The real differences between using Windows and using Linux...
 

Every few days or so, it seems that some lunatic "tired of Windows" (i.e., has been using Windows for years) tries out a Linux distro or two, then decides 1. Linux isn't ready for "normal" users because it doesn't do things the "Windows way" and 2. Nobody in Linux has ever heard arguments about this before so the community must be "enlightened" as to what will make Linux gain wider acceptance amongst Windows veterans (a.k.a. "Joe Sixpack," "Grandma," "the average user").

What I find most amusing about these rants--whether they're on a Mozilla developer's blog, a Linux forum, or some "news" article--is that they are usually written by people who are anything but "the average user." Most "average" users I know don't:

1. install software or software updates, let alone obscure software that doesn't exist in standard repositories
2. play computer games
3. know how to maintain or install a Windows computer or any computer, for that matter
4. understand what an operating system is
5. use advanced features in Microsoft Office

I'm probably going to open up another can of worms, but I'm going to talk about my actual using experience--I'm not talking about installation and set-up (though, now that I know more about Linux, having used it for a few months, it's not that big a deal any more); I'm talking about use.

When I use Linux, I love that I've customized little keyboard shortcuts for my favorite applications. For example, control-alt-r opens Rhythmbox, control-alt-s opens Synaptic Package Manager, control-alt-o opens Opera, control-alt-t opens a terminal console. I tried to do this in Windows (there seems to be a place you can do this in XP by right-clicking quicklaunchers and going to properties, but when I actually try to use the keyboard shortcut, it doesn't work).

Even though I love iTunes, in Gnome, I was able to easily customize my keyboard to navigate through my song library without having to click on anything, so I can browse the web and check email while navigating songs. Also, the title of the song and the artist name will appear in the minimized window of Rhythmbox. That said, I do love iTunes, and it's the only reason I keep XP around. iTunes is just all-around good--it looks nice, it rips CDs, it organizes, it does smart playlists, it can burn playlists as MP3 CDs or regular audio CDs, it easily shares music with other iTunes open on a network... I could go on and on. I've ditched my iPod, but I still love iTunes. Rhythmbox has its own great features... I'm kind of torn right now on whether I like the library system or the location system. On the one hand, the library system is better because I don't have to refresh my library every time I open iTunes. Since my library is quite large, the refreshing slows down the startup and usability of Rhythmbox considerably. On the other hand, if I accidentally delete some songs from the iTunes library (not the actual song files themselves, but their library entries), I have no record that they're there--if they're in my music folder, they should be in the library, shouldn't they?

Well, I'm torn on that one.

I hate the Windows icons. I tried using Windowblinds for a while, but the nagware was unbearable, and I'm too much of a cheapskate to pay for Windowblinds. And gnome-look and kde-look have some excellent stuff, especially for a Mac-phile. There are all sorts of great aqua themes. I do a weird kind of aqua/Tux/Think Linux blend for my themes, splashes, and wallpapers. Customizing the look of Linux is the most fun part of using Linux. Even though I have some fun using my wife's Powerbook, Mac OS X's lack of easy customization is a downer, for sure. And Windows isn't a whole lot better in that respect.

In both Windows and KDE, I've noticed apps hanging sometimes. Gnome doesn't really seem to have that problem. I have noticed, though, that when I'm typing in gedit, sometimes the letters have a slight delay before appearing.

Overall, though, I can't say my day-to-day computing experience is that different--and I think I'm fairly impartial, as I use XP at work and Ubuntu at home. Every day I'm using both systems. Every day I use Firefox and Thunderbird on both systems. At least a couple of times a week, I listen to music on both systems.

I really don't understand why people get so frustrated with Linux apart from installing it. I mean, I click on the Firefox icon, and it opens Firefox. I use Firefox. Honestly, this is what real average users do. They aren't messing around with complicated graphics programs or financial software. They aren't using visual basic or whatever. They type an email. They go to a website. They maybe type a document in a word processor. Maybe they look at a picture or listen to some music. That's it.

I've found all of these activities to be a cinch in Linux.

But the part about installing it... well, it's just like installing Windows--very easy when done for you, difficult to do yourself.

Okay. I'm done ranting...

