Slashdot Mirror
Can Linux Pick Up Users Abandoning Win98?
Mark writes, "When Microsoft announced the end of support for Windows 98 and Millennium Edition on June 30th, there was a lot of talk of these users migrating over to Linux desktops. In the weeks since this announcement, there is a very noticeable increase of activity on community boards and blogs from newbies asking questions about switching over to Linux, and how would they support their new systems." According to OneStat.com, Windows 98 and Windows ME account for about 4% of the total PCs in the world.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/11/ 0218250 quasi-dupe.
I hope so, but I doubt it. I have always believed that the most likely inroads for for Linux is through people that have never owned a Windows box, or have never learned to use a computer. I expect that almost all Win98 users will go/have gone to buy a new computer with XP or Vista preloaded. Most linux converts are already geeks.
FairTax baby!
You probably cannot run Vista on a box that currently happily runs 98, so anyone moving to Vista will likely have a spare PC. That's likely to free up a few healthy machines that people might redeploy as Linux PCs..... or there might just be a whole lot of PCs going to the landfill.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Perhaps I don't understand the support issue, but I doubt someone currently using windows 98 is all that concerned about support for the product.
You expect someone who ran Windows98 until recently to switch to Linux?
They wouldn't know how to download it.
No.
Why? Because most of the people who have the misfortune of still running Windows 98 do so because they are comfortable with it and have no intention of changing until their hard drive melts. They got their computer eons ago, it does everything they want it to do, they don't need to play World of Warcraft or run complicated programs, and the thought of upgrading to even Windows 2000 makes them break out in cold sweats. Up until 6 months ago, my stepmother was still running her Win98 machine, until it got so undeniably slow that she was forced by necessity to upgrade to WinXP.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
People aren't going to swtich to Linux from Win98/ME just because Microsoft decides to cut off support. It's complete nonsense. What percentage of Win98/ME users actually needed support and/or actively used it? The whole idea that Win98/ME users are going to flock over to Linux on the sole basis that support had ended is a red herring.
Although I'm sure one could build a version of Linux that can run on a typical Win98 PC configuration, I doubt that contemporary mainstream distros would run very well on it (if it all).
Anyone who is still using Win98 isn't particularly concerned with system stability and probably wants compatiblity with their old applications: Linux doesn't sound like a good fit.
Microsoft soft-enforcing WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) on Windows XP.. There are a LOT of illegal copies of XP Pro VLK edition (the one that was so great because it had no activation required) floating around... I know I've seen it on many non-computer-savvy-people's PC's that I've worked on.
All of those copies of XP are now loudly announcing that they are "Not Genuine Copies of Microsoft Windows". When these people get hit with a nearly $300 pricetag (that's $300 + $100 for my time) for a non-OEM, non-upgrade copy of software they've been using for free for many years, they are often very interested in cheap or free alternatives. And since most people only really need Web + EMail + OpenOffice + mplayer + (not much else exotic), they are often open to Linux due to its free-as-in-beer-ness.
I'll tell you who's using the majority of the Win98 boxes: the parents and grandparents of the world. They use it now and then, flick it on when they need it, send an email or two and shut the thing down. They probably don't notice much slowdown or stability problems, since they probably don't have it on long enough. In short: it does what they need.
So why should they use Linux? Why should we even give a shit if they do?
What they need is a simple OS. They need a web browser. They need a couple of Office-like applications. They don't want a lot of problems. Why would Linux be the best solution? For them it is more trouble to set up than just buying a new box (despite what people on here might say, IMHO Linux is not easier to set up for a n00b). They need something like a Mac, which will do what they need for the forseeable future.
Alternatively, they should just stick with Win98. All jokes aside, their boxes are probably so full of spyware and shit after up to 8 YEARS of operation, that if they can go this far, they can probabably go a little further.
Look. I love Linux. I've used it as my primary OS for years, and used it during that time as a server admin too, but I just don't understand this "more users at any cost" approach. What is the good of getting these users? What will it achieve? At the least, you'll potentially end up with a hell of a lot of pissed off (and minimally equipped for repairs) users with broken computers badmouthing the operating system to anyone who will listen.
The few of us who still have one Win98 system around, do so for a reason, and haven't given a shit about Microsoft Support in the last 8 years anyway.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
If you use it as a DNS server the 1GB of space will be more then enough. In fact it would work for a web server too, so long as you don't plan on serving up music or video content. And if the screen is broken, stick SSHD on it and plan on logging into it from your other boxes and just leaving it sit in the corner with the lid closed.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
If someone is using Win98 now, they likely have a 6-8 year old computer. They are more than likely will purchase new hardware and with said hardware either get a copy of XP or move to Mac.
i.e. why the hell is someone still using W98? Sorry -- I'm 100% in favor of penguin domination -- but the reason people are still using 98 is -- almost always -- because they're deathly afraid to touch their computers. Linux's (not-very-accurate) reputation as an OS that you have to touch all the time is not gonna cut it here.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I love Linux. I'm also a systems admin so its easy for me to love. It does what I need it to quickly, quietly and without much trouble.
/rant
On the flip side I've used it on my home computer for about 8 years. We've certainly had our ups and downs. I dual-boot now. I spend most of my time using XP Pro. Why would I do this after 8 years of pure Linux bliss? Because it does what I need it to. Its that simple.
Anybody want to watch for an exciting influx of newbies, the best kind; newbies who are switching simply because they are too cheap to update. Not boatloads of tinkerers, programmers, OSS zealots. Nah. Just some people that have been using an out-dated, unstable OS for no good reason.
Granted, people who can't *afford* it should ignore my platitudes, unless you live in North America or some other well off nation and have confused not being able to feed your family with compulsive mall shopping and junk food binges (you don't have my sympathy).
Anyway, Linux sucks for the average users for the same reasons its sucked. They've made a great server. Slapped on a (few) DE(s) and called it a Windows killer. I don't see it.
Maybe baby steps. KDE 4 should be fun. Maybe one of the user distros will get the *wild* idea to tie it to the system. Drop legecy support. Call me crazy, but I just don't see Windows 98 users getting cosy with VI, modprobe, hell, package management. Its like we all talk Klingon and don't understand when everyone else isn't doing it.
There are certain things end-users need and expect. Linux distros don't offer them. Hence, no Linux eat Windows.
Seriously. Right tool. Right job. Never make it more complicated then that. Biases are *SO* 99. BSD, Solaris, AIX, Mac, FreeDOS, Minix, PlayStation I don't care. Whatever you need. Where BeOS when you need it. Lets all switch to Amiga and tell everyone who doesn't their lusers.
There's a point in there. Maybe.
Quack, quack.
The end of Microsoft's and Mozilla's support for Win9x has made a group of users look at Linux at an alternative, I've seen on MozillaZine. So there's definitely some truth to the article.
Most of the users will stay with Windows 98, though. Most of them find it works fine for their needs, and don't see why they should buy a new PC or OS if their current one works fine, and there's no problem with that.
I know it's common opinion to look at Win9x users in this day and age as people who are clueless about PCs, but a small subset of them do have a clue, and stay with Win9x by choice for a variety of reasons:
-It does everything they want it to do.
-They have learned how to practice security so running Win9x is safer than WinXP.
-They don't like Windows XP as an OS, much less see it as an upgrade path.
Myself, I still use Windows 95 OSR 2.5, IE-free, with the only browser here being SeaMonkey, behind a hardware firewall. It works, and I don't need more.
It depends on what you mean by "support" as far as who is providing it.
While Microsoft may have abandoned Windows 98 there are still many other companies who customers also depend that still support it. Most ISPs would not have an issue helping a customer get their Windows 98 computer online even though Microsoft thinks the machine should be put out to pasture, but call many of these same ISPs with a new machine running a current Linux distro and they will find themselves getting less support than the "obsolete" Win98 users.
That there is such a level of vitriol against people who still run Win98. I run it on my home PC. When I'm at home, this is the one I use (my notebook runs XP.) From a crowd that continually decries the need to upgrade to the newest version of Office, I simply don't see why so many find it worthy of mockery that someone would still be running 98. I don't play games, except Age of Empires II, on occasion. Office 2000 has every feature I need. I run the latest versions of Firefox and OO.
