which OS is easiest to install? ***POLL***

[Nemesis77]

Linux in general, but I guess *BSD is pretty easy too. I mean, how does your typical Windows-installation go? You enter few settings and click around with they miuse and you are done. Same thing with Linux (in general), the install is just as easy. But there are few key differences. Distros usually offer text based installer just in case the GUI-based doesn't work. And after you have installed the OS, you have everything you need to start working. drivers, GUI, apps... In Windows, you need to spend more time installing the apps you are going to use.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i can install FreeBSD 4.6 on virtually any box i put together in my house with only TWO 3.5 " floppy disks!!!!

tell me another OS that can match that!

you moron. it has to DOWNLOAD the os. it's not like it pulls it out of thin air.

you're better off making the 400 meg iso.

And with Windows you have to download a few hundred MB of service packs/patches/updates. Your point being?

With the FreeBSD FTP install you immediately have the last fixes installed, the latest stable versions of all the software. And only what you wanted to install, not more than you selected. Windows 2k/XP takes more time to install than FreeBSD, and needs more input too.

 

[rgwalt]

Linux is a bit complex for a novice, IMHO. Win2K is the easiest install of all the windows OSes. However, I have never tried to install XP. I never really had any troubles with Mac installs, but I haven't done one since the days of System 7.

I do know one thing... installing IRIX sucks.

Ryan

 

[Armitage]

My last OS install experience was back-to-back RedHat 7.2/Win2K dual boot install.

RedHat was dead simple. Autodetected & configured everything. It's all relatively generic except my 3ware RAID card.

W2K was a complete PITA. It wouldn't install to the 3ware RAID array (yes I did RTFM). I eventually had to pull an old 5400RPM drive out of the closet so W2K could find a disk. Then it managed to install the wrong drivers for my NIC, an old generic Linksys Tulip 10/100. More PITA diagnosing that, getting it uninstalled & getting the right one installed.

All told, the RedHat install took about 3 hours (I pick my own package list).
W2K took about 2 days to get it right.

And it drove me CRAZY having to reboot the damn thing every time I looked at it like I want to uprgrade or install something. That was the real PITA with the NIC problem. Having to reboot every time you tried something new.

 

[thornc]

Another vote for DOS!!!


But I have to agree that any recent OS installation is very easy, be it Windows, Linux or MacOS, BSDs are only easy!

But the easyest most practical install I have ever seen is the Live Eval of SuSe Linux... just boot from CD and get going!!!

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

I do know one thing... installing IRIX sucks.

Oh yea. That sucks big time. A few years back I upgraded Irix on an Octane ... not even a base install.
You wanna count disk swaps ... it's no contest, that installer was so stupid & huge.

 

[Sunner]

MacOS no doubt.

The installation interface is extremely simple, and it has one big advantage over pretty much any x86 OS.
Apple makes both the hardware and the software, hence they have a much better control, and will know what goes into their boxes.

XP has most drivers ready from scratch cause it's so new, wait a year and new hardware will be out that XP doesn't support.

And this is from a non Mac user, was a long time since I used Macs frequently.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: IcemanJer
what's the file system that MacOS uses? I'm assuming it's still the same for pre and post OS X cuz you basically can still access each other's files from either OS.

HFS+

 

[dartblazer]

aix for x86

 

[GigaCluster]

DOS installation is easiest. Boot from the first disk, press Enter (maybe several times?), wait, insert second disk, wait, insert third disk, wait, press Enter to reboot. Done.

edit: disk, not CD

 

[stash]

Service pack installs suck too. Why the heck cant I choose where it stores temp files? Please give me a break, I dont have a large c: partition on every computer!

Actually you can. If you run the service pack exe and use the -x switch, you can choose where the files get extracted to. Ex: w2ksp3 -x. Then you would run update.exe to apply the service pack.

Or you could create a slipstreamed install with sp3 already included.

 

[FOBSIDE]

Easiest is by far Mac OS of any type. Load the CD, enter your name and stuff, and it goes. It's not necessarily the fastest with all these "shortcut" installs, which makes it more like ghosting, but by far it's the easiest. I don't hesitate to wipe my OS X laptop and put it back up in 30 minutes.

 

[Ziraku]

I think that the SuSE 8 install from DVD would prolly be easiest...no switching of disks, and I think it's only about 3 clicks if you let SuSE go with the defaults...

The net install of SuSE aint too bad either, tho it requires that you specify an ftp to get the files from.

 

[Chaotic42]

Well, of those, DOS is by far.

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

Originally posted by: AU Tiger

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey


Mac OS X has the second easiest install. I think I have 10 clicks of the mouse and Im done.

A vote for Mac OS. I've never owned an Apple, but I installed OS X on my dad's computer and it was a piece of cake. I'm a fan of the OS, just not the system.

I have to agree here....Allthough XP has installed easily for me and treated me very well, I would have to say that Mac OSX is the easier of the two (Once I got my drive partitioned correctly).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Why even have a poll if the OS it seems a lot of people have specified isn't even a choice?

None are that difficult, but, I have to agree, XP Pro is so simple a mindless dolt could get through it without a problem.....................Linux isn't bad, and as soon as they can include as many drivers as XP Pro does, it will rank right up there, but, as long as I have to have several drivers in hand post install to get everything going, XP wins even over 2K since everything is already setup, including printer/scanner/camera when installing XP Pro............

I have never had to worry about that with linux, OpenBSD, BeOS, or Mac OS X. I have had to worry about it with win2k. I have never used WinXP so maybe Microsoft fixed the lack of drivers for basic hardware problem they had when I installed 2k

Come on now................I'm a fan of both Win & 'Nix, and have used FBSD on occasion, but, can you honestly tell me 'Nix or FBSD is going to have all my hardware and my printer/scanner/camera all setup and ready to use upon first boot into the desktop? I think not..........and I can speak from recent expierience (last week) as far as Mandrake/RH goes and they were the newest builds of each................

