Is Linux or Windows Easier To Install? 887
Mark Cappel writes: "Joe Barr, a LinuxWorld.com columnist, compares Linux and Windows installations. He expected Windows to be faster and easier since Microsoft has been at it for 21 years. (DOS 1.0 was released 21 years ago today.) It turns out Red Hat is quicker and less manually intensive."
Technically... (Score:5, Insightful)
If he is only testing with Redhat, it seems unfair to lump all of those installs as "faster" than Windows, based on the performance of only one type.
Just something to think about.
System Restore (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a good test (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not a fair question (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows..? (Score:2, Insightful)
Faulty Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
This test has one serious fault in it that I can see. The tester didn't use a stock W2K disk on a clean system, he used a Sony restore disk, which is a lot different than what Windows 2000 would normally be installed as. A lot of that time installing Windows could be attributed to the restore disk installing all of the myriad programs that come with new computers
Sure, I truly believe that Linux can come out on top with new installs. But do we really need to bias test results in our favor, and then expect corporate users to take us seriously? If Linux users want to show the superiority of the OS, they need to present fair, unbiased tests that are indicative of real-life situations, instead of twisting tests around in subtle ways.
A better test (Score:5, Insightful)
A better test:
2 identical stock computers, fairly recent but not top-of-the-line hardware
1 copy of Windows XP
1 copy of the latest version of Red Hat, Mandrake, or other selected distribution
2 clueless users
2 clueful users
1 administrator to wipe the machines after each test
1 instruction manual per OS
No gurus
4 runs - one with the cluebies doing Windows, one with Linux, and one of each with the clued-in pair.
Neither user can help the other; both are isolated
We know Joe's a Linux advocate. Let's have a real test.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, for most consumers, that will never happen. How much easier than "it was already there when I got it" can you get?
No matter how easy a Linux installation gets, if Windows comes pre-installed, then Linux can't win in this department.
Does it really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW he's lucky he didn't have a Orinoco wireless NIC because with RH 7.3 it can be a real PITA. That alone would have put a damper on his "review". Don't get me wrong I'm a longtime Redhat booster, but it just goes to show how subjective a review on "OS installs" can get depending on hardware.
Re:This article = troll (Score:4, Insightful)
IMO it's patently simple to install win2k or RedHat these days, and is a non-issue.
Wrong Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the Slashdot groupies would get a laugh if Microsoft compared Windows XP to Redhat 6.0.
This is like comparing a 1.5 ghz Athlon and a 1.5 GHZ Pentium 4. You don't... There's no point. Stop comparing apples and oranges people.
Flamebait, maybe. So what, reply. Prove me wrong.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux preinstalled is every bit as generic as Windows.
Completely unbiased review... (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly, it is easy possible to find configurations where I can prove either view. In general, it is still a pain to get all hardware supported and configuered under linux; wlan, firewire, cameras and high-end audio devices are just a few examples I usually spend days to make them work properly.
p.
Re:Technically... (Score:2, Insightful)
When I installed RedHat 7.3, turns out disk 3 had a media error on it. Did it let me recover from it? No, it said "you have an error, press OK to quit." No 'retry' or 'attempt it again'. It just died. I had to start the install all over from the very beginning. The Windows 2000 installer is much more graceful in a situation like that.
Just to be clear, I'm not drawing any lines in the sand between Windows and RedHat, I'm just saying that there are most definitely cases where the RedHat installer could be drastically improved. I lost quite a bit of time on that little endeavour.
On the flip side, if you install everything across all 3 CD's, you get much more stuff right away than Win2k does. (I.e. Office, etc.) Apples to apples? I think not. However, you're in for a major headache with RH if one of your disks is bad.
To be honest, I don't see the importance of this. Let's say that Linux installs faster 100% of the time. So? It might save some precious IT time, which is a fine argument. But I don't consider this to be anything more than a pro or a con when figuring out which OS for somebody else to use. The whole venture is worthless if, for example, you install RedHat on a laptop and for some stupid reason or another the DVD player won't play DVD's on it.
Maybe I'm just reading too much into this article. The differences between Linux and Windows are great enough that install time is not a greatly weighted factor.
What I think people neet to look at.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Red Hat Linux most certainly IS... (Score:2, Insightful)
I re-installed WinME on my pc the other day as well as Mandrake 8.2 on a seperate partition (new hard drive for those wondering why I was re-installing..) anyway for windows i had to do the following...
