digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Official: Ubuntu (Linux) is easier to install than Windows!

easylinux.wordpress.com — Here's a step-by-step guide to installing the upcoming Dapper Drake with screenshots. There's less to it than a Windows installation, and you can play around at the desktop before even installing anything to disk!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • chris3435, on 10/12/2007, -102/+29windows xp like 3 button pushes i know i have installed windows xp a bazillion times the hardest thing is the cd key.. hardest by is electing the partition.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -27/+65Have you been drinking?
    • zopu, on 10/12/2007, -74/+35General: 3 Brazilion soldiers were killed today in Iraq.
      GWB: My God, that's terrible...
      (pause)
      GWB: ...wait, how many is a Brazilian?
    • ramibotros, on 10/12/2007, -43/+24I've always been a windows user. I tried Ubuntu and Knoppix (live) and they wouldn't work. It seemed like they didn't like my graphic card because it took them (both) ages to load the desktop view. So i needed to change something in the command i enter to boot and i had no patience for that.
    • purpleplatyduck, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20@ramibotros: "I had no patience for that..." perhaps it's not as much an issue with Linux not working as it is you being unwilling to take a couple simple steps. And it sounds likely you just need more RAM if it takes ages to load. Or try the newest release, might have better driver support.

      On the subject of drivers, I must say that Ubuntu has Windows beat hands-down on driver detection and installation. When doing a clean Windows install, I need at least drivers for at least 6 different pieces of hardware to even make the machine run everything, whereas the only thing Ubuntu had trouble with was mounting my shared FAT partition (dual booting was even a breeze).
    • rsteinke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17No no, don't burry that comment. Electing partitions is a difficult decision. Thank god I only do it once every four years.

      If this is really what they're moving to for an installer I can't wait for Dapper to drop stable now. That looks *****-hot.
    • rolandog, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6O.K.

      Mr. Bill Gates aka "chris3435", the first step is admitting you have a problem.

      Help us help you, Mr. Gates.
    • Lomi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13As far as driver detection, I have to agree, it even detected my logitech mx3100, and most of the buttons work right out of the box so to speak.
    • kankerfist, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14The parent comment got buried by people who I assume think a Windows install is not one of the easiest things in the world of installs to do. Stop and think, is installing Windows hard at all? How many clicks does it take?
    • Chakz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18Why bury a truthful comment? Windows is amazingly easy to install, in fact I made an unattended setup just to make it that much easier. Pop in the disc, hit reset, come back when it's done. Doesn't get easier than that.
    • koshak, on 10/12/2007, -19/+12Honestly...if you idiots really think that Chris is wrong, you are too stupid to operate a computer. It really IS like 3 buttons.
    • Genma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8parent sounds intoxicated but we know he means! to label something easy should consider the entire package! not picking it apart to influence the others! those who really want to make a difference should tell it like it is! the article got me excited with with overuse of exclamation marks too! but then I saw the rest. either way I'll be giving it a go when the final is out. just wish the fanboys would quit being so sensational.
    • TwistedMenta, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Well I'll admit that I find XP hundreds of times easier to install than Ubuntu. My biggest problem in installing Ubuntu was selecting a partition to install it on since it made next to no sense. XP on the other hand was choose a partition and hit enter.

      Yes I know that the Ubuntu team are working on that problem and at least they now have a graphical interface for the installer which will make it easier for regular people to install. But considering that Windows has had one from at least Win98SE(earliest that I have installed) Ubuntu should've had one ages ago.
    • Darrelc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9XP is easier, and I'd like to know why a wordpress web log is "official".
    • curupira, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Let's please compare apples to apples: Windows installations does NOT install hardware driver, nor basic applications (Office, IM, pdf reader). I usually spend 2-3 days installing everything needed on windows to make me comfortable (and go searching my CD-Roms and websites). On Ubuntu, I have to spend 1 day.
    • pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I tried to install Ubuntu on two seperate machines. It would not detect my ATI X800 card no matter what. The Windows installer was way easier and detected all my hardware to problem. And the slipstreamed version installs Office and all my other apps without user intervention.
    • Izzie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5the title is ripped off of http://www.money501.com/20060502323/official-ubuntu-linux-is-easier-to-install-than-windows/ and is a mislabeled title cause the story is a blog post "Ubuntu Dapper Drake (beta) Installation from Live CD".
      not at all intended to be a comparison between windows and ubuntu
  • rm999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23I recently installed Ubuntu and I was actually dissapointed at the number of options I was given. I wish there was some sort of "advanced" install with more options.

