Can Linux Pick Up Users Abandoning Win98? 491
Mark writes, "When Microsoft announced the end of support for Windows 98 and Millennium Edition on June 30th, there was a lot of talk of these users migrating over to Linux desktops. In the weeks since this announcement, there is a very noticeable increase of activity on community boards and blogs from newbies asking questions about switching over to Linux, and how would they support their new systems." According to OneStat.com, Windows 98 and Windows ME account for about 4% of the total PCs in the world.
nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Upgrading boxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The switch from Win 95/98/Me to Ubuntu is easy...and free... you should try it.
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I alread did (Score:3, Interesting)
When the frequency of the rebuild moved up to just a couple months, I dropped Ubuntu Breezy Badger on it and later upgraded to Daper Drake. It is still the fas
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there a decent Citrix client for Linux we could suggest? Is it time for a new one? I wouldn't recommend Tarantella, given the SCO tie-in. But if someone built a Linux box that could natively handle Citrix, enterprise customers could save big bucks at the client end by not worrying about Windows licenses or hardware upgrade just to handle what amounts to a juiced up browser. A simple Linux implementation that supports a Citrix client, all packaged and ready to go, zero to minimum config. Think about it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, I had to go install it myself - it would certainly make things much nicer to have a client ready to go in the distro's package manager.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tarantella has supported Linux for a long time. Citrix has only ever done enough with Linux in order to not annoy Microsoft. There is n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:5, Insightful)
How to market to PHBs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes but why would you want that kind of user? (Score:2, Troll)
Additionally why do you want to encourage them to use legacy hardware? It uses up more electricity to get the job done than modern hardware. Makes the user less productive. Why encourage that.
Re:Yes but why would you want that kind of user? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, apart from playing games, most people use computers at home for looking at things online, writing email, and maybe doing some basic word processing or other similar things.
Most of the people who browse slashdot are pretty well off in the scheme of things. Appreciate that, because not everyone is so lucky.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
welloff slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the people who browse slashdot are pretty well off in the scheme of things. Appreciate that, because not everyone is so lucky.
You said it. Being on disability, I have been for almost 10 years, I know I haven't been able to afford new computers every few years never mind every two or three. The PC I'm using now is more than 6 years old. I got a new PC with Linspire installed a few day ago but it's not ready for me to transferr all the docs I have on this one yet. I'm hoping to change my situation soon, I knew some photographers that wanted to start their own websites and I was thinking about giving a try at creating websites for them, but first I want to create one for myself as an exercise and to show. After I get the Linspire setup I'll give it a shot.
FalconRe: (Score:2, Insightful)
You and me, probably, but Jimmy Bo and Johnny Sue, probably not. More likely, that spare PC will be donated to a charity, set out for the trash, or moved to the garage for 3 years before it's disposed of. I think the average user who buys a new Vista PC will be satisfied with their Vista PC, and won't want to bother Linuxing-up their old one. Unfortunately :(
Just one guy's tho
report from the trehches (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I don't think most people even know what apps are on their PC. How many, when asked "What version of Microsoft Office do you have?" will respond, "oh, I have Microsoft XP" or I, worse, "I have Windows XP"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who fixes computers for a (partial) living, I have to disagree on that. That was true until about three years ago, I'd say. Now most people running 98 have been running it long enough to know what they're doing. The vast majority don't upgrade simply because they don't need to. Since it still works fine for them, I can see their point. When I get hold of a Win98 box, it's usually because of one piece of hardware going bad. Contrast that with all of the spyware-filled, virused XP boxes I get on a weekly basis.
I think this article is mostly so much wishful thinking, though. What good can Linux do for people running Win98 on older hardware? Unless they're going to be switching to Damn Small Linux, I'd say not much. Tons of hardware support was dropped from the 2.6 kernel, not all of it legacy hardware by any means. I still have a computer with a Via 10/100 ethernet card that worked perfectly with the 2.4 kernel and still works fine with DSL, but no distro with a 2.6 kernel can configure it. That ethernet card is hardly legacy hardware since it came out about the same time as Windows XP. How could you possibly recommend Linux to someone running hardware even older than that?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a happy Debian-user, but I think the days when Linux was good for older hardware are gone, and the majority of Linux supporters don't seem to have realized this. I'd recommend DesltopBSD over Linux to someone running older hardware, since I don't think DSL is really a newbie-friendly distro.
