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."
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
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.
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
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
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
Why compare with Windows? The interesting thing about Windows is how long it takes to erase.
Find free books.
Exactly! The Sony Recovery CDs (note plural) are not supplied by Microsoft.
Microsoft's standard install does not prompt you to install the plethora of third party utilities (like the virus utility mentioned), etc, that Sony ships on multiple CDs as a value-add.
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 built to be easy. Linux is not.
Not true. RedHat has spent a lot of time making their installer very easy to use.
You conveniently ignore the mandatory patching that is required on a W2K box.
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.
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...
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"
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.
We're now past that hurdle, on to the next...
Says Linuxworld.com - would you trust a similar study saying Windows is easier from "ILoveWindows.com"? The article is hardly biased...
hardly unbiased... whoops :-)
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.
And RedHat never needs patching, right?
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!
"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
... vendors install it for you!
I don't care how "easy" Linux ever is, 90% of people will never, ever install it. Unless more vendors start offering it pre-installed (hooray for Wal-Mart), Linux will never be adopted by any sizable percentage of desktops.
The whole conversation about "ease of installation" is completely wrong-minded.
I'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.
I agree too, but you must remember one thing. All of those components go into making a stable, secure, and reliable Windows installation. Windows is *not done* when you pop the disk in, set up time zones and users, and run. Great care must be taken to get the system ready to go, and install all of your other apps. Drivers are almost *never* current on a vanilla Windows installation. Viruses are going to be a big threat, so you have to nail that one down. A firewall is essential (not the XP firewall, either).
In most respects, a modern Linux distribution will do all of that for you the first time. Red Hat has a bit more stuff than most distributions, but it really is quite less than what you find on a "recovery CD" when you do a standard Red Hat install. Slackware is great for me. Though it takes a bit of know-how to partition your HDs, and get the X server configured, it can still be faster and easier to do, if you are an experienced user.
After that, you can probably install something like Slack in a half hour - 45 minutes. It takes about 15 minutes to configure the video, sound, and a few other things. I can't say that I was ever able to install Windows 2000, download drivers, install and tweak them in that amount of time.
There isn't anything wrong with Windows 2000... It is good software in most respects. But the old arguments about Linux being to combersome, and slow/difficult install processes are over. Something like Lycoris makes it even easier, if you can believe that.
YOu don't have to reboot windows after every patch either. I just installed 28 patches on a new box. After it was done I had to do one reboot.
All in all, if you do a clean install of 2000 here's how it goes:
Pop in CD, choose your stuff like disk partitioning, reboot.
Setup copies some stuff, reboots again
GUI Setup asks for the product key, and basic setup stuff (date time, network), and reboots
After that reboot the computer is ready to use. However you will probably want to apply SP2, which will take a reboot.
After that there are about 35 things in Windows Update you'll want, but you can roll about 30 of them into one d/l and reboot when it's done
A few updates must be installed separately, like SP2SRP1 and IE5.x SP2.
Altogether, it takes about an hour and a half and it requires like nine reboots (I didn't count them all).
Most things, though, aside from new HW drivers, don't need a reboot. Like installing office, that doesn't require a reboot.
What's the big deal about rebooting anyway? Yeah, its a pain to set up computers manually, that's why they invented RIS and all that stuff. RIS notwithstanding, computers actually reboot in like under a minute these days. It's the copyingn files and setting up plug and play devices which takes like an hour in Win 2000 setup.
I can't believe, though, that the reviewer is comparing the redhat install to the use of the Product Recovery CD. That's like comparing the time to drive to the gas station and fill the tank with unleaded with the time for the tow truck to come and tow you to the nearest gas station and fill it up.
I love analogies, they're like metaphors only less so.
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."
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!
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
And, rumor has it there are a few people on this site who program for Windows environments... not me of course, but some soulless freaks...
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
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.
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 agree it's not fair. The guy was obviously using at least a cable modem/DSL to download updates for one thing. I recently reinstalled W2K on a machine for a friend whose machine had contracted a virus (there's a surprise). After all the normal reboots I had to go search for drivers (he'd lost the original driver disks from various upgrades) and then take on the HUGE amount of security patches.
How on earth they expect a modem user to download at least 50MB of patches is beyond me! Luckily I have ADSL so it only took a few hours to finish the reinstall, on a modem, I doubt I'd have bothered with "SP3".
Another thing the tester didn't mention was the problems involved in setting up a non-admin user account to work with 3rd party software. Flash, Fireworks and many other apps were throwing up all kinds of errors due to the user acct not having enough access to the registry, directory permission problems etc. Sort these last points out took at least another hour and would probably cause most people to just say "the hell with it" and run as administrator (with the inevitable re-infection at some point)...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
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.