    I wasn't given any choice of what packages to install, how to handle the swap partition etc. But at the same time it was one of the easiest OS's I've ever installed.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The point of it is to be easy to install, not to give you all of the power/flexibility in the world. Being a linux power user as you seem to be, I'm certain that you know how to do all of those things after the OS is installed, which means it may take a bit more time for you to do, but you don't have to be worried about it during the install process.
    • rm999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12heh, nope, I don't know how to do those things once I'm in Linux. I'm a Linux n00b but I know enough to know what packages I want and what size swap I want (given a good graphical interface to do these things).
    • dolson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16How could you possibly miss the disk partitioning step, where you set up your swap partition?
    • psylence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6With Ubuntu you get a minimal default package set that is both reasonable and useful, after that you install packages piecemeal. You also most definitely get to pick swap size, graphically.
    • daboochmeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5At one point in the process (forget where) you can go into "Expert" mode, where you have all the partitioning flexibility you could want (even lets you setup LVM volume groups and logical volumes, etc.).

      Still ... for installs for power users -- I really liked SUSE's 10.0 install.
    • AngryBacon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is a more advanced install, although this may have changed with the new livecd-installer, but thats still in beta anyway.

      To get to the more advanced install, type expert when it gives you the first prompt for boot options.
    • scheper, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11If you want full control, you shouldn't really go Ubuntu, but Gentoo instead.
    • rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1psylence

      Ah thanks, you are probably right about the swap. It wasn't a minimal enough install for me (I wouldn't have installed open office if I had the option). But yeah, I see what you mean about reasonable. I just wish they asked me what kind of user I am (like in fedora) because I only use it for programming, not office stuff.

      Unfortunately I can't get either of my network cards to work in Ubuntu, so I can't install anything else on it :-/
  • BeyondALL, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Have you ever tried installing Vista? It's the simplest consept ever, except you miss most of the usual options.
    I'd like Vista (and other OS'es) to hava a direct install og the option for a advanced install.
    With XP I have a unattended CD made with nLite, really nice :)
    • Intrepion, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5do you have a time machine? Vista doesn't come out until, at the earliest, January 2007
    • RonDutt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Hmm yes it *comes* out '07, but there are BETA's and ALPHA (Longhorn/Blackcomb) releases floating all over the Internet. And I must agree, it is quiet a simple and easy install for the latest Vista build.

      ~ Proud Microsoft Beta Software Pirater
    • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Intrepion: Seriously now, Dapper is beta as well. Sheesh!
  • PicklePower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This guy used the Live CD to install it...you don't always have to use the Live CD to install Ubuntu, do you? You're able to boot right from one of the CDs directly into the install process, aren't you?
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes and yes. The beauty of Ubuntu is that if you try it and like it, you can install it without having to switch to an install CD, and that is the point of this article.

      However, the direct install CD does not have a GUI installer (it is an NCurses installer, which looks like step one of an XP/2000 install), which will have similar, but not identical, steps to follow, which might be confusing to some people. I think the Ubuntu team is working on fixing this in one of the upcoming versions (where the install disk will simply start up X11 and start up the quick installer [minus gnome, etc]).
  • shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5well there is a auto install XP disk...
  • 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28It's official because the word official is in the title...
    • retral, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Yep, even though it's some linux fan's blog.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6I wonder if the author has even installed XP recently. From memory, you only need 7 or so key presses to install XP (not including typing your name and the CD key and chosing what region you are in). After the brief text based installation bit everything is mouse driven and as easy as pie!
      Linux on the other hand can be an utter pain to install.

      If something needs to have a guide written about how to install it, its simply NOT as easy to install as it could be.
    • Tom_Riddle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30 Okay dude.

      I don't know what version of XP you have.

      But there is like 3 reboots

      the first section is in Dos

      the second section is graphical

      then it reboots

      installs hardware

      and asks you to reboot again

      then when that is done

      you have to go through install all your drivers kuz the generic ones suck ass

      Its like the ***** DMV

      but worse.
    • danielsasona, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13One could argue that the step of having to enter a long CD key should count against your keystroke metric, since this is a step invented by Microsoft, not a necessary part of the OS install process. Those of us on the osx/unix/linux bandwagon don't generally need to deal with this minor humiliation.
    • CMoncur, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4OK, Tom, that doesn't mean it's hard to install, that just means it reboots. Big whoop.
      And is it really THAT HARD to type in a serial, Daniel? If you want to whine about how it's hard or humiliating to type a serial, then I'm suprised you choked up those two sentences while you replied. In the time it took you to reply I could have entered 7 serials.
    • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1don't forget the activation... what if you have no network? you can't honestly tell me XP is easier/faster to install. it asks you damn questions all over the place instead of doing it all up front then getting on with the work and letting you leave it to install. i haven't tried the dapper installer, but in general good installers do this small favour for you.
    • RuskiBanger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Funny, Ok Dude.
      Pop in Ubuntu or pick you Linux distro...
      Install... went fine with no reboots...
      But wait, theres more..
      Why wont my WIFI work, ok ill just download the drivers... oopsy.. three days later you might have your WIFI working!