As to the number being 4% I think that's off as well. I'd say it's much higher than that. I know lots of people still running 98. And as long as their hardware works fine, I'm not going to tell them that they need to upgrade. Non-geeks have other things to spend their money on, like their kids. That's something that geeks seem to have trouble understanding, that not everyone wants to spend a ton of money on the latest and greatest hardware. But most people are like that, and if they bring you a computer wanting a memory upgrade and you try to get them to upgrade the whole system, you're going to lose a customer.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't necewssarily disagree, but I see it slightly differently. I don't think there are many users that are hung up on a specific app in general (except maybe Office). What they are hung up on, however, is the fact that they have WIndows so everything they could possibly want to run will work.
The everyday user does not want to think about whether they can get some software working in Linux - they want to be able to download/buy/etc something and have it work right away. People buy Windows so that the
The OS is the main issue! (Score:2)
Spoken as a true amateur. In a corporation, what matters is the total cost of ownership, it doesn't matter if the cost comes from the applications or from the OS.
When you add up the costs, you'll see that the biggest economy comes from improving the OS support, because that's the activity that can be scaled up. Different users will have different apps, but they all use an OS.
No
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect most problems with Win98 come from the same causes as most WinXP problems:
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Depends on the situation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Depends on the situation (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, what do you suppose the situation is, though (Score:4, Insightful)
i.e. why the hell is someone still using W98? Sorry -- I'm 100% in favor of penguin domination -- but the reason people are still using 98 is -- almost always -- because they're deathly afraid to touch their computers. Linux's (not-very-accurate) reputation as an OS that you have to touch all the time is not gonna cut it here.
I plan to switch from Win95 :-) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No USB, No Cardbus either. (Score:2)
Actually, I suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Actually, I suspect (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are used to it, it serves them well enough, and they don't have a lot of money to spend on a newer machine or OS.
There are more than a few people who can't afford even a couple hundred bucks for a computer, so scrounged machines and free dialup are how they make do.
Re: (Score:2)
support (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:support (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on who the company is. (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends on what you mean by "support" as far as who is providing it.
While Microsoft may have abandoned Windows 98 there are still many other companies who customers also depend that still support it. Most ISPs would not have an issue helping a customer get their Windows 98 computer online even though Microsoft thinks the machine should be put out to pasture, but call many of these same ISPs with a new machine running a current Linux distro and they will find themselves getting less support than the "obsolete" Win98 users.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Technical support hasn't been available for some time now. Microsoft has ended the "extended support" period - meaning stopped even issuing patches for publicly-known exploits that allow someone to execute arbitrary code with no interaction on your part whatsoever.
That was enough for me to inform my wife that the ME box (stop snickering, it came with the wife) was going off the 'net and the old hand-me-down 700Mhz grey box would be running Linux and would be the only available machine for Internet access.
Funniest thing I ever heard (Score:5, Insightful)
They wouldn't know how to download it.
Re:Funniest thing I ever heard (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't. The way this normally happens is that they call their local geek friend when their Win98 install is too hosed to be usable. The geek thinks about how much time they've wasted keeping the system clean of malware and the general designed in bit-rot that seems to slow down Win 9x systems, weighs it up against the occasional free meal and displays of affection, then makes a decision.
I know that lately, a lot of friends and family with still-functional P3 class machines have been getting the gift of Linux from me. Most seem to cope well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What Microsoft tells them by abandoning: Buy a new computer and switch to XP
What Linux users tell them: You are plain stupid, you can't even download anything.
Keep this attitude, it really pays off (!). If that moron manages to download an ISO and install Linux, don't forget to shout him/her
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take a real world scenario. A 100mhz Pentium I with 32MB of ram. Right off the bat I can tell you what distro's it isn't going to run. Basically any popular general purpose distribution like Ubuntu, OpenSuse, Mandriva, or Fedora. They are going to have to run something like Damn Small Linux. I very highly doubt an unexperienced user is going to know enough to downloa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And most of you pirated XP instead of going to Linux. To Microsoft's glee, since they get to reap the benefit of network effects without actually losing anything.
