Which Linux For Non-Techie Windows Users?

obarthelemy writes "Having at last gotten Linux to run satisfactorily on my own PCs, I'd now like to start transitioning friends and family from XP to Linux instead of Windows 7. The catch is that these guys don't understand or care much about computers, so the transition has to be as seamless and painless as possible. Actually, they won't care for new things; even the upcoming upgrade to Windows 7 would be a pain and a bother, which is a great opportunity for Linux. I'm not too concerned about software (most of them only need browser, IM, VLC, mail and a Powerpoint viewer for all those fascinating attachments). What I'm concerned about is OS look-and-feel and interface — system bar on the bottom with clock, trash, info on the right, menu on the left, menu items similar to those of Windows. Is it better to shoot for a very targeted distro? Which would you recommend? Are there themes/skins for mainstream distributions instead? I've been looking around the web, and it's hard to gauge which distros are well-done and reasonably active."

Comments

Try OpenSUSE

[Anarke_Incarnate]

11.2 is very polished and nice and YaST makes it easy to get things done if you are unfamiliar with how Linux configuration files work or are located. It can install software almost as easily as Ubuntu, but in my opinion, does more things "right" than Ubuntu does. It has almost everything you would need and good overall integration. If you install it, I recommend you do it via the install DVD rather than the live CD.

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Additional info: http://en.opensuse.org/Screenshots/11.2 for some screen shots. Also, to clarify my previous post; YaST is similar, but more powerful than Microsoft's control panel. If you configure (And you should) the Packman repository (A repository is a collection of install packages that you set up by adding the URL to a window or the file directly, and you can do it easily in YaST), you should be able to isntall almost anything you want right from YaST's package management window without having to search on many web pages.

There are lots of good documents here: http://en.opensuse.org/Additional_package_repositories

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[Threni]

I considered Suse but noticed that Ubuntu not only looked easier, but had UbuntuForums.org which seems to be the place to search for info or ask for answers, and didn't see anything as popular for Suse or other distros. Also, Ubuntu seems to be by fair the most popular, which makes it easier to check if this or that game/gfx card/piece of hardware works. And it's less nerdy to get obvious `this shouldn't be hard` stuff done, like installing software.

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[natehoy]

The point there is to have the entire software library available in a local repository rather than having to go out to the Internet all the time. And you can do that in Debian/Ubuntu/Mint as well, if you like.

It's an optional step, but if you are installing it for someone else it makes any software they want to add install a LOT faster, as long as the version on the distribution disc is still current (and there are a lot of packages that just don't get updated all that often, like games and educational software). If a more recent version is available, your package manager (RPM or APT) will automatically select it from the more recent repository.

Remember, the OP asked about installing an easy version for someone else to use. It's a valid assumption that the person doing the actual install can handle such a task, and it offers a marginal improvement to the recipient of the computer because some of their software will install *really fast*.

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Three years ago you might have been right about it being slow. Now, you're talking a few seconds at most here and there for the difference in package management. Also, YaST is so much more than a package manager that comparing it to Synaptic is like comparing a space shuttle to a toy rocket ship. As was also pointed out, the copying of the DVD is so that you can install without having to use the net, which not everybody has at all times

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[obarthelemy]

I knew I would get that kind of reaction wording my question that way. My aim is not to bash Linux, but of the 6 PCs I currently have at home, it failed to install on 4, from a HALT error to a grey screen after loading x to a weird system screen with no login or launch options to a great big freeze at the desktop. I tried looking around for docs on these 4 issues, and either didn't find any relevant info, or it didn't work, or the info was incomplete or outdated. But then again, I'm dumb.

Since it did install on my 2 latest PCs, I'm taking it as a sign it will work well enough for simple desktop tasks, though the community, as you so effectively prove, is as welcoming to curious passer-bys and newbies as ever.

As for making it look like Windows, my users have a tendency to be even dumber than me. My 80-year old dad is thrown off when a video driver update changes his screen's resolution...

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[CyDharttha]

When using Ubuntu, you can add software without any of that foolishness, using synaptic package manager or apt-get from the command line.

Don't forget about the 'Ubuntu Software Center' for non-techie users. Its simplified interface is a good alternative to Synaptic for quick search/install/remove.

I have some pretty good success stories regarding people that are ultra-non-tech using Ubuntu. A friend of mine had a system I helped him with, he uses it for all his music creation/production/promoting work. He moved out to New York, a few thousand miles from me, and about a year later his HD died. I had him order a new drive off newegg, download Ubuntu 9.10 on his wife's PC, and do the install himself. He was up and running with a fresh Ubuntu and installed all his software (VLC, Ardour, Hydrogen, QJackCtl, LADSPA plugins, etc) in under an hour. He wouldn't know how to use a command line if he tried :) Again, I think this is a good success story!

Here's a previous post from me regarding software/hardware he uses and resulting artworks if anyone's further interested.

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[WaywardGeek]

I agree. Novell turned evil when it sided with Microsoft against all linux distros other than SUSE. Novell must die, and SUSE supports need to understand they are playing with the Devil.

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[theshowmecanuck]

The OP is looking for something that works for his family and friends who are average computer users/laypeople. Not something that meets people's ideological values; people who are usually technical experts compared to the vast majority of computer users. I tried to like Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Debian, but I found myself having to build and configure too many things in order to get functionality that I believe should have 'just worked'. I also am not a fan of the GPL. I believe in the spirit of it, but it is too fanatical and viral. There should be ways to allow interfaces between GPL and proprietary code. That way, those who want to maintain closed source could, and those who want to provide open source could. And they could work together. That is what I call open. But it is what it is, and I can only hope that Stallman and his Stallmanites disappear so that reasonable people can prevail.

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[obarthelemy]

1- The 4 problematic PCs are running XP or 7 perfectly right now, so I'm not buying the faulty/crappy hardware line. I checked driver support, they are even supposed to be linux-compatible even if old-ish, except for a very old Via-C7 one which should require manual config, except I can get to that point. My issue is not about Linux being hard to install, because when everything works it's very easy. My issues with Linux are more about limited driver support, failure to install on some systems, lacking/outdated documentation, and disappointment with forums help. But that's not the question at hand, I'll make do with those issues.

2- You're making the assumption that I'll DL the distro and run around installing it everywhere. You're wrong. And they won't see me fumbling. By the time I roll Linux out, I'll be competent enough (or I won't roll it out), and after a few funny experiences, I do all my installs at home, alone, with peace, quiet, time, my PCs and my tools on hand. Plus it a good policy to make them at least make the effort to bring the PC over, otherwise I'm a permanent on-call slave.

