Petreley on Win2k Installs and Softway Systems

Zach Frey writes "Nicholas Petreley ^[?] 's latest column has an interesting side-by-side comparison of Linux installs vs. Windows installs. It's a data point in the "Linux is too hard to install!" war. The upshot? Current Linux distros installed in around 15 minutes and had no trouble autodetecting his hardware, Win98 took 40 minutes and failed to recognize his network cards. W2K took ... much longer. " The more interesting comments, IMHO, were the comments on Softway Systems, but the Linux install article is timely, in light of the CNN install nightmare story.Update: 09/30 10:27 by H :Check out an update from Nick posted in the comments regarding the version of Win2k.

Comments

Win2k Install Times

[Noke]

I wonder why he never gave any numbers about the install time of Win2k?

Was he installing from the CD? Was he installing directly from his HD under windows? Was he installing from the CD in DOS? If he was installing from DOS, he probably didn't have the foresight to load smartdrv and sat there for 4 hours while it copied all 2,000 files from the i386 dir to the HD. Anyone who has any experience installing Win2k doesn't install this way as it is like chineese water torture. DOS copies files very very slow. The better method is to either boot from the Win2k CD directly, install from Windows (if you already have it installed), or if you MUST install from DOS - make SURE you run smartdrv to speed up the file copy process.

I can't speak for beta2 since it is almost 9 months old, but Release-Canidate 2 that was released a couple of weeks ago doesn't take more than an hour to install. I am speaking on behalf of 40 or so people in #Win2000 on efnet who all install Win2k at various times. As long as they arent installing from DOS without running smartdrv, and they don't have shitty hardware, they install within an hour consistantly.

Perspective

[puppyscent]

Having recently (within the past two months) installed Windows 95, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000 Professional RC1, and RH Linux 6.0 (with Win95, NT, and Linux on a triple-boot machine), I read with interest NP's perspective on the relative installations.

Frankly, I was left a bit cold from the article. It didn't really say much of anything new or insightful other than one very critical point: Microsoft makes some huge assumptions about where one begins when using their OS (?!) products.

• Example 1: On my for-work laptop (A relatively high-end Dell Latitude), I had a perfectly acceptable-for-NT installation. I thought that I just might throw risk to the wind and install the latest RC for Windows 2000. The Win2K setup program complained about my existing filesystem configuration and refused to continue. After altering the filesystem settings, the setup program appeared to run fine, only to completely ruin my previous installation of applications and other settings. To its credit, however, the Win2K setup program detected my installed hardware effortlessly. And yeah, it took nearly 3 hours to "finish." (I ended up having to wipe the disk clean and start from scratch. Setup still took over 2 hours -- and I spent 3 more reinstalling my apps.)
• Example 2: On my Dell Workstation 610 I made a valiant attempt at installing WinNT4, Win95, and RH Linux 6.0 in one day. Based on what I had read from other mentally unstable folks attempting such a configuration, it is typically best to start with the neighborhood bully, WinNT, as your first OS (due to its all-powerful and rude boot loader). Before beginning I used PartitionMagic to setup my partitions (here's an area where the vast majority of OS installers will stumble -- and that includes novice hackers). Lucky for me, I could boot the NT installer from CD and away I went. Since NT4 is big and dumb, I had to jump thru hoops for it to recognize the fact that I had two SCSI controllers on my system (the CDROM drive on one, the HDs on the other). Once I got past that circus, I watched as NT4 basically detected just about nothing else on my sytem. Lucky I had built driver images for my pieces from Dell's support site.
• Example 3:From NT I proceeded to install Win95 on the existing C: FAT16 partition. (All that NT had placed there was what it needed for booting.) Here again, many reboots and essentially non-existent device detection. And I had to really dig around for Win95 versions of drivers for my preinstalled devices. An elegant kludge, my ass.
• Example 4:I began my Linux installation from the CD -- again grateful for bootable CDs. Like the new kid in school who knows he has to get along with everyone, the RH installer allowed me to proceed rapidly through the installation, almost never frightening me with refusals to recognize different devices nor other OS filesystems (though both my Win installs used the congenial FAT 16). Configuring the X-Server was the only place where the installer really faltered; but even with that the whole installation took me about 30 minutes. (I bypassed LILO, instead looking to use the bully NT OS Loader.)

In all of the press and conversations I've read/heard discussing the installations of Linux vs. *using* Windows, the basic thing that seems to be missing is that very problem with Microsoft's assumption: that we only use their products and that we should be grateful for doing so. When folks complain about having to edit files to get their systems to work properly, so many seem to forget that it was only four years ago when the vast majority of PCs still ran Win 3.1 -- if that. Hello?! Win.ini? System.ini?

I'm still not sure where I stand on the Linux-for-the-masses issue, but I'm sure that I don't want people to assume that they have to settle for an inferior product when, with a bit of tweaking and polish, a better solution (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.) is readily available. That said, I'm encouraged by where Caldera is taking the install process; I only wish that the 'Advanced' user bypass option will always remain.

My installation experiences.

[Zagato-sama]

Well here are a few of mine.

