Slashdot Mirror
End of Win 98 Support May Boost Desktop Linux
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft kills off support for Windows 98 and Windows ME today, and ZDNet is reporting that the move will boost demand for Linux on the desktop. Unlike two years ago — when support for Win98 was extended because Linux was seen as a serious competitor — this time it seems there is no turning back."
Increased demand for Linux on the desktop? Highly unlikely. The machines still running Win98/ME are probably all older machines that keep on chugging. The users didn't bother to upgrade to Windows 2000 or Windows XP in the first place, and will just keep running Win98/ME until the machine dies. When that happens, the users will simply buy a new system and then get the latest OS that comes with it. Probably XP or Vista, depending on time when the old machine dies.
While Linux may be ready for the desktop, the people that stick to Win98/ME are the most unlikely to switch to Linux.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Add to the lack of support the fact that most machines we are talking about are old and slow by today's standards. Modern Windows OSes won't run well if at all on many of them. Linux is a natural choice, so this 'analysis' is fairly obvious and not really news per se. Linux can run quite well on marginal hardware, and is available basically for free, or a small fee if the user(s) want support.
Nothing really to see here. Move along.
What a useless article, the only section that actually mentioned Linux at all was
Silver still believes that some users may decide to switch to Linux instead of upgrading to XP but he said existing applications that require Windows are likely to stop a mass migration.
So how exactly is MS killing '98 support going to 'help linux migration'??
Microsoft confirmed that they would begin supporting Windows XP sometime during Q3 this year.
Ame
Unless the end of support means that all copies will explode and stop working. I know people that still run windows 95 and they dont care that it is "unsupported" the masses dont care if something is supported anyways, they dont call microsoft, they typically dont go patching or updating.
This means absolutely nothing, windows 98 installed bast sill remain the same and slowly dwindle as the poor upgrade their pc's and use what comes on that.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The kind of people who are still running Windows 98 are exactly the same people who will happily run Linux. And these same people really care about whether it's supported by Microsoft or not.
My Journal
Rich.
(PS. That discussion link just stopped working, but I expect it'll be back up shortly).
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Shame then that Linux on the desktop is still effectively a hardware support crapshoot.
Anyway, regardless, I doubt very much that any Windows user would switch to Linux unless someone sold it to them, and I've yet to see an end-user-directed advert for Linux in any medium.
First, a rewrite. Changes are highlighted in bold:
An anonymous reader writesSeriously, my PIII laptop has 'Designed for Windows 98' on it, and can run Windows 2000 and Windows XP just fine, but the mainstream Linux distros are too bloaty to even install: the Ubuntu and Fedora installers literally hang, and SUSE and Mandriva are too slow even on my other machine in the +2GHz range.
Linux can't pick up the slack when MS turns off support for old OSes, because the top Linux distros stopped catering for that level of hardware years ago. And with KDE/GNOME being so indispensable for everyday desktop usage, their near-elitist disregard for anything below mid-high range hardware is infuriating.
In fact, here is the quote ZDNet is using to support their claim:
Words cannot express just how much of a non-story this is.
404 File Not Found
The requested URL (linux/06/07/11/0218250.shtml) was not found.
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
What's the difference between that and "Nothing for you to see here, move along" ?
BTW the item wasn't present on the linux page at the time I got that...
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I switched from Windows ME a few months ago after having saved enough money to get Windows XP. Really, Windows ME isn't as terrible as people make it seems. I only go to Slashdot, Wikipedia, and CNN with cookies disabled, so really there isn't much to worry about from getting spyware, adware, and computer virii. I never ran any advanced computer programs, so I never had to upgrade computers. I didn't want to switch to Linux because I had the notion that it was too technical and oriented for computer programmers, and the Linux community was too arrogant to help out any new people with basic problems. Really, Windows ME is okay, as long as you don't go exploring anywhere it's obvious you aren't supposed to. I upgraded computers and operating systems in order to run Celestia, an open-source computer program that lets you view the positions of stars and planets. With it, I can navigate the universe in the same way I navigate the planet with Google Earth. Even with 1.1 GHz and about 386MB RAM, it somehow still has great difficulty loading galaxies and planets.
I've been mulling this issue for a few weeks. I have an old Toshiba laptop that runs Win98. I've considered switching it over to Linux, but I'm unsure of which distro is appropriate. Of course, I've looked at the big name distros, like SuSE and Ubuntu. But, I'm not convinced they'd run well on old hardware. The laptop is a P2 with 64M RAM. So, I ask you Linux gurus, which distro would be the most suitable?
I was about to say that this means that I no longer have any supported versions of Windows, but then I remembered that the most recent version I have is Win95 OSR2, not Win98. So I guess haven't had a supported version for a while. '98 was when I finally gave up on dual-booting and dumped Win for good, not when I got my last copy... :)
If you've been running a computer with either of these operating systems, you have been doing so for many years now. Chances are you sorted out any kinks you had a long time ago and you are aware of any pertinent security issues and have made your decision to stick where you are. So why would anyone who has stuck with either OS for so long get excited about a lack of official support?
Users who haven't bothered upgrading their Win98/ME-machine probably don't care about the (absent) support either. The probability of them installing a completely new OS (Linux) is rather slim... me thinks.
...ending iTunes support for Windows may boost Mac sales.
Has about the same possibility of happening...
However, all of the things that you would have to do to get it to install (text mode, --nousb, that type of stuff) would not be something the "average" computer user would be willing to deal with.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I work in a 2-way radio business radio shop. All of our programming computers use Windows 98 SE because everything after that had trouble with using the serial ports of out DOS (Now, on Win98, almost everything works. On anything past that, 90% of the software works, but you will run into something here or there that refuses to read or write to a radio).
I would love nothing more to swap each Win98 computer over to Linux, but you know how much of the radio programming software - Kenwood, Motorola, Icom, etc. -- will run on Linux? None.
I would bet that a fair amount of Win98 users still use it because they are in a situation similar to us, too. And you know how many of their critical apps run on Linux? Probably none, too.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Do you realy think that people using Windows98 updates there computers with patches??
You have a bunch of people without the knowledge/brains to run an updater.
If they had knowledge or brain they would already have updated there computer/operationsystem to something newer.
These people _wont_ migrate to Linux, how clueless can one be?
What, exactly, will change for the average Win98 user when MS "discontinues support"?
I've got an old CTX700E notebook running Windows 98 SE. It only has a 2GB HD. I maxed out the RAM, but forget what it holds.
I tried at one point to upgrade it to Windows XP Home Edition, but the install filled the HD and it was slow as molasses. So I tried some flavor of *nix (Red Hat?) but it equally filled the HD and was equally slow. I know you can pick and choose what things to install but I don't know what things are good and what things aren't so I just say "install everything".
It could be a fun computer to do a Linux install on - I just use it for Microsoft Office/email/web stuff while on the road. If I had time I'd play and figure out how to do a minimal install with a GUI desktop and get all those kinds of apps running.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I tagged the article "wishfulthinking" - because that's what it is. The thing is those still running Windows 98 didn't really have any support to begin with, and are likely home users who haven't moved off Win98 because they don't know how to install Windows XP. Even though things like Fedora Core are really easier to install than Windows these days, most people running Win98 probably have absolutely no interest in learning how to use even an easy-to-use desktop Linux distro.
It will likely be a decade before Linux on the desktop gets even the marketshare that Apple has now - there are just too many impediments (like proprietary codecs) to keep even the clueful from switching, let alone the typical person who still uses Win98 on a daily basis.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Good for you.
Would you like a cookie?
My sig can beat up your sig.
good to know that with the death of win98 linux is now the leading obsolete os
Although I'm a huge Linux fan, and I've been using it on my primary home desktop since 1997, I doubt that end-of-life on Win95 will push Linux adoption at all.
The issue here isn't keeping old machines running (which Linux does spectacularly) but keeping old APPLICATIONS running - those specialized applications that are in some sense mission-critical, but which won't run on newer hardware or under XP.
I've got a pair of P150 Win95 Toughbooks that I use to talk to the ECU on the race car. I'd love to use my fancy-schmancy HP ZD7280 instead, but it has no serial port, and the ECU doesn't like USB->Serial converters. Yes, I could buy a PCMCIA serial card, but the laptops were cheaper - and they work.
There are a lot of businesses out there with hardware controllers, bespoke business process software etc running on Win95 because their specific application won't run on XP. Linux doesn't help these folks.
Unless WINE is 100% functional for their application and is pre-installed (setting up WINE used to be a real bitch) such that the application can be loaded onto a Linux box and "just works", there's no reason to move to Linux.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Just as soon as most loons still using win98 stop asking - "so how much is Microsoft Word for Linux cost"?
If they get an answer for that - then Linux is SO in with those folks.
Thanks!
Now I can more easily look for articles that are "wishfulthinking".
That's almost as usefull as those "no", "yes" and "maybe" tags; how often did you find yourself asking "now where is that article that some random guy didn't know to agree with or not?".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Those who are still running Windows98 are most likely to do nothing in the immediate future (as opposed to moving to linux or windowsxp/2000). Those who do upgrade their OS are likely to upgrade the whole machine and therefore end up with winxp box.