The bias is pretty obvious, and having installed Windows XP and Red Hat both, I'd have to say that the actual install of XP was, in the end, simpler.
Of course, Linux is (at least right now) not designed for the level of ease-of-use that XP was...Microsoft basically 'dumbed down' Win2K. (How else would you explain the Fisher-Price color scheme?)
That said, Linux still has potential...but we're our own worst enemy as acceptance goes. The more we insist on being able to tinker with each and every nuance, the more intimidating Linux becomes to the computer newbie.
(And let's not even get started on the Linux zealots.)
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
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.
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.
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.
Well, one of Linux's biggest benefits (and downfalls) is being so modular, to a sense of having all distributions compatible (at least 99% compatible). There will always be those "geeky" distributions, and those easier distributions, I think.
When you "Linux is (at least right now) not designed for the level of ease-of-use that XP was" I have to disagree in many respects. Saying "Linux" when explaining this is being a little too broad. Granted, installing software from CDs is easier in Windows, unless you use somethings like Lycoris's Iris , which makes it simple. Other than that, what is more difficult? I keep asking people these questions, and they always reply with comments about recompiling the kernel, permissions, etc... Things that aren't even an issue in many modern, desktop oriented distibutions. Doesn't that satisfy the basic needs of most casual computer users, that only use the web/email/word processor?
"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. "
That's a fair and legitimate point. However, what about hardware support? Windows 2000 comes with a pretty good set of built in drivers. It's easy to find a computer today that doesnt' require any additional driver installs once Windows is running. Is it as easy for Linux? I think the answer is "in some cases yes, in some cases no."
Windows, being the dominant OS, gets all the best hardware support. Every release of Windows has a larger list of drivers natively supported, requiring fewer trips to the company's website. Linux has a larger battle there because most companies ignore it, sadly.
Hopefully, though, Linux will gain enough popularity that companies will feel compelled to support it. When that happens, the issue I just mentioned evaporates. (If anything, I expect Linux Developers to make that drastically less painful than Microsoft.) Today, though, it is a bit of an issue.
"Derp de derp."
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"
But, if Windows did do this, people would scream evil monopoly.
Anyway, the installtion competition is pointless, win2k and XP install very quickly with almost no user intervention beyond setting the time zone. I have set up fresh installs of both in the last 3 months, with no issues. One was winXP on an OS free walmart machine, the other was 2k on an oldish dual 750Mhz celeron server.
Red Hat is just about as easy, and consumers almost never install OSes anyway. So who cares???!
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!
Why am I reminded of the saying
"You can't shake hands with the devil and say you were only kidding"
dunno....maybe it's just me
Bugs Bunny was right.
Still, nothing beats OS X for an easy install. I'm not trying to start anything here, but seriously, Linux would be worlds easier to install if it came in a nice neat package like OS X does. Granted, I haven't played with the latest Red Hat, but I can't tell you how many times I've wished I could just pop the Linux CD in, click install, have the computer restart for me (or even easier, just start from the CD) and with 4 clicks and a password, be on my way to a nice full install with a grand total time of 15-25 minutes, including configuration. That truly is the one thing Windows and Mac OS have over linux, one nice neat package.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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.
That may be true, but Win2000 and Linux are more similar. Win2000 currently has much more 'server' market share than XP does.
you still have a point, I was just pointing this out.
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
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.
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.
---snip
Funny thing about Win2K install, if you aren't careful, it'll keep on booting from the CD again and again and again and unless you go into the BIOS and manualy change the boot order you could spend awhile wondering why windows isn't completing setup. (especialy if the person doing the install is of the type who doesn't read the screens and just keeps on clicking OK, they might not realize that they are going in circles!)
---snip
Either you do not know what you are talking about, or you are trying to spread fud. If the CD is left in the drive, Windows 2000 puts a prompt on the screen that says "press any key to boot off the cd". If no one presses a key after a few seconds, the windows installer exits and allows the machine to boot off the hard drive as usual. No loops.
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.
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
All the more reason for distros on DVD.
What do we get?
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
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.
Can you post the rebuttal and his responses? I'd like to see them. Thanks.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
No, because DOS died in a horrible accident 7 years ago... His remains are kept up on the mantle... you can look at him by typing "cmd", but he's just a shell (ha ha) of his former self...
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
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.
"One observation...I've noticed a lot of people point out that Windows doesn't install all the other apps you want such as office software etc. while Redhat, etc. do.
But, if Windows did do this, people would scream evil monopoly."
Well, let's see: if RedHat coded and produced all of those utilities, and/or (most importantly) gave you no choice but to include them in an install, I would scream evil monopoly at them too.
"Anyway, the installtion competition is pointless, win2k and XP install very quickly with almost no user intervention beyond setting the time zone."
My computer shipped with WinXP on it. I used it for a while, but then I decided it was time to create a few ext2 partitions at the end of the disk. So, lacking a version of PartitionMagic non-destructive partitioning that worked with NTFS, I used DiskDrake to create them destructively. I come out of the gates installing WinXP.
Mind you, I've (re)installed Windows 98 probably dozens of times on my old laptop. So WinXP installation was painless. But there was plenty of user intervention besides timezone config, like modem/network config (which *could* be a pain in the ass for a clueless user) (there were more, the specifics just don't come to mind this late). There was a flaw though, it set my 'system partition' to be I: instead of C:, which got me pissed at the beginning (because I couldn't change it and was never prompted during install about it), but I gradually got used to it. But it doesn't end here.
I installed Mandrake Linux 7.1 (yes, an old version of Mandrake, but I couldn't find anything newer laying around) to the partitions at the end of the disk flawlessly. Everything went flawlessly; it even set up GRUB to boot into Windows if I felt like it. I hacked around in Linux for a while, and decided to go to Windows for some gaming.
Boy, was it a suprise when XP freezed at the splash screen. I figured at this point that it was an mbr problem, so I go into the Windows Recovery Console and run 'fixmbr' and 'fixboot'. This of course overwrites the MBR (luckily I made a boot disk for Linux). No luck booting into Windows.
After some snooping around, I find that Windows has apparently remapped I: to C: out of the blue, which of course made Windows sit in the corner and pout and not boot.
So I sigh deeply, search for the XP cd, and reinstall. Everything goes as before. I find my Mandrake 8.2 CDs and pop CD1 in to install it over 7.1.
Lo and behold, Mandrake tells me that my partition table is corrupted! Yippee-kiyay! So I restore it, and all looks well... but upon mounting them I get some problems. Undoubtedly, XP has fucked up my hard drive.
In a rage, I just wiped my hard drive clean and installed 8.2 over it all (33.9GB home directory, w00t). Off-topic, but it was probably one of the better decisions I've made in my young life.
I wouldn't call any of those shenanigans Windows pulled on me simple and easy.
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 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.
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.
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
On the other hand, Windows is like a BMW.
BMW. Our hardware runs better without Windows.
Will I retire or break 10K?
In all my years of using Microsoft products I've only got 1 virus and 1 trojan, both i realized before i ran them and removed them.
I think you make Microsoft products out to be worse than they are, but of course, that's to be expected - this is slashdot. Windows 2000 drivers can all be obtained from windows update, along with all the security fixes. I understand how in some respects linux installations are fast, but you're also not getting a lot of things (ie. DirectX, GeForce4 support, etc..) whereas with Windows 2000 I'm almost guaranteed it'll work (not well mind you) even without updating drivers.
Well, in fairness, when I reinstall redhat (actually switched to debian now, which is way cooler, but lack of pretty pictures in installer make it bit less user-compatable), since I'm using an old set of CDs, up2date -u has to download well over 200 megs of updates(!).
appz is to apps as
virii is to viruses
I have installed Mandrake 8.1. It was still harder IMO than WinXP. They're getting pretty good, but it's still not quite there...
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.
Apparently this EEPROM will not flash. When I called ATI to ask about the problem they told me to box up the card and ship it.
;-)
Unless there is something else wrong with this card that ATI is not talking about, the chip in question cannot be flashed.
I know there is a chip on the card that can be flashed, but this is not the one that is actually faulty. Weird situation. At least ATI has the integrity to recall the card, although they should actually *publicize* this recall...
Weirdest of all the Xpert 2000 works FINE in XFree86. And neither Anaconda (Red Hat 7.3) or Lizard (Lycoris Build 44) nor even the Windows 98SE installer tickled this bug. It's only the Windows 2000 installer.
Some "Xpert 2000" that card is!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
"And where do you get that different disk?"
I have several laying around. Also, some of us are smart enough to make backups of our software. My company uses Windows 2000.
Worst case scenario is I borrow a friend's. As long as I have the original CD (working or not) to prove I have a copy, I'm not doing anything wrong.
"Derp de derp."
"Then what's this in the EULA? "You may terminate this License at any time by destroying all copies of the Software."
Sorry, don't see the relevance.
"Derp de derp."
Last night while I posted this I was installing Windows 2000 on three seperate machines. I've probably ran the installer literally hundreds of times, for hundreds of different machines. I have _never_ seen it get stuck in a loop. Perhaps you have a bad keyboard that makes the installer think a key is being pressed? If this is the case, do not blame the installer for your faulty hardware.
---snip
I recently had to do an install of 2k, and I was disappointed by the lack of input. I kind of like to choose what goes into my system. Win9x allowed me to choose items, like which games, accessibility options, etc. Win2k just asks for the timezone.
---snip
You most certainly are allowed to choose what goes into the system, as long as you tell the installer you want to choose rather than go with defaults. Or you can create a custom installation script (I use one frequently) to stop and prompt you for _everything_ so you can have total control over what goes into the system. But I bet for 95% of the users, the default options for a win2k install work perfectly.
---snip
Having no user input is great, if you are ghosting a PC or want 300 identical systems. As a single user, I like choice. I own a 3.2GB hdd, and had to borrow another 2GB for the M$ install. 1.6Gigs later, there's not much space on that sucker. My primary drive runs fine, with
---snip
Your install off of a single ~650MB CD used up 1.6GB?
Because you have the bootsector for that floppy loaded, but you are missing a few other system files, such as boot.ini, ntdetect, and (gasp) ntldr.
Try copying those files over. Windows NT 3.5-5.1 will boot just fine off of a floppy.
Where does 'destroying it' come into play? If it's scratched it's just damaged, not destroyed. Im not defending MS's EULA, we all know it's slimey, but for all practical purposes you're fine.
"Derp de derp."
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.
---snip
.ppt I did up, I lost the animations from my .gif's when I ported it. My .xls
Access doesn't have any equivalent in OSS, which is generally a good thing...
---snip
I couldn't agree with you more there. "Access" has a problem merely "accessing" it's own databases when they grow past a certain size, not to mention basic functionality lacking (well, for a flat file database I believe it is pretty competent, but then so is excel).
---snip
I actually have decent hardware, and all pretty generic stuff. There should be no issues with detecting it. And so why should I not blame the installer?
---snip
I'm just really, really surprised you are having this symptom (the cyclical booting off of the CD). There are two countermeasures taken to keep this from happening; one, the bootloader on a windows 2000 installation cd will abort after 3 seconds if don't press a key when prompted to start installation, and two, even if the user is dumb enough to press the key (or something makes the system think you pressed a key, like something resting on the keyboard), the first thing the installer does is check to see if there is an installation in progress already. If so, it transfers over to stage two of the installation process and does not repeat stage one.
But you say it happened, so I guess I'll take your word for it.
---snip
But I wasn't even able to do more than stick the CD in, switch on, and go. I set the timezone, removed the CD as it rebooted, and that was it until I had finished. No prompts, no options, nothing.
---snip
You actually had the opportunity to do more than that at a few stages of the install; I suspect you just clicked through the "typical" settings for the networking, for example, and it went right through.
The default applets are tiny, and would be wanted in just about _any_ windows installation. If you are in the less than 5% in a special environment that is better off without them, then yes, you should write a script. If you don't know how to remove them from the default installation process, then you probably should be keeping them in there anyway. If you are in the less than 5% of the less than 5% who will not be using them _and_ not planning on doing any more machines in the future, then alas, you will have to uncheck those tiny little applets after the install has been completed (but yes, I agree, this small target audience of single-install, oddball requirements people are not being catered to by micro$oft. Somehow I do not think Bill is losing any sleep (or marketshare, or money) due to this).
Also, what you are complaining about is desirable to most people. If the guy who wrote the article had his install go this smoothly, he probably would have had to rate Redhat as second. (otoh, he wasn't really installing "windows" but rather some evil OEM's crazed, bloated setup).
---snip
And if you read my comment, you would have seen that I needed Office as well, which comes to 2 CD's. Uncompressed, that can come to ~1.6GBs of usable data. I had to install the full Office suite, because I don't know exactly what I will be needing, including the help files. Open Office can only do so much, and we had been given documents which pushed the bounderies of what the suite would do. Therefore, OO tended to break with all the unportable "features". Like for a
---snip
Sorry, I assumed we were just talking about the OS install. I won't argue that the "office" apps are tremendously bloated, with features that few people would ever use.
But...
When Open Office _can_ do everything MS Office does, has the same amount of clipart, dictionary/thesaurus of the same size, same level of help documentation including code examples for it's built in scripting language, etc. etc., how big do you think an "everything" install of OO will have become?
I do agree, however, that office is a pretty ugly set of apps, even if you do not count the proprietary file formats and just look at sheer bloat.
---snip
I had to install the full Office suite, because I don't know exactly what I will be needing, including the help files.
---snip
Just a suggestion, you might want to redo this install and choose "install on 1st use" for everything instead.
appz is to apps as
free is to beer
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden