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!
the number of Windows '9x users is substantially higher than 4%. Not everyone throws out their PC and buys a new one every three years. The realtor that handled the house I bought a couple years ago still uses Windows 98 on her home PC and in their office. That kinda shocked me at the time, but as it did what little she needed she had no reason to change.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
I am sure Linux will pick up some of the traffic and Microsoft will get the other half, and most will continue on with Windows 98 until the computer is dead.
I figure it would be a 10%/40%/50% Split.
50% Will just stay with Windows 98. First because they don't care MS has stopped support. Second it works for there needs. Third it is the path of least resistance.
40% Will probably get a new computer with XP/Vista. They figured that their 3rd party apps that only work in 98 are end of life and time to bite the bullet and upgrade to the new versions. They may or may not know about Linux but they are use to windows and they will get a new system and use it for the next 10 years.
10% will probably switch to Linux. (Which probably accounts to the traffic on the Linux Groups). The only reason they were on Windows 98 and didn't upgrade because they had some application that only worked on windows. Now with 98 being officially dead they have a chance to start anew. If you are going to start over again lets try Linux. The app that they have may have an open source alternative or linux still uses the old hardware so they can continue, with linux.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
I would have said 'yes' until this past weekend. It was a few days back that I helped such a user upgrade. My aunt is in her 60s, and for the past six or seven years has been using a 300 MHz system with 64 MB of RAM, running Windows 98 SE. For her basic needs, it's a very suitable machine. But she had run into spyware problems, and we decided it would be easier to set her up with Ubuntu Linux 6.06.
I don't have any complaints with the Linux kernel, or most of the applications. All her hardware was supported immediately, and the installation actually went rather smoothly. But when GNOME started up, we ran into problems. 64 MB of RAM just wasn't enough. I had 512 MB of unused RAM lying around that was compatible with her system, so we installed that. It did help a fair bit.
But in the end, we found that GNOME and Firefox were just too slow. It's quite easy to install KDE when using the Ubuntu packages system, so we gave that a try. It was significantly more responsive than GNOME. Konqueror worked quite a bit better for her than Firefox, as well. We were able to find her a theme that she liked, and she's been pleased with the system so far.
Were it not for the 512 MB of RAM I had lying around, I don't think we would have been able to use Linux with either GNOME or KDE. Fluxbox, XFCE and the other light window managers or desktops just don't cut it for users who want a Windows-like experience. And they're just the sort of users who would be transitioning from Windows 98.
Unless the major desktops do something significant to reduce their memory consumption, Linux on the desktop will remain something that only those with rather high-end systems will be able to enjoy. Such software will run on older systems, but it won't be enjoyable, even with special effects and stuff like that disabled. It's the sort of thing that will give Linux a very bad name, and will make users switch back to older versions of Windows.
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 they are corporate running Win 98 or Win ME, then their IT department is in a really sore state. At the worst, they should have NT and probably 2000. Home OS in a corporate environment is a huge mistake, though I wouldn't be surprise to see it has happened before.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I recently pulled out my Windows 98 Celeron 300A with 128MB PC100 RAM, and 5400rpm 6GB drive, booted it up, and cracked open Netscape 4. You know what I found? Not much.
This machine has been sitting in a box for about 5 years, and as far as the time signatures are concerned, that rebuild was only about 7 months in. Office 2000 ran fine. Everything worked great -- I couldn't notice any difference with performance from my current Athlon machine when it comes to simple word processing and Web browsing. If I was ignorant to hotfixes and security, I'd be using this machine without any problems for many more years to come.
A simple reinstall of the OS -- as long as the disk is still healthy -- can stretch out the lifespan of any old machine, as long as you stick with the software of time, which isn't that much different than what Aunt June uses today.
body massage!
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.
I think that most Win95/98/ME users would be surprised to learn that MicroSoft ever supported their operating system. It certainly wasn't case when I used those versions.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
A home user running Windows 98 on 1998/99 hardware won't be happy upgrading to a modern Linux distro designed for 2006 hardware and configured to run on 1998 hardware. They could max out their ram, upgrade their hard drives, and maybe even replace their noisy chainsaw/jet-engine cpu and case fans, but that'd all cost money, which any user still running win98 is dead set against.