That being said, however, there are what, 50 million win 98 users (FTFA, if I remember right)? There's a fair chance that at least some of them are going to upgrade the OS only. And here's the funny thing. If MS really continued support for Win98 for 2 years to keep people from switching to linux, then they had a very stupid strategy. The fact is that linux for the desktop today is far more advanced than linux for the desktop was 2 years ago.
2 years ago a fair amount of users who would have tried switching to linux would have been unsatisfied with the experience to the point of being willing to pay to get back into the MS fold. Now, however, there are not only more people likely to switch to linux (given the publicity of switching over the last 2 years) but I think anyone that's used to using windows 95 or 98 would actually prefer running, say, the newest version of Ubuntu (my particular fave distro). (I'm not mentioning Windows ME, because frankly etching onto a cave wall is preferable to running Windows ME for anything.)
In a nutshell: linux wasn't really ready to replace windows 2 years ago for desktop use. By postponing the switch, MS has just allowed linux (and open source in general like open office) to garner publicity and turn into a truly vialbe alternative.
Way to go MS.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Those '50 to 70 million' users of Windows 98 or Windows ME are probably running on older hardware and are unlikely to upgrade to Windows XP due to its increased hardware requirements and slower system response. A normal competitive business with that many users of one of its product would find some way to sell them something such as security fixes, patches, or whatever. Microsoft just kisses them off.
...what about apple? They dont 'just' make the ipod, you know
When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
I'm one of those who tried to switch to Linux. Even though Win98 is blazing fast on my machine, Xubuntu (light-weight Ubuntu with XFCE) has been as sluggish as Win95 on my other computer, a 486-66MHz. I really appreciated how helpfull the Ubuntu forum members were, but after a while they all determined that XFCE would not run any faster on my computer than it did, and so I switched back to Win98SE.
1. I use Win98 as a test bed for software I download from the internet. If I don't know what will happen, I'll fire it up under the Win98 virtual machine, and see what happens.
2. Going back to the virtual machines, I use Win98 for all of my Azureus downloading. For some reason, I get the dreaded BSOD when using it on my desktop running XP, but running Azureus under a virtual machine can run for days without a problem.
3. I have my three year old use the computer under a virtual machine. She can have at it on the computer, and if she destroys or deletes anything critical, I simply go back and load a copy from the clone I made and she's back on it.
4. I still have some old games from the 90's that simply refuse to run under XP's compatibility. They don't require the latest video graphics, the video that VMWare work for it. By running them under a virtual machine, I can still play them.
He who laughs last is at 300 baud.
The hardware of the late 1990's and early 2000's was the most closed windows dependant hardware I've ever seen. The integrated video hardware of today is way more compatible than of that time. Although many OEM's don't "support" Linux today, many at least test their hardware and attempt to run on linux (intel, adaptec, promise, atheros, ati, nvidia, amd, dell, hp, etc). Back then many OEM's had no clue about linux. A great deal of these computers probably have winmodems too so there's little chance of internet connectivity. Flakey soundcards too. Video, sound, and internet are pretty important to most home users. Old machines are good for web and mail servers because all they need is a usuable IDE controller and network card, but they make pretty crappy desktop machines.
It's a bad idea encouraging these people to use linux. They will probably fall flat on their face and have a bad impression of linux. They'd be better off buying a 1ghz mini itx box with linux preloaded for a few hundred dollars.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Has anyone ever checked if Firefox on Xubuntu runs faster than IE on Win98 on an old machine? Because the current Ubuntu/Fedora/SuSe stuff sure as hell are slower and will likely crawl along on machines that would still have a reasonable speed to work on some old machines I have seen.
And what about Office 97 vs. OpenOffice 2.0?
Or does anyone have a better idea on which office suite to use on those "converted" machines.
Before some people actually ran some tests I doubt that Xubuntu a viable alternative on an old machine running Win98 and Office 97.
I'm puzzled by the timing. If Microsoft had continued to support Win98/Me for a few more months, then, they could stop support in time to push people to Vista. I wonder if this is an unintended admission that Vista will be even later than the latest slip date. On the other hand, maybe it is just the same old, left hand (OS support organization) not knowing what the right hand (Vista organization) is doing. If so, then one wonders exactly what senior management is doing.
I just made the switch from Windows 98 to Ubuntu. I used a lot of 2000 and XP in between at work and on my girl's computer, but the last system I actually owned before this new Ubuntu one was Windows 98. I probably wouldn't have switched to Linux if it weren't for Product Activation and the sarcastically-named Genuine Advantage. I actually liked Windows 98. I could still boot into real DOS to efficiently manage my files.
TFA mentions Linux only very briefly, yet the summary and the heading would have us believe No Win98 Means More Linux. More and more, it appears these Flamebait and Troll articles are a mechanism for MS to get free and vital feedback from the user / pirating communities.
Some examples:
1. WGA to turn off your PC - source: A Blog! - 800 replies - Subsequent Slashback - Subsequent Denial through a PR firm!
2. Why Vista keeps getting delayed..... atleast a dozen articles!
3. ODF support in Office 2007.
4. WinFS to be dropped.. again, not an authentic source, and no real content whatsoever.
5. UK schools to examine MS school licensing.
6. Vista to boost Linux adoption.
7. Virtualization to boost Linux, kill Windows.
8. And now, No Support for Win98 to boost Linux!
Looks like the MS "Get The FUD" policy has backfired. Every day, the Linux Fear seems to be growing on the giant firm. Rather than getting revenue from new licenses through superior products and tech., MS now appears to have given up.. instead they seem to be hell bent on extracting revenue from the faithful pirates.
Why not create a separate section microsoft.ask.slashdot.org and quit pretending that such articles are "News Items" that "Matter to Nerds"? Alternatively, MS could send a few $$ for every meaningful feedback post to such non-articles.
Personally, I upgraded my home PC from Windows XP Pro (my office's license) to Windows 98SE last week. WinXP needed a lot of support.. the WGA started grumbling moment I took the office PC home.., so I fixed it with Win98 and Opera, de-installed IE, reconfigured my 'hosts' file, and routed all phone-home packets to localhost.
I don't think I neeed any support for Win98, so thanks MS for dropping it.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
If you haven't already bothered to switch from a OS launched eons ago yet, chances are this decision by MS is not going to sway your non-decision.
In 1st world countries it can be due to lack of interest, but on 3rd world ones, such as mine (Brazil), most people who use Win98 do so because they simple cannot afford a computer able to run anything more recent. For these people there's no buying hardware, and much less buying software. It's Win98, and pirated Win98 at that. And in regards to support, if they screw up their installation they can always ask for a technician to reinstall Win98SE and install an (also pirated) MS Office 95 or 97, plus AVG Free and ZoneAlarm, for as low as $10.
But things are slowly changing. Low end computers are receiving some big tax exemptions and people are becoming able to afford something barely able to run WinXP. The end cost for such a computer is around $400, payable in 24 months (around $20/month). They usually come in two flavors: WinXP "Starter Edition" and Linux. So, the guy purchases either one, and then calls the technician to wipe the hard disk and install WinXP Pro, plus MS Office 2003 and Norton Internet Security 2006. Everything pirated, of course. For $15...
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
"I switched from Windows ME a few months ago after having saved enough money to get Windows XP .. there isn't much to worry about from getting spyware, adware, and computer virii."
.. the Linux community was too arrogant to help out any new people with basic problems"
Why the wait, download and burn a copy of SuSE Linux and you won't have to worry about 'computer virii'.
"I had the notion
Not my experience, for instance I posted to the Mpeg4IP forum and got a polite and helpfull reply from one of the developers.
davecb5620@gmail.com
Anyone who thought purchasing Windows ME was a good idea is obviously not intelligent enough to run Linux on their machine.
I acutally got back into Linux when my Windows 2000 machine kept getting "sick" and then discovered that I would have to pay $100+ to get XP... I had never paid for Windows and wasn't about to. I looked around for Linux distros and found DistroWatch and tried Ubuntu. I don't use the machine for much, but Ubuntu did the trick. Hardware crapshoot, as someone else put it, but I guess I rolled a 7 on the come out roll because everything worked great, even my HP all-in-one printer/scanner. My Nvidia card didn't have the "optimal" drivers and that was the toughest thing to overcome, but other than that I havent' looked back..
On the other hand you have hard core Windows apps that just won't port or run under Crossover/WINE, not to mention games.
I have said this before and I will say this again. I beleive Linux distros like Ubuntu are at a level that compete with Windows 98, that is, most stuff "just works" but every now and then you need to Google some stuff and tweak something from the command line, just like when Windows 98 came out and the first "plug and play" stuff was introduced.
What a coincidence! I would like to see Barack Obama as President, but I don't think it will happen with George Bush in office.
I was always fascinated with rock 'n' roll, or girls, or something like that when I was a kid. - Gary Sinise
It seems to me we never hear about MS busting the few remaining ancient-hardware entusiasts for swapping around dupes of MS-DOS 5 or Windows 3.11 for their 286s. I don't suppose the end of support for '98 means MS will stop suing people for putting ISOs of that particular OS up on The Pirate Bay..
..I know, I know, but it's fun to dream.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
This is a tough call. Who still uses Windows 98 or ME? Most likely PC users with very old boxes. While that screams Linux to people like me, the kind of people with such boxes probably don't know what Linux is.
