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."
That comparison is in no way fair...they should have to take out the 10 times windows makes you reboot
Sounds like a source for unbiased reporting in all facets of the computing world.
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
Finally, the remaining three critical updates could all be installed together: two security updates for IE 5.5 and one for the Windows Media player. Oh man, I never plan on upgrading windows media player. I don't want to give someone permission to root my box!
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
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.
With XP, you only have to enter a couple things, namely, the cdkey, your user name, and click what kind of network you are on.
I havn't installed redhat since 7.0, but I doubt its gotten easier than that. I mean come on.... Windows is built to be easy. Linux is not.
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
Linux installation wins over Win2k in Linuxworld.com? What a shocker! This article is biased within the first 3 paragraphs stating twice in a condescending way how MS makes you read and sign the EULA in the beginning of the installation. Big deal, Microsoft wants you to know what you're getting yourself into. Also, what does clicking "I accept" in the beginning have anything to do with ease of installation?
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
easier to install than any version of Windows I have ever installed! I mean BY FAR! Not trying to be a troll, I'm serious.
Windows makes you reboot two or three times. RH doesn't (only once at the end, then you boot into a ready-to-go system).
Windows often doesn't install drivers for video/sound cards, or even Ethernet cards. But assuming the card has a driver for Linux, RH has always set it up for me during the install, no problem.
Software -- with a fresh RH installation, you already have most of the software you need, ready to go. Office suite, e-mail programs, servers, plenty of games (far more than come with Windows).
The ONLY particularly difficult part of installing RH is the partitioning, and even that is getting easier with each version.
(not flamebait)
Regardless of your point of view, Joe L User just wants to get online, and its a lot quicker to get (for example) ATT's dial-up software running and Joe L User online to buy little sutffed piggies from ebay. Why is this study even done?
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.
Having reinstalled Windows many times, I know what makes it better for me: automatic hardware detection. Most of the right drivers and all that gets me up and running fast. It can be pretty easy to create an unattended installation as well.
I can not speak for RedHat because I have never installed it. but i have done solaris a couple times and have to say that UNIX installs are, or, *SEEMS*, a lot easier for people who are familiar with terminologies like "root", "/opt", and somesuch. Or at least not as frightening.
I just want to say that "easy" is a very subjective idea, and any results need to be taken with a grain of salt. I would not be surprised if a MCSE find UNIX / LINUX installs very difficult, not because it's difficult per-se, but rather simply the scared and don't know what's comming mentality
My life in the land of the rising sun.
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.
That stunt really weakened my opinion of the article. I would really hesitate to use it as evidence in favor of the ease of installation of Red Hat.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
First of all, windows2000 is not 3 cd's, it is one. This was not a real install of win2000. This was a use of a propreitary 'recovery tool' supplied by sony. The ads and cd swapping do not occur when you use a fresh install of windows.
Lets show you what a windows install is REALLY like.
When I installed winXP corporate edition, here's what happened: I inserted the cd, set up the bios to boot off cd. Once the install window appeared, I had complete mouse support with my usb mouse, choose to do a typical install, waited about an hour for it to complete, let the pc reboot a couple of times, put in my serial number, and that was it. I had complete video, sound, and net support. I upgraded my video drivers, and ran windows update, and that was it. Total install time: about 1 hour 15 minutes.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
SuSE has to be one of the easiest installs out there. But I've been using linux since 95 so it's kind of like seeing the forest if your the tree. I don't really expect an impartial article from a linuxworld writer. To be fair I wouldn't expect one from something like PC magazine either, since they appear to be bought off most of the time.
"It has always been this way and it won't change, god bless the fucked up USA" The Briefs
As someone who installs RedHat on a regular basis since the 4.2 days, I much prefer the RedHat install. It is easy and fast.
Windows 2k seem to take forever to install, even on a fast machine. I can do a similarly sized (in data) RedHat install in much less than half the time it takes for Windows 2000.
I dread installinf Windows 2000.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Reading the text, it turns out that the author actually found Red Hat supperior pretty much across the board. So much for summaries.
While I'm on the topic, I'd like to see a comparission with Windows XP, I just did four installations of XP and one of OpenBSD. All five were flawless and worked perfectly first time. All completed within minutes of each other and required only minimal interaction on my part.
My opinion is that Microsoft has improved their installation process many orders of magnitude over the last few years, about time, eh? However, I still find the *nix to be far more secure out of the box and much easier to keep that way.
Summary: biggest Objection to Windows -- License!
Later . . . . . . WebBug
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
How about a Linux vs. Windows vs. MacOS X installation three-way bout?
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
This wasn't a comparison of a Windows2000 to Red Hat install, it was a Red Hat vs. Sony System and Application Recovery CD set install, which is a completely different process. The standard Windows 2000 install is MUCH easier than this, and requires a total of two reboots, with no disc swapping.
Why compare with Windows? The interesting thing about Windows is how long it takes to erase.
Find free books.
...a similar comparison using both a novice Linux user and a novice Windows 2K user and see the results. I'd be more prone to believe their experiences compared to just one person who probably has experience in both.
:)
I use both, but deal with Windows as my job on a daily basis. If I have an issue with Windows I know how to clear it up quickly, if I have an issue with Linux I know I'm off on the Google Trail. This doesn't make Linux bad, it's only a matter of experience in the field.
I'd also like to see the novice Wiindows users expression when trying to choose packages to install on the web site.
Put the XP CD in, boot. fix the partitions, start it, let the stuff run until it says "I'll reboot your computer now", make sure it doesn't boot the CD this time, w8, enter name, w8, enter timezone/language etc, w8, enter IP(etc) or choose dhcp. w8, log in.
What is the problem? I can't run the redhat install for you since I haven't installed redhat for a very long time (and I won't do it again unless someone pays me for it), but I am quite sure it is very much similar. Heck, the Gentoo manual install isn't even tricky if you read the instructions. Heck, it is even REAL easy.
Comparing install proceedures doesn't say much at all (even less if the OS is pre-installed). I don't know about you, but the time I spend installing OSes is wastly much less than the time I spend using computers. Comparing everyday usage in an objective way would have been much more interesting for sure.
Windows is by far easier to install than Linux.
One of the prime examples is X11... which is almost always a total bastard to configure for newbies.
Sorry, but Linux is far more complicated and tricky to install than Windows.
PS: IMO Linux will never be a decent desktop untill X11 is replaced with something far better.
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.
This article has no point to it. Its not a real installation of Windows in the first place, its a proprietary OEM install.
The real comparison should be the ease and ability of the end user to Install AND CONFIGURE the system.
Plus by his logic, you should go back to the original Unix on the PDP to count when the first *nix install was done (as if installing DOS vs W2K have even the slightest thing in common). A truely terrible article.
I'm not very much surprised by this at all. About two months ago I installed Windows 2000 and Mandrake Linux on my brother's laptop, the Linux installation was rediculously easy while the Windows 2000 was a pain because (1) it took longer and (2) I had to download a couple of drivers (Linux worked fine!). Also once I had Windows installed I had to run Windows update like 8 times and restart like 3 before I was even REALLY done.
I know the Mandrake installer now is much easier than most the distributions, but I believe that other distributions will be similarly easy soon. I know that the Debian installer is/was supposed to get a revamp so that it would be way easier, which is good because Debian is sexy.
However, an easier installer doesn't mean much because hardly any of the regular computer users of the world actually installed their OS. If Linux really wants to crack into "the regular user" (does it?) what really needs to happen is they need to infiltrate the companies selling ready-to-run systems.
The reason most people think installing Linux is harder is because they make it harder. Most people starting with Linux have used Windows first, and therefore want to dual boot, which requires repartitioning and other fun stuff. Now, if you were going to Windows from Linux and wanted to do this, you would have the same problem.
Is not which OS installs faster, but which OS installs with less exploitable services off a fresh install.
I dislike MS as much as anyone else, but come on! This installation competition thing is like comparing apples to BMWs...
First off, a Linux newbie would have absolutely NO clue about half of the stuff Mr. Barr did for the Red Hat installation. Clearly Mr. Barr is a seasoned Linux guy and can breeze through partitioning, network configuration, boot manager selection, package selection, etc. Try any of that on a Linux newbie ("...What's DHCP? And what the hell is this GRUB thing it's asking me about? I'm calling tech support...").
I agree that the Windows installation is slow, has too many reboots, and is not fool-proof as far as hardware detection goes. However, the installation of all Windows products except for the so called "enterprise" editions is set up for people who don't know all that much about hardware. The old 80-20 rule kicks in here: if 80% of the folks are covered by the installation, that can justify the remaining 20% who need hand holding. I still have not encountered a Linux installation that does not assume prior knowledge of technical acronyms, Linux-isms, and common package names (how many new Linux users do you think have any clue that Samba offers Windows network connectivity? How many Linux installations present Samba as a "Windows networking" option and not as "Samba"? None that I know of, that's how many).
As a pro-Linux, pro-BSD, pro-open-source guy, I'm giving this comparison two thumbs down. Sorry, Joe...
Is Linux or the Sony Vaio System Restore easier to install?
Both pale in comparison to the ease of installing BeOS (back in the day). First, a nice graphical menu allowed you to partition your disk, or simply choose the whole disk as the target. Then, a simple list allowed you to install the base system, the examples, and the japaneese support pack. After that, it was a single reboot, then one quick trip to the preferences menu to set up your display resolution and network IP. Everything else was autodetected.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
anyone reading this who is a journalist, the lesson is:
objectivity is for lame-os.
write from your own point of view! people like it, your articles will become more popular -- you will become more popular!
it's the american way!
go get it
Then it was Red Hat's turn. I inserted the first installation CD and rebooted Windows. I chose to manually partition the disk using fdisk. First, I deleted the partition I had originally created for Linux. Then I created a 256-megabyte swap partition and gave the rest of the drive to Red Hat, choosing the ext3 journaling filesystem.
Ok ok, let's stop right here at the first paragraph. So, he already had his drive partitioned from a previous install (meaning he didn't have to mess with fips, partition magic, etc.) and he used fdisk to partition. And exactly how is this easier than a Windows install?
Granted, I've used Linux for years, and fdisk isn't difficult for me to use, but having to use fdisk raises the difficulty of an install considerably. I know that RedHat doesn't require the use of fdisk in their install, but this reviewer should have known better.
I make it a point to try out the various latest Linux installations on a spare machine here just to see how far they've come, and when one compares Redhat to something like SuSE or Mandrake, it still lags behind. RedHat is competing in the Windows NT/2k/XP Workstation/Server market, and isn't apparently too interested in the home desktop market, and their installer reflects this. There are still many questions asked throughout a Redhat install that would require some sort of background in Linux to answer.
Something like SuSE's install would work better for such a comparison, as it best combines ease of use with configurability. The SuSE install tries to autodetect and autoconfigure everything the best it can, and then presents you with a summary of everything it has done, along with the option to change anything if you want to. The new Linux user would probably just click the "Next" and accept these defaults, while the experienced Linux user still has the option to change anything he wants.
Windows is a fairly quick install, which makes those yearly re-installs a breeze!