3- Making it look and feel like XP is a way to have the flattest possible learning curve. You're free to disagree, but I don't find the 'set expectations' approach convincing.

4- Read the OP: I installed Ubuntu. My issues with it is implied: not XP-like enough. I didn't mention the other problems I have with Ubuntu apart from the look and feel, though I do have some: rsync fumbling ntfs-to-ntfs syncs; nx-desktop configuration (the doc seems to assume more knowledge than I have, which is a common Linux catch). I assume you'll give me the "ntfs is bad" speech, but since I won't switch everything overnight I'll have a lot of NTFS everywhere, all my users data partitions and backup drives are ntfs.

The 'icons moving around' thing was just an exemple, not a key design goal/issue.

Prepare for all

[tsa]

Before you begin, ask the people you want to help if they are willing to try something else than MS software. They are probably quite familiar with Windows, Office, Outlook, and Media Player, and will have a hard time learning something new. That also means you will be asked a LOT of questions, mostly things that you can not even come up with because they are so logical to you. So: know what you get into before you begin!

Re:Prepare for all

[tsa]

Sorry for replying to myself, but if you have to ask this question on /. you'd better not start the whole 'converting business' because you will probably get more questions and remarks than you can handle. First try to find a Linux distribution that looks extremely user-friendly to you, get to know it thoroughly, and then ask people if they want to try it as an alternative to Windows.

Re:Prepare for all

[Daniel Dvorkin]

if you have to ask this question on /. you'd better not start

Every single Ask Slashdot story gets a response like this, and it's always a jackass thing to say. The whole reason Ask Slashdot exists is to allow technically competent people to share their expertise, and help others get up to speed. "RTFM n00b" responses like this are a major contributor to the negative geek stereotypes we all claim to hate, and in this specific case, a major barrier to Linux use. If you like seeing yourself as a member of a small, impenetrable elite possessed of special and arcane knowledge, go right ahead, but don't expect the rest of us to play along.

Re:Prepare for all

[elfprince13]

My *mother* switched painlessly to Ubuntu. The first step is training them to use Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and VLC on their Windows machine. After a month or so of smooth sailing, install Ubuntu and show them where the new menu locations are.

Re:Prepare for all

[commodore64_love]

>>>>you'd better not start the whole 'converting business' because you will probably get more questions and remarks than you can handle

+1 insightful.

I ran into this exact same problem. I gave my brother a new Windows/vista 7 desktop and an older Ubuntu Linux laptop (he gave me $350 in return), and you're right. I was not prepared for the number of questions I am now getting from him.

- WINDOWS 7 (vista 6.1) ----- Nary a problem. He did ask me to install RealPlayer but it only took 5 minutes and now he's gone two months without asking any questions.

- UBUNTU LINUX ----- Oh my god. Problem after problem after problem. "Where's the start menu?" "How come I can't find the calculator?" "Why won't my MS Word docs work on this laptop?" "I tried to play a game, but it refused to work." "I tried to watch CNN but the video refuses to run (it needed MS media player)." I'm starting to wish I had installed XP instead of Linux on this laptop, because it's idiot-friendly and my brother knows Windows.

Disclaimer-
This is not going to be a popular post.
I'm sorry. I can't change what I have observed.

Re:Prepare for all

[Chees0rz]

if you have to ask this question on /. you'd better not start

Every single Ask Slashdot story gets a response like this, and it's always a jackass thing to say.

I think you misinterpreted his meaning, in this case. The GP was giving the advice that- if this ask /.er has to ask, then somebody better bring up the question- "Are you familiar w/ Linux yourself?"

Being a newb with Linux is a difficult enough step, and sometimes hard work. Supporting someone is even more difficult. This advice was buried in his maybe, somewhat, possibly, loaded question- Whatever answer comes up here, make sure you damn well get experience with the distro you choose before recommending others to use it. You are the tech support.

Re:Prepare for all

[Cwix]

Im sorry this is gonna make me look like an ass, I suppose I am one, but whatev.

Start menu? Your bitching about this, wha? Its been a min since I used gnome, but if I remember correctly there is something analogus to the start button , on the top left.

Calculator? Huh Your bitching about this too? Prob under utilities under aforementioned button.

MS Word docs? They for the most part work just fine in Open Office (.docx files with large tables may have issues, I ran into this) Most people dont use tables the size my teacher was using, it was for subnetting so you can imagine how many little boxes there were for putting "0"'s and "1"'s .

Game? What game? Why didn't it work? Error message? Try a different one, open package manager, click games that look interesting, click install, make cup of coffee, play game, profit?

CNN video huh? Playing it right now using OpenSuse, and Firefox, with a flash player installed, thats it. (1-click install easy as pie) Trust me I have no MS software running on my computer..

Perhaps if you had properly installed everything, and give him a thirty min tutorial it would work properly, and you wouldnt be getting stupid questions. I installed Fedora on my buddys laptop, It has been running without a hitch for at least a year. Hes a typical grease monkey, doesnt know a hell of a lot about computers, isnt really that intersting to him, an his gf.. .sweetest girl in the world, dullest crayon in the box, she uses it with no problems.

Re:Prepare for all

[Overzeetop]

I am a long time Windows user, and have toyed with switching to Linux a couple of times. It always ends up being more frustrating than it's worth. It's fun to bitch and complain about Microsoft, but they do manage to name everything pretty well. It is a royal pain to find things in Windows if you don't know where to look, but even the best of Linux distros have oddly named shit everywhere. Whomever came up with the search bar for Win7 was a God damned genius - it's helped me more than anything else to find the obscure program or setting they seem to like to move with every release.

As bad as MS can be, for most computer things, it just works. Where it doesn't, it's certainly no worse than OSX and often better than Linux. MS could do a much better job with codecs, imho, but most websites are designed around the mass market - and that means Windows. Drivers are more common. And don't get me started with file permissions. Windows may be a sieve when it comes to security, but there's nothing quite as frustrating as the OS not letting you do something you want to do (MS found that out with Vista, the hard way).

The biggest issue is that your brother knows Windows. There are no good help files or guides that show "if you did it this way in windows, here's how you do it in Linux." You have to know what Linux calls it to find the analogous app - and that is far from trivial. Play that game 10 times in a row, and you're likely to go back and install Windows ME for relief! In the spirit of slashdot, I'll bring up a car analogy. I try to go to St. Croix, USVI in the winter each year, and the first day or two of driving on the left is a stressful time - and this is in an automatic transmission car that's set up for right side driving (so everything is in exactly the same place I'm used to). Switching to Linux is like...um...putting me in an airplane. Sure, it will get me places I used to go, and new places I couldn't have gone before, and get me there faster, and a whole host of better things. But if all I've ever done is drive a car, I'm likely to abandon that plane as useful transportation very quickly unless I commit to pretty extensive training.

Re:Prepare for all

[TerranFury]

Completely with you. There was a time when I would have considered installing Linux on my older parents' computer, but I wouldn't think seriously about it nowadays. In fact, I've even given up on Linux on the desktop myself!

I'd been running Kubuntu on my laptop for some time... Frustrated by a dog-slow Flash player (which wouldn't fullscreen properly), and extremely flaky wifi, I switched to XP Pro. Should have done it ages ago. It runs Flash fullscreen at native (very high) LCD resolution, plays games, has 100% working, reliable wifi... and nearly everything I'd want Linux for, Cygwin gives me. Plus, you can snag Windows binaries for most OSS software of any note.

And I should emphasize: It runs about twice as fast now. KDE3.5 is slow compared to XP Pro. It's on par with Vista, seriously.

The only time I found XP to be less convenient was when, once, I wanted to access a hard drive as a block device (instead of as a filesystem) so that I could wipe it before returning it. I ended up popping Knoppix in to do that.

That one case is the rare exception.

I still run Kubuntu on a machine in my lab -- which I use only for MATLAB, LaTeX, web, and email -- and it does the job there, but frankly for that purpose it's no better than a Windows machine; it's merely more-or-less the same.

I've also had bad experiences with embedded Linux for realtime applications (It's... nontrivial.... to get realtime support.) So I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Linux is a good choice if you want a non-realtime embedded system (e.g., router or set-top box), or an extremely capable server. But on the desktop it's just penny-wise and pound foolish.

Re:Prepare for all

[NotBorg]

I find it interesting that people think that old people are going to have the most trouble with technology. Really if you look at how much technology changed over the years they've seen more change than your average youngster. I've found that many old geezers are more comfortable with technology changing than some middle aged geeks.

Once you accept that it is new technology and it is different than that you've seen before the learning curve isn't as steep. Children don't have a prejudice about technology and old people can often overcome their prejudice faster having done so many times over the years. Its everyone in between that is the problem.

I don't mean to derail the conversation. I'm not trying to say Linux is easy or hard or that you will or will not end up in a support nightmare. Just that in my experience ease of use within an age bracket isn't really that reliable of a metric. Yet the very young and old are often used as "proof" that Linux is easy.

(I learned at an early age to not underestimate those who yell at you to get off their lawn. They can be crafty sons of bitches in their old age. They will get you.)

Re:Prepare for all

[aaron552]

It works great out of the box, but as soon as you want to do much tweaking aside from desktop backgrounds and install some additional software, you will run into headaches. "I can't install X without Y and Z dependencies?" And then it's off to google to find out how to get them...in a way that works with the current version of said dependency on your distro...

Seriously. Have you even used a linux distribution in the last 4 years?

For the most part, as long as you don't go outside your distribution's software repositories, you will run into very few (if any) problems. It's only when you try to install software you donwloaded from some random site that you will have problems

Ubuntu

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Give them Ubuntu. Out of the box it's similar in look and feel to windows. If you want it to look like OS X then install AWN and Compiz (or if their system is old/slow turn on Metacity instead of Compiz) and the advanced effects thing (I forget what its called but it lets you make those squishy windows and the cube for switching between workspaces and lots of other effects.

Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[ztransform]

Having recently paid for Windows 7 Professional, I can tell you that Linux offers you so many benefits that it is hard to see how Microsoft will be able to compete in the near future.

For example:

• you can install Linux even when there are multiple hard drives in your computer (you can only install Windows 7 if there is one and only one hard drive installed)
• you can choose to have your entire Linux partition encrypted - no need to buy Windows 7 Ultimate, or install truecrypt later
• Linux will support RAID - 0, 1, 1+0, etc - Windows 7 only supports RAID 0, and RAID 1 for those who buy Professional or Ultimate, and cannot do RAID 1+0
• Linux will not magically create a 100MB partition that you cannot erase and is essential to the operating system, unlike Windows 7 that will refuse to boot after removing the 100MB magic partition using Knoppix and cannot repair even with the original installation disks

If it wasn't for games and some professional software being released only for Windows I would not even think about paying money for a product that is far inferior to the free one.

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[mikkelm]

I'm not sure what kind of experience lead you to believe that Windows 7 can only install with a single drive present, but it is very much not true.

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[Xtravar]

I'm as big of a Linux advocate as anyone, but even I'm not delusional enough to think those advantages are going to sway the public.

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[blincoln]

you can install Linux even when there are multiple hard drives in your computer (you can only install Windows 7 if there is one and only one hard drive installed)

Er, what? Every version of Windows I've installed (back to 95 on floppy disks) supported multiple hard drives. The 9x series would format all of the installed drives prior to installing Windows itself, but that was fixed for the NT-based versions.

Linux will support RAID - 0, 1, 1+0, etc - Windows 7 only supports RAID 0, and RAID 1 for those who buy Professional or Ultimate, and cannot do RAID 1+0

Do you really want your OS taking on the overhead of RAID? Desktop motherboards with hardware RAID 0/1/0+1 are easy to find and cheap. How many desktop users actually have the four hard drives necessary (at a bare minimum) for 0+1 anyway?

Linux will not magically create a 100MB partition that you cannot erase and is essential to the operating system, unlike Windows 7 that will refuse to boot after removing the 100MB magic partition using Knoppix and cannot repair even with the original installation disks

100MB is about 1/100th of a percent of a common 1TB hard drive, right? Who cares? Why were you trying to remove it?

There are lots of things to like about Linux and hate about Windows (and vice-versa), but I don't think any of the things you mention are significant for the average desktop user of either.

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[TheThiefMaster]

Windows 7 allows you to load storage drivers off of a usb stick before installing.

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[bill_mcgonigle]

Do you really want your OS taking on the overhead of RAID?

Yes, it's well-debugged, very low CPU (especially in a multi-core world), and it's portable across controllers.