More than likely this will be a boost for cheap Dell and HP sales, if anything. That's assuming the people using them know or care that Microsoft no longer supports their OS. They'll probably just keep their boxes going until something breaks, this will just help speed things up.
Haiku for you!
What supprt do people actuallyuse? Anyone still running Windows 98 is going to be fairly familiar with it, and probably doesn't qualify for direct technical support anyway. The other areas of "support" are going to be bug fixes and upgrades. They haven't really done a lot in this area anyway.
This is great for the linux community. i believe in starting them young. here is a guide i wrote on how to turn old 98 boxes into great edubuntu boxes for children. i have been taking older computers, putting more ram in them, and giving them away. it takes no time for a child to adapt to linux, and this way we can teach them a bit more than click on the start button. http://infonomicon.org/text/edubuntu-for-kids.txt (no adds)
Majority of the people who use Win98/ME will end up buying the cheapest computer they can find. And then selling the old hardware on eBay.
An example of Windows 98 is at my gym where the barcode check in/check out system churns along happily day after day on a Windows 98 box (not connected to the Internet, or I'm sure it would be unusable by now). Here's an example of an old box, probably better made than half the crap churned out today (decent power supplies, hard drives that were throroughly Q/A'd, memory modules with matching chips, etc.), that will continue being used until it implodes upon ifself. The application does not need the eye candy of XP/Gnome/KDE, nor does it need access to infinite amounts of virtual RAM, etc. It needs to start quickly (which Windows 98 does) and go.
This may be a perfect opportunity to set up a simple Linux application that runs under X (not using KDE/Gnome), but who is going to spend the money to fund the development? It's not a "sexy" project that it going to be picked up on by some hacker for fun, and the kind of guys who write boring database apps like this are mostly busy in the US these days working 10 hour days trying to keep their jobs.
It's not Microsoft Office that keeps these Windows 98 boxes alive; but the small, VB apps that do not die but continue doing useful work day in and day out. Could these be built on Linux? Absolutely. Would they be better? Sure they could. Could they be built as quickly and easily as their VB 6 counterparts? Not that I have seen so far, and that includes Gnome, KDE/Qt, Tk and wxPython (I know there are many more). That's where Windows picked up so much momentum; it was the ability to toss together small, useful, ugly RAD apps that were not things of Computer Science beauty, but they could be built by people who didn't know C++ but knew what they needed.
IMO, this is a big reason why Linux hasn't caught on the way it ought to have on the Desktop. There is no easy way for the non-computer scientist to put together quick, useful applications. This is something IBM never got with OS/2, and why it died a stagnant death, because while it could run Windows 3.1 apps better than Windows itself, to do anything in native you pretty much had to do it in C++.
Most Linux users like the idea of their apps being constructed by committees of uber-hackers in Europe who really know their stuff. However, until your average hobbiest or business professional can put together useful applications as easily as they could in VB (and to a lesser extent VB.NET), and distribute it, legacy operating systems like Windows 98 and XP will still be floating around for many years to come.
"Only the low rung of spyware use activeX, most use methods that you have no way of stopping and sometimes don't even know it has been installed."
Yeah, 9x320. You may want to check and see if slashdot didn't install a program that changes all your bookmarks to pro-linux/anti-MS sites.
I don't think the average user would have much trouble USING Linux. The problem is, the average user can't INSTALL Linux. They probably couldn't install Windows either, but they don't have to.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Take a look at your scenario: If YOU were that small business owner, with 10-15 employees and 10 older '98 machines, which do you think is more likely?
Scenario 1
- Sees slashdot headline in RSS reader about '98 support being discontinued and a mention of Linux, which is free software that you've heard discussed every now and then
- Ignores all matters critical to running his business--normally a 60hr/wk job--and learns about Linux and the different distros and which companies offer support
- Calls Red Hat, or a Red Hat provider, and discusses the software, gets a demo, installs, tests, and orders the software and support contract
- Tries to find software to replace all of the titles used in Windows
- Trains employees or hires someone to train employees
Scenario 2
- Calls Dell and orders 10 of their cheapest XP PC's shipped to their door at $500 machine.
Scenario 3
- Does nothing, crosses fingers, replaces PC's one at a time as they break
I can't possibly imagine ANY SMALL BIZ owner following Scenario 1. I don't understand why linux zealots try to push linux down everyones throat, even where it doesn't belong.
The people that WANT to use linux are already using it. It's not as if a critical mass of people are JUST ABOUT to use Linux if only X would happen or Y would happen to nudge it along. Like it or not, linux is positioned as a Server OS.
Currently, OSX isn't enough to convert users. So when Linux is better then OSX, come back and tell me and I'll help you evangalize.
What is this support thing you keep mentioning?
I have not received this thing.
Is it related to the girlfriend thing I keep hearing about?
Funny, I re-installed Win98 on a computer two days ago. I needed it for software to communicate with Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC's). The software didn't seem to work on my WinXP box and it states in the help files it won't work under emulation (So no linux).
Win98 though, did the trick.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
A
O
L
Lots of folks have perfectly working hardware, but software that's horribly out of date and unsecured. I deal with this on an almost daily basis, and it just plain sucks.
I'd say close to 90% of the machines still running win9x (in the home environment) are older machines that kids/grandkids gave to their older relatives so they could get on AOL or some other proprietary ISP (dreamscape, netzero, yada yada) and use email and surf.
There is no AOL client for Linux. There area couple dialers out there, but they are _not_ AOL, and don't even come close to giving the user the experience they're used to. It's a damn shame that one of the more desktop oriented Linux distros out there won't partner up with AOL or something and get a damn decent client up and running. Some have half-heartedly tried to brand one of the open source dialers out there, but it's just not AOL. Sure, it probably wouldn't be open source, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.
The biggest hurdle after AOL is winmodems. Whoever came up with that idea should be shot and spit on.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
My parent's windows system came with a disc they could just put in the drive, turn it on, then wait for about 1 hour, then they were back in business.
but your point is valid the problem comes with the need to install.
I think that's the big thing I see as a failure here, everyone knows that Vista is coming out, sometime... so what do they do? Wait 3-6 months for Vista, or buy now & be pissed when the new OS comes out? I think this was part of the original scheduling, get Vista shipped, then cancell support for 98/ME. The problem is with the constant push back of Vista, they had to draw the line somewhere. Look at the timing, there are 3 major times PC's get purchased in large numbers:
- Start of school year (late Aug/early Sept)
- Christmass season (Nov/Dec)
- Tax time
Vista should be shipping this month to the OEMs & in stores the first week of Aug to catch the School rush - it's not going to.Vista needs to ship in Late Sept and be in stores by mid October to get all the Xmass rush - it's iffy and probably going to be buggy.
Vista needs to ship in Feb & be in stores by Mid March to catch the biggest rush of tax refunds - it's supposed to be there by then.
Cancelling support for 98/ME now (July), drives a 'need' for Vista in August - just in time for school - only Vista's not ready. So your next cutoff is Sept to drive the Xmass rush, but you can't really be sure you're going to be ready for it then either. January? Why wait 6 more months to trash something you've already extended by 2 years?
Other people have made some very good comments that the majority of the 50-70M installs of 9X/Me are not going to change overnight. There's no reason for it. Most of them are tied to specific custom/niche software in businesses, or in the homes of people who use them as 'internet appliances' - email/light browsing. In both cases, people are happy with them & won't change unless the hardware breaks and they need to - in some cases with specialty software/hardware they will scavenge through the junk piles to build another box that will run it.
Other people have commented that people won't go to linux because it's slow & crappy on older hardware. I have to say that if you use the default install of everything - yeah linux is a dog. Get rid of MySQL & Postgress running simultaniously when neither are used, and the other dozen services running in the background, and they run fine. I put Ubuntu on a Compaq P2 333 w/ 64K and the only hardware not detected was the integrated soundcard. A crappy Soundblaster from the box-o-junk and it was fine. Stripped down with no extra services, and running in single user mode, it's just fine.
For the guy running the 75 mhz P1, not a problem - a bit of work perhaps, but DSL or Slackware will still run on a 386.
the BSD telnet client, which is based on the PD NCSA telnet client. ...NCSA telnet client
In order to use Linux instead of Windows, a person has to spend hundreds of hours relearning everything that they have already mastered about computer usage. If you don't know (and don't have the time) to learn the difference between a BSD telnet client or a PD NCSA telnet client then using Linux is simply not an option.
Linux users consistently underestimate the extent that their background computer knowledge is needed or used when comparing Windows to Linux. It is this requirement of computer background knowledge which is the main reason preventing the general public from switching to Linux from Windows.
Myself, I will continue to use Windows 98 forever because it allows direct access to the Pentium input/output ports. Further versions of Windows don't allow this, and I need it. Plus I don't have to depend on the whim of Microsoft to get the OS installed and running. The smaller that the version of Linux is that you install, the more computer knowledge that you need to make it work. And I don't get paid for learning about the computer tools that I use, only for the results that get produced by them.