And I see that MS-DOS 1.0 is 21 years old. Let's take DOS out to a bar and get it drunk, watch it stagger home and puke in the bushes.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Why, back in my day, we were PROUD of how hard our OS was to install. "It took me 83 floppies and three whole days, catching catnaps on the floor," we'd say. 'Course, in those days, we didn't have any fancy damn GUIs. We had to build our own interface to connect through the serial port, using nothing but chewing gum and twine that we found while rummaging through our co-workers' desks. Why, I once installed the OS on a PDP-11 by licking my finger and feeling the shocks through the serial line. I had an onion tied to my belt, as was the style at the time.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
While I don't disagree with the findings, the author lacks objectivity and is clearly biased.
"Friends shouldn't help friends run Windows".
Had this been a proper test rather than an opinion piece he would have tested the installation process using different methods (CD, network etc) and left out the rhetoric. If he had wanted effect from this article it should have been published in a main stream PC publication and he should have kept his opinions to himself.
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
2 or 3 reboots to install (from scratch MSDN disks). It takes about 3 hours to get all the patches so your computer doesn't get rooted and give someone a backdoor to all your corporate info. I got them to let me setup a demo box running RedHat 7.3 and it's been working flawlessly. Our CIO (new hire) comes down tomorrow to check out our systems. I cannot wait to see the look on his face, our office is a piece of sheit.
Now at my personal company I run Linux on all the servers and run Windows XP (Games), OS X (& 9), Linux, Solaris (which is the most confusing in my opinion), Win95 (for my ancient dos games) and FreeBSD (Qmail server). I've found OS X to be my favorite GUI by far and once more games start migrating to the Mac I may be able to kill the Windows altogether (doubtful unless the IBM PowerPC is real and not hype).
Both Linux and Windows (simplifying names) are pretty easy to install and the "masses" do not care about this. They care about the apps and familiarity.
OK the only way Redhat is easier than windows is if you select the defaut easy install that will autopartition etc. Then you end up with 500 different text based email programs, sendmail, etc, etc. Whenever I have to upgrade a server (I don't do it that often) it is a six to ten hour job. Something always goes wrong. The red hat installer is ugly too. I am no windows fan bit my dad (60+) can install windows, but the is no way he could perform a redhat install.
This is one of my biggest complaints with linux. Until you take it away form the tech boys (I'm one so shut up) and let some real usability interface experts work on it. Forget it. It will be nothing but a lab and server OS. Quit fooling yourself that you have any chance of even beating the mac on the desktop.
Users don't install Windows.
It comes installed on their computers.
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
That column was BS. First, as has been pointed out, that was not a true windows install - it was some propiatory backup system that probably has numerous checks to make sure that its not running on a non sony system, etc. Secondly, I started off as a windows user myself, and still use it for most of my time. Linux Mandrake/Redhat installations have become a lot easier, but compared to windows, they still require a bit of knowledge about your PC. What was the real point of this article? How often does one really install systems? It's the day to day usage that counts. The number of minutes it took to install have next to nil importance in the long run.
Are the Linux installers (at least Red Hat, hopefully others,) getting better at this? I noticed when I tried both Virtual Linux and Demo Linux recently that neither spotted my very typical dLink network card, and they even had trouble with my Nvidia GeForce3 based Video card. I expect Barr knew off of this information for his Linux install, but to be fair, if the install needs the human to look this information up and feed it in, then any time spent resolving these questions for Linux should be factored into the measurement.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I just did a full installation starting with a single CD. To get the rest of the files I had to download from a cable-modem and install the packages.
Time from initial boot to final GUI (wdm) based login: 60 minutes.
And this is done on a Pentium MMX PC!!!
If you want speed and simplicity, Debian.
This is not a good idea for a comparison. First of all, as someone before me said, (Score: 0, Redundant) this should be a comparison of Red Hat Linux and Windows, not Linux and Windows. I could go out, get a 1-disk-distro, and have it installed in 10 seconds. Secondly, and more importantly, a windows intstall works with nearly all hardware you could have in your computer. A Red Hat install, fantastic as it is (I run rh7.2/w2kpro/fbsd4.3rc) Red Hat's hardware support is still behind windows. Even when hardware IS supported, there is a distinct possibility that it won't get set up correctly in the install, and if this is a fair test, you would have to include the time spent setting it up afterwards. Thirdly, your average windows user is not going to be able to just click on through a Red Hat install and get it right. Fine, they may, technically speaking (in the same vein of technical-truth as those people who, in response to being told that your favorite color is black, tell you "black isn't a color, it's a shade") have the install completed in less time than a windows install, but there will most likely be post-install config that must be done. This is not usually required in a windows install. If you ask me, the text-based sound install that Red Hat has would most likely slow your average windows user down. I think this is just a bad idea for a comparison, Windows and Linux are different beasts (at least in their current form) and should not be compared in this way.
This last week I installed Debian for the first time. I'd heard really bad stories about it and was expecting it to be difficult. I was very happy with the install. The only thing that made it difficult were:
1.) the sheer number of ways to install (CD, Floppy, NFS, FTP..). The documentation isn't terribly clear on separating each method.
and
2.) It didn't autodetect my network cards. No big deal since it let me select the modules for them.
All and all, I thought it was one of the easier installs I'd had on Linux.
Now installing OS/2 Warp v3.0, that was difficult...
i hate when people take "notes" about dumb activities such as installing OSes and pass them off as "reviews" on sites run my morons! hey, you know what, i installed linux on my girlfriend's mom's sister's computer and now, i am the all knowledgeable person qualified to make judgements. whatsever happened to reviews done by those who know?
Nonsense.
If you're using the UPGRADE version of windows, sure, you'll need the CD, but often it allows you just insert the previous version of windows, and continue installtion. Also, windows update is an incredibly usefull resource. You let it scan your PC, and you download all the patches in a bundle, with no user intervention needed.
I'm not sure how smart the installers are in W2K or XP but if you hold down the shift key while selecting reboot from the start menu, the system doesn't reboot, only windows does. The fact that you don't go back to the bios, check memory, check removable media, and all that other stuff cuts down the time spent on those 20 reboots.
This is one of these "memory hole" things. I seem to be the only person on the planet that remembers that in the waning days of Windows NT 3.51, one of the promises Microsoft made for Windows NT 4 was that it would almost never be necessary to reboot in order to install new software. I believe they said this was one of their major goals.
I've tried to find documentary evidence of this claim, but haven't succeeded so far (so who knows, maybe I'm just wrong?)
What I'd really like to see is a shootout between the UNINSTALL procedures on these two platforms. Windows Uninstalls are a joke. I would say the percentage of times an Uninstall simply a) run to completion without b) saying "Some components could not be uninstalled, you must delete the manually" or c) asking ME to tell WINDOWS whether some QQXXZZ314.DLL is needed by any program anywhere is about, and d) leaves the machine in a state where there are NOT obvious chunks of the software still embedded in the system, is about 5%.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
He states right from the start that he was installing from Sony's VAIO recovery discs... 3 CDs according to the article... Basically a custom set that (apparently) includes Microsoft's setup package as part of the autoboot sequence...
However, even Windows XP takes up ONE CD on its own...
Maybe if he tried installing a base Windows OS instead of the kludged and bloated installation CDs that came with the computer, it would have installed faster?
He is, essentially, damnning an OS because of how an OEM repackaged it, NOT because of how it came from Microsoft...
Linux users using FUD? Whodathunkit!
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
The fact of the matter is that most people who install Windows will have an experience similar to what was just described. When you buy a computer pre-installed with Windows now you get these recovery CD's and all of them work very similarly to what was just described here. It is accurate to compare what most people will have to deal with in both cases.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
setting up winmodems are especially a pain in linux, especially if you have no easy access to other networked computers. you need to first research (online) which linmodem you need, then download it, and set it up.
then since basically all isp's don't "support" unix machines need to fiddle with that. (not too hard if you've done it before, but not always trivial either)
not somethign the typical joe wants to do.
on an ethernet network, i'll believe the claim that most big linux distro's are faster and as easy to set up as windows. (also; once set up, unix is so stable, you won't need to mess with it again until you upgrade.)
It would be a nice idea if somebody put together a CD with as many linmodem drivers and documentation, some helpful how to's, and maybe the latest version of mozilla, etc. for those of us who still use dial up at home.
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.
Linux has become easier to install over the last 3 years I've been playing with it, I'm not going to mention distro's because even though I've tested out many different ones I dont' want to start a disto war...Windows has become harder to install.
The thing I like most about installing linux is that I can install all the software I want while I'm installing it I find myself done within around an hour at the longest.
With windows, I find myself getting it installed in about 45 minutes, then I still have to install the drivers, and software...5-6 hours later I might be done. But then again we wouldn't want Microsoft to provide all the software we use with windows now would we?
You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
"I chose to manually partition the disk using fdisk. First, I deleted the partition I had originally created for Linux. Then I created a 256-megabyte swap partition and gave the rest of the drive to Red Hat, choosing the ext3 journaling filesystem.
Red Hat asked a few more questions about the system than the Windows installation did, but the default selections were always satisfactory. I chose to use the GRUB boot manager, to place it on the MBR, and for the Linux to be the default. Next, I accepted DHCP as my network settings, medium security, and picked my time zone. The installation asked for a root password and then let me set up as many user accounts on the laptop as I needed."
I mean come on. Easier for him, maybe. To me one of the main components of "easier" is "can be installed by a less experienced user." I don't see the average grandma calmly partioning the disk by hand using fdisk.
- adam
Well, the majority of users Linux is trying to win, people like you seem to call them "new and confused"
what do you think most people will find easier...
* leaving their preinstalled window as it is
OR
* repartioning their disk and installed linux
???
-- Coops
zadok.org.uk
Here is the second one. Is today flame baiting contest on /.? :)
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
First, let me state that I run both Linux and Windows machines at home, each has it's use. So no flaming :P
This review is pure BS IMO. The reviewer installed an OEM version of Win2K using recovery disks. In my experience, installing from recovery disks take alot longer than installing from an original Windows CD. Even if you have to download specific drivers for a laptop, it's still faster than using an OEM recovery disk.
The pop-up advertisements are obviously part of the OEM recovery disk. They are not part of a standard Windows installation. So his complaining on that issue is moot.
Thirdly, he's comparing the newest RedHat version to a 3 yr old version of Windows. For a more fair review, he should have installed either WindowsXP and RedHat 7.3, or Windows2K and a 3 yr old version of Redhat (which is what, RH 6.1?).
Why not compare installing Solaris9 and Windows 3.1 and DOS? It was be just as fair as this piece of rubbish. If you're going to do a fair review, then do it right. Don't do it when it's so slanted it's not even funny.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
... 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.
Don't you know that if you want Windows 2000 Professional to boot fast, you have to use an answer file?
Click-through EULA's are anoying, but eh... don't bug me THAT much.>. All the windows popping up were because he used a recovery CD instead of a real 2k CD. Also, the default admin password was probably caused by the recovery CD (that, or he wasn't paying any attention whatsoever, which seems unlikely by the statistics on the page). Linux is superior when it comes to reboots, and load time, clearly, however, I believe the install process is much more difficult. I rarely run into a Win2k system where the default driver selections are not suitable. I have run into far more linux installations which required a great deal of customization to get working correctly. I really think Windows is the easier install. I think the author's combination of the wrong set of Windows CDs and good luck with RH just gave an illusion. But the reboots are anoying, and I don't like EULAs. And I'm a total Linux fan anyway. But I prefer Gentoo to RH.
