Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Linux or Windows Easier To Install?

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the click-click-click dept.

Linux 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Troll)

Loman (545971) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057741)

maybe 2nd or 3rd though :(

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057745)

I like FP yes I do I like FP So do you. FP!!!

Comparison not fair (1)

ThePyromaniak (561029) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057746)

That comparison is in no way fair...they should have to take out the 10 times windows makes you reboot

Re:Comparison not fair (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057860)

Exactly! The Sony Recovery CDs (note plural) are not supplied by Microsoft.

Microsoft's standard install does not prompt you to install the plethora of third party utilities (like the virus utility mentioned), etc, that Sony ships on multiple CDs as a value-add.

Linuxworld huh? (2, Funny)

blackula (584329) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057750)

Sounds like a source for unbiased reporting in all facets of the computing world.

Technically... (5, Insightful)

taernim (557097) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057752)

then shouldn't the article be comparing RedHat and Windows installs?

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.

Re:Technically... (2)

Jacer (574383) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057805)

Have you tried the mandrake install as of late? If you think the Red Hat install is easy, mandrake is much easier! My mother could install mandrake, and she can't even remember the url to http://mail.yahoo.com, her login, (or even her damned password for that matter!)

Re:Technically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057867)

mandrake runs so slow on my 200mhz 64mb pc.. know of any easy to install linux distros that would work better?

also, where can i download that CD demo of suse?

Re:Technically... (1)

xsbellx (94649) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057878)

Definitely have to agree. The install experience is VERY different from one distro to the other, just look at a few others like Debian, Gentoo or LFS.

Like most /.ers I have installed my share of distributions and there are unquestionably major differences in installs/hardware detection is performed. Some are very easy, some require a fair bit of knowledge about the hardware you have installed.

The one thing that is consistant across all recent (post 2.2.15) based distros is the strenght of the finished product. I have yet to find a Windows version (pick a version, any version), installed on the same hardware, that provides a better platform than a Linux install.

Re:Technically... (1)

ScottKin (34718) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057921)

"...I have yet to find a Windows version (pick a version, any version), installed on the same hardware, that provides a better platform than a Linux install."

Hmmmm...can you quantify "better"?

Simply stating that something is "better" without saying why it is better is just as bad as FUD.

ScottKin

True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057753)

Especially the lastest 7.3 version. No problems and very fast in 3 installs so far: game machine, workstation, and server. I picked English as the language like 3 times and that was about it!

news? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057754)

i thought we knew this already for ages..

haha ya right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057755)

dream on losers.........

Is Linux or Windows Easier To Install? (5, Funny)

Wrexen (151642) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057757)

The answer, of course, is yes

...and in other news (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057761)

Rush Limbaugh has released an objective account of the Clinton presidency.

It's Quite Simple (1, Offtopic)

RumGunner (457733) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057764)

When you don't care about how many copies of your operating system people make, you don't have to worry about collecting their information.

.

Re:It's Quite Simple (1)

coene (554338) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057897)

It only takes 27 seconds to enter a pirated serial number and fill in junk personal information. Trust me, I've clocked it!!!

(JOKE!)

I'm not surprised (2)

PD (9577) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057766)

The main criticism of Linux was (and still might be) that it's hard to install. Life's not fair, but to overcome that criticism, parity is not enough. Linux must be far easier to install than the competitors before the criticism will go away. Good to see that might be real soon now.

Re:I'm not surprised (4, Insightful)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057829)


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.

Re:I'm not surprised (2, Insightful)

Master Bait (115103) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057919)

That's it in a nutshell, especially in the consumer market. I know people who buy a Dell or somesuch generic brand-name PC, and never touch anything. They get their generic MS apps installed at the factory, the machine gets shipped to them, they plug it in and use it for three years or so. Then they give it to their nephew and order another new machine.

Linux preinstalled is every bit as generic as Windows.

Re:I'm not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057866)

Actually I never found that Linux was all that hard to install, no harder than Windows if your hardware was supported.

