Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:18:24 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Mike A. Harris" <> | Subject | Re: Linux vs Microsoft |
| |
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Gerhard Mack wrote:
>> With all due respect, Mr. Cox, your "average user" definition does need an >> upgrade. >> >> Not all "average users" are nincompoops. I have seen many "average users" >> successfully installed Windoze 95 on their machine themselves. They are not >> "gurus" or "wizards" of any kind, and most of them don't know enough to code up >> a working C or even Visual-Basic program. >> >> Ask the same "average users" to install Linux however, and most will throw up >> their hands. >> >> The level of difficulty to install Windoze from scratch and that of installing >> Linux is _not_ the same. It _does_ require a higher level of computer literacy >> for a successful Linux installation (even with the RedHat's almost no-brain >> installation process.) >> > >Hmmm ever try to install windows on a PnP machine ?
Yes. Nowadays it is hard to not find a machine that is PnP running Windows - used by joe average.
I am certainly not joe average, but rather I'm quite technical by nature, and have had a lot of computer experience. I'm certainly not a "God" of sorts, but I have my strong points. I consider myself a professional in many aspects, and an expert in several areas.
As such, I feel that I should be as able to install Windows as I am to install Linux on a given machine. So far, in the last 2 months I've successfully installed Windows 95 on ONE machine that had PnP cards, etc.. I've installed Win95 on at least 15 or more other machines that had PnP cards that Windows did NOT set up properly. These cards were:
Crystal Audio PnP (Zoltrix) on SEVERAL machines. The result of which was I didn't get it running at ALL on ANY of the machines, my advice being to the customers to purchase a real Sound Blaster as I've NEVER had problems with any sound blaster products including PnP models. Some of my customers took their machines to other shops that also could not fix the problem. They *ALL* end up purchasing a SB or perfect clone of SB, which worked every time so far.
I installed a PCI NE2000 card (PnP) which windows REFUSED to detect properly and assign resources. When Windows was started up, it detected the card and attempted to install drivers WITHOUT ASKING PERMISSION IN ANY WAY. It just did it. The installation conflicted with something, but it didn't say what, and the IRQ's, etc.. were NOT in conflict with any existing devices. I read the explicit instructions for installing it, removed the device from device manager, did the mandatory reboot, and it reinstalled the driver. This repeated several times, until I finally tried NOT rebooting after removing the device. I had to screw around for 2 days to finally get it to work. I did not ever change the card's settings, and they WERE NEVER in conflict.
Another interesting thing is this: Go to practically ANY device in Device Manager in Windows 95, and click on Properties. 99% of all of the devices say "The device is working properly. This device has no driver loaded nor is one needed" or something to that effect. Well, if no driver is needed WHY THE F*CK DO I NEED TO INSTALL ONE THEN? And once I've installed one, WHY ISN'T IT NEEDED?
Clueless.
I could go on with Network card and Sound card PnP problems as well as Motherboard PnP probs, etc. but I'm sure you've seen your share as well. I just felt the need to share my troubles as well and get off some M$ steam.
As a side note, I test all PnP devices in a Linux machine that conflict in W95 or otherwise wont install correctly in W95. To date, *ALL* of them have worked very easily despite the fact that Linux is not PnP. I have not ever needed to use the isapnptools either. Very interesting indeed.
>Due to the number of cleanups and repairs I have done on windows boxes, I >would have to agree with Alan, the average user is not capable of >installing windows under anything but optimal conditions.
I agree wholeheartedly.
>(no more then 1 >PnP device) It's not that their stupid, it's just that the process looks >easy, when it's not. It's the same reason I dislike windows look-alike >bios interfaces, because once again it's deceptive, makes those hd setting >look like a toy. I preferred it when it looked hard because then the >users would at least ask first before playing with stuff. (saving me >plenty of time that would be wasted fixing it)
Yeah, I'd rather that the WinBIOS's used the addition ROM area for putting MEANINGFUL help on the help screens. Why putting help at all when it is obvious your options on a particular setting are "Enabled, Disabled". "This setting enables or diables Speculative R/W BCLK demultiplexing" is hardly "helpful" to someone wanting to know wether they should enable or disable it.
>On the other hand with Linux there is that constant line from MS that Unix >is hard to use and uses an obsolete text based interface etc etc. They >expect it to be hard therefore it is[1]. I've noticed consistent >improvements >from red hat for the install process, but I suspect they will actually have >to be *easier* then windows to install before people will actually believe >it's doable.
I agree. The major difficulty with joe user installing Linux is this:
1) Partitioning. Unix partitioning is complex, with fdisk, or even disk druid. We need some sort of "just do it" option that is automatic, but not stupid in order for Joe user to be able to install it. The concept is difficult to grasp for joe blow, and until it is not, or until it is not an issue, that difficulty will be there. Even if there was a Disk Wizard GUI Druid of allmightiness, it is still difficult to most users. I've evidenced it directly by letting people try and install linux on a test machine to see how they did with it, and where they got lost.
So far, the only major problem they encountered was with partitioning. Even AFTER reading the manual, they still went "how many partitions do I need and why?". The installation STRONGLY needs a "automatic partitioning" that makes a system partition and a swap partition whenever it can easily. If the disk is paritioned allready full, or whatever, then and only then should the "average user" be greeted with more complicated options. Keep in mind, that I don't think this should be the DEFAULT, as most people here would not want that, but rather, the menu that displays "fdisk", "disk druid" as options should also display "Partition wizard" which then detects the partition scheme in place if any, and offers some simple choices for the user, then partitions the system. What exactly these choices should be, I don't really know, but some system is needed.
2) Package selection. The package selection needs a less lengthy screen of some kind. The package grouping is ok, but it is not quite "there". I have no suggestion to what would be better as it works great for me.
>The real improvement would be when we see the mainstream computer >manufacturers offer pre-installed Linux.
I agree.
> Gerhard > >1 I don't think lack of computer ability makes one stupid just untrained > I've met very few people incapable of learning at least a working > knowledge of windows or Linux when taught correctly.
I've met several people that would be classified as "stupid". No sign of a will to learn. They expect the computer to be like a telephone, and just work. They are right to want that, but in reality it is not a telephone, and they will either learn, or be plagued by problems and fork out cash to get it fixed. Same as a car I guess.
>2 I find when people think it will be hard they tend to miss the obvious. > "no it can't be what it looks like that would be too simple" (yes I've > seen it)
I agree. I sometimes do that myself... ;o) Not usually in Linux, but for sure in Windows.
Another note for windows: I have a 486 I just installed W95 on. I set it up with 800x600x16k video, and used it fine for a week. I just added an ISA NE2000 card (nonPnP) to the machine that did not conflict with ANYTHING. The card works fine in Linux on that machine no trouble. When I "add new hardware" I choose manual install, and I choose the right driver. Windows accepts it, and when it reboots, my machine comes up in 640x480x16 colors mode, and the network card shows up with one of 3 RANDOM problems in Device manager. The machine is *NOT* in safe mode either, but in full windows normal mode. I change the res back to 800x600 and reboot. The second time it comes up fine. WHen I reboot, there is a one in 3 or 4 chance that the video will switch to 640x480x16 color mode again. Totally random. Now I've taken the net card out, and it STILL randomly changes resolution. EXPLAIN THAT??? Linux works FINE on the same machine (dual boot). Go figure...
TTYL
-- Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocate
Linux software galore: http://freshmeat.net
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |