The GUI which is the fastest of them all is the one which is an absolute no-frills environment.

"No-frills" defined:

• No wallpaper
• No animations
• Solid-colored application window borders
• No color gradients in title bars
• No anti-aliased fonts (i.e. font smoothing)
• No application window shadows
• No transparency/translucence
• Squared-off corners of application windows only (no curved corners)

Why would anybody want a no-frills GUI environment?

Here are a few reasons:

• Screen draws/redraws are near-instantaneous (fastest possible environment)
• You gain screen space because the borders are thin without shadows (you can fit more windows on your screen, gain more application space)
• It’s easier to read text in many instances
• Switching between tasks is faster
• Dragging windows is faster (border-only instead of full-window-copy as you move it)

There are more, but you get the idea.

  Microsoft’s Windows Vista and 7…

…can be configured to be no-frills but it takes some effort. Windows XP is in fact the last Windows OS that can go completely "bare", GUI-wise. Windows Vista and 7 cannot because there are some animations that absolutely cannot be turned off. If you go to the Optimize visual display (available by a search from the Windows logo), there is a checkbox that states verbatim:

Turn off all unnecessary animations (when possible)

It’s the "when possible" that irks me. That means it disables most but not all animations.

XP and previous editions of Windows on the other hand can be completely "de-animated". Even the startup animation can be disabled.

  Apple’s Mac OS X…

…has animations everywhere, some of which require the Terminal to disable. By default, things in OS X fade in/out, jump around ("bouncing" icons), slide, zoom in/out, tilt slightly("Stacks" feature), etc. You name it, it has it. I’m not saying this is a bad thing because it’s part of the whole Apple experience, but when it comes to disabling every animation in that OS, it can prove to be a chore.

   The UNIX/Linux desktop environment…

…is the only one where you can choose to be as glitzy or as Spartan as you wish.

In the glitz department, using Compiz can make a UNIX/Linux desktop disgustingly animated. You can have "wobbly" windows, "burning" minimize/maximize, a desktop that "rotates" using the prism-like Cube and so on.

However it’s the Spartan options that really make a UNIX/Linux desktop a lean mean machine.

Getting UNIX/Linux desktop to be Spartan but powerful in the GUI can be as easy as picking the right desktop environment. Once such example is Xfce. Another is fluxbox. Both of these are very lightweight by design and can be easily configured to be completely no-frills.

  Which is the fastest?

This is largely dependent on what hardware you have in your computer, but overall a lightweight UNIX/Linux environment still rules the roost as the fastest GUI you can use.

While it’s true that nothing can ever outrun the command line in terms of speed, the most diehard command line user still prefers a GUI multitasking environment – even if the GUI is nothing but terminal windows.

  Can you multitask with no GUI?

You could, if so desired, multitask from the command line in UNIX, being there is bg to send a running process to the background and fg to bring it back to the foreground. Jobs in UNIX are assigned numerical IDs so it’s not difficult to perform job control once you get used to it, should you dare to go with no GUI at all.

But in all honesty, using nothing but a CLI environment for multitasking is a bit time consuming because you don’t see your tasks in front of you as windows (as in application windows, not MS-Windows). If UNIX had a DESQview-like offering, that would be a lot more friendly and usable with multitasking in no-GUI land.

DESQview was arguably the best text-mode multitask environment usability-wise because you could whizz thru it like nobody’s business. Someone even said it was one of the 5 Best Operating Systems You Never Used. Yes, it really was that good.

At the behest of the PCMech LIVE audience (particularly Kyle), I downloaded the latest version of PC-BSD. This is not a Linux distribution. As the title of the OS says in plain view, it’s a BSD based UNIX. In this instance, FreeBSD based.

Obviously UNIX can work on the desktop. Ask any Mac OS X user. But I digress.

PC-BSD is a rather large operating system. The 32-bit flavor requires at least two CDs (and optionally a third), or one DVD. 64-bit flavor is DVD only. While it’s true you could use "boot-only" versions, most people would opt for the full OS.

PC-BSD also requires a fair amount of computing horsepower just to run it. The recommended system requirements in its own documentation suggest a Pentium 4 or higher with 512MB RAM, 12GB free hard drive space, network card, sound card and 3D accelerated NVIDIA or Intel video card.

For those interested in the bare minimum, those requirements are a Pentium II, 256MB RAM and 6GB free hard drive space, network card and sound card. But I wouldn’t recommend anybody with system specs that low to run PC-BSD.