My system is:
Celeron 300
Abit bh6 board
128MB ram
Mylex UW Scsi adapter
plextor 32X scsi cdrom, plextor 4x12 scsi cd-r
IBM 8 GB ide hard drive
awe 64 soundcard
Riva TNT video card
Linksys 10/100 Network card (the one the guy used)
SGI 20.something inch monitor

Windows 98
The install is fairly simple, it des not recognize the video card (As TNT cards weren't around when 98 was made..duh) The NIC is either detected as a NE 2000 card, or nothing at all. Everything else works fine. After the install I pop in the driver cd for the video card and floppies for the network card. After a reboot everything works fine. I don't see what this guy's problem was for the Linksys card... go figure.

Windows NT (Workstation)

I installed NT a long time ago so I don't remember all the details. Video card worked fine after applying service pack 3 with AGP support. The sound card was a nightmare to install though, ISA PNP support in NT definately needs work. But after I finally managed to get it working everything was fine. I would like to mention that I used NT for a few months and not once did the system crash. Apps crash of course but that is present in every O/S. Never did I have to reboot a system due to a lockup. So when I hear these stories of systems locking up it makes me wonder if the user was playing Quake or something on the NT server ;)

Mandrake 6.0

The TNT card does not get detected, this is okay as I can pick it from the list of cards supported. The SGI monitor does not get recognized _ this is a major pain in the ass as I don't have the manual for it. After playing "Guess the horizontal and vertical frequency" for 5 minutes I manage to get it right. Not a good way to pass time. Network card is detected fine. Mandrake 6.0 also does not have sound detection as part of the install, bummer. After running sndconfig everything works fine. All in all an okay install... the monitor bit is what annoys me the most.

Caldera 2.3

Wow..not bad, I'd say the best Linux installer I've tried so far. Detects everything sans... The monitor is not detected but they have an entry for it! Amazing. So I pick it and everything works fine, why doesn't Mandrake have the entry for my SGI monitor but Caldera does? Weird. After pondering that I also notice that Caldera detected my Awe 64 as a Soundblaster 16... makes me raise an eyebrow, but it works. My opinion? Not bad.

BeOS 4.5

Finally BeOS. I am lucky enough to have supported hardware, a lot of my friends have been unable to install it due to lack of drivers. I pop the cd in, run partition magic to make a BeOS partition. After a reboot the install kicks in, asks me if I want some 3rd party demos and japanese support. After that the install begins, after returning from a 5 minute trip to the kitchen I see that the install is done! BeOS boots in some 10 seconds and presto.. I blink in amazement as the install didn't ask me any hardware questions. But lo and behold everything was detected except for my network card (networking isn't part of the hardware detection I guess) I go into prefrences and put in my card type (no irqs or io settings to mess with) and my ip adress info. All done.

Moral of the story? Windows 98 install is easy, Windows NT is fine unless you have ISA PNP cards, Mandrake 6.0 install is livable, Caldera 2.3 install is about on par with Windows 98. BeOS install crushes them all. Not bad for an operating system made by a little company heavily in debt and smirked at by open source advocates screaming "Since you won't open source you will die! Mwahahaha!" Anyway that's my two cents. The biggest thing to watch out for is to make sure you have compatible hardware. Check first, install second. Not the other way around. Pardon any spelling errors ;)

Zagato-sama

Favorite things to do whilst installing W2K

[technos]

Having recently installed W2k, I can tell you that he does not exaggerate. I could have installed SuSe, every package, nine or ten times over in the span I waited for Win2k to tell me it couldn't complete the install. Instead, I drank two pots of coffee, recompiled my Linux kernel five times, wrote 1,000 lines of code, read the first four chapters of 'Linux Device Drivers', built a new box from spare parts, installed RH 5.2 on it, configured it, re-timed my Camaro, drove to the store for smokes, bled the brakes on said Camaro, washed my hands of the grease, checked my phone lines for noise, played a few games of Quake, ate lunch, ate dinner, watched Alien 3 on video, did some light housekeeping, and refreshed /. two hundred times. The sick part? I was installing it on a PIII from a local drive!

Linux vs. Windows 98: Ease of Installation

[geophile]

I'm reconfiguring some of my PCs to be dual-boot machines (Win98/Linux). On one box, both OSs installed easily, with little intervention required.

The other box is a 1-year old Dell that SHIPPED with Windows 98. I wiped the disk and tried reinstalling Windows 98, from the Dell-supplied CD. With 3 minutes left in the install (they have a little timer), I got an error message about a broken or missing vxd file. Reformatted the disk again -- same thing. I have a real problem. Dell support was useless. ("Try starting the installation from the floppy instead of booting from the Windows 98 CD". I tried, just to be safe, and of course that failed.) Searched the web and found a 19-step procedure for fixing this file. The procedure takes about an hour to go through. Made a slight error after that, and had to start from scratch (more reformatting). Got it right the next time. Installed a NIC which caused the machine to lock up solid when booting. Removing the NIC (in safe mode, from the control panel) and physically removing the card didn't fix the problem. Another reformat and reinstall (along with the 19-step 1-hour procedure to avoid the vxd problem). Finally get through it all, and the machine is flaky -- freezes within five minutes.

It's hard to imagine a simpler installation scenario -- standard Dell machine with no extra hardware; blank disk; standard Windows 98 installation. After banging my head against this wall for three days I still have a useless PC.

Meanwhile, I'm quite new to Linux, and got through the RH 6.0 install in about 15 minutes on another machine, on my first attempt.

Now I have to say that the Windows install had prettier graphics flashing while the installation "proceeded", but I don't see that as contributing to simplicity.