Why do you think you need the latest/greatest KDE/GNOME to replace Win98? The machine is still Win98-era, so that's about the best you should be able to expect from it and get decent performance. Choose a lesser desktop...you can probably find one that still has feature-parity to Win98 by looking through Windowmaker, XFCE, Equinox, Blackbox, IceWM, etc. - and you'll get decent performance.
Constitutionally Correct
Maybe MS finaly figured out 98 still can't support a scanner...
How hesitant users are to switch depends on the demographics. Mostly it is the older users who are stuck in the Windows cycle, alot of younger people who are comfortable around computers are much more mobile in this respect and willing to try new things. I have seen enough people switch to OS.X from Windows to know that. Of course the OS.X switchers are not exacty a mass exodus but alot of them are not exactly powerusers either and Mac sales have been picking up recently. There is no real reason why Linux as a desktop OS for regular users shouldn't also be able to achieve similar growth and thus help to gnaw away at Microsoft's market share. What keeps regular users (not nerds) away from Linux as a desktop OS is among other things:
- The still user unfriendly and sometimes buggy nature of many Linux distributions, especially when it comes to laptop support.
- The fact that major PC manufacturers don't offer Linux as an OS option complete with a support package and sell it aggressively.
- The sheer flora of desktop environments that are available for Linux since alot of normal users associate the desktop strongly with the operating system however illogical that may appear to a nerd.
I'd like to see some major PC maker offer a Linux line of Destop and Laptop PC's, a hardware/software package similar in concept to Apple's offerings and with the same effort being put into support, development, making the OS easy and consistent to use and that users can easily get ahold of applications to replace the ones they miss from Windows. The components for this already exists, somebody just needs to get off his/her ass and use them to shake up the computer world like Ryanair and the likes managed to shake up the airline business. One thing is for sure, as long as people keep using Windows as they do nothing and wait for Microsoft to shoot it self in the foot and screw up it's monopoly nothing will change.Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I guess I'm going to have to sell my 486 now :(
http://www.thirdrake.com - Best Webcomic of all time.
The article does state "Silver still believes that some users may decide to switch to Linux instead of upgrading to XP but he said existing applications that require Windows are likely to stop a mass migration.". I don't think anyone believes that a huge shift in the OS landscape is here... yet. Windows still has a monopoly, and when Vista is released I expect the masses will rush out and buy it like good consumers despite all the good reasons not to. Similarly hardware vendors will continue to be persuaded to give other operating systems second class support. Some will make the switch, but only in situations where there is someone who advocates an alternative.
I believe the breakthrough will happen 2 to 4 years after the release of Vista. I have the luxury of not having used Windows since 98SE (I saw the light with ME), so I'm probably not qualified to comment on how good or bad Windows actually is, but from the bits and pieces I read I expect Vista to be the last Windows that will have a monopoly on the desktop. There was a recent /. story (too lazy to search, sorry) which indicated that Microsoft see Vista as the last Windows too, they can be blind sometimes but they're not stupid. Vista may or may not be a huge disaster but with DRM, the rewrite, the expected security problems, malware, the continuing growth of alternatives, Bill Gates jumping ship, with national governments becoming concerned about their information infrastructure being in the hands of a monopolistic corporation based in an increasingly imperialistic and dangerous superpower? If the world doesn't switch it deserves all these things.
Of course I don't have a crystal ball, but /. is gonna get very interesting in a couple of years.
My moms ISP told her that she had to buy a new computer or else she wasn't going to be able to use their service after the 11th. I called them up and screamed at them and the finally admitted that she could still USE their service but they wouldn't be able to give her tech support for Windows.
So I'm buying her a new computer and installing Ubuntu on it. I already have her converted to Firefox (which she loves) and Open Office (which she didn't even realize WASN'T Microsoft Office).
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
If someone is still using Windows 98 they aren't going to have much reason to do anything in upgrading their computer. Consider why they are still running Windows 98 in the first place:
- They don't want to upgrade because they don't need to.
- They can't afford newer software/hardware.
and you think these people are going to run out and upgrade to Linux? Get real.If someone doesn't want to upgrade to Windows Whatever then they certainly are not going to make any personal investment in using Linux. No matter what anyone says, changing the OS changes the user interface paradigm and that's a cost to the user. Even migrating to OSX is going to have a cost. I think even transitioning from W98 to WXP is going to have a cost.
If someone can't afford to upgrade to Windows Whatever they might be interested in Linux. But then you have to consider the rest of their lifestyle. Because they can't afford an upgrade it's likely they don't have an interst in it in the first place. How many geeks eat mac & cheese for a month to get that new dual core? It's a matter of priority and if they can't afford an upgrade then there are obviously other things more important in their life.
I for one have no real desire to encourage people to migrate to Linux. I don't want to be held responsible if they don't understand something about Linux -- like there is no trash can. I also don't want Linux to become overly influenced by all the whiney charity cases that exist in the Windows world. It was bad enough when I used SuSE for a year... A very different crowd from Debian. But now I'm getting biased...
Leave it alone. Quite trying to make a big deal out of everything. People will do what they will and things will sort themselves out. If Linux is really that good, it will stick around and attrack like minded people. We don't have to get everyone in the world using Linux. If they want to use Windows that's their business, but they all know I don't do house calls for Windows computers anymore and I'm OK with that.
Here's another consideration: If everyone uses Linux then that means 50% of the Linux users will have below average intelligence... I would venture to guess that is not the case today and I'm OK with that too.
That would be a shame because most of their software would work well with Wine, Crossover Office or other emulation software. Older applications, especially plain business programs, are what works best and a modern computer has no trouble emulating a whole Win98 desktop for you in an X window. This is how Munich was won. The only real problems come from things like games and media applications that use terminally nasty junk like directX. People who use stuff like that for entertainment most likely left 98 a long time ago or will use their current computer as a dedicated machine and re image it forever. The majority of Win98 users are prime candidates for Linux use on a cheaper than Dell used computer.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You are 100 percent right about the USING linux, I think both issues are misunderstood by the masses. Linux is not hard to use, and installing it is (usually) not difficult at all.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
One could be forgiven for thinking that there's alot of straw grasping going on.
Doesn't say much for Linux though when they're counting on the EOL of a 9 year old OS to boost Linux on the desktop.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
The link didn't copy the first time
Does Peter Watson think we are all retarded? Fixing security flaws is not the equivalent of an automotive upgrade it's the equivalent of a RECALL. You know, when a vehicle is found to be deficient and must be repaired at the manufacturer's expense. What's next, putting warning labels on their software a la tobacco to avoid responsibility?
How so? If they're unwilling or unable to move fromWin98, then the question of what they might move to is entirely academic.
It is sometimes easy to mistake the business concept of appropriate technology for ignorance or inability on the part of the business. Don't do that.
A Win98 standalone computer used to log inventory into a warehouse, with automated batch updating of the corporate network by FTP at 0300 every morning, is not going to be replaced by Vista when it is finally no longer up to the task. It might be replaced by a hand-me-down box running WinXP, but it is also very likely to be replaced by a Linux box that will be less expensive to clean up and maintain than a used XP box. It is not a matter of whether the business has the technical expertise to upgrade these old boxen. It is all about which replacement path will have the lowest long term cost in running specific programs in a fairly simple environment.
From TFA, there may be around 70 million Win98 boxes in the business world that are being used appropriately for mundane tasks ranging from basic data collection to word processing of sermons and beg letters. This is not a potential Vista market, but it is a very likely Linux growth area.
Seriously, my PIII laptop has 'Designed for Windows 98' on it, and can run Windows 2000 and Windows XP just fine
Seriously, I have an old 500MHz Celeron of the same vintage, and can run a Linux-based desktop OS just fine. It'll even run GNOME, though there are snappier desktops available for such machines.
Linux distros are too bloaty to even install: the Ubuntu and Fedora installers literally hang, and SUSE and Mandriva are too slow even on my other machine in the +2GHz range.
Absolute crap. My primary machine is a 900 MHz Athlon Thunderbird with 384MB of RAM. It is running SuSE OpenLinux 10 with a GNOME desktop right now. The installer never hung on me, and it performs better than it did when it was running Windows. If you have a 2GHz machine and you are experiencing that kind of slowness or lockups I'd seriously look at the possibility that there are hardware or driver or configuration problems. Both Linux and Windows machines can be greatly affected by such issues. A single bad DLL made my XP machine at work blue screen on a daily basis, and fixing a bad update pushed to the same computer by the IT dept ingreased boot-up time by 400 percent. Oops--sorry, XP never blue screens anymore...because Microsoft changed the colour of the stop error screen to black.
And with KDE/GNOME being so indispensable for everyday desktop usage, their near-elitist disregard for anything below mid-high range hardware is infuriating.
KDE and GNOME firstly are not THAT bloated that they cannot run on a pre-winXP machine. Second, they are NOT indispensible. Yes, Qt and GTK libraries are required for many linux GUI apps but by no means to they require a full-blown, full-featured KDE or GNOME environment. Yopu are spouting crap because I've NEVER owned a high-end machine and I've NEVER had problems putting together a useful Linux desktop--even the first Linux desktop I built in 1996 was useful if a bit crude (then again so was Windows 3.1).
In fact, here is the quote ZDNet is using to support their claim[...]