Actually, installing Linux is EASIER in some ways. It comes with more built-in driver support than Windows does and that's a fact. Installing Knoppix, MEPIS, Xandros, Ubuntu, or even Fedora can be quite a cinch, since their installers are as good at explaining every step as the Windows installer is. And most of them have an auto-partition option, something the Windows installer does NOT have!

And don't get me started about needing to press a function key and provide a driver disk. ;)

aysiu--Many points well made. I want to add just a quick point that for most Linux distros, the cost is $0. Virus protection/firewall protection/etc cost in Linux $0. Software investment cost $0. I can only thank the developers of all the Distributions a huge thank you for providing an outstanding means for me to function professionally and personally.

Additionally, I can become part of a community of people and have a great time learning something I never would have become involved in if my Windows system had not been infected with spyware and crashed.

Yes, excellent points. I don't want to say Linux is always easy to install for everyone on every computer. For me, it was easy. Honestly, for most distros, I just popped in the CD, answered a few questions, and everything worked. Ubuntu had the screen resolution off, but that was an easy fix.

I won't vouch for an easy install for everyone, though--just as I wouldn't for an easy Windows install (sometimes Windows is easy to install; other times, it isn't).

And, yes, the free software is great. Gnomebaker is something I'd have to pay for in Windows, believe it or not (Nero/Easy CD Creator).

aysiu--I agree with you on installs. I'm no computer geek--just a sales/marketing guy. I have successfully installed Fedora Core 3,4; SuSE 9.3 Pro; Slackware; Ubuntu/Kubuntu; Mepis. As you indicated, a few screen resolution issues but for the most part follow the instructions and read first and things have gone fairly smoothly. I've finally settled on SuSE 9.3 Pro for my life and Fedora Core 4 is so nice, which I'm using more and more.

However, I too am not a programmer and I'm sure don't even touch the abilities of these systems. But it all works, email, graphics, web pages, office suite (wp/spreadsheets), calendar, planning, multimedia. I can do it all. I do enjoy Real Rhapsody and Hallmark Card Studio 2005 in Windows however.

Also, XP took me over two hours to install and install just the basic programs, whereas Mepis does it in less than 20min. and comes with all the software pre-installed.

Likewise. I've had two memorable experiences of installing Windows in the past year and a half. One was trying to reinstall Windows on a Dell laptop infested with spyware. The other was trying to upgrade a computer at my parents' house from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. In both cases, I ran into many of the same problems that some of the more frustrated new Linux users (i.e., no one in this thread so far) encounter.

When Dell shipped our laptop, we got three CDs: Windows XP, Drivers & Utilities, and InterVideo WinDVD.

When I tried to reinstall Windows, I couldn't find the last two, only the Windows XP CD. Needless to say, it was a painful installation. No sound card driver. No video card driver. No codecs for playing DVDs. Also, I had to dig around to find our copy of MS Office, too. Basically, it was a nigh-useless operating system, apart from using MS Paint and Firefox.

Eventually I did find those other two CDs, but Linux usually doesn't come with those CDs because the manufacturer doesn't usually give you Linux preinstalled.

The other recent Windows installation was worse.

I was at my parents' for Christmas, and they had an old Windows 98 computer. I wanted to upgrade it to at least 2000 (I prefer XP, actually). I also wanted to make it one partition again because my dad had chopped it up into about five different drives (C:, D:, E:, F:, G:). So I thought repartitioning would be part of the Windows 2000 installation process, but it wasn't, for some reason. I also thought if I could boot into DOS maybe I could do an fdisk. No go on that. In fact, I didn't even know how to boot into DOS, and if you use DOS from a "run" command, you can't fdisk, either. So, my dad had to dig up some partitioning software that was not intuitive at all. In fact, it was like some kind of fix-disk software; it wasn't even made for partitioning, really. Then, the Windows 2000 CD (my dad pirates--it's true) didn't have an activation key. So I had to bother my dad to try to dig it up. Eventually got that. Then, the sound didn't work, and the screen resolution was huge. I tried to find a driver for the video card, but I couldn't find one for hours--either in our home or on the internet.

Eventually, after about five hours (no kidding), we got Windows 2000 working on that PC.

