True....
what does windows XP do that windows 95 could not do..... ?

they both browse the internet... send / recieve emails.
file management
desktop publishing
you did your homework on them
you print out your homework...

so why does windowsXP need 10 time the memeory and power win95 did.

im running Fedora Core 2 on an old 233mhz 128megs ram.
runs fine.

If you tried to tun XP on 233 MHZ and 128MB RAM it would not even start.
You know way back in one of the threads someone said the Linux was so complicated, and XP was so easy, well yesterday a friend cam to me asking for HELP with XP as he had been trying to install a wireless network card for days and got no where, I have never really been using Windows, I jumped from Windows 95 to redhat and I could never get windows 95 to work correctly, so my knowledge on XP is null, we also asked our windows NT system administrator who also gave up, I could not see any easy way of installing the wireless card, so I also gave up, then I wanted to try to install it in my redhat ws machine, and guss what it worked first time without any fiddling, so there we are tome Linux redhat is far more easy than Windows.

I've gotten Windows XP to run on 360 Mhz 32MB ram pretty smoothly with almost no tweaking. So I bet you could get it up and running on 233 MHZ and 128MB. Also I tried to run Mandrake 9 with KDE on the same system later and clicking on anything would take about 10 seconds at least to respond. Windows XP in that case was much faster. I don't doubt that some distros of Linux could have ran much better but I still thought it was interesting.

Write to Microsoft and tell them that I can not even get Windows 2000 to run with 64MB, well it runs but very very slow, and one of our staff purchased a note book P4 2.6GH 80GB hard disk with 128MB RAM and it had XP pr installed, and it was mega slow until we installed another 128MB RAM so how you can get XP to run with 32MB that beats me, and Microsoft how says absolutly minimum 128MB, so contact their technicial department and claim your price - NT4 just runs on 32MB with 64MB NT4 goes quite nice. 32MB RAM did yu also install office ?

Somebody tell me how to cut and paste in Windows. The standard select the
text to paste (click left button and drag over the desired text), raise
the window to paste in and click the middle mouse button doesn't seem to
work. In fact, nothing seems to work in Windows. Why doesn't Shift-KP+
enlarge the font in the so-called Command Prompt (such a silly name for
Terminal) the way it does it my xterm? How do you change the screen
resolution in Windows? Ctrl-Alt-KP+/- doesn't work. Where is the pager?
I can't really work without my extra workspaces. What happened to my
virtual consoles? Why doesn't Ctrl-Alt-F2 give me a new login? It's a
real bitch when I have to logout and log back in everytime I want to change
identities. Why can't I boot my Windows partition, call up a different
virtual console, login and chroot to my Slackware partition? I do it with
Slackware and SuSE. Really nice since I haven't gotten around to
installing all those really nice progs in SuSE into my new Slack partition.

Actually I know the answers to all those questions. Spent hours reading
and searching to find them. I don't like asking for help. It smacks of
defeat. I was just providing a small example of how Windows is not so
simple for someone trying to emigrate from Linux, with no prior experience
in Windows. Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder.

How should one make installing Linux easier? Well, I suppose one could start
by overwriting the MBR and destroying the option to boot into another o/s.
We could insert the message, "Linux has detected another Operating System
on your hard disk. Please remove the other Operating System and start over."
I've seen that message under Windows a time or two. I honestly haven't
found Linux to be that difficult, but then I started with Win3.1 and Linux
at about the same time. I purchased Slackware 2.3 (Linux 1.2.8 kernel)
the same time I purchased Win3.11. Read the install instructions for both,
and installed them straight away on an IBM PS\1, 4MB memory, 120MB hard
disk. Purchased MS Word 2.0 for Windows and Xess 4.2 for Linux. Both installed
and worked as advertised. At the time, Linux had support for TCP/IP and PPP.
Win3.1 didn't. Under Linux I could call in to my ISP (that was in 1995) and
get on the 'net. Wasn't much graphical stuff on the 'net back then. Lynx
was fast. Archie worked about like Google, and Gopher was a wonder. Maybe
Linux has been easy for me because I purchase most of my software, instead
of looking for freebie$. At least when I pull something off the 'net, I expect
it to work on whatever system it was developed on, and hope it will work on
mine. But, I don't get riled if it doesn't. After all, I imagine the odds of
the developer having a system identical to mine is pretty much nil.

Installation? Can't beat Knoppix on my system. Insert CD, press power button,
press <Enter>. Possibly a few questions like, "Would you like to install
Knoppix on your hard drive?, How much free space do you want to give to
Windows?" for our Windows friends. But, jeez!, how much easier can you get?