      Ok, dangit! no sound... ok, ill just download the drivers.. oopsy... three days later I have sound working!
      Ok, got sound... lets play some MP3, dangit... wont play.. ok ill spend hours getting this to work now!
      Ok, got sound and MP3s to work, lets watch some videos... dangit! and on and on and on.

      Linuc is free if your time is worth nothing.
    • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Agreed:
      if ($ValueOfTime='0') {
      $linuxCost='0';
      } else {
      $linuxCost=$ValueOfTime*$HoursSpentFixing*$NumberOfProblems;
      }
      And:
      If ($linuxCost>$WindowsCost) {
      system 'useWindows';
      }
    • danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@RuskiBanger

      Just cuz you don't know how to use linux doesn't mean it takes forever to get it up and running. I'm relatively new and I can set up everything in about 30min. Learn how to use a computer.
    • Zephiron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Linux is free if your time is worth nothing."

      You just nailed it!
    • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2clearly you haven't used linux (at least not in the last few years), with all your "download drivers" talk. linux supports the most devices out of the box than any other kernel, and you don't have to download drivers for sound cards or anything. they are included in the distro.

      "Why wont my WIFI work, ok ill just download the drivers... oopsy.. three days later you might have your WIFI working!"

      actually, ubuntu worked out of the box with my wireless cards (d-link g520 or something) because i spent 2 minutes to make sure there were linux drivers for them. if you can't check to see if something works with your OS before you buy it, that's your problem. "wah, i didn't know my car wouldn't run on diesel."

      "Ok, dangit! no sound... ok, ill just download the drivers.. oopsy... three days later I have sound working!"

      actually ubuntu recognises all my sound cards perfectly. on windows i have to break out the SB install cd though...

      "Ok, got sound... lets play some MP3, dangit... wont play.. ok ill spend hours getting this to work now!
      Ok, got sound and MP3s to work, lets watch some videos... dangit! and on and on and on."

      automatix is a GUI app that install mp3 support and all that with a couple clicks. dead easy. windows doesn't play DVDs out of the box either, so don't pretend this is a linux-only issue. the issue is DRM.

      "Linuc is free if your time is worth nothing."

      hey well use what works for you. i have more headaches with windows than linux. i guess we just disagree on this.
    • RuskiBanger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@danpsmith
      Ive been working with Linux, HP, Solaris, BSD and Windows for years.
      My lates project is a content server written in "C" as an Apache module.
      This server gets over 7 million hitsper day without a problem.
      Ive converted severa applications from Windows to *nix.
      Ive been a Linux advocate since 1996...
      I am also very in touch with reality and there is no way you can compare the verall ease of use and overal hardware support of Windows to an Unix type operating system.

      Hand that shiny new Ubuntu CD to Grandma and see what happens... which is more likely to work on any give hardware, with little effort?

      Maybe its time for you to step outside your little box and take a look around?
    • RuskiBanger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@danpsmith

      Ive been working with Linux, HP, Solaris, BSD and Windows for years.
      My latest project is a content server written in "C" as an Apache module.
      This server responds to over 7 million hits-per day without a problem.
      Ive converted several applications from Windows to *nix.
      Ive been a Linux advocate since 1996...
      I am also very in touch with reality and there is no way you can compare the overall ease of use and overall hardware support of Windows to any Unix type operating system.

      Hand that shiny new Ubuntu CD to Grandma and see what happens... which is more likely to work on any give hardware with little effort?

      Maybe its time for you to step outside your little box and take a look around?
  • bryant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Well...I partially agree...
  • epheterson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I've had a bad experience, I was installing Ubuntu, selected the partition I wanted to install on, began installing and noticed my external drive was flashing. It corrupted the file system for all hard drives attached. Since then I haven't tried, I hope its better.
    • randomc0de, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So... you tried installing it to your external hard drive? Also, why was your ext. hd even on? Turn it off if it's not in use.
    • Doriath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Good indicator that you shouldn't be installing any operating system.
  • 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8Umm, no. I've installed Ubuntu many many times and it is not easier in any respect than installing XP. It's even at best. What you get with Ubuntu is the fact you have all the text config files to find and manipulate wheras in XP everything is in a handy GUI interface. It drives me crazy how applications, config files, and preferences are all randomly scattered around Ubuntu.
    • peerk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You are talking about configuring Ubuntu for more advanced options after the installation of Ubuntu.