All I can say is that I'm tired of people complaining that Linux is too difficult to install.

The point of the thread, really, though, is that once installed, Linux isn't that difficult to use. It's usually a point-and-click environment, which most users are used to.

AMEN to that
just finished reinstalling win 2000 pro for my wifes computer
it didn't recognise and of the pci slots so after initial install i had to open the box up and change all the pci cards around so i could finish and install drivers -- (real easy !)
never did get it setup so things work as regular user had to settle for all Adminitstator all the time
no other choice.
there was a folder named "All Users" that was not available to any regular users by default ! but changing that didn't fix all the problems. When i was done i had had to reoot the machine like 1500 times.

Majoring in Computer Engineering and having worked as a Computer Technician, I would say that I am a few steps beyond the average user. However, as a technician I noticed that what I considered to be things that the "average user" would know were totally wrong. As aysiu says, the "average user" really does only browse the web, chat, e-mail, and create documents. These are things that Linux (and virtually any OS for that matter) can do easily.

It is true that most of the frustration that people have when switching Linux is the installation, or the fact that a particular application does not work. Or that it does not have a port of a certain Windows app. Eventually I come to realize that that person doesn't want Linux, they want Windows without whatever problem they were having with it (viruses, spyware, etc.). The average computer user has been coerced into believing that they need to be hand-holded through anything other than the most basic of computer operations. Many are either too afraid of screwing up or (more likely) too impatient to configure or repair anything themselves. When it comes to computers, they expect everything to "just work", no matter the OS, and are shocked to find that installing Linux to their specifications (ie. "like Windows") is going to take a little work.

However, I don't (completely) blame the average user. I have no idea how to repair my car, and when I go to purchase a new one, I too expect it to "just work". However if someone GAVE me a car, saying that if I take the time to replace a few parts I could have a really nice vehicle, I personally would be willing to make the initial sacrifices. Simply put, the average user is ignorant about their computer (just as I am ignorant about my car), and refuse to change that, which I believe is the real reason why they get frustrated with Linux. Microsoft has made it so that people need not know anything about what they are buying: Windows comes prepackaged on the computer, Microsoft provides (some kind of) support, and they can take it to the local technician if they have to. People are comfortable with Windows, whether they love it or hate it.

I apologize for my (first) rant, and hope that I did not offend anyone.

Meh. Rant away! :)

Dudes (and dudettes) - win vs lin and lin vs win threads all go in the General forum. Where you will find this thread.

RE
 

geez it took me 35 minutes to install XP Pro and 30 minutes to install Slackware but 2 hours to install Fedora.

Great thing about Linux though is I dont have to worry about socket errors arising from spyware, programs encountering problems and needing to close, making sure the first thing I do is have all my updates, etc etc, but I have had programs freeze up on me. MEPIS kept freezing on me till I unistalled it and installed Slackware.

Well, aysiu I do agree on your thoughts, specially when you describe what an "average user" do with a computer: very simple tasks. The funny thing is that they even don't know how to set up a computer for those tasks (dial-up configuration, installing "appropriately" a program downloaded from the Internet, etc) so they end up calling somebody to help them. It's amazing how gullible these people are about computers and Internet. I guess that's one reason why Windows has such popularity, they don't even care what a operating system does, "plug and play" that's what they want, the easy way...
Time to share an experience, my brother bought recently a Toshiba Satellite laptop, of course it has preinstalled Windows XP Home Edition, but what really troubles me is that it had an sticker that said something like "This computer is designed to work properly with Windows XP", when I hint my brother for the possibility of installing Linux, that's what he pointed at..... I don't think that is correct not say fair, anyway I will install Linux in a near future (just waiting that it gets infected with virus and spy ware) ...

aysiu, that was a very good article.

I wonder what is the reasons that prevents Linux users to see the obvious?

I am not a "average user", on the contrary a seasoned computer consultant since more that 15 years and a damn good one too if I may say so. (in the top 2%!).

Configuration issues takes time from the real work! Do you not understand that most consultans have enogh to do with dozen of heavy enterprise products like Exchange 2003, Microsoft CRM, SQL Server, Indigo, .NET etc etc, (or the eqvivalent in Unix)? Do you think I want to waist my time keybord map every new stupid program that pops up?