How does that statement support your contention that Linux requires high-end hardware at all? It in fact supports the contention that Linux has been a serious threat to Microsoft with the "late adopter" crowd. Nothing is mentioned in the article about that having changed. The limiting factor is still probably application support--MS office is easily replaced but there are probably specialised apps (educational software, games, etc) that are less easily replaced.
Having said that, I do agree that Microsoft dropping support of MSDOS-based OSes for good will have little effect on Linux desktop adoption. If someone is still running Windows 98 or (God forbid) Me then that person probably doesn't care at all about whether MS will answer their supoport calls--they probly haven't contacted MS for years (if ever). They probably haven't got all the updates either becasue they're on a cruddy dialup connection, and if they're too cheap or broke to have not upgraded for this long won't run out to get XP (especially since so many would need a new computer). Those who would switch to Linux in response to Win9x/Me becoming abandonware today were probably already quite interested and this development will merely make them try switching sooner.
An interesing thing that was't mentioned, however, is that Microsoft is also making XP SP1 abandonware soon! MS is pushing everyone to get SP2--fine if you have broadand but a royal pain if you are a dialup customer or an enterprise that has been blocking SP2 because of compatibility issues. My employer still blocks SP2 in automatic updates and is waiting to do a controlled roll-out that includes its own patches for other applications affected by SP2.
I think this big push for SP2, plus MS pushing to put WGA spyware on every XP machine and the quantum leap in hardware requirements for Vista will have a much larger positive effect on Linux desktop adoption. Even if Linux distros can get bloated with be
Linux overtook Mac on the desktop in 2005.
Probably Mac still leads Linux in the USA, but worldwide, Linux desktop market share has been ahead of Mac for some time now. There's a reference to some data here.
Considering that the folks at http://calmira.net/ have been breathing life into Windows 3.0 for some time now - I don't see why hordes would abandon Windows 98 anytime soon if they don't need to. There are still plenty of folks out there using DOS or GEOS or Breadbox to keep their slower machines going.
www.wildpad.com
People need the stuff they have running to work under linux too, cameras to upload pics of the kids, their printers, etc. Linux and USB and add-ons is still a huge crapshoot, go visit the forums for *any* distro to see this,including DSL. You have a chance at boot, if the distro can see it and make it work first time painlessly, swell, otherwise it's back to google hell and trying to find the problem. Joe home user will give that about ten minutes tops before giving up. It becomes binary then, "this gadget works- yes/no". And the distro has to run with aburdly small amounts of RAM, the amount people have running with 98 now. Even then, oe home user won't even see any linux distros at the store (I was just shopping local at some computer tores, amount of linux on the shelves=*zero*) or at any of the websites they frequent, and sure as snot the local whitebox fixit place isn't going to encourage them to switch, windows OS is the biggest cach cow out there (next to haliburton), it's *designed* to need outside help and remain partially broken forever. Just a SWAG, but I bet 90% of the profit in local whitebox fixit places revolves around windows insecurities. That's one of the main reasons they talk security but leave a lot broken, provides a lot of money to hardware vendors, MS and third party admins.
Damn straight. It's not just the installers, dependency hell can give novices, hell gives me serious nightmares, especially if they are using dial-up which most of these users are. Frag, these installers are still problematic for even people that know what they are doing, which I do.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
End of these Claims May Boost Average IQ
http://sohilsblog.blogspot.com
Secenerio 2:
Business owner buys 10 Dells at $500 apiece
Business owner spends days of downtime trying to learn XP, which is different enough from 98 to cause issues.
Business owner spends days of downtime trying to defend against the latest spyware, etc.
Business owner spends days of downtime trying to ensure all apps work with XP (Not all 98 apps will work there).
In reality, they will do #2, but it's no more rosy that #1- and there will be many businesses
that have been wanting to get off that Windows ride because they've been following how much
money, etc. it actually has been costing them. Things have reached a threshold where it's
really more of a push costs-wise to switch to one or the other (And, it would be a switch even
in the case of XP or Vista (Especially Vista...))
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Stats vary, but at least 20% of all PCs run Win98, if not more, so that's a LOT of machines that are getting tossed - free computers!! Who would want a bunch of old Win98 machines? I suspect the people most interested would be (1) the poor, and (2) the computer-savvy. Many of the computer-savvy will WANT to put Linux on them, to do various odd jobs, and since Win98 is unsupported, some of the poor might be willing to go this way too. It's true that Fedora Core, SuSE, and Ubuntu don't work well on old systems, but there are other distros that work well on old/tiny systems. And I expect Red Hat's work on "One Laptop per Child" to result in the ability of Fedora Core to skinny down, too. I can easily see something like "rise of the zombies"... hordes of big, loud, and obsolete machines spreading around the world, running distros designed for them. No guarantee it'll happen, but it might happen...
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Either Puppy or DSL.
I'd probably go with DSL myself.
I've got several older systems* here in the shop that run DSL quite well. While most people think of DSL as a Live-only distro, that's not the case. Booting off of the Live disc gives you options to install onto HD's and CF's. The install is light, the default desktop is attractive and effecient and you've got plenty of options out of the box to play with.
Not to mention, there are more than enough package management options included that you won't feel left out when it comes to binaries.
All things considered, backup yer data, download DSL (tiny at 50 odd MB) and install it. If it's not what you want, it won't much matter as you've already run your first (very fast) install and you'll be playing with a blank box.
addendum - if this isn't a production box, you could always consider OpenStep or BeOS. =D
* PII's and 300-500 AMD's, all between 64 - 128 MB.
#SickNotWeak
IT guy mentions that Linux might fit the bill, and it's free, receives regular security updates and doesn't suffer from virus and spyware problems anyway.
You own me a keyboard.
That was really funny. So, you *really* believe that an IT (from the real world, not your imaginary Sylvania) guy will prefer to install and mantain Linux based operating system Desktops against Windows OS desktops?.
My bet would be that your IT guy will say the manager "get rid of those computers and replace them with new ones, the productivity of the people will increase". Of course these new machines will have WinXP.
It is very, VERY rare the IT (from a small company) that wants to bother with mantaining Linux distirbutions and, moreso that wants to be annoyed with calls from users about "why is this Office thing not working".
Man, you ARE funny.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
My aunt and uncle just immigrated from Iran. He's a surgeon (this means he's quite intelligent), and she is a well-to-do housewife (with a highschool education).
Both are fairly intelligent.
Neither one speaks English (yet; they're learning.) Until recently, neither one knew how a mouse worked, or even what it was!
Both have started their computing careers with SuSE. Both currently read the BBC in Persian, both listen to internet radio, watch Iranian TV online, and both use KTouch in order to learn how to touch type. Both use KDE Translator for contextual translation and speech. My uncle browses the web, uses Google, checks his Gmail; the whole nine yards. My aunt is a little behind, but she only started last week (my Uncle started a month ago).
I don't know who you're average user is, but I guarantee you they have a great deal more aptitude than my aunt & uncle. I think you're overestimating the difficulty of Linux GUIs, and your underestimating "the average user". I do know that I've changed over my office's desktops to Linux, and everyone is (more or less) happy with it.
Furthermore, while I have living, breathing proof of the usability of desktop Linux, I'm 100% sure that my Aunt & Uncle would be totally unable to respond to a Windows spyware catastrophe; and worse, they're exactly the type of noob to fall for the "Click on this link to FIX your computer" type of ad. Do we have that kind of problem with Linux? Nope. They're happily getting on "all of the internets", without my help, and with no more instruction than it would have taken to get them started on Windows.
Hell, my Uncle (this is a man who has _never_ used a computer) takes his Linux Laptop to the library, and browses the internet wirelessly, using NetworkManager. People should really stop denying that Desktop Linux is here; it is, I know; because myself and my immediate family/friends/coworkers all use it.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
.
that is the biggest pile of FUD I have ever heard.
I've had the same experience as the OP and I can tell you it's not FUD. On the glowing recommendations of the Slashdot crowd, I ordered the free Ubuntu CD which arrived last week. I planned to install it on my 'Designed for Win 98' laptop (a 1GHz P3 IBM Thinkpad). I stuck the CD in, rebooted, chose 'install' from the boot manager, and that's about as far as it got. I'm sure there's some command-line mojo that could have got it to install, but that's exactly the reason Linux is not 'ready for the desktop'. I'm not a Microsoft zealot by any means and was willing to give Ubuntu a try, but now that's another missed opertunity for Linux adoption. Anyone got a link for Win2K install CD?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
If you're not a total linux cyborg then you must be flamebait.
Anyone that looks at my past posts would see, I'm actually very fair on linux.
I'm a windows developer, I butter my bread with Visual Studio. But I also run LAMPP for all of my web-stuff. Linux is by far the best choice for our intranet and extranet web servers. But that doesn't make it right for the desktops. Apparently this level of pragmatism isn't respected at Slashdot. You either blindly Hate Bill and Love Linus or you're just not welcome.
Riiiiiight.
Why exactly would it spawn more Linux installs? If anyone is running Windows 98 or Me right now its because they probably don't do anything more than use a word processor or check their e-mail. Also, such users would probably not want to install Linux because they would have no idea how to use it, you know, being to scared to actually click a button and try something new. Ya, if they still have Windows 98, they will have Windows 98 until their hardware dies, and then go buy a Dell. Poor souls.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
These people will finally upgrade to a new computer with xp installed.
They're not going to install linux. The kind of people who are still running 98 are the kind of people that would be completely lost in linux.
Besides why would anyone switch to linux? The are few to no applications.
Get to app writing and stop hoping to pick up a few windows 98 users who cant afford new pcs
We run all our radio station "on air" computers on 98. Running only our on-air and automation software it can run for months w/o a reboot, and it isn't vulnerable to any crap from teh internets.
...and that's all there is to it.
The above post is a perfect example of exactly why someone running win98 isn't going to jump over to linux.
I myself tried installing ubuntu over the weekend, as its been about 2 years since I've run linux on any of my systems.
Even installing it on a P4, 256Mb ram, it took well over 3 hours.. . . . I can install winxp on that same crap system in 1/3 the time, critical updates included.
That's the biggest problem with Linux, in all this time, it's never gone past the line of slightly user friendly. It just kind of hovers near it, but in the end is quite difficult for the average person to grab by the horns and take on. There needs to be a version that can slowly pull people away from the MS environment, slowly.
Win98 users will have a hard enough time jumping to winxp believe it or not, so I'm not sure entirely what makes anyone think they would go to an even harder o/s like linux.
No funny stuff here?
I am doing an experiment, the first thing he ased when he started using the machine was "but, does it plays MP3"?, I explained him all the situation (he is a "freedom" [in a broad sense, not in libre software as a lot of people is here] activist so, he understands about copyrights and all that shit) and told him about OGG, and showed him that there was support for OGG out of the box.
I was using XMMS in 2001, IIRC it came with the Mandrake distro I was using. I loved Winamp in windows, but XMMS in Linux blew it completely away. Yes, it plays MP3s. Yes, MP3s are completely legal. You can rip them from CDs, or download them from the internet provided the band wants you to (and most bands do, only the major label bands don't). Ogg doesn't make your Metallica rip legal, and the MP3 you download from Posamist is legal as well.
Oh yeah, XMMS handles OGG easily.
Is this guy a troll or a paid Microsoft shill? You decide.
To hear Linux supporters talk about how Windows forces you into an upgrade cycle, and how Linux will run fine on 'older hardware' and then it turns out that the major distros won't run on anything less than a couple years old, and still don't run comfortably.
KDE and Gnome have to get their act together, because no one takes linux seriously without them. And no one knows how to install anything on Linux. I'm sorry, I mean no normal users.
It's well past the time that Linux detect what kind of hardware it's on and take care of the desktop environment semi-automatically. The next version of Windows will have at least 3 different levels of desktop performance: Aero, XP and classic. Linux should be even THAT user-friendly (I know you need to go into the administration tab to turn off Themes process).
And it's well past time that Gnome and KDE make some real differences between the two projects or merge. Because they're both needlessly complicated, performance intensive half-measures.
As long as Windows 98 will run AOL, that is what I'll recommend to my Grandmother. I would hazard a guess that the majority of users that are still using Windows 98 aren't power users, and probably haven't gone to Windows Update in a number of years because the downloads take too long over dialup.
I would like to know who this is really going to impact. If an individual is still using 98, Microsoft isn't the primary support. The computer guy at work, your son-in-law, or neighborhood kid is the primary support for Windows 98.
"Does this wine taste funny to you?" -- Socrates
And these are the people you've now going to believe on their promises about Vista?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Uh, how about your W98 machine is too old, too low powered, with too small a hard-drive, and even maxed out on memory not enough, to run WinXP? That's the real reason many people can't even consider jumping over 2 interim OS releases to XP.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I am not saying that MP3 is illegal or whatever. Yes, XMMS plays MP3 as Totem mdedia player does. However THEY DO NOT COME CONFIGURED OUT OF THE BOX. You need to setup the "RestrictedFormat" packages (in Ubuntu) in order to play it.
That is all I was stating, and the difference in OGG (Vorbis) and MP3 is very well defined, OGG is an open encoding algorithm FREE OF PATENTS something that MP3 is not.
Is this guy a troll or a paid Microsoft shill? You decide.
Pretty funny comment, coming from YOU Mr. ANONYMOUS Sissy.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I agree with all the points you make about ease of use, but don't you regret giving up your freedoms to boot?
I used to pay attention to the "which is more useable / feature rich?" debates, but I am beginning to see that this rather misses the point of Open Sauce, GNU, Richard Stallman etc. I am no longer content with giving my control over my computer away.
Respect copyright - the GPL relies on it.
somehow i wouldn't advertise this to new users.
'hop on the linux bandwagon! it's seriously competitive with windows 98!'
go get it
No one doubts for a minute what you are saying. For some one starting fresh, learning a basic linux desktop like kde or gnome is no more difficult, and probably easier and safer, than learning any flavor of windows. My two children were raised using both linux and windows. At this point(they are 13 and 11) they know they are different but are equally comfortable in both environments. It's not a big deal to them which they use although they reflect their father's preference for linux. However, for some one schooled on windows, the switch to linux is much more difficult for the simple fact that linux is different than what they are used to.
Wait... Not to troll, but GNOME hardcodes its own media player for opening MP3s? And then we complain about Microsoft...
Until very recently I knew a grand total of three people who had used linux on their own PCs. Two were programmers and the third was talked into redhat by one of the programmers (he didn't stick with it for long). In the last 6 months, I know 3 additional people (and myself) that have started using linux. 2 are using it on rescued ex-win98 machines (like me) and one on an older winXP machine. Of course MS not supporting win98 had nothing to do with it in any of these cases. In my case the PC was simply unusable. After a few hours fiddling around with it I remembered how much I hate the whole win9x family and I said "@%^#$!$#^$ it's $&*!*&%!*# time #@$^@^$ to try @#$^@# linux!" I have observed that since exorcising win98 from my home and bringing in the benevolent spirit of unbuntu, my cursing has been much reduced.
Of course this isn't necessarily good news for linux. One way to look at it is that linux is finally good enough that it is better than a broken down, dog slow, crashy install of win98. And I have had nothing but trouble with the "new" linux box but I'll save all that for the next "is linux finally ready?" type thread.
-- QED
.... definately will not switch to linux. How can you switch to something that you don't know exists?
I think people use 'Ubuntu' in their posts to sound cool.
I run a very small computer repair/sales shop out of my house. I see a lot of customers who are still running win98 and a few with ME. With support ending, I decided to see if Xubuntu Dapper would be a good option for these low spec boxes. So I threw together a spare parts box with about a 600 MHz CPU, 128 MB, and a 2.5 GB HD.
Then I did a test install and played around with it for a while, trying to imagine it from the perspective of a customer. It was quite serviceable, and I especially liked the security update notification in the taskbar. Its something that is vital for linux on the desktop.
There were useful apps for every normal usage, a word processor, spreadsheet, instant messenger, internet browser. Gnumeric is a great spreadsheet, and Abiword is a passable Word Processor. I definately understand why OpenOffice is not part of the base install. The computer response time was reasonable.
The thing that really turned me off was how ugly everything looked. All those flat greys just reminded me of the motif days. Ughh. Maybe its because I'm a KDE user and I really like the nice bright icons, but this looked terrible drab.
Perhaps there are nicer themes out there for XFCE, but I didn't go looking for them since I was really looking at the default install.
Mark
------- Mark
Faggot. Faggot.
"When you are told the same thing twice, the probability that they are correct increases."
Faggot.
Determination: Fallacious Argument.
Definition: Argument Ad Nauseam. If you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
Wouldn't it be a good idea for Microsoft to release Windows 98 (and earlier) as open source?
After all, it is now abandonware - they're never going to profit from it again.
If Windows 98 was open source, the community could continue to produce security updates, which would help prevent the proliferation of BotNets and enable people who can't afford a new PC or OS to use their computers for a little longer. And Microsoft wouldn't have to worry about people migrating to a competitor.
It's the only decent thing to do. Which is probably why they won't do it.
Oh my, another MS killer eh?
What a joke the linux community is for putting any real hopes on this bad noise. The same users who are still sticking with an OS that they've been running for at least 6 years isn't looking for a new OS. They'll stick with what works for them, Windows.
And it's not like anyone is really going to look for a new OS for updates. My guess is that the majority of the hardware still running 98 has long lost vendor support. Infact MS is probably the last vendor supporting anything on these systems. These people aren't looking for support.
The type of deadbeats that don't want to upgrade don't want to deal with the pains of running/learning a new OS. The people who have a real reason to run 98 (application specific would be my guess) don't want Linux because it's not supporting their software.
Sorry Linux fans, there's nothing to see here.
The Apple fans thinking this is going to send business their way are even bigger jokes for the same exact reason but should also include the Apple Tax as a reason not to switch from Windows.
I have yet to see one real arguement for Linux migration except for the 3-4 geeks who have said that they're "just going to put in on an old box currently running 98". Big victory for Linux there.
To be frank about it, the more I hear the jabbering of the Linux community over this type of stuff the more I realize that the big Linux revolution I've heard about for years is more like vaporware. I'm pretty much sticking my fork in it. I'm not going to recommend this type of thing to others and I'm certainly not going to be willing to put up with people who haven't taken the steps to get out of W98 long before this. I'm sure for those of you who are; you're going to be dealing with some real choice people.