Where Linux is a COMPLETE BITCH is changing anything after the initial install.

Gentoo (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057767)

What about RedHat vs. Gentoo or Debian? If I have to sacrifice one more chicken just to get Linux and X-Windows working by hand ... then dammit, I'm gonna switch to FreeBSD. :)

XFree86 (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057819)

Actually, if X is a problem on one platform, using X's own tools, then chances are that X is going to be a bitch on others. While yes, I believe FreeBSD is "better" than Linux, because you have an issue with a 3rd party piece of software, it doesn't mean you should switch operating systems. both the BSDs and the Linux distributions use XFree86. You're not going to gain a whole lot for that

Depends on the Blend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057768)

Mandrake is pretty easy to install, but Debian is like driving nails through my penis. Hell I can even install OpenBSD in under 20 minutes.

Re:Depends on the Blend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057848)

driving nails through my penis.

That's easy. Painfull, yes, but easy...

System Restore (5, Insightful)

bobgoatcheese (455695) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057769)

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?

Re:System Restore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057911)

Ha Ha. Tell me another good one.
If this is a new laptop?? The poor sap with a plain jane
W2K disc would have to go to the Sony site to download
funky drivers. Even windows doesn't like winmodems!!
From my experience in labs where I had to wipe the base
install off the system and then install the whole range
of Windows operating systems off of MSDN disks, I can
tell you for sure that Windows is VERY difficult to
install. All of the OEMS have rigged hardware that
requires a seance to get to work. Honestly. I end up
downloading all kinds of crap from a bunch of 3rd
party hardware companies.
If the OS is older than the hardware, drivers can
be difficult for both windows and linux.
If the Linux install recognizes the hardware, you are
set. Otherwise you may not have an option.

WMP (2)

Jacer (574383) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057771)

Finally, the remaining three critical updates could all be installed together: two security updates for IE 5.5 and one for the Windows Media player. Oh man, I never plan on upgrading windows media player. I don't want to give someone permission to root my box!

Not a good test (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057773)

This doesn't work as a test to compare the two. The windows install was from a recovery cd provided by Sony. There is no configuration involved in this as it is all done ahead of time. Next time install windows 2000 from scratch.

Linux vs Windows Installation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057777)

Talk bout gettin the drivers setup for some of hte new sound n video cards, Linux doesnt do all that well when compared to windows.. but I guess that is because Windows has been here for the lay man for a long long time...

Doesn't Matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057779)

Home users will never adopt Linux en masse. Sorry. Won't happen. Time for you Linux geeks to stop creaming your pants every time some idiotic, useless report like this hits the headlines.

It's a geek OS. Shuffle off to your corner and play "MineSweeper" on WINE, you losers.

This comparison is ludicrous.... (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057780)

With XP, you only have to enter a couple things, namely, the cdkey, your user name, and click what kind of network you are on.

I havn't installed redhat since 7.0, but I doubt its gotten easier than that. I mean come on.... Windows is built to be easy. Linux is not.

Re:This comparison is ludicrous.... (2)

SirWhoopass (108232) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057883)

Windows is built to be easy. Linux is not.

Not true. RedHat has spent a lot of time making their installer very easy to use.

It's not a fair question (3, Insightful)

wizarddc (105860) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057783)

Most people who are using Windows didn't install their OS, it came on their machine when they bought it. So practically, when someone buys a PC, they spend no time installing their OS. Just a thought.

Wow! (2)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057785)

Linux installation wins over Win2k in Linuxworld.com? What a shocker! This article is biased within the first 3 paragraphs stating twice in a condescending way how MS makes you read and sign the EULA in the beginning of the installation. Big deal, Microsoft wants you to know what you're getting yourself into. Also, what does clicking "I accept" in the beginning have anything to do with ease of installation?

Red Hat Linux most certainly IS... (2)

Micah (278) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057793)

easier to install than any version of Windows I have ever installed! I mean BY FAR! Not trying to be a troll, I'm serious.