If you don't mind spending money, you can get a relatively modern refurbished PC for under $200, that would be more than enough to run any OS you throw at it. Almost a year ago, I got an IBM NetVista with a 1.8ghz Celeron, 512mb ram, a 40gb HD, and a CDRW/DVD combo for about $200 from TigerDirect. Right now it's running Windows Server 2003 R2 enterprise edition. Heresy, I know, but I didn't give Microsoft a dime, and haven't since 2003, nor is it pirated, and my primary desktop runs Ubuntu. Right now I'm installing NetBSD on Virtual PC.
There's potential for turning those systems into thin clients, and you just replace them with real thin clients when they finally give up the ghost.
I used to have 98 on my laptop - "upgraded" to XP when it was released - it was too slow (Thinkpad A22e) - moved to redhat, tried xubuntu, and finally vector as of two weeks ago. Vector is by far the fastest and was the easiest to install, and I'm a big fan - sound took some work to get to work and I had the usual headache with the wireless card and ndiswrapper but took no more than 2-3 hrs and some forum searching in total. Xubuntu had no configuration problems (other than the expected wireless) but even that was a tad slow for my taste. If the hardware can support it Xubuntu is probably the way to go for non *nix familiar users. They will never have to look at a terminal and never have to learn one thing about how the OS works. But if they are slightly familar with a major distro, Vector (or DSL I hear but I have not tried) is the way to go.
No distro I've tried so far is simple as 98 but the learning curve isn't steep if you use icewm. Distros like Vector and xubuntu are great on older hardware, and can easily be faster than 98. I really don't think the hardware support is so much of an issue anymore. IMHO the biggest headache is the software since anyone still using 98 is completely used to a particular way of doing things and any difference won't be easily tolerated. I converted my mum to OpenOffice (on windows but still gotta start somewhere) at her company since its free but damn that took some work. The temporary frustration in learning to get used to the differences though is far outweighed by the costs. They saved a small fortune on Office licences, and basically all they needed was Word and Powerpoint. Now think savings on office + antivirus, a faster OS and active support and convincing them to change from 98 might be a bit easier.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
By the way, CNET just did a little video telling people about Ubuntu Linux and how to download and run it from a disk so that they can give it a no-risk try.
? tag=cnetfd.mt
http://reviews.cnet.com/4660-10165_7-6639061.html
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
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.
I provide independently-contracted end-user support for a variety of users, from home users to commercial installations. When the use cases suggest an easy transition (usage as a web and word processing terminal, no need for Windows-only software), I have been migrating users to a customized Ubuntu Linux derivative distribution. In some cases, rather than repairing Windows 98 or (especially) ME systems, it is useful to suggest such a migration, as the benefits (a like-new system performance, virus and spyware-proofing, nearly user-proof :D) outweigh the advantages of repairing the old system (familiarity - which is mostly lost when a system is seriously in need of repair anyway). I think there is definitely a market for non-zealot-based installations of Linux where dissatisfied or mis-served users of Win 98 or ME fit specific use cases, and I've found success with this strategy.
I recognize people by their sigs. Is that a bad thing?
For my mother, at least...I was looking for an excuse to ditch 98 on her old Dell Latitude with a p2-400, 256mb ram, integrated (Neomagic) video - she wasn't really unhappy with Windows 98, but boy is she happier with Dapper. She tells all her coworkers that her son's got her using Linux and she loves it. All she does is use aMSN to talk to me, and browse the web, pay bills, e-mail, etc. Basic stuff, no doubt. Do I think that Linux seriously has a chance of picking up users in search of a replacement for 98/ME? No, and obviously my example is a special case. Honestly, Apple would have a great time picking up ex-9X users, if prices on Macs weren't so exclusive compared to PCs. I think linux's best chance in the market for "users" is to get a big vendor like Dell or HP to start including a mainstream distro like Ubuntu or SuSE on their low-to-midrange desktops, make it, say $50 less than the same Windows PC, guarantee it to work with their hardware, and support it in the rare occasion that a user breaks the install. If users looking for a ~$500 PC to replace their old 98 box see an alternative like that, maybe they would take a chance. Sorry, I was dreaming of a perfect world.
yes, well point-of-sale, piece of sh$t...you decide...
