3 ms·

I had no problems installing Linux since 1993, except the hardware was problematic (not supported). In the early days, I did fine with VESA support. Then, I ac

by muyuu 13y ago

I had no problems installing Linux since 1993, except the hardware was problematic (not supported). In the early days, I did fine with VESA support. Then, I actively chose hardware that I knew it would work basically out of the box. I had minor problems, never a showstopper. It could be a bit cumbersome at times, that's true. Nowadays it's a lot easier to install Linux in most computers than Windows. If you want to install a version of Windows that isn't specifically supported by the hardware, you're SOL. Right now, the biggest problem is GPU support from AMD/ATI and nVidia, which happen to be the leaders when it comes to high-end graphics. You're either left with a partially-working Open Source solution, or with an often glitchy proprietary solution. Intel works fine but it's just for the lower end.

eropple 13y ago
> Nowadays it's a lot easier to install Linux in most computers than Windows. If you want to install a version of Windows that isn't specifically supported by the hardware, you're SOL. Please substantiate this. Aside from the Macintosh EFI mess, Windows will install on pretty much anything and has fallback drivers for just about everything. Its backwards support is impressive, too; my one single-boot machine is a Win7 Thinkpad A22m with a Pentium III in it.
- muyuu 13y ago
  I've had a number of laptops with buggy unsupported drivers for XP. I don't have any of these here with me right now but this has happened to me with a number of relatively common models from HP and Dell, when installing XP over Vista (can't recall if Win 7 was available at the time). The company had not moved their support package images to Vista, for compatibility and security reasons - telecom company with funky email servers and a policy of installing as old and boring software as possible. There simply was no support. The solution HP, Dell and MS would give is to "get on with the times and migrate" which wasn't possible at the time. Alternatively, buy another computer with specific XP support. Complaints were met with a "RTF EULA" where it stated that no support was guaranteed for other OS than the preinstalled one. The solution was to buy new laptops with WinXP support (ended up costing more, since the company specifically needed serial ports and not many machines had them + WinXP support, limiting choice). Ubuntu installed flawlessly with absolutely every feature the hardware supported.(This happened when we basically had to either find some new usage for the machines or throw them away). Much quicker than XP too, and objectively simpler as it would choose reasonable defaults instead of asking esoteric questions, making us call phone numbers or insisting in us registering anything. The single thing XP has on Ubuntu or Mint regarding installation, is that you often don't have to do it yourself. In some respects it's worse with newer MS systems as their DRM has "intensified" and OEMs ship more resilient bloatware/rootkits. Small division within biggish company, so the process was followed by some of us, including me although I wasn't in IT.
  - danieldk 13y ago
    Ubuntu installed flawlessly with absolutely every feature the hardware supported. But that's not a really fair comparison. Windows Vista was GA in 2007. You wanted to install a 2001 operating system on >= 2007 hardware. If you used a 2001 Linux distribution on 2007 hardware, it wouldn't work either. Quite possibly even worse than Windows XP. Your parent was arguing in the other direction. E.g. Windows 7 will install fine on most pre-Windows 7 hardware. In fact, on my last to non-Macs I didn't have to fetch any drivers to install Windows 7 or Windows 8. It all worked out of the box. Of course, Linux is even better with respect to backwards compatibility. A light distribution, such as Slackware, will probably work fine on a 1998-era Pentium II. Both in that most of the hardware will still be supported and that it will run with an acceptable speed. The same won't be true for Windows 7 or 8.
    - muyuu 13y ago
      At the time Windows XP was still supposedly supported.

by muyuu 13y ago

eropple 13y ago

> Nowadays it's a lot easier to install Linux in most computers than Windows. If you want to install a version of Windows that isn't specifically supported by the hardware, you're SOL. Please substantiate this. Aside from the Macintosh EFI mess, Windows will install on pretty much anything and has fallback drivers for just about everything. Its backwards support is impressive, too; my one single-boot machine is a Win7 Thinkpad A22m with a Pentium III in it.

muyuu 13y ago
I've had a number of laptops with buggy unsupported drivers for XP. I don't have any of these here with me right now but this has happened to me with a number of relatively common models from HP and Dell, when installing XP over Vista (can't recall if Win 7 was available at the time). The company had not moved their support package images to Vista, for compatibility and security reasons - telecom company with funky email servers and a policy of installing as old and boring software as possible. There simply was no support. The solution HP, Dell and MS would give is to "get on with the times and migrate" which wasn't possible at the time. Alternatively, buy another computer with specific XP support. Complaints were met with a "RTF EULA" where it stated that no support was guaranteed for other OS than the preinstalled one. The solution was to buy new laptops with WinXP support (ended up costing more, since the company specifically needed serial ports and not many machines had them + WinXP support, limiting choice). Ubuntu installed flawlessly with absolutely every feature the hardware supported.(This happened when we basically had to either find some new usage for the machines or throw them away). Much quicker than XP too, and objectively simpler as it would choose reasonable defaults instead of asking esoteric questions, making us call phone numbers or insisting in us registering anything. The single thing XP has on Ubuntu or Mint regarding installation, is that you often don't have to do it yourself. In some respects it's worse with newer MS systems as their DRM has "intensified" and OEMs ship more resilient bloatware/rootkits. Small division within biggish company, so the process was followed by some of us, including me although I wasn't in IT.
- danieldk 13y ago
  Ubuntu installed flawlessly with absolutely every feature the hardware supported. But that's not a really fair comparison. Windows Vista was GA in 2007. You wanted to install a 2001 operating system on >= 2007 hardware. If you used a 2001 Linux distribution on 2007 hardware, it wouldn't work either. Quite possibly even worse than Windows XP. Your parent was arguing in the other direction. E.g. Windows 7 will install fine on most pre-Windows 7 hardware. In fact, on my last to non-Macs I didn't have to fetch any drivers to install Windows 7 or Windows 8. It all worked out of the box. Of course, Linux is even better with respect to backwards compatibility. A light distribution, such as Slackware, will probably work fine on a 1998-era Pentium II. Both in that most of the hardware will still be supported and that it will run with an acceptable speed. The same won't be true for Windows 7 or 8.
  - muyuu 13y ago
    At the time Windows XP was still supposedly supported.