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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.