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.
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 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.
Agreed. For the most part the OS is and should be a non-issue. To paraphrase what my long post could be, the answer is "Its the apps stupid!". And before I get a ton of replies about there are apps that can do much of what they need for Linux. The issue is most people don't care. They know an app, they are comfortable with it, and it doesn't matter what other apps can do. Until THAT app is available, Linux is a non-issue.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
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.
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.