Drivers? Most hardware specs are proprietary. You can buy the specs for a
few million dollars and signing an NDA, if you want. You expect someone
hacking away in their basement to do that in order to write a driver for
your bleeding-edge graphics card, and then give it away? Come on! Linux is
not a free-as-in-beer system! The GNU license specifically says you can sell
the binaries for whatever you want, as long as you accompany them with the
source. So, if I want to be a purist, I can license my programs under GNU and
post the source only. You want to run my programs on your system? Then make
your own binaries -- or pay me a gazillion dollars and I'll make them for
you. I'll also make sure they install and run on your system at the same
time. You want a driver that installs and works on your system, go bug the
hardware manufacturer. Or, better yet, tell them you bought a competing
product because it had a Linux-compatible driver and theirs didn't. And,
really, please buy that competing hardware. Support is a two-way street.

GUI's? What's wrong with Xfce, Fluxbox, Enlightenment, or the thousand others
available for Linux? Why can't I change the screen resolution in Windows
with a simple keypress combination, the way I can in every GUI I've tried
in Linux? Wizards are cool. I grant you that. So is dotgen. It is kind of
nice not having to remember the filename that controls the defaults.

Dependency hell? I've never had the problems I've seen described on this
thread. Maybe it's because I install everything, so I have every possible
library that exists on my system. Maybe it's because I've never used rpm,
apt-get, swaret, or any other package manager out there. Let's see, search
for an application -- there it is. Click on my terminal icon.

wget url tarball
tar -zxvf tarball
cd tarball-directory
less README

follow instructions

./configure --help
./configure --options
make
su
password
make install
exit
exit

run application

Has worked every time. Backup the tarball for when I hose my system so I don't
have to wget over my 56K line next time.

Applications? Back in the early 80's, when I thought I new everything and
freely gave out advice, people would come to me asking which compuer was best.
My advice was, 1) figure out what you want to do, 2) find the application that
best supports your need, 3) buy the computer that application runs on, 4) live
with the limitations of that computer. Well, that same advice still applies.
If your application doesn't work under Linux, then use the o/s which supports
it. If you really want the freedom and joy of Linux, write the developer and
beg for a Linux version. Meanwhile, use the other o/s. Don't bad-mouth Linux.
There must be hundreds of thousands of applications available. A few are
cross-platform, most aren't. It's not my job to port that propriatary app you
just can't do without -- though it might be fun. I've written a check-
balancing program for myself. It works just fine for me. I might release it.
I might not. If I do, it will be GPL. If you ask me for a feature that you
need and I don't, I'll probably tell you that you have the source, go ahead
and add it. I don't have the time, nor the interest. You have the source to
KDE. Add that Control Panel you miss so much. Or, go back to the o/s and GUI
that has that Control Panel. Or, write the development team of KDE and lay
out the specifications for that neat Control Panel, and ask them to code it
for you since you haven't the time. Whatever you do, I won't look down on
you.

Windows and OS/X apps are great and maintain a similarity between them because
Microsoft and Apple control the interface. You want your app to be certified
Windows-ready, pay Microsoft a ton of money and have them certify that your
app responds according to their specifications, uses their API and DLL's. Or,
skip the payment and just use their API and DLL's. But, you've only got one
choice. They call the shots. They determine how you app works. Linux doesn't
have a controlling authority. I can use any library I choose, along with any
UI that suits my fancy. They same is true for the other million or so
developers out there. I can package my app using rpm or another package
manager, or I can use a tarball. Nobody can tell me how my app is going to
look or how it is going to be distributed. Open-source is a culture of
absolute freedom. Linux happens to thrive within that culture. If a version
of GNU/Linux/KDE/Gnome needs to be controlled from the top, then someone
needs to create such a distribution. Oh, there's Lindash. We should be talking
about the easiest (or most Windows-like) distro, not Linux. Slackware is not
Xandros, and never will be. Should Slackware be made easier for Windows
users? Don't know. I like it the way it is, though. Should Lycoris or Lindash
move away from Windows look-alikes? Don't know. Don't like them anyway. When
I want to use Windows, I boot my Windows partition.