      This article is just talking about installing Ubuntu.

      Here is the difference. After I do a windows install I usually set the windows options to what I prefer and install some necessary programs. This isn't part of the windows installation.

    • CMoncur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The difference is you don't have to dig through config files in Windows to make it the way you want it.
    • RocketMike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Right, you dig through driver and s(hare/py)ware sites.
    • Luuvitonen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Luckily Windows keeps all the configuration in one place; the registry. When installing Windows for my taste it requires occasional pop to regedit or using third party tools to configure them.

      So meh. Is it better to have one big registry file (or 5-7 actually) where the configs are scattered around and a GUI tool (think same options in CURRENT_USER, LOCAL_MACHINE, DEFAULT_USER) or two places to check for (think /etc/* and ~/.*) and vi?
    • Criterion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People need to decide which it is when talking about configuring, one group will say Ubuntu holds your hand too much and doesn't like the graphical config utilities, the other group complains about editing text files (and no, you do NOT have to use vi to do that). Personally, I'd WAAAAY rather edit text files (no matter whether that is done via a graphical utility or a text editor) than have to deal with a registry like windows has.

      The one app that I make absolutely sure is always installed is midnight commander. It gives an extremely easy way to navigate and edit files if I need to do that, especially if something goes wrong with my xserver (which can easily happen if you like to play around with video drivers) and I can't get into graphical mode. My #1 pick for *must have* software.

      BTW, for all of you who seem to be quite confused, configuring your system is not the same as installing it.
    • danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh that's right...because windows is so centered..

      Please, the only reason you know where your settings are to be configured in windows is because you've used windows a long time.

      Ubuntu has a different set of menus to learn, that's it.

      Most if not all basic options are easily configurable by the GUI.
  • drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Awesome, too bad it still doesn't support my keyboard and mouse which would be nice since I don't have the option of buying new ones and I can't use Linux without them...
    • purpleplatyduck, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5don't have the option of buying a standard USB mouse and keyboard for $20? Then how on earth do you afford internet access in the first place?
    • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2which mouse & keyboard? when was the last time you tried it? must be some crazy keyboard & mouse if that's true.
  • Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It's official. Man on blog confirms it!

    And nothing I saw in those screenshots looked "easier". What I did see was a more powerful (but complicated) configuration procedure, and lots of comments about there being bugs in the beta product. And that's just in the setup procedure. What am I missing here?

    • frontpage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I think you're missing that god awful "future music" that XP thinks you should listen to while it's installing
    • dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I actually kinda like that music.
    • danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How is it seriously that much more complicated than doing a windows install?

      It refers to the word "swap"? Is that what got you confused.

      Seriously, linux has problems, but Ubuntu's installer is NOT hard to figure out if you've ever installed any other OS. Linux's main problem is that if it doesn't have drivers for you already....have fun finding them.
  • adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Ubuntu is very easy to install.

    Installing the printer drivers, video drivers, dvd and mp3 codecs, etc, is another story.

    Mod be down if I am wrong. Do not mod me down because you don't like my comment.
    • vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6for my printer to work I just had to choose it from a list
      `sudo apt-get install gstreamer0.8-mad`
      install libdvdcss

      I still partly agree, video (meaning drivers/codecs) in ubuntu/linux is a pain in general
    • Kruncher, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3There really are no printer drivers. You just fire up Cups or what ever Ubuntu labels it as. If it doesn't automatically find your printer, you select it from a list. A lot easier than on windows.

      Video drivers, MP3 support and the like, are just a simple google away (or a search at ubuntu.com). A few copy and paste operations and your set.
    • megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>Installing the printer drivers, video drivers, dvd and mp3 codecs, etc, is another story.

      Totally correct. I wanted to have a Linux-based desktop, but goddammit, enabling all the extra codecs and multimedia stuff XP has by default was too much of a hassle. Even after enabling extra package repositories and using scripts like Easybuntu and Automatix, it seemed *something* always had to go wrong. Either I wouldn't be able to play mp3s, or I wouldn't be able to satisfactorily play DVDs, or some other crippling bug would manifest that the legions of developers and testers somehow unable to foresee, thereby botching my Ubuntu experience and forcing me to revert to Windows. And why not? It works. Serious, man; XP is fricking easy to use. It autodetects almost everything, and everything it doesn't autodetect, you can find simple-to-install drivers for. Downloading the K-lite codec pack and having everything working within minutes is just precious beyond words, and paying $100 for the retail OS is not too much, given the alternatives.

      Plus I can play Halo and the new Flashpoint game, when that one comes out. I guess if I were a programmer or needed to run a webserver, it would be different, but I just want to use the Internet and play kickass games that are written for Windows.

    • Wireddd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1you just have to add one repository in /etc/apt/sources.list and you can apt-get everything
    • loftx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Remember windows(at least XP) can't play DVDs by default either - it need 3rd party software for the licence.
    • an0nym0us, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It took me a while to get a PPoE dialer to work properly in Ubuntu. New comers gonna have a hell of a field day getting on the internet with ADSL.



    • danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@megaloid

      If you can't figure out how to get DVDs to play and MP3s to play on Ubuntu, then how did you even find digg.com? You seem not to have the ability to use a web browser, because that's where you'll find all the answers on how to do these things.

      Maybe it's not trying to be ultra-friendly in this regard, but they are protecting their own ass. If you look up anything on these formats they are proprietary and often protected, they don't wanna end up in court.

      Ubuntu may seem like it's trying to win you over, but if you like Windows XP, stay there. Linux is for people that actually want Linux, if you love and want Windows XP, have fun with it, nobody is forcing it down your throat.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9This isn't easier than XP at all. Besides, if you need an easy idiot-proof installer, maybe you ought not be installing Linux right now.
  • rasbill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11what is it exactly that makes this "official"
    • Ugli, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Absolutely nothing, but these linux guys really, REALLY want it to be true, so they tell you that it is.

      It's the waaaaaaaay of the fanboy!
    • danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can tell you, having done a lot, and I mean a lot, of WinXP installs myself, that Ubuntu is by far easier or at least as easy.

      Let's face it folks, if you don't know anything at all about computers, maybe you shouldn't be the one installing the OS in the first place... That's when you call me over.

      But WinXP's installation is the same, give or take, except it interrupts you more often to ask you questions when in the middle of the install.

      WinXP after loading usually doesn't have drivers working at all. Your video card comes up as a regular VGA driver, and everything is basically generic and sound doesn't work. The fact that your dell provides you with a disk or you can find the drivers on the manufacturer's disks aren't arguments for or against Windows, they are arguments for more widespread support of linux.

      If Linux had even half of the support Windows does, it would support everything, because the people developing Linux CARE about getting things to work. They aren't selling product, they are making something they'll probably be using themselves.

      To hear stuff like "Windows XP is easier to install" or "Ubuntu is easier" is stupid. A basic OS install isn't the hard part, drivers and support is...Novices probably shouldn't be installing any OS.
  • trongod05, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well, I am sure it may be easy to install if you could only get the piece of crap Live CD to recognize your ATI X800XL and not bomb out. Ubuntu still needs work. Especially in the driver department.
    • benhiler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3true that linux is amazing but drivers on live cds are horrible had to change my mice out everytime i try a new live cd
    • eSauce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I still can't get any Live Cd's to work with my system.
      It never properly detected my x800xl or my 7800GT.
      I'm still determined to triple boot OSX XP and Kubuntu sooner or later though.
  • cybernetic798, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I haven't had a beef with user-friendliness of Linux installers for a few years now (ever since Fedora came out everyone seems to have adopted easy click-through installers). It's where you go after that. Even with sites like http://ubuntuguide.org the number of random-file-editing one has to go through for even simple tasks (configuring sound for example) makes Linux not viable for the desktop.

    Part of the problem is that every single computer seems to have a different set of issues. I think perhaps before talking about desktop-friendliness, we must talk about standardization as a first step towards a better Linux.
  • a7bat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I found Xandros Linux the easiest Linux distro to install. 4 clicks and you're done. However, I do like Ubuntu at times.
  • radu79, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Mepis had a live CD install for ages, and no one is prizing them for that :)
    And unlike Ubuntu, it comes with a lot of stuff preinstalled, such as Skype, the Flash plug in for FF, and so on.
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2nm, bury
    • TinnCan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0+1 for Mepis there are like 3 steps for installing... ubuntu probably got it from them since they are all partners or whatever now... plus it isnt all ugly like ubuntu
  • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10And DOS is easier to install than both... but, like Linux, it won't run any of the programs I need to use every day, either.
  • miaow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I didnt like the new CD install. I think they have updated it this week or whatever. It was so slow I thought it had 'hung' and shut it down, making my computer unbootable. I got it back up with the badger and my windows was still there. There is something about grub that makes loading other OS tricky when I delete ubuntu. I think I delete grub and then the boot doesn't know where to go when I reboot.

