Slashdot Mirror
Is Linux or Windows Easier To Install?
Mark Cappel writes: "Joe Barr, a LinuxWorld.com columnist, compares Linux and Windows installations. He expected Windows to be faster and easier since Microsoft has been at it for 21 years. (DOS 1.0 was released 21 years ago today.) It turns out Red Hat is quicker and less manually intensive."
then shouldn't the article be comparing RedHat and Windows installs?
If he is only testing with Redhat, it seems unfair to lump all of those installs as "faster" than Windows, based on the performance of only one type.
Just something to think about.
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
Does anyone else think this review would have been more fair if he had used a retail win2k pro disc instead of using the Sony system restore cd's?
How's my typing? Call 1-800-eta-shut
Most people who are using Windows didn't install their OS, it came on their machine when they bought it. So practically, when someone buys a PC, they spend no time installing their OS. Just a thought.
Th
This 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.
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
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
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.
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
grain of salt? the guy's a fucking moron. firstly he should be installing XP, a consumer OS for a consumer girlfriend (not 2K, never designed to be installed by consumers), secondly why did he upgrade 3 different versions of IE? why not just install 2Ksp3 which includes IE6. dumbass. then, he should know an OEM setup from the real thing, no wonder he got a whole bunch of adverts for stuff, and a blank admin password. has this guy never installed a REAL version of win2k before?
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...
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
assuming the card has a driver for Linux
Yes, and if it doesn't, tell me that most users won't turn tht Linux disk into a coaster.
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
... vendors install it for you!
I don't care how "easy" Linux ever is, 90% of people will never, ever install it. Unless more vendors start offering it pre-installed (hooray for Wal-Mart), Linux will never be adopted by any sizable percentage of desktops.
The whole conversation about "ease of installation" is completely wrong-minded.
I agree too, but you must remember one thing. All of those components go into making a stable, secure, and reliable Windows installation. Windows is *not done* when you pop the disk in, set up time zones and users, and run. Great care must be taken to get the system ready to go, and install all of your other apps. Drivers are almost *never* current on a vanilla Windows installation. Viruses are going to be a big threat, so you have to nail that one down. A firewall is essential (not the XP firewall, either).
In most respects, a modern Linux distribution will do all of that for you the first time. Red Hat has a bit more stuff than most distributions, but it really is quite less than what you find on a "recovery CD" when you do a standard Red Hat install. Slackware is great for me. Though it takes a bit of know-how to partition your HDs, and get the X server configured, it can still be faster and easier to do, if you are an experienced user.
After that, you can probably install something like Slack in a half hour - 45 minutes. It takes about 15 minutes to configure the video, sound, and a few other things. I can't say that I was ever able to install Windows 2000, download drivers, install and tweak them in that amount of time.
There isn't anything wrong with Windows 2000... It is good software in most respects. But the old arguments about Linux being to combersome, and slow/difficult install processes are over. Something like Lycoris makes it even easier, if you can believe that.
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.
I'm sorry, I must have been in a coma during the K5-486 merge. Or maybe the K5 was a 586 clone... hmmmm.... I agree, and I am a hardcore Unix bigot, but there is a big difference between the 486 mentioned above, the supporting chipset glue running alongside it, and the AMD K5 architecture.
.99, but it has always been a hacker swiss army knife more than a usable OS for the masses. Which should be cool with the folks that read this board, do you really want the same OS your grandparents use? I think we need to spend less time trying to convince the computer unsavvy to use Linux and more time making Linux work with the M$ crap. And of course, there is OS X. I'm sure that if any of us could afford that hardware we would burn all of these PCs in a pile. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself here.
On the other hand (I think there is automatic modding down of Linux bashing), RedHat is VERY easy to install now, but when my mother calls with a printer problem on her Windows XP box it is a little easier to troubleshoot than Linux. I have been using Linux since pre
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
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.
Well, one of Linux's biggest benefits (and downfalls) is being so modular, to a sense of having all distributions compatible (at least 99% compatible). There will always be those "geeky" distributions, and those easier distributions, I think.
When you "Linux is (at least right now) not designed for the level of ease-of-use that XP was" I have to disagree in many respects. Saying "Linux" when explaining this is being a little too broad. Granted, installing software from CDs is easier in Windows, unless you use somethings like Lycoris's Iris , which makes it simple. Other than that, what is more difficult? I keep asking people these questions, and they always reply with comments about recompiling the kernel, permissions, etc... Things that aren't even an issue in many modern, desktop oriented distibutions. Doesn't that satisfy the basic needs of most casual computer users, that only use the web/email/word processor?
I tried installing the latest Debian release this last weekend.... took me the whole weekend, and 6 re-installs. The best I could get was running, but had some serious problems, such as: no networking installed, didn't recognize my mouse, couldn't run X because it didn't know how to work with my monitor, and top it off, it couldn't read the damn floppy drive.
So I downloaded the latest Mandrake... first shot, I got everything loaded that I wanted, and it took me less than an hour.
How does that compare to Windows? Who knows? I wouldn't touch that shit, but I would believe that Windows users experiences range anywhere between the two. Hell, my OS X installation was about as smooth as the Mandrake install.
- passion
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
"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.