Stop talking of Liunx users vs "ordinary users". Most Unix "hackers" I know know nothing about real enterprise software but spend endless time with configuration files finetuning their systems of which they are very proud, regarding themself "professionals".

Do you think a world class concert pianist wants to know how to tune the piano? Even a run-of-the mill windows powersuser (of which there are millions) makes more money for his company than the average Linux hacker.

Please, spare me..

Completely agreed. It's really very sad how gullible some are, and to realize that all the "specially made for Windows" is just marketing garbage. Anybody who does not see monopoly-like behavior here must be blind.

I have to agree about the average user bit!

I had always used windows, and as pointed out, I'm totally a hacker when it comes to messing arond with computers, but I've found it a good way of learning. About two years ago I switched to linux, mainly beacuse my computer was old and really struggled to run XP, and linux was free. Took me ages to make the change properly. Now at work I use applications that run on xp but everything else is restricted. (i don't work for IT). Now when I go to help a friend out with a problem in XP I find it very hard to remember how to do things, on linux (mandriva 2006) I'm completly comftable. What I'm getting at is windows is no more intuative, its jsut we all know how to use it, as now we people here know how to use linux, it's easy and just as intuative.

That said one thing I think makes linux harder is the names given to applications, they are very hard to work out what they do. I.e. vi, kate, both text editors, would never of guessed by the name. Notepad, I'd have a stab in th dark. K3B nero... hummm popularity contest. Media player, amarok, xmms, winamp... again I think i would guess what wthe windows apps were for just by the name. Internet explorer, konqueror ... the list goes on, but once you know what they do, there just as good, somethimes better some times not so good.

Thats all for now.

sorry forgot to mention the best example, paintshop and the gimp!

If I didn't know better what the gimp was I'd assume it had something to do with a guy in a black leather mask and chains.... I've said too much....

What's that got to do with the difference between Windows and Linux?

Names of programs are entirely the choice of whoever produces that program, nothing to do with Windows or Linux.

I agree with you and the OP mostly, except for this one point. When attempting to play encrypted DVDs, MP3 music and/or WMV (and other proprietary) format video, Linux may become a huge headache for the "average" user.

I don't know how other distros work, but for Fedora Core, you have to refer to an online FAQ site or form (or maybe read the release notes!) to install the necessary components to play MP3 music. The same goes for WMV. Windows XP (and 2000 too, IIRC) has these features built in.

That's no big deal for those who know what they're doing, but if we talk about the "average user" acceptance into the Linux world, it's something that needs to be addressed. Just my opinion.

A seasoned computer consultant who is in the top 2% has time to resurect old posts with a troll reply but not to "waist" time configuring his computer admits he does not know anyone involved in developing the Linux kernel, developing drivers, or working on software projects.
I find your opinion very impressive.

I too get tired of the "Linux is not ready for the desktop" posts. But you have to admit, in some ways it is very true; Linux could not be used properly by the kind of person who goes to PC world and buys boxed software thinking this is the main way of getting software to use (which is a LOT of computer users), because there is little to no boxed software for linux available in PC world-like shops. Also, if they do find boxed software for linux, chances are it's not going to be as easy as putting the CD in the drive, clicking through an installer and then using the software.

Tell me what you like, but Linux is mostly only used by people who are fairly competent with computers and there's a reason for this. Yes, I know that some people's wives and children here are using Linux, but that's because you did all the hard work of setting things up for them.

There's a fine line between articles billed as "My bad experience with Linux" and articles which generalize said experience to "Linux is not suitable for the average user". I don't mind reading the first type of article, because there is something to learn and understand, but I try to avoid the second, for reasons already posted by others.

So, having read through the "rant" and responses in this thread, I'm thinking to myself: Who should we blame and/or belittle? Is it
(A) the "average users" for their ignorance/intransigence,
(B) the supposedly well-intentioned authors of "Linux is not ready for the desktop" articles, or
(C) Microsoft and their cronies for anti-competitive and deceptive practices?

I submit the answer is (D) none of the above. In brief:
(A) There are many reasons, other than cost and performance, for "choosing" Windows over other systems; these include a number of psychological factors. As a poor analogy, I would be wasting my breath telling a keen NHL fan that the English Premier League is better viewing, and there'd be no point in blaming or belittling him either.
(B) and (C) just aren't going to change what they're doing, no matter how loudly we complain. So long as their activities are (arguably) ethical/legal, then it is not for us to say that they mustn't advocate for Windows over Linux, even though such advocacy is usually poorly justified.

So who's to blame? As unpopular as this will sound: us, the Linux-using community. Even though we may be doing a pretty good job spreading the word and helping out newbies (and I still consider myself one, by the way), we need to keep on doing this and do it better. This is the only aspect truly within our control. Perhaps this is an overly pacifist and introspective philosophy, but ultimately, if you care about effort producing results, it is the only sensible approach.

And honestly enough, I don't care. I apologize if I sound rude and harsh, but I really don't. If you are this type of user, then Linux is not for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Our goal is not to get everybody to use Linux. I'm not the Billy Graham of operating systems and I don't want to think like an evangelist. It's an operating system. Some things just are not for certain people. I don't like certain breeds of dog. I'm not going to recommend a Poodle to everybody even though they may be my favorite type of dog because I realize that they simply are not right for everybody. Manual transmissions are better for cars in the long term but I'm not going to recommend them to everybody because I realize that some people who do not have cars as their main hobby and are not interested in how they work will have trouble with them.Why can't we all just respect the fact that we all have different tastes and likes? Why can't we just respect the fact that we all find different things easier to use than others?

Very, very well said.

I find it interesting that many people here seem to assume that it's our mission to spread Linux to the mass market. I personally don't think it is. Suffice it to say that there's always a group of people who find Linux to be useful; those who use it, work on it, and improve it. That's where the bazaar-style software development prevails. :)

Eric S. Raymond has some very good points:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/ta...ml#nt_contrast

We should compile all the technical reasons in a real "get the facts" page comparing Windows vs Unix/Linux.

Thanks for the quote. For those interested, the information provided by the link is part of Eric's book called "The Art of UNIX Programming" (ISBN 0-13-142901-9).

yeah, that pretty much summarizes my opinion on that as well...

Quite bold words from someone who has never posted anything here before... :rolleyes: "Top two percent." Wow. Of what? Of the "millions of run-of-the-mill Windows power-users?"

...
I confess to be less than impressed with your credentials. :D

The essential points that seem to be made here are valid:

• Linux is regarded by some as "difficult to install."
• But, Windows is sometimes very difficult to install too, and...
• Most importantly, Windows normally comes pre-installed. So, many Windows users have never had to install an operating system on anything.

I will be very quick to confess that Linux was a mind-blowing experience for me, and I've been working with computers professionally for about twenty years. I thought that I knew a lot of different things, and in fact I do, but the process of figuring out how to set up Linux just the way I wanted it on a new machine was extremely daunting... at first I grabbed a distro, updated its packages, and was afraid to touch anything. (I did that for a year, until the updates subscription ran out and they wanted more than $100 to renew it. Instead, I said to myself, "it's time you learn this.") And so I compromised: I took a spare machine and decided to blow it up. :) Did so several times.

But you know, that's not how I feel about my car. When it comes right down to it, I want to get into my car and drive it and I don't want it to break down and I don't want to fix it if it does. And maybe lots of people feel the same way about their computers.

One thing that I can also see from this and from similar threads is that, all things considered, the distro-makers and the hardware engineers and Microsoft Corporation are, generally, doing a very good job. Lots and lots of people who don't know beans about how their computers work, and don't want to, are nonetheless able to use their computers to do whatever it is that they do. Maybe, instead of hammering one OS against the other, we should acknowledge that the whole process is quite complex and that an awful lot of people out there have mastered the art of making it all look easy.

I don't know how my car works, and I can't repair it.

But I also don't know how my computer works, and I can't repair it.

Sure, I can replace a light bulb in the back of my car, just as I can replace a failed hard drive.

But I would never build a computer from scratch any more than I would change the timing belt on my car.