I didn't see anyone else in this thread mention it, so I will: The test was run against W2k, not XP. I've installed both -- I have to say the process has been much streamlined in XP.
Why didn't he run the test with what a consumer would buy today?
As long as getting my Alcatel Speedtouch USB dsl modem to work requires a 10 step process that can only be found on the internet (that's right, the same internet I need the modem to connect to), Redhat installs are not easier than Windows installs.
Now, I appreciate that the drivers only being available online is the fault of alcatel, not Redhat, but my point is that there were 5 or 6 patches or pieces of software I had to download, and a long (and ultimately futile, but I'll take the blame for that) process I had to go through to get a USB modem to work. What was the advantage of USB again? Ease of installation? Not under Linux.
"Joe Barr, a LinuxWorld.com columnist," --- you don't think he might be a little prejudiced, do you? Strike One.
"...as I inserted the first of three Sony System Restore CDs supplied with the laptop" --- he then chooses some bizaare installation method to make things even more difficult. Strike Two.
"Then I set the time and time zone. Again, it rebooted to continue." -- bullshit. I've installed Windows 2000 on several computers and it doesn't reboot at this point. Strike 3. Yer Out!!!
This article is total bullshit. Windows 2000 only requires one CD, not the 3 (or is it 4?) that he claims in the story. Although I never timed Windows 2000 during the many installs I've done I can tell you that this guy is deliberately screwing around just to skew the results. For comparison, I recently installed Windows XP Pro -- 1 CD, 1 reboot, 18 minutes to install on a brand new clean hard drive.
It really doesn't matter how easy or how fast it takes one to install either operating system. The main issue is that many people will never ever install an operating system during their entire lives using a computer. In order to gain some ground, Linux needs to have a few _MAJOR_ computer manufacturers offer it pre-installed on desktop systems. Only then will we see an insurgence of Joe Sixpack Linux users.
pxgray
End of Post
You are at the end of the post. To the north lies the post.
There is a sig here.
I work for a small computer consultancy to whiteboxes. It takes me precicly 5 minuites of work to install windows. I put the CD in, the Floppy in and walk away. I come back 1 hour later and hit the enter key. Windows is installed.
It does take longer (to install windows + apps) if you consider that many more apps are installed when RH is installed. KDE, GNOME, kOffice, etc.
BUT the windows install is still simpler, no technical knowledge is needed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm a Debian fan through and through, but I have to admit that Win2K Pro is one of the most straightforward, best-designed OS installs I've ever encountered.
Shame on the aauthor of the article for trying to pass off some oddball vendor-specific version of the OS as an acceptable test case. And shame on Linuxworld for publishing this kind of badly-researched, biased FUD.
RedHat 7.3 is an almost brainless install. Very fast and very easy. The only problem is if you have hardware not supported by Linux. With RedHat 7.2 it was my Turtle Beach soundcard that didn't work. With RedHat7.3 it's my GeForce4 Ti 4400 that is not supported. X won't even start. It just dies.
.rc files hidden in obscure directories or any of that sillyness.
At this point Linux loses big time to Windows. Windows can boot to damned near any VGA compatible video card and let you install whatever drivers you need to get your video working. No dinking around with odd
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
What the hell are you talking about?
Sure, you have to install all of those peices of software if you only have upgrade cds laying around! Jesus....
I have a copy of Windows 98SE sitting here that is installable by itself, why would you need to install 95, then 98 in order to get 98SE installed?
As far as IE3, I haven't seen that since NT4 default install. (well, actually isn't that an even lower version? lol) Win98 uses a higher version of IE, and so does every other version of Windows.
I'm not a Windows advocate by a long shot, but lets try to be fair here. We're talking about installing Win2K, not going across the board with borrowed upgrade cds.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
...that poor old DRDOS 1.0 frequents. He was never the same after losing his day job; became an alcoholic, wife left him - he tried to delete himself but was unerased by his old friend GEM (who is now a homeless transient) ... I think he just may have a few things to say to DOS.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
We have the winner.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
I dislike M$ and Windows as much as the next guy, but this story is rediculous.
Mainly, he didn't use a Windows 2000 install CD. When I used 2k on my machine, I used 1 CD, the Win2k CD, and I had 1 driver CD to switch to.
I can go from no OS to Win2k in an hour. Updated and all.
I can also go from no OS to Debian 3.0r0 in 20 minutes.
All anti-M$ bias aside, I'd still be on (almost) any linux distribution to install faster than Win2k.
Jeremy Baumgartner
This review is completely meaningless. It appears that it is a review of a Sony Vaio restore CD vs. RedHat. WAY different than a 2k vs. Linux. 2k doesn't try to sell you virus software.
So, are they finally going to let Bill Gates have a drink? 21 shots perhaps?
***
Is my mouse Microsoft or Logitech? It just says Hewlett Packard on it, how am I supposed to know?
Root password? Who the heck is root and why should I let him on my computer?
Linux might be easier to install, but to get the thing working right is another matter. IMO, it's not enough to assume the user doesn't know something, you should assume that the user doesn't care and doesn't need to know, all the user wants is to get some work done.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
I think articles like this are pretty funny in a way. How often do you have to install or reinstall Linux if you're an average user? You know, the type who would use it just on their desktop? I've had the same Debian install for a long time now, and I feel no real need to do a reinstall. Maybe it's just that I don't rush out and buy a new computer every year or two that I need a reinstall, but seriously... once it's installed, it's installed. Granted, an easy install is important (and I'm eagerly awaiting the debian-install project to bear some great results) but the reality is that installs are such a small fraction of how a computer is used.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE allow moderators to moderate posts, not just the comments under them, so SOMEONE can score this article:
-1 REDUNDANT
Before you mark this down as a troll, try to answer this yourself... if various distros of linux allowed you to play tetris while you installed the OS 3 years ago, HOW, oh HOW is this news??
I won't install any of them until I can get my 1995-era monitor to give me a proper GUI display after I install them. I seem to have no problem getting 600x800 and 1024ish with all the Windows packages I have; even the RC's and 180-day betas; but I get no working screens (just a scrambly "you fried your monitor" output regardless of drivers, etc.)
Of course it will take less time to install RedHat if you are just installing the base OS with no extra RPMs, Apache, etc. It takes me far, far less time to install DOS 3.1 on 386 laptops used exclusively for radon gas monitor management than it does anything else.
I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
I'm surprised this guy didn't claim that doing battle with the Loch Ness Monster is also part of the Windows installation process. It would be just as accurate and believable as the rest of this steaming pile of deliberately skewed nonsense.
Instead of installing a standard retail copy of Win2000, he deliberately chose some bizaare, proprietary system restore process. *Of course* it took longer doing it that way -- but he knew that before he started.
Comeon people - isn't this article the worst piece of FUD you have ever seen. I remember a time when people would scream murder if M$ published anything that even remotely mamied linux.
The idea is: Publish real objective pieces. You never want to be the one badmouthing the competition - it lets on that you are actually threatened.
ie, lead by example.
For me, Windows 2000 Professional has been the easiest installation I've ever done--even easier than Windows XP.
My Linux adventure: Download RedHat ISOs. Burn RedHat ISOs. Install...core dump to a screen with a page of C++ code and some message about invalid memory allocation. Download Mandrake ISOs. Burn Mandrake ISO. Install Linux. Boot to KDE. Have no idea what to do next because I don't know where to put drivers, or even where to configure TCP/IP settings...so it ends here with a pretty GUI and built in apps but nothing else.
Windows 2000 Professional upgrading from 98SE was about as lengthy but ended up working properly. Install, CD-Key, convert to NTFS, reboot 3 times, start installing device drivers, then reinstall all my applications because over 2/3 of them stopped working when the new OS came. No data was lost.
A fresh 2K Pro install can go from blank hard drive to fully operational system (all hardware installed) in an hour MAX, with 3 "user intervention required" type prompts (locale settings, computer/domain name, CD-Key), and 3 reboots. Win2K detected my DHCP server automatically, grabbed an appropriate IP address, and I went to the Internet and downloaded the proper drivers. 2 reboots later, I was up and running with the latest Detenators, Creative drivers, etc.
Maybe he had wierd hardware, or lots of it, but a 2K Pro installation is hardly a stressful or time consuming experience.
WTF is an inline advertisement for Microsoft Visual Studio.NET doing in this article?
Is Slashdot really accepting sponsorship from the devil? Times must really be tough.
Or is there some kind of generic advertisement reseller who says "I'll pay you $nnnnn.nn to put ads from my sources on your site". Anyone know how this works?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
For me, installing windows is incredibly easy. It's the process I have to go through after the installation that is the harder part. With Linux, all the drivers are in one place, /usr/src/linux. But with windows I have to go through at least 4 or 5 cd's to pull all my drivers. And it seems these days with each driver I install I get a lot of fluff.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have installed both Win2k and RH 7.3, and RH required only three disks (all CDs), and Win2k required three floppies PLUS the CD, which makes FOUR disks required, and two separate drives. Both installations were from scratch--no OEM disks, on reformatted drives (meaning a totally clean install)
Additionally, Win2k refused to install recently via a CD-RW drive, which may, of course, be due to Win2K not recognizing the CD-RW.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
Or do what I do, use Norton Ghost to reinstall the OS. Just make a clean install the first time, Ghost it, and you can have a fresh install in under 20 minutes. Works like a charm. Even so, Windows installs are still easier on the casual user than Red Hat. Article was flamebait if you ask me.
Additionally, he used the newest version of RedHat against a two-year old version of Windows. Windows XP is considerably easier to install than Windows 2000 is. If Linux users want to be taken seriously they need to give up their straw-man arguments.
Wait until he has to install Red Hat on really old hardware. It hangs !!! Try IBM thinkpad (486) 750ce, old Toshiba T6600c (486) and some of the CompactPCI PII. SuSE was the only one that seem to install.
Hmm.... I have RH7.2 running on a K5 (Acer Advantage with a replacement CPU, 32 MB RAM, 1GB HDD). Sure it is stripped down but it runs just fine. I have also installed RH 7.1 and Conectiva 7.0 on an old Compaq DeskPro (P2) with no problems. I also have it running on an Armada and an Inspiron (both P2s).
I assume you are trying to install it graphically? Try the text-based install. When the graphical install runs into problems, I always use a text based install.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This all depends on which flavor of linux you install. Personally, I think it faster to install Windows than a Debian distro, at least before the new stable version was released (there-by producing new install disks). It normally took 2 or 3 ttries to get it right. But, that doesn't mean windows is better.. hehe. "True Knowledge Exists in Realizing Your Own Ignorance"
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing"
My problem is application installation with Red Hat. I dual boot Win2k and RH 7.3, and the biggest difference for me is installing programs. There is no handy GUI Winzip to easily unzip, no "click next" installation. I still believe that will be the one thing that holds Linux back from being the Windows killer.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Is it not microsoft that has 'unbiased' labs ship out cookie-cutter reports that thier products are better (in any sense) than anything remotely considered to be a competitor?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here....
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
A couple weeks ago I was trying to make the case about us needing to bring in Linux for evaluation in-house, and had an older HP Kayak that I did something similar on. I chose the Debian Floppy Boot and Network install option, and it seemed to go smoother than any Windows install I'd ever performed... until I got to the video.
.02 worth,
Folks, I've often been bothered by Windows requiring me to go from 640x480x256 default to something usable. But after the gyrations I had to go through to get an X server up and running, I have a lot more appreciation for Windows.
Now, does this kind of test really matter? No! Because if there's decent documentation (something I think the Linux community does need to work on) then you do this once, and the real question becomes usability and reliability.
Just my
Ewan
I got a zippy new Dell at work, and I decided to multi-boot between Win2k and Linux. Both are pretty simple, but the problem I had was with driver support. With Redhat 7.3, X had a problem with either my video card or LCD, and that wouldn't work at all. With Mandrake 8.2, X started fine, but it had issues with the USB mouse and the built-in Ethernet.
My point? Well, if I had a driver issue with Win2k (which I didn't, of course, because that's what Dell supports), I could just go to the manufacturer website and dl the driver and away we go. Or use Windows Update and have a pretty good shot at finding something there.
With Linux, it's a much more elaborate and vague search for help when you *do* run into a installation roadblock. That's not a rip on Linux - it does amazingly well in terms of hardware support all things considered. But for the latest and greatest hardware, installation can be a real drag.
get some bushman from zimbabwe who's never seen, let alone heard of a calculator (=computer) and get HIS opinion...that'll solve the debate :-)
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
My Mandrake install had three disks, and everything you need for an OS is on the first disk.
The other two disks are applications and games.
To me the the real difference is how often you need to reinstall. Over time windows systems aquire junk in the registry, and c:\windows\system and this junk slows the computer down. Often the only way to reclaim your computing speed is to reinstall windows. And the two hours that Joe Bar reported is nothing. That doesn't include the lost time for all the settings in your development environment and lost styles, in Word etc.
And it wasn't hard at all. All my hardware was recognized instantly and the only annoying thing was the ads for MSN.
I have never installed redhat but unless it has complete driver support I would never recommend it to a friend. Even the best games have trouble with different hardware configurations. I doubt with today's linux driver support that the average Joe would ever prefer a linux installation over XP.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention how nice it is to hear a comparison of Linux and Windows from linuxworld.com. Now if I could only ask Michael Dell's opinion for my next computer purchase?
If I was configuring a new system as a dual boot Windows/Linux machine, I sure as hell would use Windows 2K rather than XP, as would most of the people here.
If anyone is making a flawed comparason, it's you. Very few people have a reason to use RH 6, while plenty of us prefer 2000 to XP.
I say that we let my wife try to install each and see which takes her longer. That would more accurately show which is "easier."
"Oh, all I had to do was manually partition the disk using fdisk, create a 256-megabyte swap partition and give the rest of the drive to Red Hat, choosing the ext3 journaling filesystem, choose the GRUB boot manager, to place it on the MBR, and for the Linux to be the default and choose DHCP as my network settings?" Yeah, that sounds "Easy"
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
This comparison fails on so many levels. Ignoring that it was done by someone from linuxworld.com and not an independent, neutral, 3rd party, it's biggest failure is comparing a brand-spanking newest build of RedHat against a 2-year-old Win2k Pro. Are we *supposed* to be surprised that in 2 years there are more patches for win2k than there are for RH7.3? The Sony Vaio and McAfee popups have absolutely nothing to do with either OS, so their popups should be ignored on both OS's. Should MS be penalized because their vendors write launchers with horrible usability such as this? He also knew everything about setting up mount points and partitions; is the average user supposed to know how big to make a swap, usr, or boot partitions? Why didnt he accept the defaults like he did with the Win2k install? Put the install up against XP and try it again, chief. 1 cd, I think a total of 3 mouse clicks for the entire XP installation, a far superior and smoother installation process than either 2k or RH. I'm sorry, but as much as I use both Windows and RH, this just wasnt even close to a neutral benchmark test. Not by far.
This is right up there with Amiga owners getting excited because they saw their favorite computer in the background of some sitcom. Sigh. Advocacy is so completely lame.
The big flaw in this case is that RedHat is easier to install, *when* you have a system that won't cause problems. As long as all your perihperals are supported under Linux, then you're okay. When they aren't, then that's where the trouble is. This isn't a knock on Linux at all, it's just a side effect of the complexity of PC hardware. New hardware comes out left and right, all of which have Windows drivers, and many of which don't have Linux drivers. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has gotten stuck with a video card or printer or scanner that wouldn't work with Linux.
If there's anything keeping Linux from being an acceptable desktop alternative, this is it.
As long as you are using one disk, and only putting FreeBSD on it, I find it the easiest to install.
Installing Windoze is a pain in the rear, bar non. How many reboots does it take to get the thing going.
Linux is considerably easier IF you know some basic facts about your computer and / or network.
Anyway, FreeBSD is the easiest of all, unless you would rather have pretty pictuers instead of reading.
What kind of question is this anyway? Most people that run windows couldn't install it anyway.
For the record, just trying to set up a preinstalled copy of Windows XP on a new Dell box at the office took more than a day recently. You know why? We typed the wrong name in for one of the users at the start of the whole process. That is all.
We realised our mistake after a couple of minutes (name should have matched logins on various other servers) so we renamed it and carried on. After setting everything up (which took a good couple of hours to get things into a sensible state), we then discovered that renaming a user on XP doesn't (it just changes the text on the login screen and such, not the underlying name). Oops. So we try various other things, like renaming the user back and copying it to a new one with the correct name, but unfortunately that doesn't work either, due to some bizarre bugs in XP's user management code and all the fabulous permissions technology required to let me access my own PC these days.
A significant exercise trawling the web for information shows up numerous threads on newsgroups where Microsofties reply to people with this problem by saying "Have you tried Procedure X?" The original posters reply "Yes", and the Microsofties all go silent, every time.
I'm not a massive Linux advocate; I like the idea, but I've never really tried it in anger as my main OS (though I sense the time is drawing near). However, I'm pretty sure that you can't get your box into such a completely silly state by typing one wrong word at the start of an installation sequence in any Linux distro I've ever seen.
Unless that word was rm, of course. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
(DOS 1.0 was released 21 years ago today.)
So, does this mean DOS can legally purchase alcohol in the states now?
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Having done my share of XP, Red Hat and Mandrake installs, I will say I agree with (almost) everyone else here - XP is definitely easier to install and the article is obviously biased in favor of linux, and XP still comes out on top.
But, having said this, I'd like to point out one counter example. The disk partitioning utility run by XP/2K when you install is *TERRIBLE*. I accidentally installed XP to the wrong hard drive just 2 weeks ago because it's so vague. If nothing else, Mandrake and Red Hat get this part of it right - the graphical partioning (disk druid in Red Hat, I don't know about Mandrake) leaves no chance of error.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
When I installed Win2k (several times on different computers) I only needed 1 CD, rebooted 2 times max, and never had to swap the CD once.
RedHat? Two words: Package dependancies. After installing it 2 or so times. I gave up and just pick one of the preset installations.
As for the total time it takes to install. Who cares? It's only something you should be doing once in a blue moon.
You buy a dell, gateway, or a emachine and it's more than likely you'll have to reinstall everything because they did it wrong in the first place, not to mention swapping out that Nvidia tnt for a video card. Sometimes we forget how hard it really is to work with "easy" stuff.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
He shouldn't have used the restore disc. Gee, maybe if you'd try the normal products instead of what Sony sends you, you'd have better luck?
Anyway, sure, there's a lot of discs involved (my system setup routine involves 7 - one Windows, one Office, 5 Visual Studio) and there's some reboots (I think there's six.) I don't have any hardware that needs really hard-to-find or poorly packaged drivers (maybe because I let Sony stick to selling me TV's?) and my machine is a whole lot more capable after my two hours than this guy was able to get his Windows machine.
well it looks like windows will never get installed then.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Linux became easier to install than Windows quite a number of years ago. The main advantage that Windows still has these days is that it comes preinstalled. The other problem with Linux installs is that on laptops, the precompiled Linux kernels often just don't have the right options set; this should be fixed by finally making the Linux kernel completely modular, but I won't hold my breath.
Mac OSX, incidentally, is perhaps even a little easier to install than Linux, but it asks more annoying personal questions.
While it's been some time since I've installed a Linux distro, I just finished installing W2k on a fresh box. The process took two, yes two, days over 56k. The initial install goes no better or no worse than Linux but then you start down the trail of SPs and security patches and 12 hours later you have a "sercure" platform. Installing W2k should not be attempted by the faint of heart, those easily bored, or those without, at a minimum, a T1 connect.
mplayer writes about Joe Barr
Of course RedHat was faster and easier to install than Windows, otherwise the article wouldn't have appeared on Lunixdot, I mean Slashdot. *rolls eyes
And I think the Mac wins. As big a Linux fan that I am, I could with no qaulms whatsoever recommend a Mac to my sister and tell her to install MS Office herself. Speed of install is probably more relvant to work situations, and that'll mostly be disk images anyway.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
From an IT perspective, don't most IT departments just ghost their installs onto new machines? Talk about a pointless .. point ..
Moo
Can we stop this "which OS is easier to install" nonsense because honestly, it really doesn't matter. Here are a few reasons.
1. Even though 95% of all PCs run computers, most people never have to install Windows. It comes preinstalled.
2. How much does it really matter if Linux installs 10%, 20% or even 80% faster. Does anyone really chose an OS because it is faster to install or requires a little less manual intervention?
3. What happens if you have hardware that isn't, by default, supported by the latest Redhat release? How much effort does it take to go find the drivers, if they even exist, download them and install them. There is still oodles of pieces of hardware not supported by Linux.
If Linux advocates have to resort to a "Linux is easier to install than Windows" arguement for why Linux is better then that says a lot about the state of Linux.
Joe Barr has been an anti-Microsoft zealot for as long as I can remember. Years ago he used to plague us with his Team OS/2 crap. Then it was his anti-Internet Explorer crap. In fact for a while there his website denied access to IE web browsers just to prove some kind of point. Now he's a Linux bigot and hates the Windows 2000 installer? Go figure.
How about getting someone who isn't biased to do a comparison?
Anyway, Windows 2000 installs fairly easy by itself now that SP3 is out. It was more of a pain prior to that with all the various hotfixes. WinXP handles hotfixes better and you can more easily install them all at once without reboots. Also if you make your own custom installation cd you can really streamline the process by installing SP3 right from the start. [see www.nu2.nu]
What I think is nice since I create new Win2k environments under VMware quite frequently is using sysprep. I simply copy the base image I created over into a new directory... rename the config file, boot with vmware and then sysprep prompts for the machine name and I'm up and running including all my default software.
And all the source except the linux kernel, binutils, and grub are online (you only get what you need to get online with the installation CD).
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Actually, the question should be, "which is faster to install the second time around" (keeping your application data intact of course)? The reason I ask this question is because Windows suffers from O/S decay and needs to be reloaded fairly frequently, especially if you have kids or users that love to install software.
Most of you might not know this, but you can build RedHat Linux with a net boot floppy, ftp or nfs server, and that strange file called "anaconda-ks.cfg" in your root directory.
Red Hat Linux is so easy to rebuild and get back to a running state with all your applications, data, and patches.
Windows on the other hand usually requires a week or so, before you can locate all the CD's and license keys for the applications and get back to a useful state. I always DREAD reloading the Windows box, which usually is required about twice a year.
Which do you dread reloading the most?
This is almost Laughable that this made Slashdot. It's Even more Laughable that people are defending this piece of Trash Review.
First of all, Using OEM Restore Disks NOT = OEM Win2k CD. The only ones that are somewhat good are the Gateway, Compaq and eMachines disks.
Second, There are not 8 reboots in Win2k install. Theres one after Text install, after Graphical Install, after a Service pack, After IE6, and After all the patches, Making it 5.
Third, If it takes 2 Hours to install win2k on a modern day machine, then that is the worst, most overbloated restore CD I have Ever Heard of. I can install Win2k completely from blank drive to fully patched in under 1 hour. It could Probably take me 2 hours if I wore a Blindfold. Hell it only takes me three hours to install Win2k, fully patched, install MS office and all of my files, settings, Drivers and programs I use.
Forth, What CD Swap, there is only 1 CD in the entire OS installiation. You put it in the Drive, turn the PC on, and get the little bobbing bird and set it so it presses the Enter key.
Let me say one thing however. I recently Installed Red Hat 7.2. They have definetly came a long way since 5.0, which was a total pain in the ass. 7.2 is definetly a step in the right direction when it comes to Linux installs. I dont think it's as easy as a windows install, but it's very close.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
A linux website comparing a linux install to a windows one and saying the linux one was easier, who would a guessed?
Mean while, back in the real world, its obvious to most anyone outside of the linux drum beating zealots that windows really is easier to install and a lot more tolerant of errors than every linux distro out there.
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
On the other hand, look at Windows 2000 installation ( My favorite Windows if I have to use it), there's literally nothing to the install. You can't go in and disable things, and there is a very small number of things that you can deselect. You have to wait until after the install is finished, then go disable things via the Windows registry.
I'll take the granular Linux install over the take it all and like it Windows install any day.
is a total dickwad. I have never seen such a biased and unfair piece of crap.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, but Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro are fast and easy to install. Unless of course you deliberately choose some bizaare installation scheme that you know with be slower than shit in january.
Lycoris Build 44 took all of 15 minutes to install on a P3 733MHz. It worked on the first go. Updating to Build 46 was a bit of a pain (installer complained of invalid GPG signature, phantom problem, I chalk it up to teething probs) but it worked like a charm. Lycoris is easily the fastest OS install I've seen since MacOS 7.1.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Joe Barr is an all-too-typical example of the Linux Zealot. When I wrote a rebuttal to his biased piece of crap he merely dismissed every point as "wrong" or "insane" without a single fact to refute my statements.
Linux installs are not nearly as easy as Windows installs were for me 7 years ago. I'm no Windows dummy, and was pretty much self taught for installing Windows 95 and resolving IRQ problems and the like, but I still can't get Linux to work on the Internet by modem or DSL yet by myself. I tried installing SuSE 8 the other week, but it proved hopeless because I didn't buy it because I wanted to try it out first, and there was no description on how I could make a "CD 1" from the files I had downloaded.
Mandrake 8.2 was much nicer for me since I got the .iso versions, and it installed like a charm. I also was able to figure out how to configure LILO this time to load Windows by default. Mandrake also offered to set a user to log in automatically which adds a nice "Windows" touch.
My bottom line is Linux is good, but not yet for gnu-bies like me.
John
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
You mean a LinuxWorld.com columnist might write an article that compares Linux favorably to Windows? Who would've guessed!
The guy may have said he thought Windows would install faster. Regardless, someone who tends to favor one system over the other will look for ways to "level the field" when he doesn't think his favorite pony will win. After all, this is journalism, not scientific research.
Then again, this sort of thing happens in scientific research, too. But at least scientists will try to make something of a claim of impartiality. How partial can you get when you work for a Linux-geek magazine?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
It's been mentioned here that it wasn't fair to use a system restore disk provided by Sony as a comparison to a fresh install of RedHat.
It's also been mentioned that Windows in most cases comes already installed.
Isn't this the perfect comparison then? For the vast majority of people, the only Windows install they'll ever do is via a system restore disk. And since Linux wasn't pre-installed, the only Linux install they're likely to do is a fresh install.
On top of that, I don't know linux all that well. I probably couldn't make it through an installation without help. However, I ran linux on my computer for the first time about a week or two ago when slashdot did the story on the Knoppix live on cd distro of linux. So I downloaded my first linux ISO and popped it in the drive for boot-up and my god thats magic! I was running linux, into a perty window manager, and all of my hardware was set up in less time than it takes my win2k to boot up. If you guys are trying to impress windows users, that Knoppix is quite the demonstration.
P.S. Yes I know this wasnt technically a full linux installation but I'd say its pretty close, I mean I was running linux, isn't that the point of an installation?
Funny I just had to install WinXP/98/Linux Mandrake last night. While XP took the longest it was the most complete and useful when logged in and took the least amount of fidgeting with, with only my digital camera not having at least base drivers. 98 would have been a close second except that it refused to load either my sound or my network card without a hassle. It still came in second because Linux Mandrake was hell to install (and it has one of the better installers). First the install choked half way through. Often the 'focus' caret wouldn't show and since it refused to recognize my logitech mouse either PS/2 or USB then I was often left guessing or unable to choose a button. Once completely loaded KDE ran just fine - good picture, sound, network everything but still no mouse and when I tried to switch to another mouse the system choked when shutting down (USB problems). Oh BTW why does it have to be so difficult to download a plugin. One step - prompt for download! Boolean YES I want - NO I don't. Instead of "Hey let me look and see if I can find a plugin for you! Oh yeah here it is on this page! Click here, then here, then wait, then all your browser windows close... then??? What page was I trying to look at?" All for shockwave?
Anyway I digress... I personally would like to see a comparison between a desktop install of RH, WinXP on say 5 different configurations of computers. The scoring would be based on all the basics a user needs to get started 1)Video 2) input (mouse/keyboard) 3) audio 4) network/connectivity 5) E-mail/browsing 6) Setup time. This would be an out of the box test - no additional downloads or penalties for "Oh he doesn't have the latest driver". Get both installs off the shelf at Best Buy - yeah I know it kinda of knocks RH for a loss when you can't just download the latest distro repleat with updates, but it's "fair".
Face it each system is going to need some patching and a check for latest drivers and probably a security review to be safe. Time how long it takes for each system and the ease in which it can be done - then score. Then go down the list of "useful" apps that each distribution has "bundled" and where they rank and how they compare and what it would take to get a comparable product should the "bundle" not have it included - then score.
A few itterations of that procedure and you'll find all of the gaps in the competition and be able to make some serious improvements.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Back in '96 I got my first computer with Windows 95 installed. Every single computer I have had since then I have built myself and I always installed windows in less than 2 hours.
Well last night I finally made the switch to Linux. 12 hours later and I still don't have sound, can't play movies or even use half my drives. Every single Linux HOWTO I have found assumes a basic working knowledge of linux (which I don't have and I really don't think that the majority of Windows users would have).
Installing linux was an adventure in itself. Red Hat installed but I couldn't get any sort of GUI to start, so I cleared that off and tried Debian (impossible for a begginer), then I finally tried Mandrake. Two install attempts with mandrake and I had linux running and could use KDE as a GUI. That was last night, I have spent all day today (I had the day off) trying to get Linux running the basic functions I need, without much sucess. I did manage to get Samba partially working but it won't allow me to share all the directory's I want. As I previosly said I can't get sound, can't install any software, basicaly all I can do is surf the web and get e-mail.
To to sum up my little rant, Linux may be easier to install for expert users but for the majority (IMHO) of windows users who install their own OS's linux is a major expidition.
I personally will be using Windows XP the rest of the week and will continue trying to get Linux up and running this weekend.
Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
"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."
If the Onion ever decides to make fun of Slashdot, they need look no further than this post to realize that it's already been done for them. This is like an article that reads "Cheese Enthusiast Joe Barr compares cheese versus hummus. Turns out, cheese is better!"
These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be.
Mandrake is simple to install. It's when I have to upgrade the video card drivers so you can play some Quake3 or UT is when it's not so easy...
:)
What's the link to that page of instructions to update the video drivers?
Why can't I just replace the old files with newer ones to upgrade the drivers? Or have better install scripts that more automate the process.
Sony is an evil company, and to compare THEIR install of one of hte hardest win installs to one of the EASIEST linux installs is kind of stupid. No, wait. It's REALLY stupid. I'd like to say that I'm definitely not trying to put Linux down, but we're talking about mother-friendliness. The mandrake partitioning thing is more confusing than the windows one. Way more confusing. If you're going to count internet time as install time, why not compare amount of bits to download instead of time? Or download times in different parts of the US? Or what if you install Win2k and you threw out the 2k modem driver because you thought you wouldn't need it, and you need to drive to the library to download it, only you live on the other side of town, and have to drive 36 miles? And you drive a big SUV that only gets 14 miles to the gallon, and gas costs 2.59 9/10ths a gallon, so you ACTUALLY spent $206.63 on Windows, instead of $199.95 AS MICROSOFT ADVERTISED. PLUS regional sales tax, which, because you live in Hawaii, is something absurd like 11 cents on the dollar. DAMMIT! I also, by the way, know not how much 2k costs.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
If this test was done right the tester should have just used the Win2k CD instead of the Sony System Recover CD that includes all of the extra crap that manufacturers love to have "pre-installed" with your new system. Win2k Can be installed on average in 15 minutes. Another 15-20 for all your drivers for periferials. And much less than 8 reboots. It is only recommended to reboot... you don't HAVE TO.
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
I'm talking about Mandrake installer here, it has a lot more to offer than legacy windows installer.
- Ability to resize existing FAT partition
- Choice between normal mode for casual users or expert mode for advanced users
- Network installs, installation without CDROM drive
- Installation on existing FAT partition (loopback). Can windows install itself on existing ext3 partition?
Here go ther numbers from the last re-install in my
brother's box. (800Mhz/512MB Athlon)
I am not making this up. Windows got all messed up
with the two network cards.
CD ROM swapping: 2 for MDK, none for windows.
Reboots:
Win98: 38
Mdk: 1
BSOD:
Win 98: 1
MDK: N/A
Security Mode Reboots:
Win 98: 9
MDK: none
Elapsed time:
Win98: 3h50; Unable to configure both network cards.
MDK: 1h35; NATting to the whole house.
I say one thing: the guy on the article was lucky with his windows
install.
-><- no
All the more reason for distros on DVD.
Joe Barr is not the most reliable of sources. He gave very biased reviews to Xine and MPlayer. I won't say much more than that, except that you should read what they have to say about him at www.mplayerhq.hu.
Not trying to troll, just trying to point out that this guy isn't necessarily a reliable source.
When an article states Windows is easier than linux, the zealots come out and argue it's not true...
When an article states Linux is easier, the monkeys come out and argue it's not true...
Slashdot should learn this isn't a good place to post individual comments based on experience, instead they should have more obvious news like "water is wet, but hard when frozen" who can argue that?
"Full sources for linux currently runs to about 200kB compressed" --Linus Torvalds 31-Jan-1992
Hmm... a *LinuxWorld* article saying that *Linux* is easier to install.
That's a huge surprise.
Wait, wait, let me go to Microsoft's site and see what they have to say about Linux for completely unbiased information.
yea sure, linux installs are getting faster & faster. I think my last more or less minimal + 1 desktop install of mandrake 8.2 took about 20 minutes or less on mediocre hardare (duron 1ghz). WinXP installation on the same hardware takes about 40 minutes for similar functionality.
But Mandrake8.2 after that 20 minute install is *much* slower in everyday use as compared to WinXP (after all the eyecandy silliness is turned off in XP).
In contrast, my GentooLinux install on the same hardware takes about 24 *hours* just for compilation (let alone all the myriad manual steps that must be taken to make it work at all), but then afterwards is completely optimized only for my system (and for what I intend to use it for), and is at least as fast in everyday use (and sometimes twice as fast or more) than WinXP.
Someone further up pointed out that the install doesn't really matter, it what happens after that counts.
*EXACTLY*
Don't all of you running Mandrake or Redhat wish that it ran twice as fast or more than it does now?
Well, you could have that. But you wouldn't have a less than 1 hour install any more, now would you.
But ask yourself, which would you rather have?
What do we get?
For example, to get a more secure version of Internet Explorer, consumers must give up their freedom of speech. That's right. By clicking "I accept" you agree not to "disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component" unless you have written permission from Microsoft.
Huh? So? What's the issue here? Sure, clicking 'I accept' may be restricting freedom of speech, but is his girlfriend planning on running and publishing the results of benchmarking the .NET Framework? I thought this comparision of installers was from a consumers perspective
Only I didn't have to do the windowsupdate, I used yast...
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I used to be one of those people.
Recently I decided to install SuSE 7.3 from scratch with the intent of setting it up as a web, email and DNS server for a friend. I also installed X.
Granted, I now have a lot of experience with apache, sendmail and bind9. It really wasn't required to get things setup.
This wasn't even a brand new machine with the latest and greatest and everything installed without a hitch. Couldn't have gone smoother.
I used to struggle with partitioning all the time. Now I have a Windows workstation that's seperate from my linux servers. I use it for the few programs that I can't get in linux such as Homesite and photoshop because I am too lazy to find(learn how to use) equivalent programs.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Ok, I am going to admit upfront, this is my first reply to a post on slashdot. Up till now, I have just enjoyed the reading, but, this installation ease of both os's has really sparked an interest for me. I have installed both Windows and Several Flavors of Linux, as well as a couple BSD flavors. I have been using BSD for about 10 years now. I recently added linux in the form of slackware to my knowledge arsenal. About 7 years ago, I started using windows as well, in the 95 flavor. Now, I must say, windows does have a very easy, straight forward install. It does what it is supposed to do, which is install windows. On newer machines, and with newer windows versions, I have had windows up and running, with very little effort in around 30 minutes. Windows XP was my most recent install, and it was beautiful. The fact that windows xp has a biggilion drivers included in it was very nice, because it auto-detected and setup my hardware for me. The only real effort I made was agreeing to that damned EULA. But, as much as I hate it, I did agree, and went through the rest of the setup with no problems. Now, comparing it to my slackware install, slackware was a little more tricky. But then again, slackware is openly known to be for more advanced users, so I will leave this lay. Instead, I will use my experience with installing mandrake. My roommate, who is a die hard linux hater, agreed to install mandrake on a machine just to see what it looked like. I gave him the cd's, and told him was not going to help him in anyway. About an hour later, he came over and told me he loved the install interface, said it was extremely easy to work with, and he had it 100% configured. I went over and checked it out, and low and behold, it was working, and dang good at that. Now, my question is, why the linux vs windows debate? I don't want to start a flame war here, or anything like that. But, think about it. Both operating systems do what they are designed to do. I do prefer linux of windows for the simple fact that I am a BSD baby. I started with it, it is what I know best. But, windows does have may strong points, which linux debaters and supports seem to overlook. I am a die hard microsoft hater, but I hate them for their business practices, not there software. Granted, there is alot they can clean up, and tune out, but, it works. If microsoft open sourced there product, what would we do? Close them down? Is it not every hackers natural incline to make something better? So, if the source was released, wouldn't someone take the source, fix a ton of problems, and then release it, or feed the fixes back to the original author? Isn't this the theory of GPL? This would in affect keep windows around wouldn't it? (Granted if all the bugs were fixed, would we still think of it as the windows we have all come to love to hate?) Like I said, I don't want to start a flame thread, I just want to get the wheels turning.
Is linux easier to install then pre-installed windows? [fill in lotsa links to DELL et al offering computers with windows pre-installed ONLY]
Think about that.
now get back to work
Under Windows 2000, it had drivers for neither, I had to install and configure them afterwards. Needless to say, I was pretty impressed.
There are still some usability challenges, but overall, RH 7.3 is VERY usable, even for a newbie. And typically, I've been very critical of Linux usability in general. It is improving at a rapid rate.
One thing that makes Linux much easier (IMHO) to install is the device drivers. Although not every manufacturer makes device drivers for Linux, for those that are included in the distribution, they get installed along with the base system.
For Windows, you have to install the system, reboot, finish the installation, reboot, and then reboot another time for just about each driver you install. So getting a new system up and running is usually much faster under Linux.
Ever tried installing windows when you allreaddy got linux installed, wow thats hard, cause your linux wont run anymore then, i didnt even bother.
;-)
(its not possible to make windows dual boot with other operating systems from within it self)
Quazion
ps. this comment isnt mine but i think its true.
A Linux magazine saying Linux is better than Windows... Imagine that.
The fastest and easiest OS install I've ever done was BeOS. (the intel version, in my case) From the time I opened the shrinkwrap, it was about 10-15 minutes until I was browsing the web. If I remember correctly, this included the time it took to partition my hard drive. During the actual OS install, I had to click ok maybe 3 times. I miss that OS :-( Especially the haiku error messages...
Second easiest install - Mac OS X. (yep, I'm one of those switcher people)
-margaret
Why even bother comparing load times?
For the personal user, even the "6 hours" some say is required to install 2K is very little. For the corporation, they Ghost. It's a 5 minute install.
BTW, one of the above comments mentioned a 6 hour install of 2K? Well, sir, I will say that it did recently take me all of 6 hours to install all my drivers, updates, Office, etc. Of course, why would I ever mention that this was on a PII 266 w/ 256MB of RAM? Oh, and that the install was Advanced Server, not Pro?
It took, oh, maybe 2.5 hours, tops, to install (Pro) on my primary system.
Sigh. I digress. The issue is not about install time. As I said, corporations can do all their installs much more quickly. Ghost it, or use another system imaging tool. Home users might get screwed occasionally by a really long load time.
The real issue is stability and functionality. Who cares how long it takes to install if you don't have to do it again? I have had to blow away my copy of 2K twice since I've started using it. The cause BOTH times were for upgrades. Motherboard upgrades. I had a Mobo blow out on me, and the replacement had a bad memory controller from the get-go. Now, I've been running fine for over 6 months, and am well on my way to 5, if not 6, nines of uptime.
That is with the box being made to do gaming. I rarely need reboots, and haven't needed to reinstall. As much as I've played with Linux, on box #2, I've also never needed to screw with reinstalling it. It also doesn't get as many hardware upgrades. I don't use it for the same features, but you know what? I'm happy with both of them. I couldn't care less which one took longer to install. (BTW, Linux took longer but it was a clean Gentoo install so point == moot)
Later.
Comparing a Sony restore disc and an orginal Red Hat disc is unfair. How about comparing with a Red Hat disc with Windows 2000 retail disc instead?
However, when I last checked the Red Hat installation took about half the time Windows 2000 did.
my vote goes with windows 2000 pro.
;)
here's my hardware setup.
ati rage 128.
Dlink ethernet card
soundblaster live
dvd rom
ricoh cdwriter
pentium III 450mhz.
win2k autodetected all my devices including the ethernet card without me having to do anything more. how would i know if my ethernet card would be using the tulip.c driver? i completely switched over to linux and recently moved back to win2k. windows' stability was one thing that pissed me off the most and in win2k it has never crashed once within the last 5 months. no need to partition swap space during installation. no need to know all the details about my cpu. it does the installation all for me. i'm not saying it's better, but it's EASIER. as far as maintenance, debian is still the best
here's the offtopic part
i still use netscape 4.7. IE occationally because they are both responsive. mozilla is not. konqueror is not. kde is most pretty, but it's not responsive. people are saying that konqueror and kde are the best apps, but i'd say licq is the best ap for linux.
my blog
Whether the install is faster or not is immaterial if the final product doesn't work (in either case). I won't go into detail here, but I tried to install Slackware 8.0, Red Hat 7.0 and 7.2, freeBSD and Mandrake on two different computers before finally getting Red Hat 7.3 to install. I enlisted the help of two different long-time linux users, two full books on linux, and several web sites. I poured hours upon hours into the problem. The most humerous part is when the Red Hat boot floppy kept telling me that my computer didn't have any hard drives, and the Red Hat disk one in my CD-Rom wasn't a Red Hat disk! Once Red Hat 7.3 instaled, it was like pulling teeth to get X-windows to work. Even though my Video Card and Monitor were both in the list and selected, they didn't work. Had to try combinations of other monitors and cards before finding something to work. On the other hand, I've installed every version on Windows on various computers. I agree, have something else to do while it installs. I also agree that win 98 is buggy, ME is useless, and while I love XP, it's a resource hog and full of security holes. But you know what, they all WORK! I have never had a failed install of any Windows OS in probably 40+ installs. And I can use my computer without HOURS of configuration. My point is that the speed of install is only part of the equasion. If you want a solid secure system, get a Linux CD and set aside a week. If you need to use the computer before then, Windows is probably the better choice.
The fact that this article appears on Slashdot, and generates the amount of commentary that it does, should be enough to send any rational user into giggle fits. I mean, how much more obvious does an article have to be to troll for Bill Gates fan-boys? Claim that Linux does *anything* better and you'll have the sheep running in all directions blasting Linux and extolling the virtues of Windows.
Nice going, sheep. You rose to the bait again. This in itself says something about the average Windows user.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I installed Win2k on my Sony Vaio FX-301 laptop three weeks ago and it didn't take three CD's, or 2.5 hours.
I downloaded the neccessary drivers from Sony, but apart from that time which you can't include in a windows installation speed comparison it took *less* than an hour. Got a bunch of hardware errors and installed the Vaio drivers, rebooted and started browsing the Web over dialup (testing) and a network connection for CivIII downloads...
In fact I was doing three other things while it took place, so not exactly rocket science eh?
I really don't see what the point of this was apart from to get heads nodding in ignorant agreement in the Red Hat community. There's plenty of real complaints to be made about Win2k, but installation sure isn't one of them.
Too bad no screenshots are available. It is possible to easily take a screenshot of the Mandrake installation by pressing the "F2" key...
I am curious is Red Hat easier than SuSE? I can't imagine anything easier than SuSE for a new install. I did not try Red Hat since 5.x - used SuSE since 5.3.
OT: I am really happy with the latest Crossover Office from Codeweavers, Quicken 2002 works rather impressivly. I waited for years to upgrade my Quicken...
>>>please remove "nospam" from email address
I remember that Apple one. OS 9 took a fraction of the install steps vs. NT. First, they should have compared to the popular OS, Windows 95/98, instead of the workstation OS. Second, after you had completed the shorter list of things to do and installed OS 9, you then had to go through and do most of what was done on NT during the installation (like networking) anyway. It was like World Com/Enron accounting practices.
However, this one seems to be fairly made, with both platforms up to the status of having the machine up and running with all normal services, connectivity and updates. Red Hat even had a disadvantage that it wasn't just a fresh install on a whole machine, instead having to have a partition configured on the 2K machine.
If it weren't for a certain couple of apps I need, I'd go with Red Hat.
Question: is it mandatory to install IE6 (I don't use IE) when installing SP3. Heck I didn't even know that SP3 was out. No, I don't use "Windows Update": I don't like it when my PC does things without asking.
Ok, listen up windozes users that are complaining about the 3cds for a fresh RH installation.(I'm not sure about the content of the RH installation CDs so I'm going to otherwise use Mandrake linux as an example) Now you have 3CDs for a MDK install, the first CD is for the OS and apps critical for the OS functionallity, this disk is easialy comparible to the one cd required for a Windows installation. Now the 2nd MDK disk, is filled with apps that are not so critical but can be very useful and mostly apps that an average user wants or needs. Then the 3rd disk has more or less toys or the odd apps out, ones that are not very widely used and not very commonly used. Now I think off of a fresh FULL to the teeth MDK8.1 install you get the OS and about 6000 apps, and yes this is only 3 disks. Now you have your Windows 'wonderful single disk install' that will provide you with at most 50 useful apps. Time for some math:
we have 3 MDK8.1 cds that have about 6000 apps and we have 1 windows install with about 50. Now if you were to make a windows install with 6000 apps, when all other apps for windows average off about 1 cd per extra app not on the install cd. How many cds would you need for a 6000 app windows install?
well, 6000-50= 5050 CDs for extra windows applications. Now to be fair we all know that about 2000+-1000 would be downloads, like winamp, icq, etc. That still leaves you with 2050+-1000 CDs that you need to make a 6000 app windows OS. Note i'm not saying that either party would accually want a 6000 app install but think about it. Even if you only wanted 200 app install. Most of that if not all will be on a linux distro cd, opposed to windows where you would either have to download them or acquire a copy somehow(cdr or purchase). So are you complaining about convience?
Sometimes it would be easier and less time consuming to install slackware 2.0 from twenty floppy disks than windows XP from bootable CD - this is one of those case by case things, similar to getting someone on the street to taste test margarine. Your hardware will vary and the installation will vary.
My Windows 2000 is on one CD, so is XP; both require a single reboot during the installation; both take in the region of 30-40 minutes to install most of which can be completely unattended - if you take the trouble to set up an install script it'll do everything on its own.
As far as drivers go XP came with drivers for almost everything and no OS install can possibly have the latest drivers unless you just acquired it.
As far as the 2K install went...since I don't have a spare EEPROM with the unbroken ATI Xpert 2000 code on it, (I have to send it up to Ottawa, CAN) I'm stuck.
Does ATI offer a downloadable DOS based utility to upgrade the card's BIOS? If so, install FreeDOS and run it.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I really hate this install comparisons. How often do you install a new system? Once a half year? Or once a year? How often to you use your system. Everyday? You see the point. If my mum tells me her system is fubar she calls me to install a new system. She doesn't call me everyday when she wants to use the system. Usability in daily work is much more important especially for the simple-minded user.
b4n
yes, but a cd/disk is all you need to get a full debian system. Network installation.
In some geographical areas, an Internet connection with faster than 5 kilobytes per second throughput costs $900 per month.
So the choice for Linux users is between several discs that can be easily scratched up even if cared for properly, waiting several days (at four hours per day) for the packages to download over dial-up, paying through the nose for a T1 connection, or paying through the nose to move house to where cable or DSL is available.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I've got two floppies for FreeBSD...
Do they fit a working system into 2.8 MB, or do you have to pay hundreds of dollars a month for T1 broadband in areas where neither DSL nor cable is available?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Bad checksum in Windows 2000 = pop a different disk in and hit retry.
And where do you get that different disk? Are you willing to spend $300 for a new Windows license every time you scratch up your copy? Or are replacement copies of "end-of-lifed" operating systems still available from Microsoft?
Will I retire or break 10K?
With Redhat you get far more software than the win2k installation, it includes a number of editors, office suits, etc. etc.
Double standard. When Red Hat or Mandrake includes applications, people call it a "useful feature that gives Linux a leg up on Windows." However when Windows includes applications, people call it "anti-competitive." What's the key difference?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Umm, if you have another disk available
I already paid $300 for a copy of Windows. Now they want me to pay $300 more for a non-scratched copy?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Besides, why would you install from the CD:s if you can get it on a DVD?
Because I am a student, and I don't have the funds right now to afford a DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive to replace my Plextor CD-RW drive. I would also rather not shut down and open my computer to swap drives every time I want to read a DVD vs. burn a CD for backup.
You -DO- support your Linux-distribution of choice, don't you?
Yes, and that's why I said "DVD-ROM" instead of "DVD-R" or "DVD+RW". However, I do not support the practices of Motion Picture Association members.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I am familiar with Debian as well as RedHat, Mandrake, Xandros, Lindows, eLx and a few others. But, what is "windows"?
Is that a GUI or windows manager?
By the way, Mandrake, Xandros (beta) and Lindows (also beta for us) all install on one pass through the CDs. I have no idea why Microsoft thinks that the machine has to boot, reboot and triple boot just to get the hareware hooked up. Sounds like defective software to me. The free software does not require it. Why should the most expensive software require it?
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
Typical AC troll....
:-)
Re-read the above message. Oh don't bother, I'll just tell you what you missed: I'm a *student*, which means a severe lack of fundage. A mature-age student, with a wife and two little mouths to feed and clothe, as well as buy textbooks, and pay for my course to better my life.
Get out of you're parent's basement (or maybe attic, or bedroom) and see what the real world is like.
I wish I could afford the AU$140 for a 60GB hdd, but I have to ride 17Kms (that's around 10 miles, to save you from having to work it out) each way, 5 days a week, on a pushbike, regardless of the weather, as well as lug my heavy textbooks. I do this to save the extra few dollars a day on public transport, and because I can't afford a car.
Besides, with a Linux system, a P100 can do just as much, only slightly slower.
I'm a real man, who thinks of family first, and my needs as secondary. Not a luser who can't even post a response to something like this with an account...
Ravenn
Of all the things you can accomplish by screwing up your face and swearing into a dark room, sleep is not one of them.
I agree entirely. Linux is a terrible gaming platform.
Wrong. Linux runs NES and Game Boy Advance games almost perfectly. Just set up your game pad, put your GBA cartridge in a cart reader that you bought for $50 at Lik-Sang.com, start FCE Ultra (for NES) or VisualBoyAdvance (for GBA), and play away.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sure it takes time to update through the Windows Update crap, but that's not necessary to have a usable system.
<sarcasm>
If your idea of "usable" includes "will possibly contract a virus if you merely surf the Web or read e-mail", then I'd guess Windows 2000 without service packs is usable.
</sarcasm>
I REALLY dig the compression feature in NTFS. Suddenly you have 90% more space.
Unless your applications' native data formats are already compressed (staroffice, mp3, jpg, etc). Doesn't Linux have a compressed filesystem?
Will I retire or break 10K?
his recovery disks are nothing more than hard drive images. He can reinstall Windows and MSOffice in ten minutes.
And how long does it take to install the rest of the applications (virus checker, firewall, compiler, decent RGB image editor, non-bloated media player, etc) that are either obviated in the UNIX architecture or installed with Mandrake?
And how long does it take to backup the user's data and restore it after re-installation? Most of the computers that come with Ghost restore disks do not use a separate partition for My Documents; they just wipe out all the user's precious data on re-install.
Will I retire or break 10K?
They hail the '3 click' install. Of course that doesn't count the swapping of the cds......but you don't need to install the apps. That what the other cds have on them.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Installing any operating system and connecting to the internet without installing all the latest patches (yes, that includes linux) is ... stupid.
Without connecting to the Internet, how does a fellow obtain the patches?
Will I retire or break 10K?
It sure as hell is if you've lost your product key...
What's a sig?
She'd just be pressing keys or maybe clicking on stuff
At least Windows includes a simple tutorial program (the infamous "Welcome To Windows") on first boot.
Will I retire or break 10K?
and why only Windows and RedHat, why not lump in MacOS 10.2, to get a broader picture?
The test specified identical computers. Red Hat does not make an OS Product for Macintosh hardware. You want Yellow Dog Linux.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You type in the CD Key and voila a new Windows XP system.
Installation of a Windows XP operating system hasn't completed until you've signed up for telephone service from your local telephone monopoly, signed up for MSN Internet Access (or another ISP), and activated Windows XP.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Not 3.
Perhaps he used the Sony recovery discs....
Stoopid.
Not to mention invalidating his comparison.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
On the other hand, Windows is like a BMW.
BMW. Our hardware runs better without Windows.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If Mr. Barr gets to set the table in favour of Linux, let me use a real Windows install CD, and an answer file. I'll hit enter a few times, and walk away. Windows may not have a clear win even then, but let's not be totally biased.
First of all... Hahahahaha!
This article is just dumb. Recover disks?
Again... Hahahahaha!
Here's my suggestions for future "in-depth" articles:
Installing an internal scsi hard drive vs. a usb external hard drive
A dog vs. A cat, which one climbs trees faster?
Who solves more crimes, the fire dept. or the police dept.
Sony VIAO Windows 2000 recovery cd vs. Red Hat distribution (oops, this one's taken)
>constitutionality of the state endorsing religion
There is no constitutionality issue involved here.
The US Constitution does not prohibit the state from endorsing or acknowledging religion. It prohibits the state from establishing a religion. Nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does the vaunted "seperation of church and state" line appear.
The first amendment DOES say that Congress cannot make a law that establishes or prohibits a religion. They can make laws that DEAL with religion. They can make laws that MENTION religion. They cannot, however, declare that the official church of the United States is Catholicism.
It's unfortunate that a good amendment has been so kicked around and trampled and manipulated (much like many other amendments) by people with an agenda.
-l
(oh, and FWIW, I'm an atheist, and I simply don't say the "under god" part)
Before I start picking nits, I want to say that I liked the article, especially the conclusions, or Post-game analysis, as Mr. Barr puts it. However, I need to point out four points in the article that bugged me. After that, I also have to question the premise of the article itself.
1) "Since Microsoft has been in the operating system business for exactly 21 years (DOS 1 debuted August 12, 1981), and employs 50,000 souls, I expected Windows 2000's installation would be seamless, fast, and lightyears ahead of upstart Red Hat's by any measure I could concoct."