    Overall though, I am impressed with ubuntu and enjoy using it. The look of the installer looked simpler for novices. I think it could still be simpler. Its a while since I installed PCLinux but that seemed easier, I think.
  • energeek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4the only reason windows is easier to install is that it doesn't care what you have on your harddisk, it just paritions it, it doesn't give you a choice where to install your bootloader, and most often it is already installed when you buy your computer
    • ACalcutt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4um....maybe i am misreading this....but unless you are using an unatended disk the winodows install allows you to partition the drive...put windows on whatever drive/partition you want....and to install on a partition without formatting
  • chriszma666, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It looks pretty easy. I still perfer using the normal text install, but thats just me. It's amazing all the linux-haters on this site though....
    XP isn't the only OS in the world, why don't you get off the bandwagon and try something else.
    • dolson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Totally agree with you on the installer. I'm glad the ISOs for the text-based installer are not disappearing, but I do say I am disappointed that ShipIt will not be shipping them (at least that's the plan last I checked, I hope this has changed).
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Im not so sure about that, have you guys used the gfx installer?

      The partitioning(at least in kde) with qtparted is really great. The installer could definitely use some work, but it still gets the job done. More importantly however, using the gfx installer allows you to just copy the livecd FS onto the harddrive, which means it installs in about 20 minutes instead of an hour with the text one. There is also the benefit of being able to browse the web at the same time.

    • Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't hate Linux... just like I don't hate bicycles. But nether will allow me to do what I need them for on a daily basis.
  • pHr34kY, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8My record is installing Ubuntu 5.10 in 22 minutes. That's from power-on to first login.

    Windows spent longer than that formatting my 80GB hard drive! (Ubuntu formatted it in about 5 seconds!)

    Oh, and Windows tends to be repetitive. I think you need to tell the installer what country you live in about 8 times.
    • skatingrox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7*ahem* I hate to ask this, but did you use the Quick Format option under windows? Windows installer formatting has taken 15 seconds at most for me on a 200GB hard drive.
    • Kruncher, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Both of you are wrong.

      Windows (XP at least) only asks for your time zone once.

      Windows XP takes at least a couple of minutes (2 or 3) to format a 40GB drive with NTFS (using the Quick option).
  • edman007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i just installed that version a week ago on a friends computer, and they still have some major bugs to work out before they can take the beta out of the title, when it saw the ATI card it tried using drivers for an ATI card, but didn't know that the X1600 isn't supported by anything but VESA, and the advanced partitioning is crap, i tried to keep his windows partitions, so i needed a total of 5 partitions which means extended partitions, well the partitioner failed to partition and format, i had to jump to a console and do it, 5 minutes later it was installed and running

    and for the person who said that a live CD, well not exactly, the beta version they have dropped the ncurses installer as default and moved to a GUI installer, so you pop it in, it boots a GUI with a few apps and the installer is on the dekstop, you just double click it and hit OK a bit
  • wastern, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11OS X still has the easiest install to date

    i rarely defend windows, but the installer for XP was made 6 years ago...what were linux installs like 6 years ago, thats what you should be comparing it to. i installed a beta of vista and the installer sucked, but they might get better, who knows. it isn't fair to compare windows installer to anything right now until vista is released
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The vista installer is more or less complete functionality wise. Its just an issue of removing the bugs and making it look pretty now.
    • Criterion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was using graphical Linux install routines 6 years ago (Caldera and Mandrake). They were dead easy back then too. I'm just simply amazed that all distros haven't moved to that now.
  • Veamon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10damnit, let me go start a wordpress blog, and I can counter this by saying "Official: XP is easier to install than Linux".
    Note that I said "official", so that means its right.

    • dolson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Uh, that won't work. You can't just make a counter-claim and expect it to trump the first.

      Hmm... How about you put "XP easier to install than Ubuntu! Netcraft confirms it!" ? That should do it.
  • dolson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Ubuntu is great, I'm a member, and I've been asked to join the MOTU team.

    The Espresso installer is a step in a good direction for a few reasons, but not because it magically makes installing easy. It's the exact same install steps you take with Espresso as you do with the debian-installer text-based installer, only now you have to wait longer for it to boot up and hope that it actually works. The installability of the Live CD is good for Canonical, as the CDs will cost less now that they are ditching the Install CD through ShipIt. The other benefit off the top of my head is that it allows some new users to have a degree of confidence that the system will actually work, and gives a nice preview.

    But the Espresso installer really needs a lot of work.

    Today was the first day of a new job as a Perl developer, and the first thing I did after meeting my new co-workers was to install my distro of choice on my PC. Of course, I chose Ubuntu.

    The Ubuntu 6.06 Beta2 Live CD booted just fine, albeit slowly. I got through the set up to the point where I make the partitions, and I made them all Reiser4 and one swap partition. So far so good. But when I click next to go to the next step, I get an error about no root (/) filesystem. WTF? I set up a root partition, I've done it a hundred times with many versions of Linux. So, I had to insert the Breezy CD and do a server install, apt source edit, dist-upgrade to Dapper, then install ubuntu-desktop + epiphany + meld + all other tools I use.