1. Install ME (with numerous reboots...)
2. Install VIA motherboard drivers
3. Install SBlive drivers
4. Install EPSON 740 drivers
5. Install NVIDIA drivers
6. Install Realtek 8139 drivers
7. Install Office
with mandrake and using most of the default options I only had to do the following..
1. Install Mandrake
2. Install NVIDIA RPM's
everything else was installed for me (Printer drivers,Network modules,sound modules,openoffice)
can it be much easier than that? Even my girlfriend could install Mandrake!.
Re:Red Hat Linux most certainly IS... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and if it doesn't, tell me that most users won't turn tht Linux disk into a coaster.
Not that this was a fair review to begin with... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, a proper, full installation of any operating system will have certain unavoidable parts that all responsible Operating Systems have to consider having -- the partitioning, the component selection, hardware setup and configuration. If you objectively time any operating system on the same hardware through the entire process, you'll notice all operating systems take more or less the same amount of time.
The article mentions 8 reboots for Win2k? WTF? If you aren't a moron that reboots after installing each driver and each application, installation should give you at the max 3 reboots. That's simply because Win2K first has to have a non-windows installer to copy the system files over with. If you look at any Linux's installation system, you'll notice you load with one kernel to install the system, but then reboot with another on the system itself to do configuration. And rebooting after installing drivers...are you telling me you can compile and add modules to the linux kernel at runtime?
It mentioned the problems with upgrading to SP3. I found it funny that it didn't bother including a similar upgrade from a RedHat released then to the latest version, and then upgrading to the latest releases via the online updates. I think only Debian has a packaging system that handles dependencies/uninstall/upgrade issues properly and cleanly, but I don't think you'll ever see anyone comparing Deb's install to Windows anytime soon.
Ultimately, we all knew what the conclusion was gonna be before we clicked the link. But they could have tried to be atleast a big more fair and objective, not to mention truthful. Free speech, EULA, whatever, that's why we all use Linux and GPL... but spreading reverse FUD about an OS we already got beat? Do we really have to sink this far?
An Accurate Comparison (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfair (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Technically... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, denied.
There's just no need from your limited perspective. What if from some crazy reason the guy didn't want to install MS Word or Internet Explorer when he installed his operating system?
Tssk. Microsoft has got the straight jacket so tight on you, you don't even notice it anymore.
Windows is easier for one reason (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care how "easy" Linux ever is, 90% of people will never, ever install it. Unless more vendors start offering it pre-installed (hooray for Wal-Mart), Linux will never be adopted by any sizable percentage of desktops.
The whole conversation about "ease of installation" is completely wrong-minded.
Re:Technically... (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy is talking utter bullshit on every level.
Using the last as a point of comparison is completely bogus since the only companies that don't provide Windows drivers for their hardware tend to be ones that have gone out of business. If you are using Linux you are far more likely to have problems with some bizaro cheapo OEM piece O' crap board than with Windows. However my experience has been that lack of decent driver support for Linux is a good predictor of crappy reliability generally and in particular likelyhood that the manufacturer dosen't provide upgraded drivers for new windows versions.
The bit I have never understood about Unix installs is why the O/S thinks it needs so many damn partitions. The argument /tmp might fill up sounds like its a kludge for not having working disk quotas - should not be an issue any longer. When I installed Red Hat a while back the pin head who wrote the extended manual suggested something like 5 partitions. One seemed to work just fine.
Same thing for Windows, why do I need a C drive and a D drive? Why not just have one big C drive so I don't need to worry if the program I install bursts the C: partition?
Re:Comparison not fair (Score:4, Insightful)
In most respects, a modern Linux distribution will do all of that for you the first time. Red Hat has a bit more stuff than most distributions, but it really is quite less than what you find on a "recovery CD" when you do a standard Red Hat install. Slackware is great for me. Though it takes a bit of know-how to partition your HDs, and get the X server configured, it can still be faster and easier to do, if you are an experienced user.
After that, you can probably install something like Slack in a half hour - 45 minutes. It takes about 15 minutes to configure the video, sound, and a few other things. I can't say that I was ever able to install Windows 2000, download drivers, install and tweak them in that amount of time.
There isn't anything wrong with Windows 2000... It is good software in most respects. But the old arguments about Linux being to combersome, and slow/difficult install processes are over. Something like Lycoris makes it even easier, if you can believe that.