The installation procedure was painless. It’s no more difficult or easy than installing just about any Linux distribution.

The default desktop environment is KDE. In Linux/UNIX circles concerning the desktop you’re either a GNOME or KDE type of user (or a super-lightweight environment like Fluxbox). I personally prefer GNOME, but I’m not turned off by the way KDE does things; it’s just a different type of environment compared to GNOME.

Getting apps for PC-BSD can be accomplished by going to www.pbidir.com. On the default desktop this is labeled as "Download PBIs", like this:

You will notice up front that the apps available for PC-BSD are not as extensive as what’s in the file repositories for Linux distributions. This does not make UNIX a bad choice for a desktop OS, but it is important to know that you won’t have access to as many applications.

You will notice that while the apps are less to choose from, what’s available for PC-BSD is what matters more to the people that use it. Moreover, all the apps work and usually have commentary next to each from PC-BSD users expressing any thoughts or concerns about it (this information is valuable, believe me.)

PBI files act similar to EXE files in the Windows environment in the respect you just download one file, run that one file and it installs the app.

For example, I downloaded the Firefox web browser from pbidir.com. On first run, I got prompted for my user password (typical in UNIX/Linux environment), and then this is what I see:

What can I say? Cool! This is easy. Download one file, run it, install the app. No .tar.gz files to deal with. No repository crapola. No compiling necessary. Download and go. It’s all automatic. Very nice.

When done, it tells you what menu entry it made (Ubuntu doesn’t do that).

The KDE environment is easy enough to use. In fact there’s something in it that was removed from Windows:

Note the little "2". That tells you how many instances of an app is running. This is in Windows XP. It is not in Vista or Windows 7 RC. It’s little things like this that make for a convenient desktop environment. Every desktop environment on every OS should have this, period.

The best part about PC-BSD is actually its manual. This is one of the best-written guides I’ve seen for an operating system – any operating system. It explains in very plain English how to do things, both what you can and moreover cannot do. This is truly a user’s manual, not that "thing written by a programmer that’s impossible to understand."

A UNIX manual that’s actually helpful? Yeah, I didn’t believe it either until I read PC-BSD’s.

A good example is section 6.2.1 Folder hierarchy. The guide actually tells you what every directory PC-BSD uses actually means in simple easy terms.

Now I will admit the guide isn’t 100% complete, but I’d say it’s at least 98% of the way there. Fortunately all the important stuff you’d need to know is written in detail.

Are there any major differences between Linux and UNIX on the desktop?

The keyword part of the question above is "on the desktop".

On the desktop, you’re not really going to see any major drastic differences from a Linux distribution to UNIX.

But as for the "guts" of the OS, that’s where you encounter things that happen differently.

You will notice that the way FreeBSD/PC-BSD handles things is a bit (gasp) Windows-ish. But I don’t consider that a bad thing. For example, the Services Manager (see section 12.2 of the PC-BSD guide). This is essentially the same as Services in Windows in the way it acts. Pick a service, start it, stop it, restart it, enable/disable startup, do whatever. It’s easy.

In fact, you will notice that the way BSD does things overall just seems to make more sense. And I’m not even referring to the Windows-like stuff here. Things in the OS are done in such a way where you say, "Wow, I can understand this. This is useful to me."

See for yourself at http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/ and you decide. In all seriousness, it truly is an easy read.

Interested in running a UNIX home server that acts like a desktop?

I can say with certainty that PC-BSD would definitely fit the bill if that’s what you’re looking for. The installation asks up front whether you want to have a desktop or server type system in a friendly way. Most of you interested in UNIX would probably want to use it for server duty.

Even though PC-BSD is a friendly UNIX, bear in mind it does not have as many applications available compared to popular Linux distributions. It also does not come with codecs for playing DVDs or anything else that would require special licensing. Yes, you could configure it to do so if determined enough, but it does require some effort to get it to work.

If you want the frills, goodies and more apps, you’re better off with a Linux distribution.

But for rock-solid FreeBSD UNIX reliability in a friendly desktop environment, it’s tough to beat PC-BSD.

I especially recommend PC-BSD to those who tried a BSD before and absolutely hated it. This time around I’m sure you’ll like it a whole lot better.

Would you consider running UNIX over Linux?

Or are you running a BSD based UNIX now? Let us know in the comments what you think.