Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Linux or Windows Easier To Install?

Posted by timothy on from the click-click-click dept.

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."

5 of 784 comments (clear)

  1. Technically... by taernim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?!"
  2. System Restore by bobgoatcheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Faulty Comparison by numark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. A better test by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Wrong Comparison by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Windows 2000 Pro and Redhat 7.3? What kind of rigged game is this?

    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