Desktop motherboards with hardware RAID 0/1/0+1 are easy to find and cheap.

Because most of them just pass the job onto an OS driver.

How many desktop users actually have the four hard drives necessary (at a bare minimum) for 0+1 anyway?

RAID-1 is the major win for availability. It even improves your average seek time.

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[doktaru]

Linux will support RAID - 0, 1, 1+0, etc - Windows 7 only supports RAID 0, and RAID 1 for those who buy Professional or Ultimate, and cannot do RAID 1+0

Do you really want your OS taking on the overhead of RAID? Desktop motherboards with hardware RAID 0/1/0+1 are easy to find and cheap. How many desktop users actually have the four hard drives necessary (at a bare minimum) for 0+1 anyway?

You do want the OS to handle RAID for most modern desktops and servers, excepting specialized RAID hardware. There are a few reasons you want the OS to handle the RAID if you are going to use RAID:

• Cards less than $500 often have crappy hardware and will hinder performance. Just because a motherboard has a RAID feature, does not mean that it is any good. Software RAID in modern, multicore machines often has superior performance. RAID hardware is often underpowered unless you spend a significant amount of money. Using a fraction of a core for RAID is hardly noticeable overhead these days.
• Motherboard raid, unless a coprocessor and memory is specified (a very rare thing), it is actually going to be software raid, just with the software loaded with the firmware.
• Using a form of hardware RAID locks you into that specific card or controller (sometimes you can get away with similar controllers, but they might use slightly different disk signature). Manufactures like this because if a RAID card or controller croaks, you have to often buy a card of motherboard from the same maker as the failing hardware.
• Software RAID gives you greater granularity and flexibility to configure your disks. With software RAID, you do not have to use entire disks. You could configure it so that part of your disk is simple, flat storage, part RAID 1, part RAID 0. You can even use disks of differing sizes and use the portion that a hardware RAID would cut off to make all drives in the RAID set the same size.
• The failure model for software RAID is different from hardware RAID. One of the most commonly overlooked failures in RAID systems is the RAID card itself. If a RAID card goes toast, it can often take the entire data set with it. Models that support multiple RAID controllers for a single RAID set are more rare and expensive. With software RAID, you can combine different inexpensive controllers, so if one controller fails, you have a possibility of still having an operational data set.
• With RAID 5 and 6, there are some additional considerations due to the parity data structure. Because data loss may occur if certain write operations are not completed, many decent RAID cards have a form of battery backup in the case of power failure. In a software RAID, you would want to make sure that the system has an uninterpretable power supply to deal with that risk. A UPS unit is also more general and helps with other data loss factors as well.
• Software RAID, because it is more general, often has better real-world testing and reliability. Hardware implementations (especially motherboard implementations) use proprietary implementations that have smaller user bases, so may have more errors.

My 65 year old parents like Ubuntu 9.10

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

It took me about 15 minutes to show them how to navigate around (compared to their old Windows XP machine that just gave up the ghost). The only thing I needed to set up for them was flash video so they can use youtube. The system keeps itself updated automatically and they'd already been using Openoffice under Windows.

They've got a brand new Asus notebook and Ubuntu found all the hardware bits by itself (including wifi and bluetooth). Haven't gotten a "support request" in months. I left a bootable Vista partition just in case they decide they want to get back on the Windows merry-go-round, but so far they haven't seen any need.

Best,

Re:My 65 year old parents like Ubuntu 9.10

[Sparx139]

Although, perhaps in this case their age was an advantage. To try and create a terribly labored analogy:
If you think of learning an OS like learning a language, we've been surrounded by technology for the majority of our lives. So, we've learned Windows as our primary language.
Now it's harder to learn another language once you're older, because you are accustomed to thinking in one language. Similarly, if you are accustomed to thinking in terms of one OS, you'll find it harder to operate another.
Now, your 65 year old parents won't have been learning windows as a primary language since they were children, which means that they don't have to shift out of the windows framework of thinking in order to use Ubuntu.

ER... Why?

[DaveQat]

I realize Slashdot is probably the wrong place to ask this question, but why bother transitioning them? If Windows works for them, and they're happy, you're just asking for a LOT of headaches with tech support, questions, and problems. Let them continue to use Windows in peace, unless there's some kind of real pressing issue that leads you to recommend them switching.

Re:ER... Why?

[T-Bone-T]

I agree. What's wrong with Windows 7? My dad switched from XP to 7 and was ready to go after a 15-minute walkthrough. He hasn't called to ask about anything. I tried switching him to Ubuntu but he was calling all the time to ask questions.

Re:ER... Why?

[LarrySDonald]

I'm considering something similar because frankly, XP3 catches weird things all the time (and while cleaning windows viruses has a homey retro feel, I don't want to do it all the time) and their hardware isn't really up to running vista or W7. But.. Then they're very used to windows and it'll while the product is free (and good) I'm not signing up to educate/support people for all eternity. Not trying to be obnoxious, but we can't prop up XP forever and not everyone, especially people who consider their computers more of a tool then a beloved friend, can keep their hardware super new.

Re:ER... Why?

[uvajed_ekil]

Well, just because they are used to windows doesn't mean it is working well for them or that they do not need constant help with it. XP is beginning to look dated and has always been a security problem. We all know Vista is crap, so if they're using that, switching to anything would be a reasonable upgrade. And if they are good enough with Windows that they don't need help with it, switching to Ubuntu (or Mint, even better) should not be difficult and will provide some peace of mind in terms of security. It didn't sound to me like the OP was just going in and fixing things that weren't broken just to piss people off - he maintains their computers, they care about what they can do rather than who makes their OS, and their are reasonable alternatives to XP and Vista.

Re:ER... Why?

[T-Bone-T]

Windows 7 will run on just about anything. You don't have to worry about hardware unless the computer is 10 years old. It ran better than XP on my 6 year old laptop.

Re:ER... Why?

[indrora]

Actually I have to place a nice "Windows 7 did its job amazingly" note here.

I ran windows 7 on a machine with the following specs:
384MB of RAM
1Ghz Pentium 3/4 (cant remember which)
4MB graphics card
(see http://sonof.bandit.name/files/tehlaptop/wtf.png )
It got a 1.0 on the scale, and I had to hack together some win2k drivers for it to work, but by god it worked and it had better boot times than Linux does on the same machine(a heavily stripped down Xubuntu), down to playing a few mildly graphics intensive games (but it wasnt going to play Quake any time soon. All I used it for was net browsing and IRC) and ran more stably than the 2k os that it came with.

Microsoft has actually done something right.

ON THE FLIPSIDE
I got my grandmother up to speed using Ubuntu in a few days, with a few problems here and there with things like scanners and odd bits and pieces. Granted she still wanted her windows machine back because its what worked (and did QuickBooks)

Re:ER... Why?

[Manip]

Windows XP is secure if configured correctly, and Vista hasn't been crap since its first Service Pack. Your entire post feels like a throw back from several years ago.

Also, I wouldn't switch users away from Windows. It is cheap enough, with great software support, to make it worth while to keep working around any problems you encounter.

Re:ER... Why?

[assertation]

Seriously,....I'm an Ubuntu zealot, but I have learned my lesson "nation building" with tech stuff. You are never really done, people call for help and questions years later.

If they don't like windows they just need to pony up a little more cash, get a Mac and get rid of the hassles.

Re:ER... Why?

[sponga]

Time is money if you haven't figured it out.

To put it bluntly, the Linux Desktop missed the entire mass adoption of Personal Computers at home. Most of the desktop learning environment was done in the 90's and they have passed that skill on down to their children, so everything is just 'too big' and standardized the desktop. Plus I remember asking about a Linux desktop back in the days and the priorities were not there to develop it, more lines of whining about Windows were written than Desktop Linux code.

You can believe whatever encounters you have had and try to make them an example, but the point remains that Linux is a very chaotic environment and nobody wants to stand up to be liable if something goes wrong. That or they get really offended when you tell them you do not like what they developed and no people do not want to switch between 5 different varities of a certain App with names that do not even compare to the task they are doing.

Personally, I say just wait it out and let a big corporation like Google do something right with Linux to make it a truly great Desktop OS. Ubuntu is barely gimping along and nothing too exciting about makes it a 'must have'.
Plus Windows 7 is here and all the excuses of "Vista is bloat" have kind of gone out the door, MS seems to finally have figured out stability/security with Vista/Win7.

Linux Desktop missed the biggest opportunity to seize on MS's blunder with Vista, missed opportunity in that Win7 will last another 15+ years sitting on Businesses/home users computers.
Sorry I am more of a realist than an hopeful opportunist.

Re:ER... Why?

[ffreeloader]

What a load... Do you figure out how much it "costs" you to learn play a computer game well and add that to the price of the game? Do you count how much it "costs" you to watch tv, read a book, etc... and then never do anything along those lines because it's "too expensive" because of the time involved?

It simply doesn't take any more time to learn one environment than it does another. Just because YOU learned Windows first and think your Windows skills should be the only computer skills you should ever want or need to learn doesn't mean everyone thinks that way, or puts the same lack-of-value on new skills that you do.

You can believe whatever you want concerning the Linux desktop, but that doesn't mean you're correct. It just means that YOU believe that.

Re:ER... Why?

[westlake]

To put it bluntly, the Linux Desktop missed the entire mass adoption of Personal Computers at home. Most of the desktop learning environment was done in the 90's and they have passed that skill on down to their children

It goes deeper than that.

Applications have been passed down from father to son, mother to daughter.

Microsoft Word 5.5 DOS [Patched For W2K] is a free download of a program first released in 1983. 27 years ago. Word for Windows took hold in 1990-1993.

Mandriva Linux

[RudyHartmann]

Mandriva Linux. Especially if you get the Powerpack. It has all the extras built right into the DVD so you don't have to go out and find it. I would also recommend getting the 32-bit version since it's more stable. I also site this article in Linux magazine: http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7643/1.html

Re:Mandriva Linux

[Linegod]

I agree. However 64-bit works quite well.

Linus

[MrShaggy]

The man himself uses ubuntu.

I also enjoyed Fedora Core.

Choose a distro that has good KDE implementation

[bogaboga]

Here's why:

The latest incarnation of KDE looks great. You must be warned though that the system your folks must be using has to be "powerful" enough. Here "powerful" is subjective.

I prefer Fedora

[Jim Hall]

Speaking for myself, I prefer Fedora Linux. I find the look and feel is set up to be pretty close to Windows, enough so that sometimes people who look over my shoulder and see me using it assume I'm running Windows. If your family is moving from Windows, this might be a good choice.

Actually, my wife really likes Fedora, and she's a definite non-geek. It's easy enough for her to use, which (for her) is mostly email, web, text processor, and a few other minor apps.

I used to run Linux at work for several years, and ran Fedora. It's got the tools that replicate the functionality of Windows. (Unfortunately, I've been asked to move to Windows, at least for work. Ironically, I find Windows very confusing to use - Linux just seems so much easier to use.)

Re:I prefer Fedora

[AzTechGuy]

As a tech for a mid to large size school district, 10,000+ hosts, we recently migrated some of our older equipment over to Fedora as well. We put together a team and they tried different flavors. After a couple of weeks, Fedora was voted in. It was chosen for several reasons, like making it look as much like windows as we could. I was not on that team and can't speak for their choice, however I can tell yo that staff have migrated over very well. We even have staff requesting their older machines be loaded with Fedora because they are tired of windows running so slow on the older equipment . Licensing for windows was costing us more than we were willing to spend as well as our equipment was aging. Instead of recycling these computers for parts or whatever, it was deiced that Fedora could keep them in service and still provide a majority of the services each machines provides. Do some experimenting. It is really all up to how the staff feels and if they can overcome the learning curve.

Mint

[uvajed_ekil]

I'd say Mint is a good choice, though I'm certainly biased from using it for years now. It is easy to install, comes with everything most users need, and is Ubuntu-based, meaning anything you don't find should be easy to add. The included software manager makes it super easy to pick and choose optional software. At least give this one a look, as it has become quite popular, according to distrowatch.com and some other linux reviewers.

Linux Mint

[SixArmedJesus]

I'm personally a big fan of Linux Mint. It builds off of Ubuntu, but it comes already setup with a number of proprietary items that other distros don't want to include, such as flash , mp3 and NVidia support. It has the familiar Windows-like setup you mentioned and it's easy to maintain with the mint-update tool, which lets the user know when there are updates to install. (I know other distros have similar utilities, but Mint's never seemed to break anything on an update.) It also has a number of other mint-* tools that make maintenance very easy and gives it a nice polish even over Ubuntu.

the answer to your question, and then some

[drinkypoo]

What I'm concerned about is OS look-and-feel and interface -- system bar on the bottom with clock, trash, info on the right, menu on the left, menu items similar to those of Windows.