In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Why? Because most of the people who have the misfortune of still running Windows 98 do so because they are comfortable with it and have no intention of changing until their hard drive melts. They got their computer eons ago, it does everything they want it to do, they don't need to play World of Warcraft or run complicated programs, and the thought of upgrading to even Windows 2000 makes them break out in cold sweats. Up until 6 months ago, my stepmother was still running her Win98 machine, until it got so undeniably slow that she was forced by necessity to upgrade to WinXP.
and that word is "reinstall" (Score:4, Informative)
This machine has been sitting in a box for about 5 years, and as far as the time signatures are concerned, that rebuild was only about 7 months in. Office 2000 ran fine. Everything worked great -- I couldn't notice any difference with performance from my current Athlon machine when it comes to simple word processing and Web browsing. If I was ignorant to hotfixes and security, I'd be using this machine without any problems for many more years to come.
A simple reinstall of the OS -- as long as the disk is still healthy -- can stretch out the lifespan of any old machine, as long as you stick with the software of time, which isn't that much different than what Aunt June uses today.
Re: (Score:2)
I always found that if I tried to run XP on a mcahine designed for 98 that it was undeniably slow.
As others have pointed out I think anyone upgrading from Windows 98 in response to MS ending support will just buy a new PC.
My feeling that home/inexperienced users will just go to Best Buy or whatever and pick up a new Windows PC. Small to mid size
businesses that are still running 98 are probably somewhat miserly about spending money on
Red Herring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay I'm not a typical PC user, but then I don't test any of the free software I hack on under Microsoft Windows anymore because I don't have a Microsoft Windows licence, and I don't see the point of paying for one (heck I just threw out the 120 day evaluation CDs for Windows 2000 Advanced Server I got at the launch party). So there were consequences for other Windows users of my switch, be it ever so small and insignificant.
So I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that word means what you think it means. A red herring is a topic brought up for the sole purpose of distracting someone from some other issue. Linux nerds are clearly the target in your theory, but what is the other issue? Remember, a red herring is just that - a stinky fish.
Not all but some. (Score:5, Interesting)
I figure it would be a 10%/40%/50% Split.
50% Will just stay with Windows 98. First because they don't care MS has stopped support. Second it works for there needs. Third it is the path of least resistance.
40% Will probably get a new computer with XP/Vista. They figured that their 3rd party apps that only work in 98 are end of life and time to bite the bullet and upgrade to the new versions. They may or may not know about Linux but they are use to windows and they will get a new system and use it for the next 10 years.
10% will probably switch to Linux. (Which probably accounts to the traffic on the Linux Groups). The only reason they were on Windows 98 and didn't upgrade because they had some application that only worked on windows. Now with 98 being officially dead they have a chance to start anew. If you are going to start over again lets try Linux. The app that they have may have an open source alternative or linux still uses the old hardware so they can continue, with linux.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of win98 users were supported by the family nerd who got fed up with playing support. *cough*
Pushing Apple/MiniMac/... as a solution is very tempting. It's mostly hassle free and self-updating (without unwanted features -- unlike the Windows update & WGA crap we endured the past months), and the UI is less cryptic than W98.
User support and maintenance are limited to learning folks about what and how they can visit/search on the internet and basic activities like emailing a
This is it! (Score:2)
It might not even run (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who is still using Win98 isn't particularly concerned with system stability and probably wants compatiblity with their old applications: Linux doesn't sound like a good fit.
Wine? (Score:2)
I would have said 'yes'...... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have any complaints with the Linux kernel, or most of the applications. All her hardware was supported immediately, and the installation actually went rather smoothly. But when GNOME started up, we ran into problems. 64 MB of RAM just wasn't enough. I had 512 MB of unused RAM lying around that was compatible with her system, so we installed that. It did help a fair bit.
But in the end, we found that GNOME and Firefox were just too slow. It's quite easy to install KDE when using the Ubuntu packages system, so we gave that a try. It was significantly more responsive than GNOME. Konqueror worked quite a bit better for her than Firefox, as well. We were able to find her a theme that she liked, and she's been pleased with the system so far.
Were it not for the 512 MB of RAM I had lying around, I don't think we would have been able to use Linux with either GNOME or KDE. Fluxbox, XFCE and the other light window managers or desktops just don't cut it for users who want a Windows-like experience. And they're just the sort of users who would be transitioning from Windows 98.