I suppose it also depends upon what you consider the "easiest" though..............the number of "clicks" doesn't vary greatly, but, an OS which has everything installed and ready to go upon first boot is what I consider the easiest..................

You will have to install the scanner software, you will have to setup the printer software, and I dont know about the camera. But yes, everytime I have installed OpenBSD all of my hardware was detected. But I dont have a bunch of peripherals either.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: athithi
I've installed Win2k, XP, RH 7.1 and of course 95/98/NT. Installation-wise XP was the easiest (apart from an unattended Win2k install that I got done at work). Was never happy with XP - too fat, too slow, too gaudy (yes, I *know* about the classic theme) and my laptop would just hang for no reason whatsoever. So, IMHO, XP sucks big time. RH 7.1, I installed on my laptop, my desktop and a quad processor server at work. Easy install? BS :| This moron writing the review is talking about dual-boot and boot loader and ext3 journal file system as if every 10-yr old kid would know about it. The server at work still locks up when booting up and I need to press enter a few times before it will go in - and to think I recommended Linux highly

I am now stuck with the task of fixing that server because unlike this a-hole at linuxworld says, RH 7.1 installation goofed up on me - I would've done the NT/W2k install in a couple of hours or so. But then, what can you expect someone who reviews s/w installation based on how many CDs you need to switch - this is absolutely the worst review I have ever read in my life :disgust:

If you knew what you were doing it wouldnt be so bad.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: PrincessGuard

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Electrode
The Electromatic OS install meter:
(10 - piece of cake, 1 - oh god no!)
OpenBSD: 2 (n0c, I don't know why you think this is easy, even I have a hard time with it)

Its quick, straight forward, doesnt crash, well documented, easy to understand.... Like I said, no problems.

fdisk and disklabel aren't exactly the most intuitive partitioning programs out there... Everything else is pretty straightforward though.

A quick RTFM helpe dme figure it out.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: IcemanJer
what's the file system that MacOS uses? I'm assuming it's still the same for pre and post OS X cuz you basically can still access each other's files from either OS.

HFS+

Or UFS.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: STaSh

Service pack installs suck too. Why the heck cant I choose where it stores temp files? Please give me a break, I dont have a large c: partition on every computer!

Actually you can. If you run the service pack exe and use the -x switch, you can choose where the files get extracted to. Ex: w2ksp3 -x. Then you would run update.exe to apply the service pack.

Or you could create a slipstreamed install with sp3 already included.

Slipstreaming is out of the question. Ill have to try the -x if I get a green light on sp3 here at work (no admin ). I dont remember seeing that in the instructions, but I dont follow Windows instructions all that well.

 

[drag]

It depends what you call "easy"

do you know what you are doing? What do you expect from a modern OS? Do you have a nice internet connection or are you still stuck in 56krap land?


I have experiance with the following.

If you are like me and don't considure the "install" done untill I have all the hardware properly configured, all the services configured, and the OS properly hardened then WinXP is very hard to install.

Redhat 7.0 was ok I only had 56k (actually 32k) at the time and got it with a linux administration book . And If you want a all the features that Linux can provide I would guess that mandrake would be easiest.

Openbsd was by far the easist to install if you know what you are doing. If you are not experiance enough to deal with the basics I would think it would suck very much.

Slackware 8.1 was a breeze, but if you are a gui man I would suspect you could get lost easily.

However If you don't care a wit about providing network services, or security, or money, or privacy then I would have to say that WinXP combined with a decent firewall/router (for security) I would have to say that WinXP is the king (especially if your a gamer). And thats definatly ok, too. I don't look down on people who only want to use a computer instead of learning about it. (that's what I want them to pay ME for. hehe)

I would suspect that for all of the above the Mac Os X would be the best compromise and would fill most of the requirements from above. To bad you qould have to give up some performance to get it (not as much as one would think though). I would love to get my hands on one of those laptops....

(the most horrible installation I ever did was to install Redhat 7.0 linux on a ancient Compaq Proliant 1000 server. It has a eisa bus (no pci means no/or marginal hardware detection) and a unsupported (at the time) embeded scsi array. NO IDE. I had almost no linux esperience at the time. Any windows (exept NT or 2000 server $$$$$$$$$) would never had gotten off of the ground. (ironicly DOS works well with it). hell in a 80 pound server. It took me 4 months to get it properly working. Now with modern linux it takes about 2 hours....) I considure that progress

 

[thornc]

OT:

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Slipstreaming is out of the question. Ill have to try the -x if I get a green light on sp3 here at work (no admin ). I dont remember seeing that in the instructions, but I dont follow Windows instructions all that well.

Common n0cmonkey, don't tell me you don't RTFM when it relates to windows?! The -x switch is there on the ReadMe and on the Release Notes!!

 

[Steven the Leech]

XP

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: thornc
OT:

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Slipstreaming is out of the question. Ill have to try the -x if I get a green light on sp3 here at work (no admin ). I dont remember seeing that in the instructions, but I dont follow Windows instructions all that well.

Common n0cmonkey, don't tell me you don't RTFM when it relates to windows?! The -x switch is there on the ReadMe and on the Release Notes!!

I guess I STFMed (Skimmed the Friggin Manual ). I do the Windows thing very infrequently, and we rebuilt most of the machines recently (software wise :/) so the C: partition is much larger now. Ive got more important FMs to R.

 

[pac1085]

Anything that makes you reboot = teh suck. I voted for redhat, but most linux distros are great, you install with no reboots(except for when its finished in some cases)