All you have to do to get this with Ubuntu is to move the task list from the bottom panel to the top, delete the bottom panel, and move the top panel to the bottom. With a little research you could probably do this from the console (or by extension, a script) with the gconftool-2 command. The menu items are already sufficiently similar to Windows.

Making it act like OSX is slightly harder, but not really difficult. Add the AWN testing team PPA (some of the mac features like pinning an app to the dock as a launcher require the new AWN) and install avant-window-navigator-trunk and all the plugins ending in -trunk, remove the gnome-panel from the list of required applications (again, via gconf) and configure Compiz to include the functionality of Expose and Spaces, which is quite simple.

For both Windows and OSX-looks, there are numerous available GTK+2 themes which will provide the appearance of your choice. OSX has three or four different widget sets; you get to pick one that looks like any of them (or variations thereof) and all the GTK+2 apps will look the same, something Apple hasn't been able to manage. Windows-look is much the same; you can find Windows 95/NT4, Windows 98, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, or various other appearances. Making the gnome-panel look like the Windows taskbar is a simple matter of using the right background image, which you ought to be able to download easily enough.

I use an OSX-look; The visual effects of Compiz are slower than the effects on OSX ever since Xgl was killed off. But the rest of the OS is generally more responsive, so the final effect is fairly positive. With that said, you might consider just getting them used to Ubuntu's look. The only big drawback to it is that having two taskbars wastes screen real estate. That's why I'm using AWN with auto-hide; it's very smart in the current release. Also, this is the first version of AWN which doesn't simply disappear when compiz dies, which makes it a valid tool for the average user, who probably doesn't want to have to hit Alt+F2 and run Compiz. Instead, you can give them a menu option. This is still better than what happens on Windows or the Mac when an element of the GUI system dies.

My biggest problem was

[CBung]

I transitioned a friend to ubuntu recently, he was sick and tired of getting viruses and the like. He is extremely satisfied so far. He recently asked me if iTunes works for linux, because his girlfriend has an ipod. She likes to use the itunes store, so the usual amarok/rhythmbox solution doesnt work. Unfortunately if you look at the wine application page for iTunes the rating is trash. Setting him up with virtualbox is just too extreme, he does not have a windows cd around. The biggest thing is check what software they use regularly, and make sure it works first in wine or has a decent alternative. Otherwise they will just be disappointed.

Re:My biggest problem was

[CBung]

Thank you captain obvious ;) I would expect any of us here know how to run a windows install. Not everyone does, and I was not about to learn him. He has a number of friends that come to his house to party and tend to use his computer. After 12 years, if he wants to change, I was happy to help him. Also, I called vbox option extreme because I do not look to virtualbox as a solution for the average user who just wants to click one thing and have it work. I dont think we should be stuck having to go back to windows for one application.

Re:My biggest problem was

[CBung]

Actually I had tried that, the ipod addon i saw was not current for the latest version. Why is it an addon and not built in? I used my own girlfriends ipod nano, and it did not pick it up without the addon. How comparable is Amazon MP3 vs itunes store, can you be more specific?

Re:My biggest problem was

[Dutch Gun]

His fault, not the computer's fault.

His fault, because he had the audacity to click on a link in an e-mail, or visit a malformed web page? Or because the flash plugin he was using was slightly out of date and didn't bother letting him know it was time to update? Or because he didn't realize that www.paypal.com != www.paypa1.com? There are thousands of ways a computer can get infected with malware. Many are poor judgement on the user's part, but hell, many are no fault of the user at all - at least, not in a sane world. My definition of a sane world does not include getting your computer compromised simply by viewing a web page.

Linux has the advantage of an inherently superior security model (permissions-based security was ALWAYS the standard), where Windows has the problem of supporting legacy apps from a model that allowed total permissions from ANY process. And of course, there's the fact that Linux (on the desktop) is a much smaller target.

Blaming users is a copout. Lay the blame squarely where it deserves to go: programmers / managers who were thinking far too much about cool whiz-bang features and not enough about hardening their software from malicious attacks.

Re:My biggest problem was

[Chaos Incarnate]

Give your friend Songbird. The default theme and functionality is very similar to iTunes, and it supports iPod syncing out of the box. It integrates functionality for a couple different music stores (7digital, Amazon MP3, etc) about as smoothly as iTunes does with the iTunes store, plus the added bonus of DRM-free music.

You mean "the added bonus of lower sound quality", since the iTunes store is also DRM-free for music, but is AAC instead of MP3.

YaST, YaST, and YaST

[Enderandrew]

Windows users expect a familiar control panel to configure their box.

openSUSE puts out great, polished desktops. Their KDE 4 desktop is perhaps unmatched by any other distro, but YaST is what will really appeal to non-technical Windows users.

It should be noted that you may need to install a restricted formats package to get Flash, DVDs, MP3s, codecs, etc, and possibly a proprietary video driver. But there are 1-click installers that make this process very simple. After those two steps, you should be in pretty good shape.

Re:YaST, YaST, and YaST

[Noughmad]

Most Windows users never configure their box. In most cases it only has to be done no more than once, and then it's usually done by a geek relative.

You have a couple of options.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since your needs are pretty simple, there are a few options that you can take:

1. Ubuntu. This is the rightfully obligatory distribution for home and small business users. Despite the politics going on around the GNOME community, it is a very simple window manager that gives most users a great balance between usability and productivity. However, KDE gives you many more options, especially if you are going to be doing the installation for them, but at the extra cost of potentially being a bit behind. (Kubuntu usually falls behind standard Ubuntu, since it's not officially supported by Canonical.) The great thing about Ubuntu is that it keeps the versatility of Debian mostly intact (though it's not as free, philosophically speaking). You can download the standard ISO and get all of the good features and setup that Ubuntu is known for (well...maybe if you don't count 9.10), or you can download the mini distribution which is practically clean slate and lets you install what you want.

   It's really your easiest option.

2. Debian. If your friend's computers are older or limited on memory, you may want to consider just installing Debian straight and customizing as you need to. Debian comes clean state by default and is quite friendly on resources. For this scenario, KDE is out of the question and you will need to be careful with GNOME; it can take up quite a lot of resources.

