This paper traces the historical development of operating systems from the earliest days of manual hardware interaction in the 1940s and 1950s through serial processing, simple batch systems, multiprogrammed batch systems, and time-sharing systems. It explains how each stage improved efficiency and reduced processing time, ultimately giving rise to the modern OS architectures in use today. The paper then compares the two dominant OS branches — Microsoft Windows and Linux — focusing on their relative strengths and limitations in a business context. Drawing on the needs of a company operating a heavy database environment with an in-house IT department, the paper recommends Linux as the more suitable choice due to its open-source flexibility and adaptability.
The paper demonstrates applied synthesis: it takes a historical and technical survey drawn from two primary sources and converts it into a practical business recommendation. Rather than simply summarizing OS history, the author filters the history through the lens of business utility, culminating in a reasoned argument for Linux over Windows in a database-heavy enterprise environment. This technique — building toward a real-world recommendation on the basis of theoretical and historical evidence — is a core skill in IT management writing.
The paper opens with a definition and rationale for OS importance, then moves chronologically through OS development stages: serial processing, simple batch systems, multiprogrammed batch systems, and time-sharing systems. The final two sections pivot to the present, comparing Windows and Linux before delivering a brief but justified recommendation. Each historical section feeds directly into the comparative and evaluative conclusion, giving the paper a clean funnel structure that moves from broad context to specific recommendation.
"An OS is a program that controls the execution of application programs and acts as an interface between applications and the computer hardware," and is thus a crucial part of modern technology within a business context (Stallings 2009, p. 51). Such systems help run software, provide access to needed devices, control user access to files and systems, and catch and respond to errors and other harmful objects like viruses or malware. The OS makes computers easy to use and convenient for users of all types, from the most experienced to those with little experience at all.
Essentially, the user is most often not trained or interested in manipulating the actual hardware of their device. Thus, the OS helps them use software without having to interact directly with the hardware, and allows software developed by a programmer to be used effectively and with ease. It helps establish layers of communication and management that allow for maximum efficiency in processing and user access (Ritchie 2003). The OS also produces optimal levels of efficiency that the end user can experience, with the potential to evolve into whatever that user may need in the future. Overall, the OS helps manage computer functions and processes, enabling less experienced users to still get the maximum output from their devices. Thus, the right OS is extremely important, because it must match individual business and user needs in order to provide the greatest possible benefits.
Operating systems have come a long way from their modest beginnings. As technology and knowledge of computers continue to evolve, OS systems are becoming more complex and intricate, allowing greater functionality with ease for the end user. Back in the earliest days of computers, in the 1940s and 1950s, all computers relied on the user to control and interact directly with the actual hardware (Ritchie 2003). This resulted in end users needing to be heavily trained and capable in order to properly handle their devices.
However, much has changed since those earliest days. One aspect that evolved significantly was serial processing. In the past, scheduling had to be done manually, and users would have to deal with a number of potential problems and delayed updates. This scheduling revolved around a single program called a job, which was used to load and save the source program into the computer's limited memory.
Evolving technology led to more efficient processing. First, there were simple batch systems, first implemented by General Motors in the late 1950s. These systems relied on software known as a monitor, where "the user no longer has direct access to the processor" (Stallings 2009, p. 56). Rather, the end user would compile a list of scheduling tasks for the computer to execute, then insert a card into the computer with its allocated tasks, to be implemented and controlled by the monitor. In this setup, the monitor controlled the more complicated aspects of communicating software with hardware, which allowed the user greater efficiency and less wasted processing time.
Yet the role of the user was limited to a user mode, in order to protect aspects of memory under the monitor's control. This eventually led to multiprogrammed batch systems, which combined job sequencing into batches, making processing even more efficient by increasing the computer's ability to multitask. These systems reduced processing time by combining jobs into single action steps, allowing the computer to spend less time waiting for each one to complete. This style of processing ultimately led to the creation of OS systems as we know them today. As Stallings notes, "to have several jobs ready to run, they must be kept in main memory, requiring some form of memory management" (2009, p. 62). This meant that an underlying control mechanism was needed — which the OS now delivers.
The evolution of time-sharing systems began to unfold as multiprogramming became increasingly complex. When the number of jobs grows quite high, it may be necessary for some interaction between the user and the hardware. An example of these more complex processing tasks is seen within transaction processing. Time-sharing systems extend multiprogramming so that it "can also be used to handle multiple interactive jobs" (Stallings 2009, p. 62). Time-sharing then allows multiple users to access the system simultaneously, with the OS overseeing and guiding each user on their individual task.
Essentially, the OS provides each user a short burst of processing capacity in order to fulfill their required task, then returns that capacity to other users and other processing tasks. This preserves the efficiency seen in multiprogramming but extends it to a larger context involving multiple users, reducing overall processing time even further. Time controls allow for interrupts at a rate of 0.2 seconds, which represents a significant improvement over previous systems. Interrupts were introduced at the fourth level of modern hardware processing and help save considerable time.
Within these more complex systems, a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) "manages processor, interrupt, DMA, [and] BIOS details" (Stallings 2009, p. 95). This works in concert with the Kernel Layer, which handles CPU scheduling, and the Executive Layer, which handles all other major OS functioning in an environment that is preemptive to the processing itself. This intricate system of communication allows for greater processing speed and maximum productive output.
Modern OS systems are complex and have branched into two dominant options. Windows, crafted by Microsoft, is a closed-source system that is very popular within the commercial market (Ritchie 2003). This often means there is little adjustment that can be made to the internal OS. Windows is easy to use and efficient, yet it cannot be as easily manipulated as open-source systems. There are therefore limitations on what Windows can do for more experienced users or for companies seeking to customize their OS to meet specific functional requirements.
The other major option available today is a Linux OS. Linux is far more flexible in terms of the modifications that individual users or IT departments can implement in order to meet certain specifications. It may be challenging for users without the necessary experience, but the presence of an IT staff can help streamline the end-user experience, allowing a company to gain the malleability it needs while retaining ease of use for its employees.
In this regard, Linux would probably be the better choice. Our company focuses on working within the context of a heavy database environment. Although Windows OS offers accessibility and control that would allow for running databases, it lacks some of the higher-level control functionality present in Linux OS systems. Linux is much more easily adapted to individual company needs, and since we already have an in-house IT department, it would be possible to bridge the increased operational functionality with the ease of use required for the broader employee base.
Ritchie, Colin. (2003). Operating Systems Incorporating UNIX and Windows. Cengage Learning.
You’re 96% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.