Windows makes you reboot two or three times. RH doesn't (only once at the end, then you boot into a ready-to-go system).

Windows often doesn't install drivers for video/sound cards, or even Ethernet cards. But assuming the card has a driver for Linux, RH has always set it up for me during the install, no problem.

Software -- with a fresh RH installation, you already have most of the software you need, ready to go. Office suite, e-mail programs, servers, plenty of games (far more than come with Windows).

The ONLY particularly difficult part of installing RH is the partitioning, and even that is getting easier with each version.

Re:Red Hat Linux most certainly IS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057859)

Is rebooting difficult?

People are giving Windows a hard time because the system reboots during setup. It may be less elegant but it doesn't make setup any more difficult..

Re:Red Hat Linux most certainly IS... (2)

MicroBerto (91055) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057912)

It may be less elegant but it doesn't make setup any more difficult..

That is, unless, it doesn't return to where it left off before the reboot...

Re:Red Hat Linux most certainly IS... (1)

intermodal (534361) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057880)

for the average joe computer user (the kind who buys a prebuilt computer from a major OEM on purpose just because they want it from somewhere famous they "can trust", heavy on the quotes) won't do their own partitioning, and Red Hat will take care of partitioning for these. Partitioning windows isn't any easier than it is for red hat...in fact red hat is much easier to partition with than any version of windows, especially for custom setups like dual boot or seperate home or data directory or wtf you want. Partitioning is only going to be an issue for power users, who sadly are the only ones who are seriously looking at linux thse days unless they have a l33t linux friend who installs for them anyway...

Re:Red Hat Linux most certainly IS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057905)

>Windows often doesn't install drivers for video/sound cards, or even Ethernet cards. But assuming the card has a driver for Linux, RH has always set it up for me during the install, no problem.

I've never had or seen a modern windows version that didn't properly install video/sound and Ethernet drivers.

RH does install the drivers, but if you don't cofigure it with DHCP you have to enter IP addresses for you machine, your network, your broadcast and your DNS.

'Installing' isn't everything (1)

Tk42! (194442) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057794)


(not flamebait)
Regardless of your point of view, Joe L User just wants to get online, and its a lot quicker to get (for example) ATT's dial-up software running and Joe L User online to buy little sutffed piggies from ebay. Why is this study even done?

Re:'Installing' isn't everything (1)

neroz (449747) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057851)

The "Study" was done, because the main thing that Windows users coming to Linux complained about for a long time, was how hard Linux was to install. We're now past that hurdle, on to the next...

Windows..? (2, Insightful)

FuzzyMan45 (451645) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057795)

This is a comparison of installing windows and linux. It seems to me that it looks like it's comparing a sony operation system restore and linux. The REAL win2k install (without things like mcaffee) only takes (if memory serves) 3 reboots also and no cd swaps. In my opinion, this is not a very professional article/study/benchmark and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Re:Windows..? (3, Flamebait)

spongman (182339) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057923)

grain of salt? the guy's a fucking moron. firstly he should be installing XP, a consumer OS for a consumer girlfriend (not 2K, never designed to be installed by consumers), secondly why did he upgrade 3 different versions of IE? why not just install 2Ksp3 which includes IE6. dumbass. then, he should know an OEM setup from the real thing, no wonder he got a whole bunch of adverts for stuff, and a blank admin password. has this guy never installed a REAL version of win2k before?

Re:Windows..? (2)

gmack (197796) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057928)

It only takes 3 reboots if you don't use windows update to upgrade your system to the latest. If you do add another 6 or 7 reboots.

If you don't I hope you don't ever intend to either accept email or web browse.

Hardware Config (2)

alanjstr (131045) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057798)

Having reinstalled Windows many times, I know what makes it better for me: automatic hardware detection. Most of the right drivers and all that gets me up and running fast. It can be pretty easy to create an unattended installation as well.