Though I'm sure you're aware, I'll close this by warning you of what you might be getting yourself into in doing this. As you know, Linux for the desktop has improved significantly over the years, but it is still not as polished as Windows or OS X. This is important, as a lot of maintenance must be done through command line and your users will probably not put up with that for anything even remotely non-trivial. You will probably also have to be responsible for finding alternative software your friends might want in the long run since we live in a Windows/Mac world; be prepared to improvise when software they want is not available. You will also want to consider installing WINE on whichever distribution you choose, as OpenOffice will probably not be friendly with many PPT presentations. (On a similar note, be prepared to either install Office outright and deal with brokenness that might ensue, or be prepared to ensure that all of your friend's needs are met through OpenOffice.)

Good luck!

Re:Ubuntu

[walterbyrd]

I think Ubuntu may have the best community. And I think the community may be a big deal to a new user.

Also, I think Mint may be based on Ubuntu. As I understand it, Mint looks a bit more like Windows, and Mint offers more "out of the box."

I use debian lenny and xfce4 myself.

Re:Ubuntu

[houstonbofh]

Looking too much like Windows is not a good thing. Since Ubuntu looks nothing like Windows, people do not expect it to behave exactly like Windows. Less questions of "Where is my Control Panel? I want to add some software!"

Re:Ubuntu

[Sarten-X]

I agree fully. Having slight differences is a good reminder that the user is now unique among their peers, and uses something superior to the average. Like driving a Ferrari, it's got everything, but just a little different than their neighbor's Buick.

However, normalcy is nice. Having a steering wheel is good. This is why I usually just rearrange things a bit. Sure, it takes a bit of effort, but you can rearrange the applets on the GNOME panel and get a decent facsimile of Windows, but with different images. It's enough to match up with basic instructions from less-than-savvy friends, and it's certainly close enough to learn quickly.

Once I've converted folks, I've often put a sheet of paper next to the computer, listing equivalent options between Ubuntu and Windows. If you want to do something and can't figure out how immediately, look at the list. Eventually, that list will disappear from use.

Finally, one of the most important things I've done to convert someone has nothing to do with the OS itself. I always leave my cell phone number and a card listing the hours where I'm not otherwise occupied. For the next week, I'll get several calls, but the user gets someone friendly to help them. It also often serves as a nice introduction to the community in general. If I'm unable to really help right then, I'll direct the user to the Ubuntu forums. Calls drop off rapidly after that.

This turned into an essay. Sorry about that.

Re:Ubuntu

[Noughmad]

The KDE UI is much closer to Windows than Gnome is

That pretty much removes the first question anyone new to Ubuntu will ask, "Where is the Start Menu?". KDE is definitely the way to go here, because the whole desktop looks practically the same an Win7.

I find KDE less frustrating than Gnome

[Colin Smith]

* It has more of the little tools which people expect and use.
* The tools are better integrated with one another. Gnome tools are standalone.
* It's faster (lower latency menus, windows etc).
* It works more reliably. The taskbar for example works, horizontally or vertically.
* It is more like windows XP like than Gnome.
* It's easier to customize/configure than Gnome.

Overall, KDE (3.5, haven't upgraded) just works well. The problem is the application namespace. The "K" thing. Seriously. Get rid of it. I don't need to know that I'm using Kontact, Knode, Karm Kaddressbook or or Kmail. Hide all that bollocks at the filesystem level.

 

Re:Ubuntu

[Urza9814]

I would have to say that, while Ubuntu is a good choice, I wouldn't do straight Ubuntu - I'd pick Kubuntu. Out of the box, Gnome doesn't look anything like Windows - it looks closer to OS X than anything. KDE is going to be a lot more like Windows.

Communities

[NotBorg]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say: so what. Do tech communities matter to non-techies? Do former Windows users need or want a community? Even though they didn't need one when using Windows? The word from the Linux communities is that it is easy enough for anyone and easier than Windows. It just works, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling for Windows and it's great that Ubuntu has a community too. There is value for many in having a friendly community to scrape tech tips from. I just wonder if it really matters to a non-techie who is just looking to play videos, send e-mail, and visit Facebook.

Re:Linux terrorist

[sammyF70]

From my own experience, past the first hour of explaining where to find stuff, you'll get a LOT less support to do by using a good linux distro than by staying with Windows, as long as they don't want to play the newest games out there.Linux is way less of a hassle for the standard user, who is going to spend 99% of the time in MSN, Skype or on facebook, and who watches vids on youtube, than windows (and yes, I include even Windows7 in that). Additionally, If someone like that asks you for a certain software ("I need Photoshop, cause my cousin's neighbour's Aunt said it was great to resize pictures"), you can easily log in via ssh and install the foss equivalent, thus saving yourself the effort of being physically present and your "non-computer-type" person either a lot of money/the danger of catching a virus (you'll still end up having to explain how to use the software, but that would have happened with windows software nevertheless).

Re:Linux terrorist

[arcade]

One thing though..

If these friends and family want your help every so often to "fix" stuff that doesn't work with their computer - then they should change to whatever YOU feel most comfortable with.

I've told my family that I Do Not Do Windows. At all. If they've got windows-questions, they'll have to go somewhere else. (If you think I'm being mean, I'm not. I haven't used windows on any of my computers since 1999).

If friends/family/others want my help with computers, they'll have to use Linux.

Packman is a must have !

[DrYak]

If you configure (And you should) the Packman repository

I second that. Packman is a must have repository.
Given weird IP laws, there is a lot of stuff which Novell isn't allowed to ship inside openSUSE (MP3 support, DVD support, etc...). Packman is *the* place to get all the stuff one needs (in addition to providing a nice location for some more up-to-date software and software which weren't available in the main repo).

Though one gotcha with openSUSE 11.2 : the latest opensource drivers for ATI and nVidia aren't included out-of-the-box (no nouveau at all, and the out-of-the-box radeonhd had problems supporting my 3800 AGP, though it works perfectly with older cards), so no automagic updates of kernel along with corresponding video drivers.
Will probably come with the next release (11.3)
Until then, you'll probably have to :
- either use the proprietary drivers and assist your friends re-installing them in case of kernel update
- or use the opensuse repositories with latest opensource drivers (might require also the latest kernel which is updated quite often)
- or use something like the vesa 2D-only driver with vesa or shadowbuffer 2D-acceleration. (it's much faster than XP's vesa driver and *IS* actually usable for a user wanting only browsing web & checking mail)
- or hope the target newbie user have intel-based gfx cards (real intels, not powervr-rebranded-as-intel).