Any kind of "boost" Linux gets from the W98 downturn is going to be more trouble than what it's worth.
An anecdote does not make a case study, but I switched to Linux on the desktop because of the end of support for Windows 98.
I've been using Linux for over a decade, but never as my desktop OS. I admit that I was well behind on software, still using Office 95, but the cheapest Dell with OS and Office 2K3 is about C$800, whereas the "guy-in-a-storefront-on-Kingsway" computer plus Ubuntu & OO.o is C$400. (I re-used the old monitor, though).
I assume that most home users just pirate a copy of Windows and Office to keep costs down, but I wonder why. It's morally questionable, tortious, and unnecessary.
By the way, forget Openoffice or even Abiword on really old hardware. The best you can do is Ted, an RTF editor, but it does allow you to interoperate with MSWord and Win PC's a little bit.
"Customers who upgrade to Windows XP report improved security, richer functionality, and increased productivity."
Isnt this what they said about uograding to 98 from 95?
To Hell with the Queen of England!
Actually in all three cases, it's going to be what ever is cheapest at Walmart when they have to replace a dead system. So it's not likely to be Dell since they've got no presence as walmart and sure as hell don't want any walmart presence because of tech support costs.
School.
My children go to state/public schools (primary and secondary) in a very affluent area.
Both of their schools run '98-2000 era computers with Windows 98 and ME. Lots of them.
Now that's a serious investment.
And not one they can readily "upgrade" (Even though both schools *are* affluent - the primary school just developed a new sports field, with Astroturf.)
They ain't short of cash, but they can't (from what I hear) afford the "upgrade". They're not considering one machine, they're talking dozens and dozens.
When you're talking about the behaviour of home users you're talking about the evolution of the market as individuals upgrade over time. But institutions like schools don't work like that - they tend to do it in chunks.
Think of it like a fleet upgrade. Serious money is involved. And in that situation, a good Linux distribution has to be a proposition (and an opportunity).
There are times when an installed base is more like a ball-n-chain than an asset.
This may be one of them
I worked at a major hardware company where all hardware diagnostics was written on the Win98 platform. Therefore, all OEM partners were using Win98 for their diagnostics platform as well in order to run diagnostics for this particular hardware. For a long time there was motivation to move the diagnostics platform from Win98 over to Linux but it was always put on the backburner do to higher prority tasks and not enough resources. The expiring of the Win98 license pushed the decision over the edge and Linux is now the primary development platform for diagnostics at this company, along with all of its OEM partners. I think its plausible that this isn't the only case of this.
True. I have a little old lady I've set up for an experiment and she operates linux fine for the web stuff she wants to do.
One thing that has troubled me though is that a lot of these home Win9x duffers are probably on dial-up. How do you _update_ and _upgrade_ that linux distro? For that matter, would anyone want the user trying it? Apt-get has to be like a loaded gun to a child -- particularly when it is run from a GUI like KPackage where it will tell you what it has decided to REMOVE after it has STARTED the process.
Now try installing Windows XP on that box. If you have trouble, will that mean that Windows XP is "not ready for the desktop" too?
My, what a nice Mr. Rogers world you must live in.
With potentially millions of Win98 computers becoming unsupported, there is nothing to suggest they will all or mostly switch to a Linux desktop. But I have every reason to believe that one percent - or even half a percent, or two - would switch over to save costs and improve quality. Grandma wont be the ones to do it on their own, but the people already on the edge, and schools and businesses and the like. We have an older 600MHz P3 / 128MB laptop that Ive put Xubuntu on, and it runs great. My girlfriends old circa '98 laptop that came with Win98, upgraded to XP (deathly slow) is to follow the same path soon. Im sure she isn't the only average computer user who knows a someone who will recommend and help install linux. I'm sure there are actually some grandmas with grandchildren willing to make the switch for them in order to reduce the tech support calls.
I want whatever the hell it is you guys are smoking if you honestly believe the end of Windows 98 will boost Linux in some tangible fasion.
Of course it seems unlikely...
But, the point is that the machine is NOT ON THE NET. Whatever is on the Ubuntu CD is it. Also, the added programs were being hand carried via USB key. The gp poster KNOWS what to do -- it is just very difficult to get there in any sane way.
The "ubuntu" way falls way WAY flat in that circumstance. As do RPMs (to a lesser extent).
You rely on your network connection more than you think you do...
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Hey!
Thanks for your help, unfortunately I think you missed one of the frist things in my message:
Unfortunately I do not have an internet connection with that machine.
So, in order to install software I have to hunt down applications and dependencies, I will try with the Synaptic "save download script".
Now, EasyUbunty also requires an internet connection, I would try to run it from another machine but I do not have access to any other UBUNTU machine (with linux).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I can't answer for others, but as for me, I'd been using 98SE for quite a while (since '99). I have a family member who uses XP on her system, I've seen it, used it a few times, and found the experience to be less than ideal. I have recently switched to SUSE 10. That experience was, for me, a little unnerving at first, but still preferable over XP, and while there have been issues with some of the software I run on it, overall, I've been pleased with the results. My only real gripe has been in resolving the library dependencies for some of the software, (finding frontends for xmame that actually work on my system being one example) compiling software to resolve these issues can be a little daunting for someone used to Windows.
From my perspective, it seems that the primary stumbling block to Linux as a mainstream alternative to Windows is the need to resolve such software dependencies in an easy manner. A lot of the Windows users I know like MS products because of ease of installing the various software available to them. They just pop in a CD/DVD, and if it doesn't start right off, then navigating to a directory and clicking a startup proggie is a relatively simple matter. Linux is a bit more involved than that in my experience, and until that issue is properly addressed, I'm rather afraid that many Windows users are going to simply dismiss Linux as the domain of the digerati and leave it at that.
Is that a bad thing? Perhaps not, but then again, it leaves a lot of folks at the mercy of a pseudomonopoly which chisels away at the fundamental rights of free speech, assembly, and property ownership all for the sake of pursuing the almighty dollar/ euro/ yen or what have you. For the sake of convenience, many Windows users willingly accept this erosion of their basic rights, effectively setting the stage for their own undoing (and everyone else's) at the legislative level. Is it any wonder that MS receives preferential treatment by many governments/ officials? Populations that willingly suspend their rights for a convenience are far easier to control, after all. To be sure, MS isn't the only culprit here, but they are a highly visible one. It may sound cliche', but for any people to remain free, they must exercise vigilance, and more than a little common sense. It applies to everybody.
"still user unfriendly and sometimes buggy nature of many Linux distributions"
You know, back in the 1970s, "visual" editors like vi and emacs were coming to fruition and were considered highly userfriendly when compared to the likes of ed -- itself userfriendly going backwards a little more.
At first, i thought the goal of user-friendly design would be to produce a clean interface consisting on one button only. You click it and it makes your wishes come true. However, i'm sure there will be unhappy users claiming the interface is not perfect: it demands to many clicks and their fingers will grow tired.
At this pace, in 2035 or something, user-friendness will mean being fed at regular periods by a machine while sunk into some organic warm liquid, your mind lost in dreamland never to wake up...
I don't feel like it...
... but I am a win98 user that certainly plans on switching to linux, but only after I get a new machine. Too me, there's no point in saving a Pentuim II with a failing 15GB harddrive.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Wouldn't that be either "cannot justify the expense" or "too lazy"? After all, if you have the money and don't mind moving your files, you can just drop $500 on a brand-new machine with a brand-new OS. Assuming there is software you want to run that your hardware doesn't support (XP in this hypothetical scenario) what reason is there not to upgrade hardware other than 1) not enough money 2) too lazy or 3) fear/ignorance? Number 3 I think could be added to the original list of why people don't upgrade from W98: people who don't mind spending money on a computer, and aren't lazy about it, but know so little about computers that they're afraid to do anything different than what they're doing now.
Oregon. Its north of California.
It's fun to show off at cocktail parties by telling people how I interact with parallel ports...on XP. It works with serial too if that's your need. If you just need a handful of binary inputs/outputs this is a good way to do it.
I don't know what I'll do when parallel ports go completely away. Grudgingly buy a USB/whatever dedicated I/O box. Which absolutely suck to program with, in my experience.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Take a look at wine. I've been experimenting recently, and it seems to do a pretty damn good job of running win 98 apps. Recently got atomic bomerman running very cool.
I personally have been setting up Deli linux on an old 266MHz Toshiba laptop for someone. I'm pretty sure they won't cope, but it's a good challenge anyhoo.
Respect copyright - the GPL relies on it.
No, unlicensed MP3 players/encoders are not legal . They infringe on patents held by Thomson Consumer Electronics. The patents expire in April 2010. Until then, Thomson has every right within the law to sue you for using or distributing an unlicensed player. Of course, most people completely ignore this for free products. Ubuntu is just being extra careful, I guess.
Centralization breaks the internet.
... idiot :)
Kind Regards
(seriously, he was saying when multiple people contradict a single person the _odds_ are not in the single persons favor. Queue Han Solo...)