How about not loading OEM crap (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057800)

Talk about a BIASED article..this guy could have probably cut the number of annoying windows and reboots in HALF if he hadn't used that stupid "System Restore" CD. Is there one technical person left on this earth that doesn't know better than to load/use all the absolute CRAP that comes with an OEM install? Dude..try using a vanilla Win2K CD, and maybe you'll reach believability.

comments (2)

lingqi (577227) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057802)

I can not speak for RedHat because I have never installed it. but i have done solaris a couple times and have to say that UNIX installs are, or, *SEEMS*, a lot easier for people who are familiar with terminologies like "root", "/opt", and somesuch. Or at least not as frightening.

I just want to say that "easy" is a very subjective idea, and any results need to be taken with a grain of salt. I would not be surprised if a MCSE find UNIX / LINUX installs very difficult, not because it's difficult per-se, but rather simply the scared and don't know what's comming mentality

Who cares? (0, Troll)

Maxx (9947) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057804)

Who the hell cares and why would you install windoze anyway?

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057916)

Because not everyone gives a crap about Linsux?

Faulty Comparison (5, Insightful)

numark (577503) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057807)

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.

why not win XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057808)

why is he comparing the 3 year old windows 2000 to a new version of redhat?

Windows Xp's installation is far less input-intensive as 2000.

A better test (5, Insightful)

Platinum Dragon (34829) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057810)

I'm a Lunix-loving looser (tm Trolls, Inc.), but I think this could in no way be called a proper test.

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.

Windows, by far. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057811)

Didn't yet read the article, but I've got to say that Linux has the worst installation processes. I'm a long time unix user (early linux and BSDs). But redhat failed to install on a compaq at work, had apmd issues (constsnt crashes), and a later version of redhat couldn't masnage to change install CDs. Various dists of linux failed. Very pathetic. FreeBSD, no problem. Debian, no problem.. but we didn't try it first. Linux has VERY FAR to go in terms of *reliable installation*. (And then go try and get Nvidia working with X11.. a kernel module compile? Good god folks). We have a lot of work yet....

What happened to his conclusion? (2)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057813)

I found it rather odd that he had a fairly decent and professional approach towards his description both installs; however, the conclusion completely ignored the installation process and instead was an anti-EULA, M$ is taking over the world rant. It's like he was saying, "The numbers speak for themselves, now, while I've got your attention..."


That stunt really weakened my opinion of the article. I would really hesitate to use it as evidence in favor of the ease of installation of Red Hat.

Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057817)


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

This article = troll (4, Interesting)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057818)

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.

Re:This article = troll (4, Insightful)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057852)

And if you do that install with win2k pro on a modern system it takes nearly a whole 20 minutes. (40 if you need to reformat the drive)(60 if you need to hunt down drivers, which most people won't)

IMO it's patently simple to install win2k or RedHat these days, and is a non-issue.

patch after patch after patch (0)

Openadvocate (573093) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057820)

That part I hate the most about installing W2K is not the installation itself. It's all the post installation crap.
Before you have installed all patches, you have rebooted 20 times. But then again, I don't install W2K very often so the people with Windoze skills might not hit that yes-to-reboot button everytime.
And their web-update thingy, wouldn't let me install patches in only 256 colors. It was about that time I ended my experiment with checking out W2K, so I exchanged the CD in the drive with FreeBSD which was what the machine was intended for in the first place. And I am still bugged by the fact that we still get so many new machines with Windoze licenses even though we have no use for them.

Yesterday I upgraded two machines (0, Flamebait)

Diesel Dave (95048) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057821)

Debian Sid: 60 MB of upgrades. 20 Minutes including DL.

Windouche 2000: Sp3 and 3 security patches. 80 minutes and 4 reboots.

'Nough Said

21 Years (0)

BryanL (93656) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057822)

If you are going to count 21 years since DOS 1.0 at least end on their most current OS XP.

Of c'mon... (-1, Flamebait)

realmolo (574068) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057823)

He used a goddamn RESTORE CD to install Win2K. Everyone knows that restore CDs are awful. The restore CD is responsible for the McAfee ad, and the fact that the Administrator account was setup as the default account.

This guy is a tool.

Besides, really, who cares how long it takes to install? Windows is easier to use in every way. You may save 30 minutes during the install with Linux, but you'll blow another 30 hours a week making it do the things Windows does out-of-the-box.

A forest for the trees (1)

gr3g (119302) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057824)

SuSE has to be one of the easiest installs out there. But I've been using linux since 95 so it's kind of like seeing the forest if your the tree. I don't really expect an impartial article from a linuxworld writer. To be fair I wouldn't expect one from something like PC magazine either, since they appear to be bought off most of the time.

Windows 2000 is a horrible install (2)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057828)

As someone who installs RedHat on a regular basis since the 4.2 days, I much prefer the RedHat install. It is easy and fast.

Windows 2k seem to take forever to install, even on a fast machine. I can do a similarly sized (in data) RedHat install in much less than half the time it takes for Windows 2000.

I dread installinf Windows 2000.

-Pete

Re:Windows 2000 is a horrible install (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057864)

The install itself isn't half as bad as the security updates. Seriously, what does a Win2K user do after installing? You have to connect a unpatched system to the net,and spend several hours installing patches and rebooting while hoping nobody will hack your system meanwhile.

well NO SHIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057830)

i have been without windows for years, but installing it on a spare hd on a pentium 200 was a PAIN in the ass, especially after i got used to the ease and straightforwardness of linux instalation and conflict resolution. (i installed both win 95 and win2000 on the machine successfully, but win95 was giving me so much crap after i installed it i switched to win2000) my modem drivers still don't work on the pos winmodem, and win2000 disconnects my ethernet connection after being connected for 5 minutes. linux is so much easier to deal with because you can reconfigure your kernel, use different modules, poke around the config files, etc, etc, etc

Well, not exactly (1)

WebBug (178944) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057832)

Let's start with the executive summary of the article by the author
I expected Windows 2000's installation would be seamless, fast, and lightyears ahead of upstart Red Hat's by any measure I could concoct. It turns out the Windows 2000 Pro installation is superior to Linux, but in two dubious categories. (2,000 words)

Reading the text, it turns out that the author actually found Red Hat supperior pretty much across the board. So much for summaries.

While I'm on the topic, I'd like to see a comparission with Windows XP, I just did four installations of XP and one of OpenBSD. All five were flawless and worked perfectly first time. All completed within minutes of each other and required only minimal interaction on my part.

My opinion is that Microsoft has improved their installation process many orders of magnitude over the last few years, about time, eh? However, I still find the *nix to be far more secure out of the box and much easier to keep that way.

Summary: biggest Objection to Windows -- License!

Does it really matter? (3, Insightful)

bogie (31020) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057838)

Linux for the most part became easier to install then windows with Corel linux years ago. That is like 5% of the end user experience when talking about OS's. Its after the install which is really the only part that matters.

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.

What about MacOS X? (2)

rjung2k (576317) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057839)

How about a Linux vs. Windows vs. MacOS X installation three-way bout?

Re:What about MacOS X? (1)

WebBug (178944) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057922)

Don't ask much do you?

OS X won't install on x86.

Windows won't install on MacPPC.

However, OpenBSD vs OS X on a MacPPC (G3 PB). the OpenBSD installation is no different than on x86 machines, no surpirse. Takes no longer. Ask no extra questions. It does require some knowledge of the underlying hardware, but no more that you would for x86.

On the other hand, OS X install from a recent OS X purchase was . . . well, brain dead. Put in the disk, boot from CD, click install, fall asleep for 15 minutes, click "reboot", wait about 68 seconds and voila, OS X is up and running.

I'd say "no comparison" and I like openBSD, but I use them for different things.

Bad Reviewer! (1)

futuresheep (531366) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057840)

This wasn't a comparison of a Windows2000 to Red Hat install, it was a Red Hat vs. Sony System and Application Recovery CD set install, which is a completely different process. The standard Windows 2000 install is MUCH easier than this, and requires a total of two reboots, with no disc swapping.

Re:Bad Reviewer! (2)

gruntvald (22203) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057885)

You conveniently ignore the mandatory patching that is required on a W2K box.

Re:Bad Reviewer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057903)

Yes, That was a poor way to compare the two and if he had done a standard windows2000 install it would have been a whole different story.

what about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057841)

What about which one is easier to un-install? let's see how quickly M$ opens' it's closed fist!

linux vs. windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057843)

I like Linux just as much as the next /. reader but if you see what are the default applications that are installed in Redhat, you'd have to disagree. I mean, come on, there are at least 5 or more mail programs as an example. Customization is everything in Linux. That's why it is better than Windows(besides the stability).
But have you ever gone through every package to sort out what you do and do not want in the install(for RH at least). It's takes a bloody long time.

The install "logo-rhythm" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057844)

Here is my ass
Which you may kiss.
Take time and aim well
You don't want to miss.

For if you aim low
And your lips they do fall
Then you will find
You'll be sucking my balls.

If you aim high
Despite your true heart
Sucks to be you
Now you're eating my fart.

Thank you, thank you very much. I'll be here all week. Please tip your waitstaff.

FreeBSD is the easiest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057846)

I've installed Windows, linux, and FreeBSD and FreeBSD is by far the easiest to install. All I had to do was stick in a boot floppy and the installer pulled everything it needed off the net!

macos (3, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057850)

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.

Linux! (0, Redundant)

TheKubrix (585297) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057855)

Linux wins hand down, regardless of distro (unles your completly new and confused), I say this mainly because first you have to install windows 95, then windows 98, then windows 98 SE, then locate all or most of your drivers and patch that beast up, whereas linux for the most part is kept up to date with its distros and does all this for you. And getting you windoze box on the net won't be easy either as the default browser is IE 3, now how in the hell are you gunna upgrade that POS when even microsoft doesn't support IE 3 for its website, much less other sites where you need the drivers! ....so mainly because of versions, drivers, and patches, windoze is far more complex and a pain.....

21 Years Old, hah! (0, Redundant)

WilliamsDA (567274) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057856)

Considering that it had it's 21st birthday today, it probably won't be easy until later tonight.

The BeOS one is the EASIEST and QUICKEST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057857)

Sorry people, but the BeOS is the MOST easy and fast to install.
Installation takes about 6-7 minutes, and ALL you have to do is point the installer as to which partition you want to install it (yes, there is partition app included too, just in case you need to repartition) and setup the bootmanager if you want. That's all to it. No /swap, no /boot, no monitor frequencies and such crap. BeOS does everything automatically.

umm...I dont think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057858)

Your telling me that some guy that writes colums for Linuxworld.com is going to be unbiased? Look, I'm all for a Penguin for president but at least do it right.

Take the most current of each OS..Redhat vs. XP.
Now take joe schmoe off the street and tell him to install them from scratch and then look me straight in the face and tell me Redhat is easier to install.

Come on ppl..stop the lemming effect.

I'd like to see.... (1)

GammaStorm (221702) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057861)

...a similar comparison using both a novice Linux user and a novice Windows 2K user and see the results. I'd be more prone to believe their experiences compared to just one person who probably has experience in both.

I use both, but deal with Windows as my job on a daily basis. If I have an issue with Windows I know how to clear it up quickly, if I have an issue with Linux I know I'm off on the Google Trail. This doesn't make Linux bad, it's only a matter of experience in the field.

I'd also like to see the novice Wiindows users expression when trying to choose packages to install on the web site. :)

What about a REAL test - REAL work flow?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057868)

Weeelllll -

my cunt is a'drippin',
your lips are a'sippin',
my ass is a'crappin',
your mouth is a'lappin'

all that comes out of an oracifce
you eat for a main course-ifice
poop and pee, all a'yummy
Sitting proud inside your tummy!

