Slashdot Mirror
Switching to Windows, Not as Easy as You Think
rchapman writes "Mad Penguin writer Simon Gerber has published an amusing review of Windows XP as seen from a Linux users point of view. He really makes you feel like you are trying to use Windows for the first time after exclusively using Linux. The article covers everything from the hideous installer and its lack of partitioning/formatting capabilities to the utter wasteland that is the Windows desktop, devoid of useful applications and everything in between. A fun read."
Windows, properly set up and configured, is NOT the BSOD nightmare it used to be. It's entrenched and will be a very hard slog to fight against. For those wanting to change, there's a super-polished, UNIX user friendly, open-source running contender in Apple's OS X.
How many of you own Apple notebooks? How many have blown away OS X to put a PPC linux distro on there?
The fact is that Windows isn't that bad, and Linux is going to do a whole lot better on the desktop if we want to make inroads there. Linux is already taking over places where the user experience is negligible or tightly controlled, for example, in the embedded, RTOS, and industrial worlds.
Fun article, but Microsoft moves forward, too. If Vista is a marketing success, then MS will dominate for a long time on the x86 desktop.
..don't panic
Who is the intended audience? Casual or Power-users? I doubt my Gran would be particularly interested in MBR's and partitions and what not...
"devoid of useful applications"
You are moaning that Windows is by default "devoid of useful applications ".
Of course it is! Remember the fiasco any time Microsoft try bundling anything useful with Windows? It ends up in an anti-trust trial! Of COURSE Microsoft aren't going to bundle anything useful with Windows any more.
I thoguht that was what a Linux user would want? Choice of their own applications, not MS's choice.
To start with, you've to install tons of apps that the operative systems don't includes itself. And due to that stupid microsoft rule that existed for years ("installer must be executables delivered by 3rd party apps") I've no way to automate the download and installation of those (yes, I know about msi, I also know MSIs can be slipped in the installation CD. I still find no way of installing AND automatic its update like apt-get update & upgrade does. And LOTS of installers are not using MSI still. Shame on you microsoft, for forcing people to create docens of different, incompatible, buggy, installers)
I mod this article -1 Troll.
Before it goes to far out of hand, where the slashdot hidden windows expert points out workarounds for his problems. This is how people write about Linux in Windows Rags. They go by their first impression and give there ratings from a 1 Day Point of View. When you move to a dramatically different system Windows, Mac, Linux/Unix, VMS... You find that things are not easy anymore. You they are no longer logically laid out Nothing works anymore and all your comfort apps are no longer there. You need time to think like the designers of the os, knowing the ls is short for list, or Dir sands for directory, or My Computer allows you view your mounted network drives. If you know only windows Other OS's feel weird and wrong the same if you know only an other OS. I say we should stop with these rags from peoples first impression and go with a better one showing the differences and explaining their strong and week points and not give judgement of what is better.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
And what is Microsoft supposed to do about applications? If it bundled Microsoft Office in with Windows, the anti-competition people would be on their backs the day it hit the shelves. They have no choice but keep the OS relatively free of apps - too many partners they don't want to piss off and the anti-competition people just waiting with multi-million dollar fines! Look at the shit they are having to go through here in Europe with Windows Media Player for example!
They could do what they used to do years ago - allow the bundling of MS applications and alternatives on the same PC - perhaps as CDs. They you could chose MS Works or Corel Office or Open Office...
The section about it being devoid of useful applications makes my blood boil. Windows is an operating system which allows you to run applications. It is not necessarly something that has to come shipped with a million and one applications. Perhaps we have become complacent because every Linux distro comes shipped with a ton of applications. It would be simple enough to make a Linux distribution that has a similar number of default installed applications as Windows.
The other problem with this statement is the way everyone cries foul when Microsoft default installs an app with Windows and then complains that a Windows default install doesn't have any applications. Make up your mind! You can't have it both ways.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Key statement: I set up Linux workstations
Let your novice users try to set up and use both and see which is more successful.
Answer: Linux. The Ubuntu install is far simpler than Windows, and was the first install of any OS on PC hardware I have ever seen that needed no prompting or additional drivers to deal with hardware.
Give a beginner a Windows XP CD and an Ubuntu CD and I have no doubts they would find Ubuntu easier to install in most cases.
The article was a send-up of all the "trying out Linux" articles that Windows power users have been writing for the past several years. You get to hear what difficulty they have getting used to a different way of doing things, but of course they call if a "problem" instead.
/. post?
Same here, except in reverse, and with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The article is showing how asinine it is to flame an OS when you don't know what the hell you are doing, and have no experience with it.
You DID notice the "It's funny, laugh!" icon at the top of the
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
How about doing a review from the perspective of someone who has never used a computer before - then lets see which one is easier to use (hint: the answer will be Windows XP by a massive margin).
Does this include the install process, or are you comparing pre-installed XP versus DIY Linux?
If a novice was forced to install both, I'd bet $100 that they'd get Linux installed properly first. A Linux install comes with most necessary drivers/software that you'll need. A novice Windows user would _never_ find the drivers needed for even an OEM system, like a Sony or HP, where all the drivers are centralized on one site, let alone searching out the drivers from each manufacturer. Linux installs are much easier than XP installs.
Usage? Are you talking about Gentoo versus XP? I'd suggest pre-installed SuSE versus pre-installed XP.