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
It is not that ripping your music to mp3 format is illegal, it is that there is no legal way to implement an mp3 encoder as free software. The mp3 format uses several patents, and you have to pay a patent licence to if you want to encode mp3's for any reason other than educational purposes. That is why LAME is named LAME (LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder) - it is "reference software" created for educational use only. If you use it for any other reason than that, including personal use, you are breaking the law.
Will you personally be sued? Unlikely. And for a long time the patent holders looked the other way. However, around 2000 the patent holders started sending out cease and desist orders to various open source projects that included MP3 encoders. Because of this most of the linux distributions have stopped including MP3 support in their base package, and it now has to be installed seperately.
I know plenty of people still running Windows 95 and 98, not because they are too lazy, but rather because they don't feel like paying, or don't have the financial resources, to purchase the new version of Windows, especially when they know that they can update to a newer, but not newest version of Windows, for less money. This makes Linux a very strong competitor in this field. I have had numerous friends ask me to help them set up Linux distros on their computer simply because the free aspect is so appealing. Once people see that they can update to a new version of Linux, one capable of doing practically anything and more then a Windows box, people who are technologically literate, or have technologically literate friends, will begin to switch, and if people switch to Linux, they won't be purchasing a newer (say from 95 to 2000) version of Windows.
For those who say that the linux destktop has a long way to go, when is the last time they have used a linux system? There is always room for improvement, but I would say that the more recent versions of linux (ubuntu 6.06 dapper for example or fedora core 5) have come insanely far in terms in desktop support. I have ubuntu x32 installed on my desktop, and I honestly say that I rarely ever use Windows Xp on my desktop anymore, because for almost any task, (yes, even gaming) I can use ubuntu and do anything far more efficiently if not just as well as it can be done on a Windows machine.
While I don't believe that this will be a massive blow to Microsoft, or even a paper cut for that matter, It still will convert some people over, and a few people converting can be a indicator of the times. Microsoft will need to be careful in the future to try not to alienate too many people. Otherwise the paper cut might turn into a gash.
Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
As much as i like my Ubuntu install, I find it highly unlikely that the poor guys still running Win98 will come knocking on Linus' door. I would classify current W98 users in two categories. 1) People who doesn't tinker with computers too much and has been using their old box for years just for web surfing and doing some office work. These guys are hardly concerned about computer security and most probably don't know their OS was supported anyway. 2) Guys that for some reason (games, especial software or hardware that won't run on NT) require to stick with the old OS even though they may have another, newer box running XP. No way any of these two animals is downloading and installing the next fedora DVD anytime soon. I love the slashdot spin on regular news.
Greetings, programs!
No dude, bad example.
If there's a dangerous flaw with the designed features of your car (i.e., it's defective), it is recalled.
People don't complain about their 1970s-1980s car not having ABS, because it wasn't designed with it built in.
If, however, there's a critical flaw involving putting the user in a dangerous situation through normal use (such as perhaps, brake lines being broken by normal movement of the suspension) then the car is recalled. Regardless of whether it's under warranty or not...
Granted, anyone using Windows in a situation where software failure could be life-threatening deserves to be shot, but it's closer to the situation than users of old software complaining about features that were never designed into their product.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
> "Would you like a cookie?"
:)
Yes, please!
The only people I still see running 98 or ME are people that would rather pay me $200 to fix their old Pentium /2 PC rather than spend the $500 or whatever on a new one.
They aren't the type to use Linux unless someone tried to force them to.
I was pleasantly surprised by Xubuntu installed on an old laptop of ours that had (actually still has) Win98. I had previously tried Kubuntu, since I am a KDE fan, but it was really sluggish. Xubuntu, in contrast, worked well, and I was surprised by how well-polished the interface was. I had expected everything other than KDE or GNOME to be like the old "twm" from the early 90's, but Xubuntu had a graphical file manager (Thunar), had GUI tools for things like setting up networking, and runs Firefox. Maybe I was just ignorant in not keeping up with the advances in Xfce, but I must say I was pleasantly surprised. New life in an old laptop!
(Btw, if you didn't already know, Xfce is the lightweight replacement for GNOME or KDE that Xubuntu runs.)
I don't have the tech specs for the laptop, as I don't know yet how to check how much RAM the laptop has, or the clock speed. It's a Dell Latitude CSx, with a sticker that says "Designed for Win98/NT3.1/Win2k". I suppose there might be some Windows utility to tell me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to boot up Win98 on that thing --I just keep it around at my wife's insistence. Oh, Xubuntu is installed on a 2GB partition.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
I could probably get the telnet thing worked out under linux or Wine. It's plain telnet so the only challenge would be function keys and printing. (There has to be a big fat 'print' button.)
I've got a laptop with just Linux on it, so testing wouldn't be an issue.
I use Win98 because after using it for going on 8 years, I now know it backwards and forwards, I have it running smooth as silk and it never gets viruses, it doesn't sneakily contact Microsoft, and there are no creepy NSA tags hiding in its code.
If it ain't broke. . .
And yes, actually, I'm also waiting eagerly for the next Ubuntu release. Duel booting is glorious.
-FL
Sorry, but my cookies always have problems going through customs.
For some reason, they always arrive half eaten...
My sig can beat up your sig.
People are inflexible.
People that learn to use Linux first (hello mum!) feel completely lost in a Windows machine. Ask Mac users how they feel when dropped in front of a Windows desktop.
The problem with many pro-windows folk is that they confuse between usability and familiarity.
Familiarity is a very important part of why something is usable, but it is not the only componenet and in some situations is not even the most important.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... because you don;t move in the right circles.
Banking, oil industry.
Now go adn do your homework.
Does Peter Watson think we are all retarded? Fixing security holes is analogous to an automotive recall, not an upgrade.
Dictionary.com
Recall: To request return (of a product) to the manufacturer, as for necessary repairs or adjustments.
What's next, warning labels a la tabacco?
What you say about MP3 encoders doesn't explain why MP3 players aren't included with distributions or why distributed software must sometimes be recompiled or replaced to support MP3 (vs. using a plugin).
You'd be surprised how many industries I've consulted.
And I still contend that no large companies are running linux on a majority of their PCs. Not even banks, not even oil companies. A lot of modern teller-line software is windows based, and even if you consider that many banks are running old-school terminal software for their tellers, they're still running windows on PCs used by their Originators, Managers, Etc.
"This is something IBM never got with OS/2, and why it died a stagnant death, because while it could run Windows 3.1 apps better than Windows itself, to do anything in native you pretty much had to do it in C++."
Ever hear of REXX, ObjectREXX, VisualREXX, NetREXX. These are a very solid and powerful and relatively easy to use scripting languages & tools for OS/2. IBM maimed OS/2 first with inept marketing. Then due to basic business direction strategy they finished the job via the lack of any real continued marketing and pretty much killing off allocation of resources and support to the independent developer base. Finally they starved the customers for technology updates (drivers mainly) and make what little support they did deliver expensive. They did this simply because they decided that the desktop was not where their expertise and thus focus was. IBM made then and still makes most of its money via med to big iron hardware and the services to support this hardware. Another large plate for them was and still is back office integration with software only houses like Microsoft, SAP and Oracle.
OS/2 was a fine system in many ways. I used it since v2.0 all through Warp v4.5. The various programmers responsible for OS/2 were pretty damn good. Many of them were either MS employees or left IBM for MS. BTW OS/2 was a joint venture of IBM and MS, when they split Microsoft evolved, or actually merged with I believe a fair part of a DEC Unix fork, a lot of the code base into WinNT. Many of the best kernel and WPS Desktop programmers I have heard are dead or long since retired now.
OS/2 had a few technical problems like the being a single user OS and a single input queue issue but was mostly a solid OS. I still miss a lot of features of the WPS and a few well written native apps. It still runs on a lot of the ATM's and banking back end stuff, medical staff support systems, and longer lived big industrial hardware and services. There are still a quite a few OS/2 users in the US, with a lot more in Europe and Australia.
There is a clone/fork or whatever called eCS ( http://www.ecomstation.com/ ) for about $260.00 or $160.00 upgrade from Warp4+. I believe. eCS has been kept pretty current with hardware and services technology's. I have however decided that Linux is a better fit for my meager budget in the future, with a vast amount more development going on and then there is the freedom of the source code as a killer plus. Though note there is X support in OS/2 and via ports like perl and emx quite a bit of support for Linux/Unix apps in OS/2 and eCS. Anyway I hope to soon be using OS/2 and some OS/2 apps like ProNews again under Parallels virtualization and Suse. Just gotta find the time.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
You want him to use gentoo... without an internet connection?
I can see you gentoo fanboys put a lot of thought into your comments.
There are two types of people in the world: 1) those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Obviously distros like Gentoo and Slackware where you have to do a complete hardware inventory and then compile all the source-codes would be a bit above Mr or Mrs Average Computer-User. However, anyone who can: 1. Turn a computer on 2. Insert a CD-ROM or DVD in the correct slot 3. Follow a few simple on-screen instructions 4. Think up a root password and user name & password would have no trouble installing one of the more user-friendly distros such as Linspire, MEPIS or Xandros. And, as much of the software is stored in compressed (tar.gz) form, the installation will only take 10-15 minutes and take up only 2.5 - 3.5 GB sapce on the hard drive.
It's still YMMV. I've had machines where the install was exactly as you described, and other machines where it wasn't.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.