    Maybe the issue is with Reiser4, in that you can't use it as a root filesystem, but I haven't looked into it at all. If this is the case, then shouldn't the installer warn the user when it sees they have chosen Reiser4 as their root filesystem?

    I'd go and report a bug, but I'm sure someone else already has, just like every other time I try to report a bug. I search beforehand, but that damn Launchpad garbage has the shoddiest search functionality I've ever seen in a bug tracker.
    • That1Guy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1It's Official: I'm standing upwind. Film at 11.
  • ericnmu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9It's Official: I'm going to have Taco Bell for dinner sometime next week.
  • idris, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5If you need a step-by-step guide, it's not easier than Windows.
  • falltime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Installing the OS isnt Linux's problem; it is the lack of drivers, the difficulty in installing new apps and the need for command line entries for routine configuration.
    • xENo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Very true. I'm very good with computers, and when I tried out ubuntu with a dual boot set up, I got as far as installing it. LILO would then not pick up upon booting. Easiest drive I ever lost. Fedora is easier to install than Ubuntu, and works pretty good out of the box. However, as you mentioned, trying to install a new app was extremely cumbersome.

      Linux is for geeks, and as long as people keep trying to reinvent the wheel with their own distro, it always will be.

      (And yes I got the drive back, I just reformatted it)
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5installing new apps is extremely easy in both ubuntu and fedora.

      Just go to the applications menu on the top left corner and click "Install Applications". It couldnt be easier, and it is certainly far better than the way it work on windows or OSX.
    • sneakerelph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@xENo:
      you know that a botched bootloader doesnt mean the end of a drive right? all you need to do is put in the XP CD, launch recovery mode and type "fixmbr" or something like that (haven't had to do it in a while...) that will fix the MBR and let you load XP, and keep all your stuff.

      then again, LILO shouldn't have botched, but there isn't anything you can do about it. i tend to like GRUB better than LILO though.
    • Edogz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4xENo,
      Lilo is "fairly" outdated by now and generally isn't used in Ubuntu, although it is still popular in some other distributions.
      A lot has changed since early releases of this distribution, I haven't had any driver problems and I can easily visualize not needing to edit any text-based configuration files to get anything an average user would want to have working.
      I think one of the problems is people reading such old guides and posts trying to get things done when there are simpler, newer ways to do it. I've always observed this problem, especially with open-source software that changes rapidly. =)
  • wafflesomd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Good news.

    Though it would be nice to see this in many other linux distro's, I'm 3 days away from installing kororaa actually, once my new raptor gets here (one i bought a week ago died).

    Who knows, maybe Linux will come out with something so good, it may give windows a run for its money.
  • Koskun, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4If Windows is so bad, why does it seem that everything is compared to and trying to simulate Windows?

    If you have a good product you can compare it to a bad one, but you get better response by comparing it to a good product and showing why it is better.
    • MarkByers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Because people know about Windows already. You can compare it to BSD instead but then 95% of people wouldn't understand or care.
  • MrTea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Four words

    "Installable Kernel Not Found" no digg
    • MOGua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Operating System Missing"

      I got this last night when I tried to install Ubuntu Dapper beta2 from live cd. I had to run fdisk and change the active partition to get Windows to boot.

      I usually use the installer CD, I was just curious...

      *I love Ubuntu, running it with AIGLX on my core-duo; simply amazing.
  • Euan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3And it STILL wont run Battlefield 2...
  • tylerman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3gentoo livecd with install offers alot of advance support next to newb install also...
    • MarkByers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I love Gentoo and use it on my desktop and two servers but I would *not* recommend it to a newbie!
    • Doriath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would.

      Teach a man to fish...
  • wafflesomd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not much else out there to really compare it to, and I dont think its bad that linux might simulate windows, it might be the next step to getting more users.

    I like falltimes comment: Installing the OS isnt Linux's problem; it is the lack of drivers, the difficulty in installing new apps and the need for command line entries for routine configuration.

    I totally agree, it would be very nice to be able to say, double click and install, and not have to use the command line, though installing linux can be a hassle, sometimes, I seem to have a little confusion on setting up partitions :P.

    Linux and windows are both good OS's, I just dont like windows.

    With all my expereince with Linux, its just faster for me, period. No restarts :P

    I've never had Linux lock up on me, or randomly waste resources, everythings been very smooth.

    Thats why I prefer it, of course it would be nice to have some more drivers/software made for it, but just give it time.