SuSE? Comes with manuals, both electronic and dead tree.
SuSE? Comes with all productivie software, documented in the manuals! Need to write a text document? Look up "word processing" in the SuSE manual. It'll tell you what app to use, show screenshots of the app, and give you a basic rundown of its usage, with pointers to a section in the electronic help system that will give you indepth support and tutorials, as well as e-mail/phone support.
What will XP do if you look up "Word Processing" in that 15 page piece of shit 'starter guide' it comes with?
The only place that XP is at all easier is finding software for it. Linux software is easier to install (RPM are very convienient, klik:// is even easier, and the GUI package managers are drop dead easy, especially Mandriva's URPMI GUI and SuSE's YaST GUI), and easier to remove. Linux systems require no habitual maintenance. You don't have to worry about anti-virus or anti-spyware, and even if you did worry about it, you could simply install the anti-virus software that comes with your distribution, using the distributions own package manager. Don't believe me? SuSE's YaST has "ClamAV", as well as several other anti-virus packages included.
If you can show me Windows software that installs as easily as this: http://amavis-ng.klik.atekon.de/ , I'll be mighty impressed. And commercial vendors are picking it up, too. For example, klik://nero will install the latest version of Nero Burning Rom on your Linux system, and run it. From one file. One click install->run. No setting, no fuss, no random files draped all over your system.
The only place linux still really lags behind is game avaliablility. Between alsa, SDL, and OpenGL, there's a pretty comprehensive gaming environment on linux, but its taking manufacturers some time to get caught up. iD and Epic are doing pretty well, and Transgaming's doing some neat things with DirectX9 Wine, but gaming on Linux just isn't all that there yet, even though I do manage to keep myself enterained.
It disappoints me that I can't play whatever games I want, but I keep myself busy with Secondlife, EVE Online, World of Warcraft, Doom 3, the Unreal series, Civilization IV, and various other distractions.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Have you ever seen the average "start menu" of an average Windows machine? Once I go to "Programs", I get a list that fills the screen (or scrolls on newer versions) of vendor names! Makes it almost impossible to find ANYTHING unless you already know what piece of software you're looking for! The only way to get a usable programs menu in Windows is to completely reorganize it manually.
Hmm so, where do I backup my data before formatting when this data is in the same partition as the system and the apps...
for what it's worth, most computers come with "restore" disks that wipe the whole fucking drive no matter how the partitions are set up. I always thought THAT was idiotic, too.
Actually there are several other application areas that cause adoption of linux to be less than it could besides the lack of games.
To get wide spread acceptance you must provide solutions for business as well as home users.
1. Visio replacement (dia can work but is not a complete replacement)
2. project management software, planner is almost there but not quite yet.
3. tax software. (a version of turbotax for linux, not the web based thing but something you control on your systems)
Openoffice or Staroffice can replace Micosoft Office today so the majority of things in the business world are taken care of. Get replacements for a few others and companies will be able to convert large numbers of users. And just like before with Microsoft, once it is used at the office users will take it home and use it there.
Once it is used by large numbers at home the games will come. But games are not a driving reason.
I installed Ubuntu, my wireless card doesn't connect me to the internet... now what do I do?
I had windows working on the machine in question, I was trying ubuntu to see if I could recover anything from the HD.. wireless didn't work, and I had to do other things, but saying that the installer does it all simply isn't true. And doing a post-install of drivers in *nix isn't as easy as download, click->next->next->reboot->done. Don't get me wrong, I like linux, love PC-BSD, and really like my Mac... but to say that linux is easier for general use than windows isn't so...
Is there a single disk installer for a program that will work on more than half the linux distros, without some sort of inline compile out of the box? (answer: no); Are there disks out there that will install on 99.999% of windows boxes (various versions, 9x or nt based) without issue? (answer: yes)... This is what's holding back linux, there's no installer that will work on at *least* half the desktop installs out of the box... with windows you get > 90% out of the box.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Again, what is the point of such a test/study? We already know that Windows totally dominates pre-installs!
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
This guy is full of it.
... Uhhh ... pci[enter] no... fuck it. Google where are you.
I can do the EXACT same thing with LINUX. I can install it on some system and have all kinds of problems, simply because I don't know what I am doing.
The fact of the matter is, BOTH operating systems are way to technically difficult to install. You have to "know" your environment the second even ONE little thing goes wrong, or else all hell breaks loose. You know how long it took me to find the damn "lspci" command? Sheesh, I was looking for an hour. I didn't even KNOW if Linux had this ability, after I realized it MIGHT, then I had to find the thing. At least with windows you can graphically navigate to the most obvious place.. "Control Panel"... makes sense.. "System", yeah!, "hardware" Oh yeah!!, "Devices" RIGHT ON!. Linux =
I've installed Windows on at least two dozen machines, sure sometimes there is a problem, but nothing like this guy is talking about.
There are some basic ideas and steps you need to know to fix "drivers" and such, once you know them its a snap. The same goes for linux.
My point is Windows is NOT more difficult or screwed up than linux, and vice versa. They are both pretty horrible, but personally I give WINDOWS the hands down on being slightly less horrible as far as install-experience.
- Voxel
P.S. If the guy had been using the latest version of Windows XP (Service Pack 2 Disk), then his 200 gigabyte drive would of detected fine. When you use a linux distro, you do use the latest version don't you?
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes