pretty well. Yes, there are some differences, but they could be minimized and overcome - after all, the goal here isn't to spend time in the OS interface, it's to spend time in your application.
All of this would naturally require very careful planning and testing up front - but that always pays off anyway as you lower your help desk requirements (and expenses as a result), and increase the satisfaction of the user experience as they don't find themselves calling for support as often (No one ever wants to call support - they just want it to work).