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
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.
For those looking for real examples, count me in. I had built a box and put 98 on it years ago becasue I had a legal copy. Recently it went from the fastest hardware in the house to the slowest several times. (my kids use that machine). Fixing it required a format and reinstall + configuration + drivers + applications = hours and hours of my time.
When the frequency of the rebuild moved up to just a couple months, I dropped Ubuntu Breezy Badger on it and later upgraded to Daper Drake. It is still the fastest machine in the house. The kids only complaint is myspace upgraded to flash 9 and the newest falsh for Linux is Flash 7.
I liked the lack of any need to install any drivers whatsoever. Everything worked with the exception with it not playing MP3 files due to the propritary format. Installed the Lame encoder and all is fine.
A google search was required to learn how the edit the hosts file to do the ad blocking. But all in all it was a lot less online searching than I needed to do to edit the Windows registry to remove malware.
Even installing my networked printers did not require installing any drivers.
The truth shall set you free!
Maybe because there are a lot of people right now that just can't afford to upgrade their software, much less their hardware. I am one of those people, if just one of my paychecks were missed, I would be hurting majorly. I am looking for a better job and hope to have one soon but for now I am using hardware that is around 18 to 24 months old. Don't say that I should drop my cell or cable or something because the only things I am buying are food, gas for my car, car insurance and a few odds and ends. There is nothing left to cut so no money for new expensive things. Not everyone can afford to get the latest bleeding edge systems every 6 months. That is why they should be encouraged.
I still use Windows98SE. It's on my 6-year old Gateway 600mhz Athlon tower. I used it today to do some work in Blender. Feel free to check it out at http://netlate.com/ and see what I've done. Why do I use 98 still? Because my nice, expensive XP-running 64-bit Athlon laptop is inoperative at the moment. There's nothing wrong with an older operating system if it fills the needs. I used to keep that same tower on the network at my parent's house as a print server and web-browsing machine. It doesn't need anything stronger than 98. I *have* comtemplated installing Linux on it to see what all the fuss is about, but honestly, I could care less. Maybe that affects my geek-cred or something. Maybe I'm not all big and bad and a 1337 h4x0r like the rest of you. Maybe I'm just some nerd wannabe that can't code (true) and wonders what the heck everyone means when they argue about "vi" and "emacs" (again, true). Then again, maybe I'm a normal person who just isn't interested in applying the perceived effort required to install, learn, and operate a new OS that provides no benefits to me over my existing options. It's called convenience. The majority of people go for the easy route. Me too.
Patience is a virtue, but haste is my life.
As for getting them hooked into Linux - no chance! It might be free, but they have probably never heard of it, think that if it is free then there must be something wrong with it, and have no idea at all where they could get a copy of it, or what they would do with it if they did. JC, these people don't even have CD drives, much less DVD drives, and a free set of Ubuntu floppies can be obtained where?
Will those of you who think that you know what you are doing, get out of the way of those of us who know what we are doi
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
Boy I'm gonna get flamed for this one...
/bin/sh and I didn't even know there was a difference in shells. During my pre-Mandrake days though, I mainly used windows. After this I went back to just using windows for a while, then switched to using Gnome on Redhat. All this time in Gnome and KDE, the most infuriating thing was that options were not intuitively placed. Screensaver and Desktop were not placed together. Window decorations were not where I thought they'd be. There was no unified UI framework... It was OK that my network interfaces might shift if I tweaked sysconfig files or modules from the CLI, but the GUI needed to be sharp, and it wasn't. That pissed me off, and I often found myself simply opening a shell after login, rebooting into windows for non-server stuff, or using Windows for everything except SSH.
I installed Vista RC1 on my main Windows workstation at work and one of the first things I noticed was how crappy the Control Panel layout was. It was even crappier than KDE or Gnome's control panels. Having an easy to use UI is a key part of being productive and enjoying your computer using experience, and in turn your OS.
A little background... I used to use KDE as my primary UI back in the Mandrake 7 or 8 days. Before that I didn't even know there was a difference in window management, and before that all I had was
(So, as if I'm not asking for a flaming enough as it is, now I'm going to bring OS X into it) About the time I was on Mandrake, some Mac fanatic I knew was talking on and on about "Rhapsody", the new Mac OS. I didn't care one bit to hear about all that crap. Any OS that doesn't have a CLI is worthless to me, I'm a CLI freak. Pointy Clicky can go out the window and I'd be happy as a clam for half of what I do. The second he mentioned that it was built on unix technology my interest perked up. I knew Mac OS was simple, even if I hated using it. I dreamed that they might get it all right... the handling of the preferences and home folders how *nix does it rather than that retched registry. *Real* administration privileges (eg: deleting files that are currently being used). The security system that I'd grown to know... symbolic links, grep, perl, more extensive glob matching, correct URI slashing, regex, the init system I'd grown to love... yeah, I dreamed. Amazingly, they've done pretty much everything I had dreamed they'd do with a unix system, and more (except the linux init system, but hey, now I'm more familiar with BSD), however, that's not the point.
(Now if I may try to reclaim some faith so the readers will put down their torches) The whole point here is that an OS is supposed to make you more productive. One way to do that is by making things easier. Unfortunately, with Vista, we've taken a step back to where most Linux distro's put you, with this non-unified control panel. Fortunately, some Linux distros seem to be putting things together in a more reasonable standpoint. I mean, honestly, I think Ubuntu has stuff laid out more sensibly by default than Vista does. (Plus compiz rules, their exposé knock-off smokes the Vista 3d-flip thingy... Katapult has the right idea too, we need more of the Launchbar knock-offs. Who cares if it's copying, it's good shizz.)
I seriously do think that Linux has better and better chances at getting in the Desktop market as each day goes by. I'm not yet recommending it to everyday people who stop by the IT department to ask what they should do about their next computer, but hopefully in the next year or so...
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.
heh 18 to 24 months old... i built my system in late 99 early 2000 (some time before 9/11/01 im sure) i put in 1 GB DDR, and a 1.7GHz K7, a nVidia GF 4700Ti, and one 40Gb Drive, since then i upgraded the graphics to a FX5600 about a year ago (probably more), and droped 2 120GB drives in it, and i still use it just fine. Plays UT2K4 fine, windows xp pro has an uptime of over a month before i shut it down, just to boot into linux so i can poke around in ubuntu. Infact theres not much my system cant handle, and its over 6 years old.... minus the graphics card (which still did pretty well in UT2K4 before i upgraded) and the drives which didnt cost too much, and have a practical use.... My Outdated comp runs better than most pre packaged compaq's and hp's because of all the trash they come pre loaded with the the insanely low ammounts of ram they come loaded with. These days i consider 1GB of ram to be pretty much minimum, if your luckey youll get away with 512.... anyway sorry to ramble on, im tired (zZz) and sick (or is that sick and tired) or hearing people bitch about people who run legasy hardware should be shot or laughed at because they cant/wont/dont upgrade, im here to tell you i cant afford to upgrade, i dont see a need to upgrade, and if when i have a need to upgrade, i dont have the money to do so, i wont upgrade. If on the other hand like some of the high class geeks whos mommies and daddies buy them everything i can magicaly come up with the money to upgrade u gladly will, ive been dyeing to try out one of the AMD 64 dual cores....
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
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?
this posting title sounds to me like linux is a sleezy sexual predator of sorts.
"Can area man living in parents basement pick-up junior high chicks thanks to new football stadium?"
that's how I read it.
ôó
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.
You know, it is probably quite the opposite of your claim. There are people who take pride in being able to work with older stuff. My 6 years old Win98 box in practice runs faster then most of the WinXP boxes of people around me. And I am proud of it.
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!