Unless the major desktops do something significant to reduce their memory consumption, Linux on the desktop will remain something that only those with rather high-end systems will be able to enjoy. Such software will run on older systems, but it won't be enjoyable, even with special effects and stuff like that disabled. It's the sort of thing that will give Linux a very bad name, and will make users switch back to older versions of Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This one fvwm95 [sourceforge.net] would probably have been a better fit for her system. I've also installed enlightenment [enlightenment.org] on a lot of P2/3 class machines for people I think will be able to adapt to a new desktop.
I thought the increase in newbies was due to... (Score:3, Insightful)
All of those copies of XP are now loudly announcing that they are "Not Genuine Copies of Microsoft Windows". When these people get hit with a nearly $300 pricetag (that's $300 + $100 for my time) for a non-OEM, non-upgrade copy of software they've been using for free for many years, they are often very interested in cheap or free alternatives. And since most people only really need Web + EMail + OpenOffice + mplayer + (not much else exotic), they are often open to Linux due to its free-as-in-beer-ness.
I sure hope not. (Score:5, Insightful)
So why should they use Linux? Why should we even give a shit if they do?
What they need is a simple OS. They need a web browser. They need a couple of Office-like applications. They don't want a lot of problems. Why would Linux be the best solution? For them it is more trouble to set up than just buying a new box (despite what people on here might say, IMHO Linux is not easier to set up for a n00b). They need something like a Mac, which will do what they need for the forseeable future.
Alternatively, they should just stick with Win98. All jokes aside, their boxes are probably so full of spyware and shit after up to 8 YEARS of operation, that if they can go this far, they can probabably go a little further.
Look. I love Linux. I've used it as my primary OS for years, and used it during that time as a server admin too, but I just don't understand this "more users at any cost" approach. What is the good of getting these users? What will it achieve? At the least, you'll potentially end up with a hell of a lot of pissed off (and minimally equipped for repairs) users with broken computers badmouthing the operating system to anyone who will listen.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for this is that Linux users, unlike Mac users, build thier own computers, and thus need better support from hardware providers. If linux was a decent chunk (say 10%), then hardware manufacturers would be enticed to make drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
..what if you use Linux on a Mac?
Re: (Score:2)
Throw in small busnesses as well.
I support a few businesses, and a good half of them run 98 or ME. We're talking junk shops, cafe-style restaurants, etc. - places with practically no automation. They use a computer for email, web browsing, printing out signs, and maybe an ancient version of quickbooks or something. I did a format/reinstall for a new client on ME just recently and the only backup she wanted
That's because (Score:3, Insightful)
Users Abandoning???? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why Linux vs OS X? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, when it sucks less. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the flip side I've used it on my home computer for about 8 years. We've certainly had our ups and downs. I dual-boot now. I spend most of my time using XP Pro. Why would I do this after 8 years of pure Linux bliss? Because it does what I need it to. Its that simple.
Anybody want to watch for an exciting influx of newbies, the best kind; newbies who are switching simply because they are too cheap to update. Not boatloads of tinkerers, programmers, OSS zealots. Nah. Just some people that have been using an out-dated, unstable OS for no good reason.
Granted, people who can't *afford* it should ignore my platitudes, unless you live in North America or some other well off nation and have confused not being able to feed your family with compulsive mall shopping and junk food binges (you don't have my sympathy).
Anyway, Linux sucks for the average users for the same reasons its sucked. They've made a great server. Slapped on a (few) DE(s) and called it a Windows killer. I don't see it.
Maybe baby steps. KDE 4 should be fun. Maybe one of the user distros will get the *wild* idea to tie it to the system. Drop legecy support. Call me crazy, but I just don't see Windows 98 users getting cosy with VI, modprobe, hell, package management. Its like we all talk Klingon and don't understand when everyone else isn't doing it.
There are certain things end-users need and expect. Linux distros don't offer them. Hence, no Linux eat Windows.
Seriously. Right tool. Right job. Never make it more complicated then that. Biases are *SO* 99. BSD, Solaris, AIX, Mac, FreeDOS, Minix, PlayStation I don't care. Whatever you need. Where BeOS when you need it. Lets all switch to Amiga and tell everyone who doesn't their lusers.
There's a point in there. Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux on the desktop needs to target what's known as "Early Adopters". Targetting people who's systems are out-of-date won't do any good.
There are four stages of a tech product, as follows:
The jump between each stage is d
Some of them, yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the users will stay with Windows 98, though. Most of them find it works fine for their needs, and don't see why they should buy a new PC or OS if their current one works fine, and there's no problem with that.
