Slashdot Mirror
Is Linux or Windows Easier To Install?
Mark Cappel writes: "Joe Barr, a LinuxWorld.com columnist, compares Linux and Windows installations. He expected Windows to be faster and easier since Microsoft has been at it for 21 years. (DOS 1.0 was released 21 years ago today.) It turns out Red Hat is quicker and less manually intensive."
then shouldn't the article be comparing RedHat and Windows installs?
If he is only testing with Redhat, it seems unfair to lump all of those installs as "faster" than Windows, based on the performance of only one type.
Just something to think about.
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
Does anyone else think this review would have been more fair if he had used a retail win2k pro disc instead of using the Sony system restore cd's?
How's my typing? Call 1-800-eta-shut
This doesn't work as a test to compare the two. The windows install was from a recovery cd provided by Sony. There is no configuration involved in this as it is all done ahead of time. Next time install windows 2000 from scratch.
Most people who are using Windows didn't install their OS, it came on their machine when they bought it. So practically, when someone buys a PC, they spend no time installing their OS. Just a thought.
Th
This is a comparison of installing windows and linux. It seems to me that it looks like it's comparing a sony operation system restore and linux. The REAL win2k install (without things like mcaffee) only takes (if memory serves) 3 reboots also and no cd swaps. In my opinion, this is not a very professional article/study/benchmark and should be taken with a grain of salt.
This test has one serious fault in it that I can see. The tester didn't use a stock W2K disk on a clean system, he used a Sony restore disk, which is a lot different than what Windows 2000 would normally be installed as. A lot of that time installing Windows could be attributed to the restore disk installing all of the myriad programs that come with new computers
Sure, I truly believe that Linux can come out on top with new installs. But do we really need to bias test results in our favor, and then expect corporate users to take us seriously? If Linux users want to show the superiority of the OS, they need to present fair, unbiased tests that are indicative of real-life situations, instead of twisting tests around in subtle ways.
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
I'm a Lunix-loving looser (tm Trolls, Inc.), but I think this could in no way be called a proper test.
A better test:
2 identical stock computers, fairly recent but not top-of-the-line hardware
1 copy of Windows XP
1 copy of the latest version of Red Hat, Mandrake, or other selected distribution
2 clueless users
2 clueful users
1 administrator to wipe the machines after each test
1 instruction manual per OS
No gurus
4 runs - one with the cluebies doing Windows, one with Linux, and one of each with the clued-in pair.
Neither user can help the other; both are isolated
We know Joe's a Linux advocate. Let's have a real test.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Linux for the most part became easier to install then windows with Corel linux years ago. That is like 5% of the end user experience when talking about OS's. Its after the install which is really the only part that matters.
BTW he's lucky he didn't have a Orinoco wireless NIC because with RH 7.3 it can be a real PITA. That alone would have put a damper on his "review". Don't get me wrong I'm a longtime Redhat booster, but it just goes to show how subjective a review on "OS installs" can get depending on hardware.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
And if you do that install with win2k pro on a modern system it takes nearly a whole 20 minutes. (40 if you need to reformat the drive)(60 if you need to hunt down drivers, which most people won't)
IMO it's patently simple to install win2k or RedHat these days, and is a non-issue.
I'm sure the Slashdot groupies would get a laugh if Microsoft compared Windows XP to Redhat 6.0.
This is like comparing a 1.5 ghz Athlon and a 1.5 GHZ Pentium 4. You don't... There's no point. Stop comparing apples and oranges people.
Flamebait, maybe. So what, reply. Prove me wrong.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Honestly, it is easy possible to find configurations where I can prove either view. In general, it is still a pain to get all hardware supported and configuered under linux; wlan, firewire, cameras and high-end audio devices are just a few examples I usually spend days to make them work properly.
p.
Without order, nothing can exist. Without chaos, nothing can be created.
Is not which OS installs faster, but which OS installs with less exploitable services off a fresh install.
I agree totally..
I re-installed WinME on my pc the other day as well as Mandrake 8.2 on a seperate partition (new hard drive for those wondering why I was re-installing..) anyway for windows i had to do the following...
1. Install ME (with numerous reboots...)
2. Install VIA motherboard drivers
3. Install SBlive drivers
4. Install EPSON 740 drivers
5. Install NVIDIA drivers
6. Install Realtek 8139 drivers
7. Install Office
with mandrake and using most of the default options I only had to do the following..
1. Install Mandrake
2. Install NVIDIA RPM's
everything else was installed for me (Printer drivers,Network modules,sound modules,openoffice)
can it be much easier than that? Even my girlfriend could install Mandrake!.
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
assuming the card has a driver for Linux
Yes, and if it doesn't, tell me that most users won't turn tht Linux disk into a coaster.
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
Does anyone else thing this comparison is unfair? First off, to properly judge which is easier to install, you should use a copy of each OS that you baught at Best Buy. Also, they should have a non-tech do the install of both in a single boot configuration. I also found the 'Box Score' missing a few feilds such as explaination of choices, and number of options.
... vendors install it for you!
I don't care how "easy" Linux ever is, 90% of people will never, ever install it. Unless more vendors start offering it pre-installed (hooray for Wal-Mart), Linux will never be adopted by any sizable percentage of desktops.
The whole conversation about "ease of installation" is completely wrong-minded.