I know how to use my computer, and I know how to drive my car. Troubleshooting and best practice are good things to learn for both. Knowing not to pull out a USB key before you unmount (or "safely remove" or "eject") it is like knowing not to let up the clutch while you're parked but in first gear. Knowing not to click on links in emails "from" banks and eBay is like knowing not to drive when your oil tank is empty.

People may not be able to change their own oil, but they should know when their oil needs to be changed. Likewise, identifying security issues, malicious software, maintenance for your computer, etc. is all part of being a conscientious computer user, just as locking your car, using a seat belt, not talking on the cell phone are all part of being a conscientious driver.

Installing an operating system is not the same at all as repairing a car. We're talking hardware and software--two very different things. I wouldn't even be able to tell you the first thing about putting a computer together, but I can handle most Linux problems when they come up.

Time for me to bring my rant to the table.

Being a self-employed repair technician, I have to both agree and disagree with the majority of you.

Personally, I think that the main reason(s) why Windows is such a popular operating system is that "everybody" uses it, and the software availability.
I submit that if you had a person that had never been exposed to a computer (a virtual impossibility in this society), they would have an equally tough time with a user-friendly Linux distro or Windows XP. The reason why people insist on Windows is because everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, is familiar to it. It's a whole lot easier to "go with the flow" than try something new. People are resistant to change. That's the big thing holding Linux back.
Also, once you have a linux machine, getting the software you want can be a little frustrating. Sure, there's plenty of open-source stuff out there, but most users (in my opinion) would rather walk into Staples or Best Buy and pick up whatever they're looking for rather than google it and fight with the source code or even the binaries.

On the other hand, and this being the main point of this rant, I don't think that the unaligned masses should be using Windows. (Despite the fact that I am an offical Microsoft Beta tester. Don't tell Bill.)
When someone asks me for a suggestion of what to get, I point them at the Apple website. Not because I am obsessed with Macs, but because I truly believe that it is the perfect beginner system. (No offense to the hardcore Mac users, I'm one of them.) It's almost impossible to break, and installation (both of the OS and software) is the easiest I've ever seen. "Drag and Drop" the program and you're ready to go.

Start with Macs, not Windows. If you want a learning experience, then go to Linux. (Or just work in the command line of your Mac. Oh, how I miss pure command-line OSes.)

And that is my rant for the day.

.

Good points there.
I essentially agree. If you think about it, those basics of computing that you mentioned are just as important as knowing how to drive a car, given how much money institutions have lost over people who haven't the slightest clue as to what they are doing spreading virii and spyware around.
At least, that's how I view it.

I mostly agree, except that people don't so much "insist on Windows" as "only know Windows." Most "average" users do not even realize that there are other "operating systems" than Windows. And that does hold back the Linux OS.

Excellent point. :)

Speaking from a variety of soapboxes:
1. Installing windows XP was the most tedious, boring, and LONG install of my life on my very impressive machine. It took 4 hours to install on a machine with 2 gigs of ram, 2.4GHZ dual core processor and 70GB partition.
It took 15 mins to download, install, and have fun with Debian AMD64.
Then I got ticked, installed gentoo, and it took 2 days--but was neither tedious or boring.

2. As a person who fixes peoples computers in his spare time, uses windows and gentoo on the same box, and has significant windows and linux experience: Problems are easier to diagnose, solve, and fix on Linux then it is on windows.
In fact, windows seems to go out of its way to make itself obscure. The error report windows makes not attempt to tell you what the error is, besides a hex number or to say fatal exception or something. The system event log is a load of crap--even once you figure out how to access it. Finally the biggest peeve I have with the OS is WHY IS THE REGRISTRY SO INSCRUTABLE? I think developers like it because it is a place to hide stuff they don't want you to know about. I have disabled the nagware on so many things just by changing a FALSE entry to TRUE it would make your head spin.
In Windows' defence, most problems are self-inflicted by bone-headed users who should know that opening email attachments without at least a cursory virus scan is asking for it--i have very few problems iwth my XP installation, besides the fact that I ahve to reboot every two days or performace goes to pot.

3. As a person who installs linux on old pc's and donates/sells them to people who want a good computer cheap, once they get over the hurdle of ITS NOT WINDOWS they LOVE it. This one guy actually made me very happy when he said that it took him less time to figure out how Ubuntu worked then it took him to figure out XP--and thats with the For Dummies book.