Re:Technically... (Score:3, Insightful)
So in no particular order:
Better is not requiring reboots for unknown reasons or because an application crashed.
Better is ability to vet an application installation prior to installtion. (Querying an RPM, expanding a
Better is the ability to use tools to, at the very least, begin problem determination.
Better is the ability to use a CLI, GUI or both.
Better is having a genericly installed system that is functional, while at the same time being able to exercise fine-grained control over any aspect of the system that I deem significant.
Better is having a choice of server type applications.
Better is multi-user system. Can two remote users concurrently run Word?
Better is not being forced to use a binary system configuration file.
I hope this sheds a little light on what I think is required for a "better" system. Sorry to stir up a hornets nest with technical equivalent of Coke or Pepsi.
Re:Another redundant "unfair comparison" claim (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask yourself if this is a symptom of "bloat": the Mandrake Linux installation requires 1 boot floppy. The Windows 2000 installation requires 4 boot floppies!
Re:FUD Re:Comparison not fair (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand (I think there is automatic modding down of Linux bashing), RedHat is VERY easy to install now, but when my mother calls with a printer problem on her Windows XP box it is a little easier to troubleshoot than Linux. I have been using Linux since pre
Re:Faulty Comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not really a fault though, that's reality. When you install Red Hat Linux you're getting 3 cds worth of applications. When you install the Win2k disc you're getting the OS, IE, and Windows Media Player and that's about it. No Office suite or games (well, minesweeper probably which doesn't count). To compare RH Linux and Win2k you need to compare them both fully installed with all their final apps in place which is difficult to do as system application configurations vary considerably on the different platforms.
Re:Comparison not fair (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, Linux is (at least right now) not designed for the level of ease-of-use that XP was...Microsoft basically 'dumbed down' Win2K. (How else would you explain the Fisher-Price color scheme?)
That said, Linux still has potential...but we're our own worst enemy as acceptance goes. The more we insist on being able to tinker with each and every nuance, the more intimidating Linux becomes to the computer newbie.
(And let's not even get started on the Linux zealots.)
Re:Comparison not fair (Score:3, Insightful)
When you "Linux is (at least right now) not designed for the level of ease-of-use that XP was" I have to disagree in many respects. Saying "Linux" when explaining this is being a little too broad. Granted, installing software from CDs is easier in Windows, unless you use somethings like Lycoris's Iris [lycoris.com] , which makes it simple. Other than that, what is more difficult? I keep asking people these questions, and they always reply with comments about recompiling the kernel, permissions, etc... Things that aren't even an issue in many modern, desktop oriented distibutions. Doesn't that satisfy the basic needs of most casual computer users, that only use the web/email/word processor?
Re:A better test (Score:1, Insightful)
it depends (Score:4, Insightful)
I tried installing the latest Debian release this last weekend.... took me the whole weekend, and 6 re-installs. The best I could get was running, but had some serious problems, such as: no networking installed, didn't recognize my mouse, couldn't run X because it didn't know how to work with my monitor, and top it off, it couldn't read the damn floppy drive.
So I downloaded the latest Mandrake... first shot, I got everything loaded that I wanted, and it took me less than an hour.
How does that compare to Windows? Who knows? I wouldn't touch that shit, but I would believe that Windows users experiences range anywhere between the two. Hell, my OS X installation was about as smooth as the Mandrake install.
Re:Falacy (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't really understand anything not to mention that the names of the programs and utilities are really confusing. With Windows you need to know much less, because it's been specificaly tuned to easiness. It asumes you don't know skwat. Windows for a power user (system and tools, not apps power user) may be a little lacking. The security may be crap. But it's pretty straightforward. Linux can setup easily, but administrating it and customizing it is a pain. And if some distro makes a tas easier (ex: mandrake font importer) it's not because Linux is simpler, it's because there is a little tool to hide the underliyng complexity. And this is different than just droping some fonts in a
I would install Linux for a newby that wants to try it, but I don't expect him to know how to use Linux. I only expect him to fire up some apps and close them when done. He couldn't do anything else without learning quite a bit.
I am not mentioning compiling stuff, putting things in the right places (correct prefix when needed), lddng, recompiling a kernel if he's using some hardware that wasn't supprted earlier.
It can be made easier, but it's NOT easy, you can only hide it. Windows on the other hand always asume the user will know nothing, and all installers (not just windows) inherit that view.