I know it's common opinion to look at Win9x users in this day and age as people who are clueless about PCs,
Most Win9x users would be surprised ... (Score:4, Funny)
Not many (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't mind spending money, you can get a relatively modern refurbished PC for under $200, that would be more than enough to run any OS you throw at it. Almost a year ago, I got an IBM NetVista with a 1.8ghz Celeron, 512mb ram, a 40gb HD, and a CDRW/DVD combo for about $200 from TigerDirect. Right now it's running Windows Server 2003 R2 enterprise edition. Heresy, I know, but I didn't give Microsoft a dime, and haven't since 2003, nor is it pirated, and my primary desktop runs Ubuntu. Right now I'm installing NetBSD on Virtual PC.
There's potential for turning those systems into thin clients, and you just replace them with real thin clients when they finally give up the ghost.
I don't think Win98/ME users care about support (Score:2)
My Home Desktop is Windows ME (Score:2)
Getting ready to do some major file organization on the old machine. At that time I will probably go exclusively to Ubuntu Breezy. SuSE is quite nice, and while a strong argument can be
Why would they abandon windows 9x? (Score:2)
familiar software will be the key (Score:3, Informative)
No distro I've tried so far is simple as 98 but the learning curve isn't steep if you use icewm. Distros like Vector and xubuntu are great on older hardware, and can easily be faster than 98. I really don't think the hardware support is so much of an issue anymore. IMHO the biggest headache is the software since anyone still using 98 is completely used to a particular way of doing things and any difference won't be easily tolerated. I converted my mum to OpenOffice (on windows but still gotta start somewhere) at her company since its free but damn that took some work. The temporary frustration in learning to get used to the differences though is far outweighed by the costs. They saved a small fortune on Office licences, and basically all they needed was Word and Powerpoint. Now think savings on office + antivirus, a faster OS and active support and convincing them to change from 98 might be a bit easier.
Nope (Score:2)
That's about 10 times more users than Linux has according to the same OneStat.com stats, so if Linux could pick those up, it would represent a huge increase.
Sadly, it ain't gonna happen.
First, Win9x users couldn't care less whether MS "supports" the OS or not, so MS dropping support doesn't equate to an incentive to move to Linux. If they're still running Win9x, they're going to keep running it until they
It really amazes me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain to me why I should have felt the remotest need to upgrade to 2k, ME, or XP? This machine does exactly what I need it to do: surf the web, run Dreamweaver 4 for some light HTML editing, run Photoshop 6 for some light image editing, and play on Poker Stars. I'm not a clueless idiot, nor are many of the people who are still running 98. Many of you cry out "Why upgrade?" and then do it, anyway. We put our money where our mouth is.
Re: (Score:2)
If these people are still on win98... (Score:3, Insightful)
beta tagging for this and other articles (Score:2)
would win98 users notice if the support stopped? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm guessing there would be a number of people on 98 that wouldn't know an update if it bit them. These people probably don't even know Microsoft supports them now.
I looked at a friends xp laptop yesterday. It was running SP1, which it came with, and they had never willingly installed an update on it. Despite a popup at the bottom of the screen warning support for SP1 was ending soon.
My friend didn't care, he just ignored the warnings and kept doing his work. I ran some checks and could find no evidence of spyware or viruses.
Of course I am just speaking on feelings here. No evidence, and I don't even know anyone who uses win98, or linux for that matter.
I expect more XP users (Score:2)
I see more MSFT users across the board taking an old box and installing Linux to surf and email or dual booting. Windows is only really dangerous when you surf with it regularly. For online gaming, updates and other tasks where you're not going to be visiting a lot of strange web sites or getting email it's really not bad.
Keep it off of a connected environment and it's great. Hook it to the internet and it's a never ending security freak show.
A commercial perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe after they have a taste of Vista (Score:3, Interesting)
I installed Vista RC1 on my main Windows workstation at work and one of the first things I noticed was how crappy the Control Panel layout was. It was even crappier than KDE or Gnome's control panels. Having an easy to use UI is a key part of being productive and enjoying your computer using experience, and in turn your OS.
