Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Linux vs. Windows installation comparo, Part 3 (LinuxWorld)
Joe Barr continues
his comparison of installing Linux and Windows with Red Hat Linux 8.0
vs. a newbie install of Windows XP. "The rules for the installation
were the same as before: defaults rule. If a choice was offered and a
default given, the default was taken. If a choice is offered, there is no
default and Susan doesn't know what to do, she can ask me for guidance. The
only exception to the above would be a case in which she knew that the
default is wrong without asking."
(Log in to post comments)
Linux vs. Windows installation comparo, Part 3 (LinuxWorld) Posted Oct 26, 2002 1:34 UTC (Sat) by cpeterso (subscriber, #305) [Link] This story was a fascinating usability study of a "regular user". I think the open source world can learn a lot by watching and listening. Take a scientific approach to even the "touchy feel" aspects of software.
Linux vs. Windows installation comparo, Part 3 (LinuxWorld) Posted Oct 26, 2002 11:03 UTC (Sat) by jwharmanny (guest, #971) [Link] I tried an XP installation some time ago. I think it's way too unfriendly for newbie users.GNU/Linux distro installers which are text-mode (like the Debian Woody installer, for example) are often criticised by the community as very unfriendly. But WinXP partitioning and formatting is also text-based. Partitioning is VERY hard to do, compared by, for example, Mandrake's partitioning utility. Also, there is no way to select which software you want to install: everything is installed, like it or not. Also, much (older) hardware isn't detected by XP, and drivers created by the manufacturers don't work very good. Major Linux distributions ship with much more (and better) drivers then Windows (see this article for example: the NIC and the USB camera are not recognized by Windows, but Linux installs them flawlessly.) I have never seen a video adapter which was recognized and installed by Windows without third-party drivers. Without them, you're stuck in 640x480 16-color mode. Sound cards and printers are sometimes even worse. These and other things make me believe that installing Linux is much easier then Windows. However, this doesn't make much of a difference for most of us. Because most people don't install any OS in their whole life. Windows comes pre-installed, and Linux doesn't. That's the major problem, like it or not.
Linux vs. Windows installation comparo, Part 3 (LinuxWorld) Posted Oct 26, 2002 15:43 UTC (Sat) by origz (guest, #1985) [Link] The installation really doesn't matter. It's not the installation that's causing the slow adoption of Linux, but rather the unpolished interface and the lack of software for certain tasks and drivers for certain hardware. Keep in mind that 99% of windows users never see the installation - they buy a system with Windows/drivers/software preinstalled and only have a recovery disk that basically reformats the hard drive and writes the original image to it. Linux distributions need to focus on improving the usability of XFree86 and polishing the rough edges, not on making the install dummyproof. If Linux ever becomes popular, it will be through OEMs and not through boxed sets.
Linux vs. Windows installation comparo, Part 3 (LinuxWorld) Posted Oct 26, 2002 17:01 UTC (Sat) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] In older Windows versions (95/98) the user had to do partitioning and formatting all by his own using 'fdisk' and 'format' utilities.Actually, it was far worse than this. Windows 95 up through at least OSR 2.1 wouldn't even boot from the CD, so the user had to first make a DOS boot diskette, create a config.sys file to load himem.sys and the CD ROM driver (which they were left to find on their own), and then create an autoexec.bat file to load mscdex.exe and set the CD-ROM parameters. This idea that Windows is easier to install than Linux is a complete myth, propagated by journalists who for the most part have probably never installed any operating system.
Linux vs. Windows installation comparo, Part 3 (LinuxWorld) Posted Oct 27, 2002 4:31 UTC (Sun) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Text-based versus GUI-based is meaningless in terms of difficulty; the user can be presented with the exact same choices to make in either case. The problems with the Debian install have nothing to do with the fact that it is text-based. In way too many cases, it asks the users questions that other distros' installers figure out on their own, and then expect the answers in a form that could only be figured out with extensive research.
Linux vs. Windows installation comparo, Part 3 (LinuxWorld) Posted Oct 27, 2002 17:16 UTC (Sun) by cpeterso (subscriber, #305) [Link] I think part of the problem is that most Linux developers spend about 0.1% of their time installing Linux. Debian users especially pride themselves in using apt-get to continually upgrade their systems. With so few eyeballs testing and reviewing the installers, I doubt installers get many patches and bug fixes from users (like you see on LKML everyday).
Linux vs. Windows installation comparo, Part 3 (LinuxWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2002 13:59 UTC (Mon) by AAP (guest, #721) [Link] I agree! I find Debian MUCH harder to install than Slackware, even though they're both text-based.
|
|
||||||||||||