Thanks, you're too kind. I'll be here all week. Please, remember your waitstaff.

heck yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057873)

i've always said, if Macrosoft could get an installer that did all of the dirty work first, and then let the user be, the world would be a buggier place

What is the problem? (2)

forgoil (104808) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057879)

Put the XP CD in, boot. fix the partitions, start it, let the stuff run until it says "I'll reboot your computer now", make sure it doesn't boot the CD this time, w8, enter name, w8, enter timezone/language etc, w8, enter IP(etc) or choose dhcp. w8, log in.

What is the problem? I can't run the redhat install for you since I haven't installed redhat for a very long time (and I won't do it again unless someone pays me for it), but I am quite sure it is very much similar. Heck, the Gentoo manual install isn't even tricky if you read the instructions. Heck, it is even REAL easy.

Comparing install proceedures doesn't say much at all (even less if the OS is pre-installed). I don't know about you, but the time I spend installing OSes is wastly much less than the time I spend using computers. Comparing everyday usage in an objective way would have been much more interesting for sure.

You're missing the point...as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4057886)

Why am I replying to this? How many times have I heard this stupid question? My point is that it doesn't really matter which installs easier...if you know what hardware you have, linux is easiest by a mile. This of course changes if you get some box by a company that uses funky hardware designed specifically for windows. HOWEVER, it's not about the install, in the REAL world people are concerned about ease of use after install. I don't know a single person that just lives to install OSs on their computer all day...most care to use it eventually.
SO, get a mac and run OSX. I've used linux for years and windows longer...but I've seen the light! I'm now an official Mac biggot and am interested in *nix power, easy install, AND usability...by the way, you get what you pay for.

I dont think so. (1)

pkplex (535744) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057890)

Windows is by far easier to install than Linux.

One of the prime examples is X11... which is almost always a total bastard to configure for newbies.

Sorry, but Linux is far more complicated and tricky to install than Windows.

PS: IMO Linux will never be a decent desktop untill X11 is replaced with something far better.

RedHat 7.3 is easier on a Laptop (1)

ericman31 (596268) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057891)

Not too long ago I installed RH 7.3 on a laptop. It should be noted that I'm an experienced UNIX admin, but that is all Solaris on Sun's Enterprise platforms. I posted not too long ago about my experience [slashdot.org] during the installation.

The bottom line, RedHat installed smoother and easier than Win2K. I didn't have to install ANY drivers, RH 7.3 supported me in the distro. When installing Win2K I had to download the network card driver because Win2K didn't support a standard, not bleeding edge, 3Com card. Once I did that I proceeded to download about 20 other custom drivers from IBM because the laptop was crashing on a consistent basis without them. With RedHat installed I have yet to experience a crash.

Irrelevant... (1)

Napalmstrike (216916) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057892)

...maybe one day you guys will realize it's not the ease of installation, but the availability of compatible software/hardware. OH WAIT, that's right--this is slashdot =P

Go ahead, MOD ME DOWN, you KNOW I speak the truth.

My brother found this out (2)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057893)

I installed Redhat 7.3 on my nephew's laptop (about 2 hours). After using the machine for a few weeks and finding the installation of games too difficult and confusing, he wanted to go back to Windows. My brother tried to perform the installation, but kept running into problems. It took him several weeks of spare time effort to get it all put together with vendor website driver downloads and updates.

Windows is easy because someone else installs it (usually the PC manufacturer). These days, I find installation on Linux generally easier than Windows on the same hardware.

As a side note, when my brother finally got Windows XP installed, my nephew complained that it was running much slower than Linux was. :-)

The More Important Question is: (2)

White Shade (57215) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057894)

After the installation was complete, which machine was more functional?