    I guess when ppl hear "Linux" tehy think of a more advacned OS, which in most cases it is, but with Unbutu, it will help get it out there and more mainstream.
  • Anchoret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I've installed Ubuntu 5.10 (current version) a bunch, and as desktop Linux goes it's very good.

    What I would point out here is that a crash-free install, which is nice, doesn't mean that you actually have a proper setup. You probably are running your video card on VESA rather than the correct Linux driver, you don't have the right codecs for your multimedia work, your wireless card probably won't work with the features you need, etc., etc., etc.

    A crash-free Ubuntu 5.10 install doesn't mean you're anywhere near finished, and it's blatantly dishonest to present it as such. "Automatix" is a help in getting a more complete working setup, and I don't know that by the time you've completed that you've saved any time or grief over an XP install.

    • arkitect, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Even when I setup Windows, I have to go through all of the same stuff. First I have to get my wireless card drivers and the program to run it. Since my video card is not six years old, windows just uses the default VGA drivers. And if I want any media functionality in my browser or if I want to download and watch any movies, I have to go find and install codecs for everything. Ubuntu's package management system actually made the setup easier than on Windows. I didn't have to go searching in the dark parts of the Internet for codecs or drivers. Sure Ubuntu took a little more time to setup and get all the problems ironed out, but now that it works how I want it too I haven't booted into Windows for anything not Windows specific in months.
  • wafflesomd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1XP is much less time consuming to install, but remember, they've got lots of many and ppl lol.

    Me, I'll stick with Linux till the end.
  • retral, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4If you need a guide to install it, it's not easier than XP. -.-
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2you dont need a guide for it. i installed it without a guide and i imagine most people can too. How many grandmas do you know can install xp on their own?
    • Haugland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How many grandmas do you know that can install *any* OS? I actually do know a grandma -- or at least age equivalent that can install Windows.
  • JudgeDredd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would say that if you include the amount of time spent updating Windows and searching for drivers, Ubuntu is quicker to install. That said, finding and installing Linux drivers isn't exactlly a joy, either.
  • zenghost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i'm glad its getting even easier, but does anyone know if this version makes it easier to install wireless drivers? (i'm a linux noob, so i don't know that much on their updates...)
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2it depends on what wireless card you have. If you have intel centrino then it should just work out of the box.
  • npodges, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3When i read this headline, i expected to find a case study comparing new computer users trying to install ubuntu and windows xp on the same machine. horribly misleading headline, good story though, i guess.
  • culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This just in... Jimmy cracked corn!

    Can someone please convince me why I should care about Ubuntu? I've installed it recently, installed Automatix and I still wasn't impressed. Why would I use this instead of FC5, SUSE, etc.?

    Honestly, I'd rather use Fedora Core 5 or one of the other all-in-one distros. At least they allow me to have a common user environment between servers and workstations.

    P.S. Any chance we can get a different captcha component? About every 10th one seems to have an ambiguous character.
  • SBelyea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Can we take a moment to notice Windows XP came out in 2001, whereas Dapper is coming out in 2006? You would kind of hope advances in installers had been made over the course of half a decade. This is nothing more than distro posturing.
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5so?

      this is the advantage of releasing every 6 months instead of every 6 years.
  • j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2IMO the only type of person that will install Ubuntu, or any linux distro, is a self proclaimed 'geek type'. If anyone that is not a geek somehow gets the idea that they want linux they will have a geek install it for them. Therefore I think it is a bad idea to dumb down the installation process too much so that there will be less 'tweaking' to do post installation.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4...and it's that kind of thinking that has ensured that only geeks will run Linux.
    • midwinter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We only need the geeks so it's all good.
  • BenStockwell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I recently installed Ubuntu and I was actually dissapointed at the number of options I was given. I wish there was some sort of "advanced" install with more options."

    There is, it's called Debian.
  • Nerevar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm glad to see Ubuntu keeps doing things right.
  • wubrgamer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1hey, it's not hard to install a distro anymore........

    it only takes a little time, now getting it up and running,

    and HEAVEN FORBID detecting a wireless card,

    that'll take about a week after installing that simple distro and possibly a little longer if a n00b......

    i'm all for linux, i'm evern more behind standardizing it....

    they can hardly get their act together with ppc and apples, hardware that is a constant factor.

    it's pathetic........

    WHY CAN'T SOMEONE JUST MAKE A SINGLE OPERATING SYSTEM THAT JUST WORKS AND WORKS WELL ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
    • culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You've obviously never heard the song "Every OS Sucks" by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie
  • dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Exclamation points!!
  • Jamezes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does this mean that you only need one CD to do both testing and installing now?

    *drool*
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.