Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 8:26 UTC (Sat) by LintuxCx (guest, #14448)
Parent article: Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Why does the tester compare Windows 2000 and Mandrake 9.2? If he used Red Hat 6.1 and Windows XP, everybody would be angry about unfair competition because Red Hat 6.1 is old and useless, it seems that nobody cares when the opposite happens? (RedHat 6.1 and Win2K both released late '99 IIRC)

I'm not trying to troll, I just wonder how fair this test is.

(Sidenote: If the answer is "Windows 2000" is the only/last sane Windows version ever released, I agree. :-)

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 11:15 UTC (Sat) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] (1 responses)

The author says that he didn't have a copy of XP around to hand.

As far as I can see, the installer hasn't changed much, anyway.

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 27, 2004 8:15 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

LOL! He didn't have a copy of eXPrivacy around.. and it's not like he
could just go d/l one, either. He (rightly, IMO) used the latest copy of
each that he had access to. After all, it's not HIS fault the "latest and
greatest" version of MS' proprietaryware isn't freely available for
download (at least legally).

Duncan

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 25, 2004 2:01 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

In my experience, WinXP is a lot easier to handle than Win2k. On my (oldish) box WinXP is much more stable, and gives less trouble all around. Installation of both is equally bad, in any case.