The windows machine with tons of built-in, modern, driver support, or the linux machine where you still need to download, compile, and install thousands of packages in order to even have a chance at using favourite video card, soundcard, or even just regular software applications? :)

My experiences (0)

madman2002 (468554) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057896)

My problems with Linux in the past have never been getting them to run, hell I've installed so many distros I'm willing to put money on being able to shave AT LEAST 2/10 of a second off this guys BEST time (read: joke). The problems I have had are getting things to work properly (such as my Voodoo 5 5500 PCI and my cheapie generic sound card) however all of these problems have been solved in the more recent distros. I had slackware 8.1 running in no time with everything working (except the sound....I have an ESS Allegro and I think I found the right module for it because when I load it it says that it's found it and is initializing it , gives no error messages, then doesn't work >:O ).

I've also installed Windows 2000 (for a friend) and can testify it is a lengthier process however I can't really say it's "harder". I think the average user would have an easier time installing Win 2000 simply because they are familiar with the "Click accept, Click next, click next, click next" way of installing things. However if you know what your doing the Linux installation won't give you anywhere near the headache of the Win 2000 installation..."WHAT I HAVE TO REBOOT AGAIN!!!"

So basically, Win 2000 is easier for the average user to install. Linux is much less annoying to install and is fairly simple itself.

I did this a while back (2)

El (94934) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057902)

Installing from scratch about 6 months ago, Mandrake (8.1?) was slightly easier to install the the first production release of Windows2000 off of the MSDN CD. Windows was missing several drivers that I had to download from various sources (including one for my now discontinued 3com Ethernet card); Mandrake had everything on the CD (including support for my obsolete Digital camera!). Linux required 1 boot floppy; windows required 4!!! I beleive 2002 will go down in history as the point where Linux Desktop ease of use actually surpassed that of Windows.

This also points out a flaw in the current market: comparing pre-installed windows to install-it-yourself Linux is NOT a fair comparison. Why can't we get a choice of which operating system is preinstalled on our new PCs? Shouldn't offering that choice be a part of the DoJ settlement?

Faster for who? (1)

Grebby (149365) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057906)

"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.

"Red Hat asked a few more questions about the system than the Windows installation did, but the default selections were always satisfactory. I chose to use the GRUB boot manager, to place it on the MBR, and for the Linux to be the default. Next, I accepted DHCP as my network settings, medium security, and picked my time zone."

90% of computer users don't know an ext3 journaling system from a GRUB boot manager. RedHat might be faster to install, If you have experience with Linux, but it certainly isn't easier for Joe Homepage.

Sure thats great but... (1)

rosie_bhjp (40538) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057913)

I really wouldn't consider it a fair test (if such a thing is even possible) since he is using a Sony System Recover disc, and NOT a W2K install. You ever see how much shit they cram in the system recover disks? The bloatware attached is probably half of your install time right there.
I personally found a stock install of W2K to be quite easy and completely straight forward. Quick to.
Besides that, whats the point? BeOS's install has been by far the simplest and fastest in my experience, second only to OpenBSD. However, that certainly has positively NO bearing on which OS I choose since, well, I don't reinstall OS's on my desktop machines every week.

No Question (1)

Ashcrow (469400) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057914)

I've been saying this for a while. A newbie can install Mandrake 8.x on their system and actually understand whats going on, not to mention that they have hundreds of apps installed and more drivers than you can shake a window at!

Wrong Comparison (5, Insightful)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057918)

Windows 2000 Pro and Redhat 7.3? What kind of rigged game is this?

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.

Completely unbiased review... (2, Insightful)

parabyte (61793) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057920)

Jim Independent, a WindowsWorld.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, Windows is quicker and less manually intensive."


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.

Installation != Configuration (1)

coene (554338) | more than 12 years ago | (#4057925)

This article has no point to it. Its not a real installation of Windows in the first place, its a proprietary OEM install.

The real comparison should be the ease and ability of the end user to Install AND CONFIGURE the system.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?