I agree too, but you must remember one thing. All of those components go into making a stable, secure, and reliable Windows installation. Windows is *not done* when you pop the disk in, set up time zones and users, and run. Great care must be taken to get the system ready to go, and install all of your other apps. Drivers are almost *never* current on a vanilla Windows installation. Viruses are going to be a big threat, so you have to nail that one down. A firewall is essential (not the XP firewall, either).
In most respects, a modern Linux distribution will do all of that for you the first time. Red Hat has a bit more stuff than most distributions, but it really is quite less than what you find on a "recovery CD" when you do a standard Red Hat install. Slackware is great for me. Though it takes a bit of know-how to partition your HDs, and get the X server configured, it can still be faster and easier to do, if you are an experienced user.
After that, you can probably install something like Slack in a half hour - 45 minutes. It takes about 15 minutes to configure the video, sound, and a few other things. I can't say that I was ever able to install Windows 2000, download drivers, install and tweak them in that amount of time.
There isn't anything wrong with Windows 2000... It is good software in most respects. But the old arguments about Linux being to combersome, and slow/difficult install processes are over. Something like Lycoris makes it even easier, if you can believe that.
Ask yourself if this is a symptom of "bloat": the Mandrake Linux installation requires 1 boot floppy. The Windows 2000 installation requires 4 boot floppies!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I'm sorry, I must have been in a coma during the K5-486 merge. Or maybe the K5 was a 586 clone... hmmmm.... I agree, and I am a hardcore Unix bigot, but there is a big difference between the 486 mentioned above, the supporting chipset glue running alongside it, and the AMD K5 architecture.
.99, but it has always been a hacker swiss army knife more than a usable OS for the masses. Which should be cool with the folks that read this board, do you really want the same OS your grandparents use? I think we need to spend less time trying to convince the computer unsavvy to use Linux and more time making Linux work with the M$ crap. And of course, there is OS X. I'm sure that if any of us could afford that hardware we would burn all of these PCs in a pile. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself here.
On the other hand (I think there is automatic modding down of Linux bashing), RedHat is VERY easy to install now, but when my mother calls with a printer problem on her Windows XP box it is a little easier to troubleshoot than Linux. I have been using Linux since pre
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
The bias is pretty obvious, and having installed Windows XP and Red Hat both, I'd have to say that the actual install of XP was, in the end, simpler.
Of course, Linux is (at least right now) not designed for the level of ease-of-use that XP was...Microsoft basically 'dumbed down' Win2K. (How else would you explain the Fisher-Price color scheme?)
That said, Linux still has potential...but we're our own worst enemy as acceptance goes. The more we insist on being able to tinker with each and every nuance, the more intimidating Linux becomes to the computer newbie.
(And let's not even get started on the Linux zealots.)
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
Well, one of Linux's biggest benefits (and downfalls) is being so modular, to a sense of having all distributions compatible (at least 99% compatible). There will always be those "geeky" distributions, and those easier distributions, I think.
When you "Linux is (at least right now) not designed for the level of ease-of-use that XP was" I have to disagree in many respects. Saying "Linux" when explaining this is being a little too broad. Granted, installing software from CDs is easier in Windows, unless you use somethings like Lycoris's Iris , which makes it simple. Other than that, what is more difficult? I keep asking people these questions, and they always reply with comments about recompiling the kernel, permissions, etc... Things that aren't even an issue in many modern, desktop oriented distibutions. Doesn't that satisfy the basic needs of most casual computer users, that only use the web/email/word processor?
I tried installing the latest Debian release this last weekend.... took me the whole weekend, and 6 re-installs. The best I could get was running, but had some serious problems, such as: no networking installed, didn't recognize my mouse, couldn't run X because it didn't know how to work with my monitor, and top it off, it couldn't read the damn floppy drive.
So I downloaded the latest Mandrake... first shot, I got everything loaded that I wanted, and it took me less than an hour.
How does that compare to Windows? Who knows? I wouldn't touch that shit, but I would believe that Windows users experiences range anywhere between the two. Hell, my OS X installation was about as smooth as the Mandrake install.
- passion
After you install linux first-time-ever, you don't understand anything at all. You undertand only what's been mirrored from the windows experience. Ok, you can use an Office suite and some apps, but that's about it.
/windows/fonts folder.
You don't really understand anything not to mention that the names of the programs and utilities are really confusing. With Windows you need to know much less, because it's been specificaly tuned to easiness. It asumes you don't know skwat. Windows for a power user (system and tools, not apps power user) may be a little lacking. The security may be crap. But it's pretty straightforward. Linux can setup easily, but administrating it and customizing it is a pain. And if some distro makes a tas easier (ex: mandrake font importer) it's not because Linux is simpler, it's because there is a little tool to hide the underliyng complexity. And this is different than just droping some fonts in a
I would install Linux for a newby that wants to try it, but I don't expect him to know how to use Linux. I only expect him to fire up some apps and close them when done. He couldn't do anything else without learning quite a bit.
I am not mentioning compiling stuff, putting things in the right places (correct prefix when needed), lddng, recompiling a kernel if he's using some hardware that wasn't supprted earlier.
It can be made easier, but it's NOT easy, you can only hide it. Windows on the other hand always asume the user will know nothing, and all installers (not just windows) inherit that view.
unfinished: (adj.)