Explain to me why I should have felt the remotest need to upgrade to 2k, ME, or XP? This machine does exactly what I need it to do: surf the web, run Dreamweaver 4 for some light HTML editing, run Photoshop 6 for some light image editing, and play on Poker Stars. I'm not a clueless idiot, nor are many of the people who are still running 98. Many of you cry out "Why upgrade?" and then do it, anyway. We put our money where our mouth is.
...they are just going to stay there. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of ANYONE calling Microsoft for support on their OS? I've done it only once in 15 years of herding windows boxen professionally. Supporting win98 is pretty simple...you just accept that you have to format and reinstall every few months. You get good at it, you stay on top of your backups, and for a while after you reload it all, you have a fairly well behaved, capable box. When it ganks up enough to annoy you, reload again. If it asplodes, you have your well oiled backups and install disk or image on hand. Its a pretty good self-support model for people without much technical knowledge. I bet there will still be thousands of 98 boxen out there in 10 years.
My feeling is probably not.
I'm guessing there would be a number of people on 98 that wouldn't know an update if it bit them. These people probably don't even know Microsoft supports them now.
I looked at a friends xp laptop yesterday. It was running SP1, which it came with, and they had never willingly installed an update on it. Despite a popup at the bottom of the screen warning support for SP1 was ending soon.
My friend didn't care, he just ignored the warnings and kept doing his work. I ran some checks and could find no evidence of spyware or viruses.
Of course I am just speaking on feelings here. No evidence, and I don't even know anyone who uses win98, or linux for that matter.
Some people use older hardware because they don't really have much choice. I hate to break it to you, but not everyone can afford the luxury of a new computer and some others can't justify the expense (and for some people a few hundred dollars is a large expense) to replace something that still works for them.
Let's face it, apart from playing games, most people use computers at home for looking at things online, writing email, and maybe doing some basic word processing or other similar things.
Most of the people who browse slashdot are pretty well off in the scheme of things. Appreciate that, because not everyone is so lucky.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
The application I had in mind is a telco I contracted to recently, who has 40,000 dying windows PC's. They can't afford to replace the lot, so they're buying heavily into Citrix to preserve their investment as long as they can. To provide a stable platform on the old PC's (a proportion of which are Pentium 1's) they have to blow away the Windows installation and re-install something, which (if you read Microsoft's EULA) means you'd need another license to install if you want Windows (you can't re-use the OEM license). And they don't sell or support the old stuff that ran on that hardware any more anyway, so where does that leave them? Bingo, you got it, they're totally stuffed. I'm suggesting you could shrink wrap a Linux system that boots up into a Citrix client and start printing money.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
The flip side of this is that if they're still running 98 and ME, the fact that MS is dropping support isn't really a factor in their thinking anyway.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Just because Microsoft say they are stopping support for 16 bit windows, is that enough to drive any remaining 95/98/ME users to change?
I mean I can't imagine how that now actually prevents their continued use of it.
Furthermore, although on paper Microsoft had been supporting it, have they actually released any important new fixes or functionality for it in the last few years? Just because they now say they're not supporting it any more, has anything really been lost here for existing users?
Most of the people who browse slashdot are pretty well off in the scheme of things. Appreciate that, because not everyone is so lucky.
You said it. Being on disability, I have been for almost 10 years, I know I haven't been able to afford new computers every few years never mind every two or three. The PC I'm using now is more than 6 years old. I got a new PC with Linspire installed a few day ago but it's not ready for me to transferr all the docs I have on this one yet. I'm hoping to change my situation soon, I knew some photographers that wanted to start their own websites and I was thinking about giving a try at creating websites for them, but first I want to create one for myself as an exercise and to show. After I get the Linspire setup I'll give it a shot.
FalconShould there be a Law?
>When the answer to a user's question "I installed Linux and I can't get the network card working" changes from
>"You twit, you have done something wrong" to "Yes, there seems to be a problem, how can I help" - that's the day
> Linux can take over from Windows 98, or any Windows OS.
Of course you can cite where this is common in a legitimate support venue, and you wouldn't just be making up facts to support your conclusion, would you?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I have seen Win98 beening switched for Linux. As a matter of fact, it has been me who does it. As the support "specialist" in the family/friends I often get asked to fix a Win98/2000 PC. Two years ago I made a cut and stopped supporting Windows. Just as Microsoft did. Its not a "religious" kind of thing, its more about self protection. I noticed back then that fixing issues was not a matter of minutes as it used to be, but became a matter of hours, often requiering me to reinstall OS/drivers/documents etc.
For anyone of those friends/family who know that I was the right person for them to keep as "admin" I have moved to Linux (SuSE 10.0 and 10.1). No new hardware was necessary for any of them (lowest being 800 Mhz and 256 RAM). As someone posted before, new network cards required for DSL that most of my family uses nowerdays, is badly if at all supported in Win98, but works flawlessly on Linux.
My experience is that if you don't tell your family/friends that you will install Linux and not Windows they will take months untill they have realized it. Its not that they are dumb, but they don't care too much. If you tell them beforehand, though they will rebell for no apparent reason (human behaviour, I guess). Heres a small list of why I prefer Linux over Win98/Win2000 (XP out of the question of such old hardware):
1. ssh: love to be able to dial up to their PCs to do basic maintanence. I know there are Windows tools to do this, but the command line is so much more productive over a slow network.
2. root: Just the concept of the system being true multiuser from the start makes my task as admin so much easyer. Again, I know I could tick Win2000 to do this, but why bother if it is the right way in Linux from the start.
3. security: I don't care if security is there because of better coding or because there are less Linux installs out there. My 2 year experience mantaining Linux can be boiled down to this: NO VIRUS/ NO SPYWARE. Don't try to convince me that there are Windows "tools" that remove this stuff, I just don't have to, thats why I install Linux.
4. customizing: All, and I mean ALL who have gotten Linux installed by me love the flexibility to customize. You would not believe it, but most non-PC literates absolutely love to customize the colors, fonts, backgrounds etc of their PC. Linux (KDE) just rocks on these grounds. Ohh boy, I again know there are "freewares" out there that enable you to do similar tasks on Win98/2000 but they allmost allways fuck up your stability.
5. amarok: This is the killer application on Linux. Everyone I show this app want to switch!
that they are using a 8 year old os.
Why would they rush out to install linux cause it isnt supported.
Somehow it is hard for me to imagine that type of user using the update feature.
Many of the boxes that can happily run 98, can run neither Vista, nor XP and not even GUI on top of Linux (and these users will of course expect to have GUI). And before you flame me for this last opinion, think 486 @ 100Mhz w 16 MB of FP RAM. A perfectly usable win98 machine. Not even the smallest distros provide you for that (according to recomendations... however, once I have time, I'll try to get it to run with XFCE or some *box). In fact, even MMX on 233MHz with 256 MB of RAM is sluggish under Knoppix (KDE... great but demanding) compared to Win98. It is barely acceptable under XFCE on top of Slackware (Yay for XFCE! Yay for Slack! :D ) - it works, but you feel a little time lag when you move mouse.
On my workplace this here Duron machine was stalling under FC4 (KDE) before RAM was boosted from 256 to 512 MB, but back then when it was new, 128 was quite enaugh for win98. Windows apps under Wine were still slow on 256MB and I haven't even tried them with 512MB. A hunch: RAM is probably the major bottleneck. Probably, if you could rig a GB of RAM on an 486, Linux would fly on it (I wonder how this could be tested, though... perhaps a simulation?). Perhaps some adjustment of VM system, or object allocation in apps and libraries would solve it.
Many old machines now running win98 have Mobos with RAM upgrade capacity of 128MB (Pentiums) or 64MB (486s) limit.
IMHO to win over ex-win98 users, a live CD distro with a slim desktop as default, intended for at least Pentium I class (hopefully for a 486s too, when accompanied with a boot floppy) computers is very needed at the moment!