Back to the original question, slightly reprased. Yes, Paul, there should be
a Linux distribution that makes it mind-numbingly simple for a Windows user
to migrate to Linux. It should install like Knoppix, but onto your hard drive.
It should boot straight away into KDE or Gnome (with a My Computer icon,
unless MS has patented the idea). It should have a Control Panel that let's
me install new hardware. It should have a wizard for connecting to the 'net.
It should have a repository of freely available applications that install
when I double-click on them. And, it should have all the other neat things
that Windows has. Will I use it. No. I don't need it. But, I need all those
Windows users to migrate. When enough of them do, I can buy that bleeding-
edge graphics card my neighbor has and there will be a driver that takes
advantage of every feature it has. That will be a good thing. Corel will
port a newer version of a native Linux WordPerfect Office, instead of v8.
Acrobat will make v6 of the reader available for Linux and quit using that
ugly Motif library. It will be a good thing not to be a second-class citizen
using hand-me-downs. Until then, I'll continue to boot into Windows on
occasion to use my purchased copy of WordPerfect Office 2000 and Forte Agent.

My background. My first computer was an IBM System 360 (well, it actually
belonged to the university, but I got all the time I wanted on it, being the
night-shift operator). It had a whopping 16K RAM (known as core back then),
along with keypunch machines, a card reader and line printer. It took up
three whole rooms. I've since used a PDP-7, a VAX, a Wang VX, Sinclair's
ZX-81 (with 2K RAM -- Timex only had 1K), Apple ][ and ][+, Commodore VIC-20,
C-64, Atari 1040ST, IBM PS\1 4MB, custom-built Cyrix P133+ system with 16MB,
Compaq Celeron 500MHz with 128MB, and my current Compaq Deskpro EN. The C-64
was the most fun of them all. I think it was the last computer I really
completely understood. There were a bunch of others, too. PC-XT, PC-AT,
Compupro, Altair, Imsai, Packard-Bell (yechh). But, they've all been fun.

Soon, I'll buy Slackware 10. 9.1 is getting old in the tooth. Think I'll
subscribe this time and save $15. By the way, this was composed in vi and
pasted to the quick reply box. Damn! How I've rambled on. My apologies.

man I like it. In the last few weeks I have changed distros, recompiled kernels, installed software at the command from tarballs (I'm a newbie by the way so this is all an achivement) and I have come to the conclsion that it is good that linux, albeit a bit daunting for new people, is as it is. In fact with less than a few months of xperience I am finding slackware (I belive a traditionaly "techie" distro) absolutly brillient and not at all hard to use.

As for your points about hardware I echo your sentiments, we as linux users should not have to worry about drivers and the manufactures should be relesing them as they do windoze ones IMHO. I say this because to the best of my knowlage more and more people are turning from windows (mmm maybe we don't all like being patronised and can read a few insructions) so the community of non technicly minded users should be catered for. I plan to email companies that don't just cos I'm feeling that way out

As a closing point though, that "new and easy" version of linux could be a good idea as when enough windoze users start getting to use it they might want to find out more the way it works and then we get a whole software revolution with the people in control of it all just like microsoft seems to be now,

well at least I can dream

Paul Parr's comments of post#1 are so true. In fact I too was thinking exactly what he wrote.

I am a computer engineer historically and have come through the whole DEC, Prime, Unix, Windows many flavours (now Win2000 Pro) and I too think that the whole process of installing linux for newbies should be based on what you want to do. It should be out of the box install so that you can use it immediately.

A prime example is connecting to the internet which nowadays most people with a computer want to do and yet in Linux you have to do so much fiddling.

I am saying this because I am a computer literate person who finds that Linux is too techy.

Remembering Command line stuff really is for old systems that only had that way of doing things. Like old Unix. DOS etc.. but it meant you had to wander round with all that stuff in your head.

Once again I agree with Paul Parrs comments wholeheartedly.

Try redhat ws I can guarantee you " NO FIDDLING " you of cause need a connect telephone number user name & password for normal and cut the volume if ISDN and that is IT, so in Windows would know your user name and connect number ?
for ADSL it finds the modem no driver needed, all you need again is you user name and password.

Thanks for that Awtoc.

I actually have installed Mandrake 10 as a dual boot to Win2k.

I really do think that if all Linux distros took the approach of out of the box internet connection for newbies then they would be really on the way to expanding their user base.

This thread is awesome. So many people in here saying that they have been sys-admins for many years. Yet they are having such a hard time with linux. How can that be?

I've had computers most of my life, since about the 3rd grade and I'm 31 now, but when I was a kid I just played with them. Games, simple programming just for fun but nothing major. I've only been a sys-admin for about a year, if you only count the time since I finished school. I worked with computers in the military in communications and have voice and data experience there. If you count the time I spent doing admin work without a degree then it's about 10 years.

My point is that I'm knowledgeable when it comes to computers but there are so many people who can run circles around me it's not funny. How can a linux setup be so hard for someone with so much experience? I have a 10 year old son who can setup linux and get it running, why can't a 10-15 year experienced sys-admin do the same job. If they have been "working" in the field for that long they should know a thing or two. I say "working" because I deal with self-professed "sys-admins" on my job who cannot find their IP address on their M$ computer when asked what it is currently.

My son reads the docs and asks questions when he has them. The ONLY ways I can see that it is so hard is that they have no idea what they are doing, they have no real knowledge of a computer and are just guessing during the install, a.k.a. not really being a sys-admin other than in title, they don't put forth any real effort to solve a problem becuase they are used to M$ making all their decisions for them, or they don't even bother to read any info about what they are trying to accomplish.

Linux isn't for the techno-geeks, it's for someone with an open mind and who wants to learn. It's not an "insert disc and you're done OS" like M$. You have to think a little and give a little effort. Linux may not have a nice GUI setup that just asks your timezone and registration code, this is where having some knowledge and asking some questions can help. Not to mention the ability to use a search engine and read. I realize that these may seem to be super-human abilities to some of these people who are having such a hard time, but I'm sure they have these abilities as well, they just need to tap them.

Some ditros do suffer from dependancy hell, I've been there and it can be frustrating but there are some that don't have that trouble so much. That can make an experienced user angry but for a noob it can literally be hell. I used Redhat and Slackware for a long time, back to Slack 3 for me, but now I use Debian and find that apt-get solves problems and saves time so much that I only use it now.

What is seems to boil down to is people are so used to M$ that when they put in a Linux disc and a hand doesn't pop out of the screen for them to hold they get frustrated. They want to use Linux by employing their existing microsoft knowledge, which can't be done. You need Linux knowledge to use Linux. Linux and M$ are only the same in that they are both operating systems. The linux GUIs look similar to the M$ GUI which seems to fool some people into thinking that since they can run windows they can run linux just like that, nothing to learn, nothing to read, just put in the disc and use it based on what they know about M$ products.

When these "sys-admins" started with windows I bet they learned things when using it. They read some info, tried it, failed, tried it again and again and again. Now they are proficient with windows and expect to use Linux without going through a similar process of LEARNING. It doesn't take expertise with Linux to use it, just some effort which I honestly believe they are not giving. A little effort, a little reading, and a little trial and error and they can get Linux installed and running easily. They just need to try a different approach or actually try, which I think is more likely the case. I have no sympathy for someone who doesn't give the effort and just expects something to be handed to them.

Linux isn't a cryptic ancient language that needs deciphered. It's a rather straight forward and easy to use OS, once you learn something about it beside its name. Setting up linux can be tough if you don't know just a little about what you are trying to do. There is so much documentation and so many people who are willing to help when you just ask, that ignorance and lack of learning opportunity cannot be an excuse for failure. I honestly believe that just a little real and true effort and you can use Linux. It's not a secret how it works, you just need to know a little about it. If you are not willing to think and learn then Linux is the wrong place for you to be looking for answers.

Bottom line, Linux doesn't need to be made easier for people to use. People need to stop being lazy and give some effort. They need to stop being ignorant and be educated. Then Linux will be easier for them to use. Don't dumb down a good thing so that everyone can use Linux, raise those people up so they can use Linux!

windows causes stupidity? I'm starting to think this may be a point.

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd...winstupid1.php

Linux seems to be easy enough for my 11 year old daughter who uses nothing else. The other kids also seem to have a grip on it. It just requires you to get out of the rut...

Amen..

Very very well said muxman I have said this all along " Linux is not a copy of Windows " and therefore it is a different approch, and if someone have been a sys admin for some time then what is the problem ? I bet a good NT4 sys admin would have no problem with Linux, of cause if you came from Windows 98 which is nothing short of a TV game then you would have problems, but then which serious company would even think about Win98 ?
Here we are talking Windows advanced servers, and if you can handle that then you can handle Linux, if not go back and get your school money back.

HI everyone. I'm new(ish) to the forum.

I must admit I only read 2 pages of this string, but I felt the need to reply at this point.

I wanted to address the "ease" of windows. Over the past 10 or so years, I , too have become very proficient with nt windows. Even made some money networking, etc. ..and of course helped countless friends and family set up and configure their boxes...and yes, fixed (tried to teach -- they weren't innerested , and I was teacher!) their problems.

ON addressing the ease of windows, I say no way. There are countless appys that will immediately break your windows. DLL misuse, conflict and the like are rampant. There are proggys that blatyantly steal your soul and deliver it up to their maker (or a marketer). There is profound glitz that causes problems continually, and I can't run DOS to fix my problems -- it doesn't see ntfs.

Sure, it's pretty easy to install windows -- and mandrake, and fedora/redhat, and suse...but once your up and running in windows - that's when all the problems start. First of all -- you connect to the net - your privacy is gone. Your ports are being assailed and windows and some appys call home .. check for yourself, use your firewall or run: cmd, then type netstat -an, and some other strings. See what's connected and/or listening. That is a problem.

As well - you MUST update windows as soon as you are running it -- simply to protect yourself. And you must close certain services (server for one if you are running a stand-alone internet box, and those remote services -- WTF? Windows requires just as much diligence as linux.

Sure, I had to update MDK 10 as well, there were bugs to contend with and security fixes -- none that affected me except for the shorewall firewall. Whan I updated it, I lost networking - fixed, but the casual user would've been lost. The second time, I only accepted the new file of the third choice --(shorewall wanted to update 3 files) then I was just about stealth at grc, and I was gold at pcflank. Prior to the update of shorewall, I failed grc miserable. Following the update, only port 113 was "closed". There is no need for port 113, but it doesn't cause me to worry. Not in linux. It's just my verizon isp anyway -- using ident to check me out.

Anyway (excuse the stream-of-consciousness) on to the desktop. It took me a few minutes to figure out how to get to all the settings I wanted to see. But it took just as long in winxp (98, 98SE, 2k) for the same task. I am a complete noob to linux. (sorta -- if you look closely win2k is very reminiscent of *nix -- I noticed it right away - I did mess with caldera a few years ago.)

I think the biggest detriment (while being a big plus at the same time) is the differences in similar software for each platform. Installation aside, the appys for linux are different. Html editors, mail proggys, ftp, and some others I noticed. But sometimes I love the differences.

I have installed mandrake 10 times during the past 2 weeks. I love it. I put wine on to see if I could run thebat (MG -- what and amazing email proggy). I could, but I couldn't send email, only receive.

No biggie. Well, yeah -- I am kinda forced to run kmail (KDE) or Evolution (gnome). Both ok...not what I wanted. But this is because I am lazy, or because I can't totally ignore my 2 children all day!. THere are other email proggys for linux that are no doubt excellent proggys.

My big point here is that, in my opinion, mandrake 10.0 is just as easy, if not easier than windows xp. I remember when I started running win95 --wha? SOme of the messages and linstructions were very confusing. but then again caldera 2.2 was just as bad.


Yeah - I like easy now -- but I don't like when windows doesn't show me or allow me to see what is going on. I have a complete mis-trust for windows and I don't like when a fancy GUI does something for me. I don't like havving to run port scanners and proggys like ethereal, or popping my firewall to see what's trying to escape. I don't like when system modifications are done for me. ..and I don't l;ike that I have to shut down auto update and the like. And registering my software. Please -- what for. Scotts doesn't ask me how many sheets I use to cleanse my arse -- My maxima doesn't phone home to nissan and report the gas I use.

I actually paid for win2k. I loved it and resisted updating to xp untin early '04. Activation? YHGTBKM! Activate this -- here you go microsoft - chew on this.

A few years ago I worked for a VAR. No wonder microsoft has so much money -- they FORCE you to upgrade, and keep paying. They charged $250 per phone call to tech support and it was their software that was fubared.

Man, now I am getting into the ms bashing mode and that was not my intention. Nor was it my intention to bore you with so long a post...

I have noticed that linux (mdk 10) does take some getting used to but compared to win3.1 when I was a complete rookie to computing - it's as easy as falling asleep.

machiner

@muxman, my gripe is more that the current usability of linux has some shortcommings that make poor use of a users time. This is true when abstractly analyzing the usability of Linux and the current available DEs or when comparing them to some other operating systems such as BeOS, MacOS, or Windows.

Also to everybody who keeps on bringing up the "Linux is different" argument as an excuse to why it's difficult for a windows user to use, if you read my many previous posts you would see how that doesn't apply to all situations which people have problems with. In many cases it's not a matter of Linux being different but instead not being able accomplish something as efficiently or at all when compared to other OSes. Before you start foaming at the mouth and typing up a long flame, I need to make the point that I really like Linux and endorse it and I have no problem admitting that some aspects are beyond other operating systems but that doesen't mean that I ignore the shortcommings.