I like the huge amount of nice security related programs that linux have.

Just few weeks ago I was reading some forum where some windows user were saying how great Kerio personal firewall is.

he said:
Kerio is REALLY good, it has crashed only a few times and it slows down the internet but other than that it is really good .. Then he suggested to some other guy that he too should use Kerio and he was like, yea ok.

I was like wtf .. crashes and slowdowns .. really good

The biggest difference for me has been that I have started to expect that my software does not crash or slowdown my computer, with windows it was only matter of time when that started to happen.

Edit:
And I rather use snort inline with clamav preprocessor than Kerio :P

SuSe 9.2 + all have graphical installers. Never used any earlier. I have installed 98 once and 2kpro and XP countless times, and they all take hours and are very boring. It takes even longer to get all the required drivers and services packs, and then the reboots after you install nearly anything. the 'illegal operations' that happens??? What are They!?

Linux, easier to install, all the i have tried i have managed, exept for gentoo :( didnt spend much time or effort though.

And then once installed, speaking for Suse, It has far more software and system tools, and secruitry features. And it still has click on to open icons, and a very easy to navigate menu bar in either KDE or Gnome.

Then wine and cedega can run alot of the windows programmes that you need. then XGL on Xorg, or the trancparency in Xorg, makes it look as good as vista and better. And they can be installed with .rpms. Rpm's can be as easy to install as .exe's, so i dont see where anyone could say that Linux is harder to use than Windows. I have foun it easier and more enjoyable.

3years windows, 1year linux many flavours.

Thanks Ryan

I sitting at work. Not a lot to do. Read through this post and just had to throw in my experience.

I started using computers way back when I was, I think in Gr.3. We got a 486DX4-50MHZ, 4MB RAM, 512KB video card. It only had MS-DOS installed. I only used it for games, Prince of Persia, Rockfort, etc. I then started fiddeling around with Windows 3.1. Compared to Windows 95, Windows 3.1 sucked big time. So, I got my parents to call our technition and install Windows 95. This was a few years later. He also had to put in more memory. This was great, I can play all those nice games now. Later, I heard of overclocking. So obviously I melted the poor 486 into the motherboard. My parents got a new machine, 400MHZ Celeron and I got a Pentium 1. For the next few years I learned a lot. Upgrading my PC, installing Winndows, internet, etc. Somewhere during that time (Gr.7), I got a copy of Red Hat 8.0, if memory serves. Installed it, could'nt make head from tails. So, to hell with that. Learn by breaking! Later I bought a faster PC which could run Windows XP. Been using XP since it first came out.

It's simple to install.
Everything is fairly easy, because I've done it a million times. I have the DOS, Windows 98, etc background. Anything from VPN, connections to Mail Servers, even tried a bit of programming. Don't have the patience for that though. ;) So, about a year ago I installed Suse 9.2. I can't play games, can't watch movies. No go, XP is way easier, because I'm used to it, have known it for many years. For a few days I tried various distros. Fedora, Suse 10, Kubuntu, etc. Then I finally stumbled accross Ubuntu 5.10. Installed, put in a little more effort and I love it. Have learned a lot about Linux since then. Abviously I'm still a nooby, but I'm getting there slowly but shurely.

I think if you give someone a Linux PC, and that person havn't used Windows or anything else ever before (yes, those people exist), they will flourish. It's true, people find Linux intimidating, because they are used to the Microsoft way of thinking. My congrats to Microsoft for putting in such a huge effort to produce a well known, money making OS. Marketing, marketing and some more marketing! My congrats also to Linux for bringing us a free OS. Both OSes has their problems. Linux isn't Windows, that is the main thing, I think. I also think Linux is well on it's way on becoming a mainstream OS. Look at Suse 10.1. Excellent work! Easy for Windows users to migrate to. End users don't really care what OS they are using, as long as they can read/send email, look at photos, whatch videos, listen to music, type documents and play the occasional game. Most people I've spoken to don't even know what an operating system is! (I'm an technition in a PC shop) The only thing keeping me from wiping XP is game support.

Just my thoughts...