Advanced

fair comparison?

Story: Linux is easier to install than XPTotal Replies: 5
Author Content
tuxchick

Jul 23, 2008
10:50 AM EDT 		Some of the gang at LT think that comparing a modern Linux to ancient old XP isn't fair. Judging by my own limited experiences, a comparison to Vista would come off even worse than XP!
rijelkentaurus

Jul 23, 2008
11:22 AM EDT 		And I don't buy the "comparing a 2001 OS to a modern Linux isn't fair" argument, we're talking about the newest service pack, so MS has had plenty of time to at least get a freaking ethernet driver available upon installation.

I hate Microsoft, I hate Windows. There. I said it.
tuxchick

Jul 23, 2008
11:47 AM EDT 		Oh I don't know, after all MS is a poor struggling underdog. :P
bigg

Jul 23, 2008
12:28 PM EDT 		It's hilarious to me to see that argument made. Whenever there is a posting about how Vista doesn't work for old machines, is too slow, or anything else along those lines, there is inevitably the claim, "But XP runs on those machines" or "XP isn't bloated".

For whatever I do, the hardware support is always better with Linux. That includes printers, scanners, wireless, and nVidia drivers. I know that others have trouble, but the last time I had a problem was over a year ago with Broadcom wireless on my wife's laptop, and even that's now just a couple of commands. And her laptop still can't use our printer or scanner when she's running Vista.
d0nk3y

Jul 23, 2008
5:07 PM EDT 		SP3 arguably makes it a 2008 OS not a 2001 one - plus (and this is from my own experience, not anecdotal), Vista has *exactly* the same driver issues as XP did on a circa-2004 notebook I had to rebuild.

Ubuntu on a live-CD worked great (apart from the windows only modem - but windows didn’t see that either without the driver).

And what about apps? The author is gave timings based on a standard Windows install which is OS only without Office or anything.

Linux is *much* easier (and quicker) to install than Windows.

Actually, this reminds me of a time I helped a friend setup his shiny new HP Vista desktop. In *less* time than it took the *pre-installed* Vista to tune and configure itself, I had installed Ubuntu (including re-partitioning the disk and installing all the updates, and turning on Compiz).
tracyanne

Jul 23, 2008
5:46 PM EDT 		It's a fair compare, because Windows users are, in fact, installing Windows XP in place of Vista, on current hardware. It's a fair compare, because it is a reflection of what is currently being done with Windows XP, by Windows users, regardless of SP3.

Post a reply to this thread:

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post