Is Linux or Windows Easier To Install?

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."

This article = troll

[GoatPigSheep]

First of all, windows2000 is not 3 cd's, it is one. This was not a real install of win2000. This was a use of a propreitary 'recovery tool' supplied by sony. The ads and cd swapping do not occur when you use a fresh install of windows.

Lets show you what a windows install is REALLY like.

When I installed winXP corporate edition, here's what happened: I inserted the cd, set up the bios to boot off cd. Once the install window appeared, I had complete mouse support with my usb mouse, choose to do a typical install, waited about an hour for it to complete, let the pc reboot a couple of times, put in my serial number, and that was it. I had complete video, sound, and net support. I upgraded my video drivers, and ran windows update, and that was it. Total install time: about 1 hour 15 minutes.

macos

[bcrowell]

The interesting comparison is with MacOS, which is by far the easiest OS I've ever installed. I don't recall it taking more than 30 minutes, and I've never had a single problem, or even had to read any documentation. Of course, Apple has the advantage of controlling the hardware. Some of the hassles and failures I've had with Linux installs had to do with unusual hardware.

Why compare with Windows? The interesting thing about Windows is how long it takes to erase.

Falacy

[EdMcMan]

The reason most people think installing Linux is harder is because they make it harder. Most people starting with Linux have used Windows first, and therefore want to dual boot, which requires repartitioning and other fun stuff. Now, if you were going to Windows from Linux and wanted to do this, you would have the same problem.

Fdisk? you gotta be kidding

[greenfly]

Then it was Red Hat's turn. I inserted the first installation CD and rebooted Windows. I chose to manually partition the disk using fdisk. First, I deleted the partition I had originally created for Linux. Then I created a 256-megabyte swap partition and gave the rest of the drive to Red Hat, choosing the ext3 journaling filesystem.

Ok ok, let's stop right here at the first paragraph. So, he already had his drive partitioned from a previous install (meaning he didn't have to mess with fips, partition magic, etc.) and he used fdisk to partition. And exactly how is this easier than a Windows install?

Granted, I've used Linux for years, and fdisk isn't difficult for me to use, but having to use fdisk raises the difficulty of an install considerably. I know that RedHat doesn't require the use of fdisk in their install, but this reviewer should have known better.

I make it a point to try out the various latest Linux installations on a spare machine here just to see how far they've come, and when one compares Redhat to something like SuSE or Mandrake, it still lags behind. RedHat is competing in the Windows NT/2k/XP Workstation/Server market, and isn't apparently too interested in the home desktop market, and their installer reflects this. There are still many questions asked throughout a Redhat install that would require some sort of background in Linux to answer.

Something like SuSE's install would work better for such a comparison, as it best combines ease of use with configurability. The SuSE install tries to autodetect and autoconfigure everything the best it can, and then presents you with a summary of everything it has done, along with the option to change anything if you want to. The new Linux user would probably just click the "Next" and accept these defaults, while the experienced Linux user still has the option to change anything he wants.

Re:This article = troll

[simeonbeta2]

First of all, windows2000 is not 3 cd's, it is one. This was not a real install of win2000. This was a use of a propreitary 'recovery tool' supplied by sony. The ads and cd swapping do not occur when you use a fresh install of windows

Ok, good point. This isn't a truly fair comparison- installing from a *real* Win2k is probably a lot easier. That said, obviously to those who get their computers from sony, this is a real install. I've done a few of these for a friend (courtesy of the HP pavilion's "you don't really get an os with this computer so use our 'recovery' disks" policy) and they are a pita.

Even given the limitations of the story, i think the punchline is a message to emphasize when talking about linux. People are unneccessarily intimidated by the idea of installing linux.

I recently installed Mandrake8.1 on my win2k system at home. I was shocked (last linux install i did was slackware about 4 years ago and it wanted to know the dataword size on my machine, how big the clusters on my hd should be, etc). Mandrake not only auto detected my hardware, it automatically detected my adsl connection and installed a PPOE client and connects automatically when i boot into linux. By contrast on my win2k partition i had a 3 cd procedure to get my alcatel modem drivers, the ethernet drivers, and run a custom app (<sarcasm>cleverly<sarcasm> named Enternet) in order to get my connection up and going.

So am i saying that it's easier to install mandrake than win2k? Not yet, but getting close...I wouldn't rate the article a complete troll

Simeon

Re:Comparison not fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until he has to install Red Hat on really old hardware. It hangs !!! Try IBM thinkpad (486) 750ce, old Toshiba T6600c (486) and some of the CompactPCI PII. SuSE was the only one that seem to install.

Re:System Restore

[NumberSyx]

Does anyone else think this review would have been more fair if he had used a retail win2k pro disc instead of using the Sony system restore cd's?

Personally I think he was cutting Win2K alot of slack by doing it with the restore CD. Think about it, a standard worksation install of RedHat 7.3 installs alot of software that does not come standard with Win2K. At the very least you'd need to install Visual C++, Office and a couple of those MS Entertainment Packs after you finished with the OS install, to get anything near what RedHat installs.

Re:It's not a fair question

[BrookHarty]

Actually a friend of mine works for M$ Support, and hes not allowed to tell the customer to reinstall the OS. He has to fix the problem with registry edits, dll's, or re-install the application.

I was always joking about the "Re-install" M$ support line also.

Re:Technically...

[telecaster]

I've installed a lot of distro's.

Recently, I had the opportunity to install Lindows. Yeah, go a head and laugh, but I have to say that its one of the easiest, fastest and trouble-free Linux installations that i've used.
Its also Debian!!! So that made it sweet.

Here's what you have when you install Lindow's.
You get 1 CD-ROM, theres about 360mb's used on the disk.

1. You pop the CD-ROM in, it autodetects your machines configuration and determines if windows lives on your machine.

2. If you have windows, it gives you the opportunity to install WITH windows or wipe your hard disk and install Lindow's.

I've done both, and here's how the install went:

On a Thinkpad A20m with Windows 2002.
Detected a windows partition and I chose to have Lindow's Co-Exist. The install was fast and flawless. The sound card was detected, graphics card (ATI) detected, Ethernet card (which is known to be a little tricky) was detected, even picked a reasonable XFree86 configuration with KDE 2.2.2. Lots of applications, and a really nice desktop to boot, very slick looking boot manager to choose Windows 2000 boot, or Lindow's Boot. Installation time: 10 mins Score: 10!
I have to admit to being shocked at the simplicity and autodetection... I've installed Mandrake, Debian, Red Hat and Suse on this laptop, and i'm either building drivers or sacrificing something because theres an "issue". This distro worked better than the recent Windows XP Home Edition that I did for my kids (which hung because it didn't like my network card).

On a homebrew AMD 750 with a Geforce2 card.
Netgear 311 (yep, you heard that right).
PlexWriter on this machine, and about 256 mb's of memory... Decided to do a "Wipe disk" install.
Installation took 7 mins. Detected the FA311 without a problem... amazing.

Now, some would argue why do I care about Lindow's? I don't actually. But when I found out it was based off of Debian, I said "I gotta see this", because if you know anything about Debian, installing a desktop workstation with X and KDE can take a good day to get it "right".

Folks, if the Lindow's folks failed at Windows compatibility, they succeeded at the installation.
Its THE SINGLE best distro installation I've ever seen, and I'll continue to use it as a workstation install because its Debian (which is my fav. distro), and its lighthing fast to install.

May I make a suggestion to the Lindow's folks: You completely nailed the installation and "ease of use" factor -- its very close to Windows.

I could really see this eating into low-end sub $500 machine revenues. Hey, if they get the Wine stuff working reasonably well --- WHOAH! I just had a marketing/sales brainstorm! Lindow's folks, listen up: Drop the whole Wine crap that you've done, it sucks, and cut a deal with the CodeWeavers folks for CrossOver. Ship Lindow's with that CrossOver thingy and you might have a winner at the low-end.

That idea should be worth a million bucks. Please send it to my favorite charity... me. :)

Re:A better test

[jandrese]

Beware the Fdisk on the windows install disc. I tried using that once and not telling it to eat the entire disc. It did exactly what I told it to, it took about half of the disk, right from the middle. I kid you not, I pulled the disk up in Partition Magic after it was installed and was horrified to discover that the windows installer stuck its partition smack dab in the middle of my disk. I had two quarter sized unused blocks on either side of the windows install. That blew my mind. How could the Fdisk be so stupid? Fortunatly Partition Magic has no troble moving windows paritions around.

Re:Technically...

[Mornelithe]

I don't know if you're trolling in the last part, but it is a good idea to have more than one partition. I've reinstalled Windows probably 4 or 5 times on my machine, and since I had it installed on C: and all the stuff I wanted to keep (mp3s, school documents, porn, etc.) on D:, that did not get deleted, and I did not have to burn 30 cdrs to back it up.

As far as Linux goes, I have two separate installs. I agree it may be useless to have a separate /var and /usr (although I did that, and theoretically, if you work it right, you could set things up so you can mount / read only, which might be a benefit if you're worried about screwing that up, or something), but I have my /home partition shared between them, which means I don't have to configure everything twice. It's quite handy (I also have D: from windows holding stuff I want to share between the two different OSes on a FAT-32 partition, so that I can have XP installed on NTFS, which should be better for it, theoretically) Likewise, I can keep my /home directory if I ever have to reinstall Linux completely, so all of my settings are relatively safe. The only time I've ever had to worry about this kind of stuff is when I was totally reworking the partition layout of my disk, and I have another hard drive for that.

So using multiple partitions is always a good idea, assuming you want to keep stuff longer than the 6 months it takes Windows to degrade to the point where you have to reinstall it to keep performance up.

Funny

[nhavar]

Funny I just had to install WinXP/98/Linux Mandrake last night. While XP took the longest it was the most complete and useful when logged in and took the least amount of fidgeting with, with only my digital camera not having at least base drivers. 98 would have been a close second except that it refused to load either my sound or my network card without a hassle. It still came in second because Linux Mandrake was hell to install (and it has one of the better installers). First the install choked half way through. Often the 'focus' caret wouldn't show and since it refused to recognize my logitech mouse either PS/2 or USB then I was often left guessing or unable to choose a button. Once completely loaded KDE ran just fine - good picture, sound, network everything but still no mouse and when I tried to switch to another mouse the system choked when shutting down (USB problems). Oh BTW why does it have to be so difficult to download a plugin. One step - prompt for download! Boolean YES I want - NO I don't. Instead of "Hey let me look and see if I can find a plugin for you! Oh yeah here it is on this page! Click here, then here, then wait, then all your browser windows close... then??? What page was I trying to look at?" All for shockwave?

Anyway I digress... I personally would like to see a comparison between a desktop install of RH, WinXP on say 5 different configurations of computers. The scoring would be based on all the basics a user needs to get started 1)Video 2) input (mouse/keyboard) 3) audio 4) network/connectivity 5) E-mail/browsing 6) Setup time. This would be an out of the box test - no additional downloads or penalties for "Oh he doesn't have the latest driver". Get both installs off the shelf at Best Buy - yeah I know it kinda of knocks RH for a loss when you can't just download the latest distro repleat with updates, but it's "fair".
Face it each system is going to need some patching and a check for latest drivers and probably a security review to be safe. Time how long it takes for each system and the ease in which it can be done - then score. Then go down the list of "useful" apps that each distribution has "bundled" and where they rank and how they compare and what it would take to get a comparable product should the "bundle" not have it included - then score.

A few itterations of that procedure and you'll find all of the gaps in the competition and be able to make some serious improvements.

Windows vs Linux -- Why?

[GlueAll]

Ok, I am going to admit upfront, this is my first reply to a post on slashdot. Up till now, I have just enjoyed the reading, but, this installation ease of both os's has really sparked an interest for me. I have installed both Windows and Several Flavors of Linux, as well as a couple BSD flavors. I have been using BSD for about 10 years now. I recently added linux in the form of slackware to my knowledge arsenal. About 7 years ago, I started using windows as well, in the 95 flavor. Now, I must say, windows does have a very easy, straight forward install. It does what it is supposed to do, which is install windows. On newer machines, and with newer windows versions, I have had windows up and running, with very little effort in around 30 minutes. Windows XP was my most recent install, and it was beautiful. The fact that windows xp has a biggilion drivers included in it was very nice, because it auto-detected and setup my hardware for me. The only real effort I made was agreeing to that damned EULA. But, as much as I hate it, I did agree, and went through the rest of the setup with no problems. Now, comparing it to my slackware install, slackware was a little more tricky. But then again, slackware is openly known to be for more advanced users, so I will leave this lay. Instead, I will use my experience with installing mandrake. My roommate, who is a die hard linux hater, agreed to install mandrake on a machine just to see what it looked like. I gave him the cd's, and told him was not going to help him in anyway. About an hour later, he came over and told me he loved the install interface, said it was extremely easy to work with, and he had it 100% configured. I went over and checked it out, and low and behold, it was working, and dang good at that. Now, my question is, why the linux vs windows debate? I don't want to start a flame war here, or anything like that. But, think about it. Both operating systems do what they are designed to do. I do prefer linux of windows for the simple fact that I am a BSD baby. I started with it, it is what I know best. But, windows does have may strong points, which linux debaters and supports seem to overlook. I am a die hard microsoft hater, but I hate them for their business practices, not there software. Granted, there is alot they can clean up, and tune out, but, it works. If microsoft open sourced there product, what would we do? Close them down? Is it not every hackers natural incline to make something better? So, if the source was released, wouldn't someone take the source, fix a ton of problems, and then release it, or feed the fixes back to the original author? Isn't this the theory of GPL? This would in affect keep windows around wouldn't it? (Granted if all the bugs were fixed, would we still think of it as the windows we have all come to love to hate?) Like I said, I don't want to start a flame thread, I just want to get the wheels turning.

Re:Comparison not fair

[messiertom]

"One observation...I've noticed a lot of people point out that Windows doesn't install all the other apps you want such as office software etc. while Redhat, etc. do.
But, if Windows did do this, people would scream evil monopoly."

Well, let's see: if RedHat coded and produced all of those utilities, and/or (most importantly) gave you no choice but to include them in an install, I would scream evil monopoly at them too.

"Anyway, the installtion competition is pointless, win2k and XP install very quickly with almost no user intervention beyond setting the time zone."

My computer shipped with WinXP on it. I used it for a while, but then I decided it was time to create a few ext2 partitions at the end of the disk. So, lacking a version of PartitionMagic non-destructive partitioning that worked with NTFS, I used DiskDrake to create them destructively. I come out of the gates installing WinXP.

Mind you, I've (re)installed Windows 98 probably dozens of times on my old laptop. So WinXP installation was painless. But there was plenty of user intervention besides timezone config, like modem/network config (which *could* be a pain in the ass for a clueless user) (there were more, the specifics just don't come to mind this late). There was a flaw though, it set my 'system partition' to be I: instead of C:, which got me pissed at the beginning (because I couldn't change it and was never prompted during install about it), but I gradually got used to it. But it doesn't end here.

I installed Mandrake Linux 7.1 (yes, an old version of Mandrake, but I couldn't find anything newer laying around) to the partitions at the end of the disk flawlessly. Everything went flawlessly; it even set up GRUB to boot into Windows if I felt like it. I hacked around in Linux for a while, and decided to go to Windows for some gaming.

Boy, was it a suprise when XP freezed at the splash screen. I figured at this point that it was an mbr problem, so I go into the Windows Recovery Console and run 'fixmbr' and 'fixboot'. This of course overwrites the MBR (luckily I made a boot disk for Linux). No luck booting into Windows.

After some snooping around, I find that Windows has apparently remapped I: to C: out of the blue, which of course made Windows sit in the corner and pout and not boot.

So I sigh deeply, search for the XP cd, and reinstall. Everything goes as before. I find my Mandrake 8.2 CDs and pop CD1 in to install it over 7.1.

Lo and behold, Mandrake tells me that my partition table is corrupted! Yippee-kiyay! So I restore it, and all looks well... but upon mounting them I get some problems. Undoubtedly, XP has fucked up my hard drive.

In a rage, I just wiped my hard drive clean and installed 8.2 over it all (33.9GB home directory, w00t). Off-topic, but it was probably one of the better decisions I've made in my young life.

I wouldn't call any of those shenanigans Windows pulled on me simple and easy.