While Linux has been around approximately 10 years less than Microsoft by this statement, UNIX has been around much longer. The concepts and commands are well known. In any case, both Linux and Windows have been around long enough, and their features have evolved enough over time that it doesn't really matter any more how long either system has existed.
Also, I think it matters little how many people work for Microsoft. Of those 50,000 souls, it is only a small number that actually work on the development of OS code. I do not know how many people over the years have contributed to the development of the various programs that make up a Linux system, but I don't think this matters, either. There are many dedicated programmers working constantly on the kernel, the GUI, installers, and a host of other pieces of code that make up the entire system.
2) Red Hat, and Linux in general, is not an "upstart" anymore.
I usually expect to see comments like this in the mass media, or technology media specifically. I would hope, though, that at linuxworld.com they would know that Linux is no longer an upstart operating system. It's been around for a decade. It is in use in business all over. It is as much a contender in the server arena as any other system. As a desktop OS for Joe Everyman, I can go along with the Linux as newcomer schtick. But remember, perception is everything in the media. If you want to get over the newcomer image, then you need to start treating the system as if it is common knowledge that it is the best thing to come along since <insert favorite technological advance here>.
3) "The clock was striking high noon as I inserted the first of three Sony System Restore CDs supplied with the laptop. I sat back to see what might happen."
I don't have a Sony laptop, so I am speaking without knowledge here, but in my experience with other computer systems, using the vendor's restore CD is NOT the same thing as installing Windows from Microsoft's media. That seems to make the comparison, as well as rest of this article irrelevant, but I will continue.
4) Windows Update
I agree with Mr. Barr that it is stupid of Microsoft to make the user install so many updates individually. It is still a nice way to apply patches, though. I am thankful for any group who makes automated processes for upgrading and maintaining systems. While I am capable of applying updates individually, or recompiling my kernel, or upgrading apache, or anything else I want to do, I want to spend time using my system, not upgrading or patching it. I remember the annoyance of applying fixpacks to OS/2. Upgrades to Novell NetWare 3.X and 4.X, while simple, were a pain. For Linux, Red Hat has up2date, Mandrake has its Software Manager, Debian as apt-get. (I know there are more, but these are the only ones with which I have some familiarity.) For me, they are all good. They save time. The one trade off to always keep in mind, however, is that it is easy to rely on these automatic updates, even if the latest fixes are not available with them. It goes without saying that this can be insufficient when there are serious security flaws to fix.
A final point.
While I am all for comparing operating systems and the philosophies behind their design, I must question the necessity of comparing things like installation ease and boot times. While I agree that it is good to make the installation of an operating system or an application as easy as possible, after a certain point it should become a non-issue. What matters much more is what work one is able to accomplish with the machine. Unless I am in a lab evaluating a bunch of systems, I don't want to spend my days installing Linux (or Windows, or OS X, or BSD, or anything else). I want to spend my days using the computer to do things. I want to visit web sites, I want to send and receive email and faxes, I want to send and receive instant messages. I want to use my printer, scanner, camera, PDA, etc. I understand that until I can order from Dell or Gateway, or walk into Best Buy, and purchase a system with Linux pre-installed, there will be some need to make the case for easy installation, but let's not focus so much on installer programs that we forget about making the system easy to use.
Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger.
DOS 1.0 did not require an installation -- in fact having a hard drive was optional back then.
I believe the first edition of DOS that could not be run directly off the floppies was 5.0, and that was what, 1989? In those terms, Microsoft doesn't have much of a lead with installers at all.
The point was:
Any Mac, even as old as a SE/30.
There is ethernet available for the SE/30. Usually on eBay for less than $20. NetBSD supports it.
It takes a short amount of time to add whatever Window Manager you want using the Packages system.
Don't you mean, the last version of A/UX? It's a dead OS.
My thoughts exactly.
I've given lots of pro bono computer training to people ranging from those who just need help figuring out some drivers to those who have "taken a computer class" at some worthless training corporation, and think that knowing how to use Microsoft Word makes them computer savvy.
When you have to explain what the difference between "left" click and "right" click is, or the difference between Internet Explorer "The Blue E" or Windows Explorer "The Yellow Square" is, the topic of installing Windows or Linux becomes moot. With Windows they might at least have a chance, since M$ caters to "I shut the monitor off, so my computer must be off" people.
It's a silly comparison anyways. You don't install Linux because it's easier than Windows. You install Linux because it's configurable, faster, and doesn't carry all the overhead that MS software does.
As long as I have the original CD (working or not) to prove I have a copy, I'm not doing anything wrong.
Then what's this in the EULA? "You may terminate this License at any time by destroying all copies of the Software."
Will I retire or break 10K?
Ever heard of 'backups'
Ever heard of SafeDisc 2?
or 'taking care of your CDs'?
Even the best cared for discs will bit rot, especially in the case of a disaster. If a disc is copy protected, and you try to store it off-site, it costs big bucks to transport it to the office whenever you need to use it.
Only a total dumbass would pay for a CD more than once.
Then what about the millions of CDs sold to people who already had a legit copy of the music on vinyl?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sorry, don't see the relevance.
Once you destroy your copy of the Software, you can't borrow a friend's copy because you have terminated your right to use the Software. The 17 USC 117 backup rights may not apply because you waived those when clicking the Install button. And you certainly can't install patches, as those have a "Supplemental EULA", which considers installation on an unlicensed system to constitute fraud.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Good thing that Linux, et.al. is making such tremendous progress in this area -- 'convenience'.
I. As one extreme, one can pick-n-choose (down to which particular font, lib, etc. one wants) their way to the 'perfect' lean-n-mean configuration for their Linux box.
II. Or, one can pick a 'packaged' set of features: e.g., 1. desktop (browsers, editors, email, multimedia, etc.), 2. developer (tools, languages, libs, etc.), 3. server (DB's, webservers, Samba server, etc.), 4. Internet (router, firewall, caching, etc.)
III. Pick a 'package' as a starting point, then pick-n-choose what 'extras' one wants.
IV. For the enterprise, one can create-n-save a 'precise configuration' that then can be mass replicated any number of times (with no per-seat fees, etc.!)
PREDICTION: It is only a matter of time (when the 'market' is ready) until one is 'widely' able to purchase the PC, laptop, etc. with Linux, et. al. preloaded--as easy as passing through Wal-Mart.
For the record -- my 'had to do' comparison: Which is easier to load from scatch? Linux or Windows?
A friend of mine offered to pay me $100 to 'rebuild' his virus-eaten DELL laptop. I thought--mistakenly--an easy 100-spot! Boy, was I ever wrong!
I have spent OVER eight hours thus far--after finally downloading and burning on CD all the necessary driver updates, etc.
I have fed the Laptop over 20 different CD's--still have another set of 8 CDs to go.
I am constantly asked to 'reinsert' a CD that it just finished accessing 2 or 3 CD's back!
I have lost count of how many times the machine had to be 'rebooted' -- some of the CD's had several 'pre-installed' applications.
The drivers conveniently provided on the DELL 'install' CD's were wrong!
I had to go to DELL's website to download the 'correct' ones before the graphics, sound, modem, etc. would work properly--initially came up with VGA (16-color 640x480 resolution, NO sound, NO modem, etc).
Installation of each individual driver required its own trip through plug-n-play discovery, specifying the location of the correct drivers, reboot with my fingers crossed, etc.
Yep, rebuilding a 'crashed' Windows machine is a real 'convenience'! Don't you agree?
So, I wonder? How much time did the DELL technician need to create the 'master load' that then was replicated on hard drives BEFORE the laptop was even built!
The Linux install? Well, it took about 30 minutes to go through the menus of options (which system libs, tools, fonts, etc. did I want), and about 90 minutes to 2 hours for the 3 CD's to be loaded decompressed and installed.
Yes, the Linux install correctly identified all my devices--mouse, graphics card, sound card, NIC, CD-ROM, etc.
At the end, I elected to create the repair/boot floppy. That's it! Reboot, login in, and start working!
Why? What's the point? Both are available at Windows Update, so that you can CHOOSE which you want. I'm not trying to troll here, but the guy who wrote the article obviously was. Hmmm, download several MBs of a Service Pack I don't need because I'm moving to the new version today, but the download time and a reboot can be used to deride what I want to deride. This is on top of what others point out, that this wasn't a Windows 2000 install, but rather a Sony Recovery procedure, including various apps.
Hey, Joe: Send me your Vaio, and I'll install Win2000 Pro and RedHat 7.3 on it, and the extra bits of hardware you want. I'll also apply the fixes to the OS and default applications, skipping the unneccesary ones. I'll time it, and send you the results.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Firstly, he's basing his comparison on Sony's Vaio Restore disk set, which does not set up like a normal win2k install in the least.
Then by his own admission:
Why even bother upgrading to IE5.01SP2 when you're upgrading to IE5.5
Why even bother with IE5.x at all when IE6 is out
And I'm sure that being a Linux guy, he'd rather install Mozilla of some flavor anyway, I actually like NS7 so far, but it doesn't work with iframes properly.
Also by his own admission:
The rest be damned, but he could've taken care of both hardware wizards and the Application Recovery CD right there and then, with no reboots, until done all 3 tasks, and the first Windows Update could've been done before then also
After all that (assuming use of a real win2k disk, and high speed connection), there should only've been 4 reboots, 5 EULAs (still not great), 6 EULAs counting the extra one Sony threw in for the Recovery Set, and a grand total of between 40mins to 1 hour to install everything.
Windows itself: 1 reboot, 1 EULA, 30 minutes
First Boot (hardware, AppRecCD, first WU[SP3]): 1 reboot, 2 EULAs, 5 to 10 minute
WU2[IE6]: 1 reboot, 1 EULA, 2 to 5 minutes
WU3[postSP3/IE6 security updates]: 1 reboot, 1 EULA, 2 to 5 minutes
Reboot Times: 1 to 2 minutes * 4 = 4 to 8 minutes
Totals: 4 reboots, 5 EULAs, 43 to 58 minutes
---INSERT---
I entirely forgot DX8.1, and so did he. Anyway:
DX8.1: 1 reboot, 1 EULA, 2 to 4 minutes
new totals: 5 reboots, 6 EULAs, 45 to 62 minutes
---/INSERT---
The article is as invalid as a Mac zealot doing the same comparisson between Mac and Windows, or Mac and Linux.
RedHat and Mandrake are trying desperately to compete.
Microsoft is trying to stamp out competition.
What? Me? Worry?
The answer to the question "is Linux or Windows easier to install?" is, of course, YES. Logic is a harsh taskmaster. "Which is easier to install, Linux or Windows?" That question might lead to naming one of the systems. Sorry, I'm just feeling nitpicky tonight...
I've had Corel Linux for 1 year, but not on my hard drive. It's in the box on my bookshelf. I have nothing but problems on istall, whether it be incompatible hardware or the software running abnormal. When I build cpu's, Windows is always a breeze to install. I like tinkering with different software but Linux has finally frustrated me one to many times!
which means i cannot install linux :p
... at least i can USE the machine, instead of letting it collect dust as a failed linux box.
ease of install my ass
i CAN however install windows 3.x,2.x,1.x, and DOS/DOSSHELL 6.x-5.x
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Mandrake is really really good, im using it now, even tho i compiled my own kernel...