A little background... I used to use KDE as my primary UI back in the Mandrake 7 or 8 days. Before that I didn't even know there was a difference in window management, and before that all I had was
(So, as if I'm not asking for a flaming enough as it is, now I'm going to bring OS X into it) About the time I was on Mandrake, some Mac fanatic I knew was talking on and on about "Rhapsody", the new Mac OS. I didn't care one bit to hear about all that crap. Any OS that doesn't have a CLI is worthless to me, I'm a CLI freak. Pointy Clicky can go out the window and I'd be happy as a clam for half of what I do. The second he mentioned that it was built on unix technology my interest perked up. I knew Mac OS was simple, even if I hated using it. I dreamed that they might get it all right... the handling of the preferences and home folders how *nix does it rather than that retched registry. *Real* administration privileges (eg: deleting files that are currently being used). The security system that I'd grown to know... symbolic links, grep, perl, more extensive glob matching, correct URI slashing, regex, the init system I'd grown to love... yeah, I dreamed. Amazingly, they've done pretty much everything I had dreamed they'd do with a unix system, and more (except the linux init system, but hey, now I'm more familiar with BSD), however, that's not the point.
(Now if I may try to reclaim some faith so the readers will put down their torches) The whole point here is that an OS is supposed to make you more productive. One way to do that is by making things easier. Unfortunately, with Vista, we've taken a step back to where most Linux distro's put you, with this non-unified control panel. Fortunately, some Linux distros seem to be putting things together in a more reasonable standpoint. I mean, honestly, I think Ubuntu has stuff laid out more sensibly by default than Vista does. (Plus compiz rules, their exposé knock-off smokes the Vista 3d-flip thingy... Katapult has the right idea too, we need more of the Launchbar knock-offs. Who cares if it's copying, it's good shizz.)
I seriously do think that Linux has better and better chances at getting in the Desktop market as each day goes by. I'm not yet recommending it to everyday people who stop by the IT department to ask what they should do about their next computer, but hopefully in the next year or so...
Just because... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean I can't imagine how that now actually prevents their continued use of it.
Furthermore, although on paper Microsoft had been supporting it, have they actually released any important new fixes or functionality for it in the last few years? Just because they now say they're not supporting it any more, has anything really been lost here for existing users?
maybe if it shaves its mustache. (Score:3, Funny)
"Can area man living in parents basement pick-up junior high chicks thanks to new football stadium?"
that's how I read it.
Another success story (Score:3, Insightful)
For anyone of those friends/family who know that I was the right person for them to keep as "admin" I have moved to Linux (SuSE 10.0 and 10.1). No new hardware was necessary for any of them (lowest being 800 Mhz and 256 RAM). As someone posted before, new network cards required for DSL that most of my family uses nowerdays, is badly if at all supported in Win98, but works flawlessly on Linux.
My experience is that if you don't tell your family/friends that you will install Linux and not Windows they will take months untill they have realized it. Its not that they are dumb, but they don't care too much. If you tell them beforehand, though they will rebell for no apparent reason (human behaviour, I guess). Heres a small list of why I prefer Linux over Win98/Win2000 (XP out of the question of such old hardware):
1. ssh: love to be able to dial up to their PCs to do basic maintanence. I know there are Windows tools to do this, but the command line is so much more productive over a slow network.
2. root: Just the concept of the system being true multiuser from the start makes my task as admin so much easyer. Again, I know I could tick Win2000 to do this, but why bother if it is the right way in Linux from the start.
3. security: I don't care if security is there because of better coding or because there are less Linux installs out there. My 2 year experience mantaining Linux can be boiled down to this: NO VIRUS/ NO SPYWARE. Don't try to convince me that there are Windows "tools" that remove this stuff, I just don't have to, thats why I install Linux.
4. customizing: All, and I mean ALL who have gotten Linux installed by me love the flexibility to customize. You would not believe it, but most non-PC literates absolutely love to customize the colors, fonts, backgrounds etc of their PC. Linux (KDE) just rocks on these grounds. Ohh boy, I again know there are "freewares" out there that enable you to do similar tasks on Win98/2000 but they allmost allways fuck up your stability.
5. amarok: This is the killer application on Linux. Everyone I show this app want to switch!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://reviews.cnet.com/4660-10165_7-6639061.html
Re: (Score:2)
If you're still on 95, I would assume it's because you are comfortable with it or have applications you need to run that don't work properly in later versions of Windows.
I've used every version of Windows since 3 and I have to say that 95 is the most unstable with the exception of Windows ME. For older computers with at least 256MB of RAM I would recommend Windows 2000. The stability is much better than 95,98 or ME.