Good thing: Since 11.2, Novell tried introducing continuous update into openSUSE (so you can also "dist-upgrade" 11.1->11.2 the way you do it with Debian/Ubuntu/Mint/etc.)

The only advantage I see for Ubuntu is a much bigger and visible community around it.
(Easier to find ubuntu-specific answers when googling around)

Re:Ubuntu

[Zaphod The 42nd]

The point is that people who are completely technologically illiterate aren't going to do very well with windows xp. Thats what I've set up tons of family members with, they can use it, but every time I go over there and look at one of their machines, I notice all sorts of obvious problems. Viruses everywhere, terribly fragmented drives, etc. etc. Then I made them switch to OSX and Ubuntu. Yeah, it took em a couple days of complaining to learn the UI differences, but ... now their machines run all day and never crash.

If you want XP, just use XP! I don't understand Windows clone distros. If you want Windows then don't switch to Linux.

They DON'T want XP though, thats the whole point. They were forced to use windows because of their monopoly on software and mindshare (where people think microsoft = = computers) and now they just don't know any better than to realize that viruses and bluescreens aren't just "part of computers", but part of windows.

A pain and a bother?

[brad-x]

Windows 7 preserves almost all the metaphors and usage traits people are used to from XP, and introduces new convenience features. I think a transition to Windows 7 from XP would be a much smoother process than an introduction to a new platform.

Is there a good reason to switch the family to Linux, other than for ideological reasons?

Re:PCLinuxOS

[obarthelemy]

The issue with minor distros is drivers, especially video drivers. I like PuppyLinux a lot, too.

Re:Ubuntu

[Beardo the Bearded]

I've used Puppy, Ubuntu, and Mint recently, with a laundry list of other distros over the years.

Mint is your hands-down best out-of-the-box choice. The reason is simple -- it comes with a Flash player already installed. That means that facebook, youtube, twitter, and every other flavour-of-the-week website is going to just work as soon as installation is completed. If you're using other distros, you're going to have to enable the universal, guess about which open-source player and version will work, and cross your fingers. (Remember, if it fails ONCE, Linux is too complimicated.) It is based on Ubuntu, so you get a lot of support PLUS all the proprietary functionality that the average user will want.

Puppy is faster, and by a long shot. Even though it's not as polished, it is usable, so much so that my daughter can use it. (She is six.) I've got another copy running on my ancient P2 366 laptop, and it's actually usable.

In your own words!

[prolene]

You wrote: "Having at last" Means a lot of work before you got it working, only satisfactorily, for your own self. It would be same for each person you deploy for. Unfortunately the lesson is only learned after you have tried for yourself. In the end it gets clear that Linux is not ready for non-techies.

Try PC-BSD

[rhyous]

I think that you should give PC-BSD (http://www.pcbsd.org) a try. It is working really well for me.

Re:Ubuntu

[MichaelSmith]

Did you go out and find that same hill to photograph?

Contrary to popular belief

[cntThnkofAname]

In all my experience of converting people from Windows to Linux, the real n00bies (the ones that tell you things like my computer is to slow to run the internet) aren't the problem, it's the people that think they know what they're doing in windows that are the problem. For example, I've tried converting a few of my kinda tech savvy (as in they know the parts of the computer and could probably put together a desktop) friends by having them dual boot... It was a disaster. They were asking all the questions one would expect: Why can't I run exe's, where's the C drive, why should I unmount disks before I pull them out, ect.

After giving up for a bit I changed the crowd I was trying to "convert" to people that had never conceptualized that Windows isn't the computer that it's just software to help (some would argue) the computer to run. This went over incredibly well. It usually works the same way every time: Person comes up to me, says something like "My computer is really slow, I think myspace gave my a virus ... fix it" I respond "How about I install something called Linux which will fix all your problems". After 10 minutes of helping them understand the basics of computers they're sold. I've done this with at least 5 people and I have had maybe 7 questions in the last 2 years. I check in every once in a while and I hear the same thing "My computer is still fast!", "I haven't had a problem with it", "Why doesn't everyone use Linux?" , "I can't believe I was going to spend 1000 on a new computer" ... the list goes on.

It's my personal hypothesis the less someones knows about computers the better the are to learn to use gnu/Linux because they are already used to being uncomfortable with computers and have no preconceptions of how the interface should look or where the "C" drive should be. So don't worry about the look and feel of the OS, just make sure you explain it's different, and why it's different then you should be fine.

Re:Ubuntu

[Brian Gordon]

viruses and bluescreens aren't just "part of computers", but part of windows

Malware isn't just a part of Windows. If the user is stupid enough to run malicious code with elevated privileges then their computer is going to turn into mush like you describe, regardless of the operating system. Hiding root inside a cryptic shell doesn't really count.

Also, bluescreens haven't been a real complaint against Windows since XP pre-SP1. Any lingering problems are due to drivers, and Linux has much nastier drivers than Windows. Crashes are rare and Windows handles dying programs better than Linux. Badly written X applications occasionally cause my X to freeze up but I've never heard of such a thing on Windows.

Kind of Ubuntu

[Daengbo]

Two things:

1. Don't do it (unless they've asked and you don't mind a full-time job supporting them forever)
2. Linux Mint, not Ubuntu

Mint is based on Ubuntu, but comes with all the post-install crap already done for you. It has the bottom panel with menu button (not bar). It's nice and green, not brown.

My recommendation for older machines is LXDE on Ubuntu or Mint. It can run nicely in 128-256MB RAM.

Ubuntu, change the colors, panel on the bottom

[quixote9]

That's all there is to it. Ubuntu is easy. You have to put all the proprietary multimedia stuff on yourself, but that's pretty much a matter of installing one package from synaptic: ubuntu-restricted-extras.

Brown is ugly, so change the wallpaper. Honestly. Why people act like this is a showstopper beats me.

Last and far from least, put the panel where they're used to it, with the trash over there and the Start over here. And you're all set.

I set up laptops recently for my brother-in-law and his niece, both of them Windows users of the type who don't know a browser from a desktop. I figured I'd have no end of support, but that would still be better than the even bigger infinity of sorting their machines out after their daily virus infections.

In over six months, they've had no problems. None. There was one question: how to make the panel transparent because they were using different wallpaper.

They're not the type to use forums for questions, but if they were, the ubuntu forums are the most informative and friendliest to noobs of the lot.