Its a tie between WinXP and Mandrake 8.2 for me. Those were the fastest installs I've had. Dont know avout RH, but after buying RH 6.0, I wont try anything from RH again.
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
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 think the results will be skewed as people seem to be voting for what is easier for THEM (since they feel comfortable using the OS). I haven't had much experience with *BSD, but you can get a working system ready with < 10 clicks if you accept all the defaults. Customizing doesn't add many more. One of the benefits of haiving one company controlling both hardware and software.
I mean... seriously, Windows 2000 vs MacOS?
The ONLY time Windows 2000 is "easier" to install is when you use an unattended installation (with its accompanying inf). And even then, most people wouldn't be able to do that.
My vote is for MacOS.
I mean... seriously, Windows 2000 vs MacOS?
The ONLY time Windows 2000 is "easier" to install is when you use an unattended installation (with its accompanying inf). And even then, most people wouldn't be able to do that.
My vote is for MacOS.
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.
I would put the following on my list :
Win XP (least painful install)
Mandrake 8.2 (fast, though the 'warm up' before the install takes a while). Ditto for RH 7.2
Win 2K (dont raise eyebrows: which other OS install allows you to have a few beers while perfroming the install?)
--Civ
Win XP (least painful install)
Mandrake 8.2 (fast, though the 'warm up' before the install takes a while). Ditto for RH 7.2
Win 2K (dont raise eyebrows: which other OS install allows you to have a few beers while perfroming the install?)
--Civ
I've installed the Mac OS(7-10), 3.1, 95, ME, and XP. I have to say the Mac OS installs h ave always been a breeze. You can actually just walk away, it doens't ask you sh!t every 10 minutes.
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?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
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..................
Maleficus
Diamond Member
- May 2, 2001
- 7,682
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Killbat
Originally posted by: Maleficus
XP is suck
Uhm.... no. XP installs almost accidentally it's so easy. Keep that CD locked up tight!
Plus, XP has been just as good to me as 2000 was, which is to say awesome. If you have personally had problems with XP, care to share? Or are you just expressing an opinion you think is trendy without any firsthand knowledge of the subject?
Well since i was joking thus the teethy smile...
but no i really dont like XP because it doesnt really give me anything else i want and the mouse acceleration is really annoying for games and when i turned it off it didnt turn off. I really didnt like the whole new scheme either and immediately went to classic mode but there was still some view options i didnt like, nothing major just i prefer 2k to the bloat of XP.
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:
okay.... if I have to put all the operating systems I know onto the poll.. it's gonna be looooooong!!
<edit>
sh!!!t....... oops..... accidentally deleted the Win2K answer from the top.......
btw, Win2K had like 18 or so votes before I deleted it off the top..
</edit>
<edit>
sh!!!t....... oops..... accidentally deleted the Win2K answer from the top.......
btw, Win2K had like 18 or so votes before I deleted it off the top..
</edit>
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
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.
the article at Linuxworld.. I wouldn't even come close to calling that a review. But then again, it IS published on Linuxworld, so it's heavily biased, like if you have an article covering the same topic published on a very-pro-Windows website would probably trash Linux just as the same.
<rhetoric> oh where can we go for some decent OS review without all these biases...?? </rhetoric>
<rhetoric> oh where can we go for some decent OS review without all these biases...?? </rhetoric>
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
I think the Win2K install is a pain... Installing the OS itself goes quite easily; the part I don't like is the need to constantly reboot the system after every visit to Windowsupdate for security patches and service packs. Why do they do that? It seems like it makes a 45 min job into a 3 hour job.
Mandrake installs quite easily, and you don't need to reboot the box when doing security updates...
Mandrake installs quite easily, and you don't need to reboot the box when doing security updates...
Of all the OSes I have tried XP was the easiest because I really didn't have to do sh!t except wait.
I'd think that's probably true for all UNIX-based OS.. you just shutdown and restart the processes without needing to shutdown the kernel.. unless you're doing a kernel update.. The problem with Windows is that everything is pretty damn integrated that if you change something to a part, you kinda have to restart the whole thing to make it apply the effect. It seems like my server haven't had an uptime of more than a week before I had to install some update and reboot it.
Mac OS X is by far the easiest OS to install. There really is nothing to it.
OS 9 and lower were harder to install and work but still pretty easy.
OS 9 and lower were harder to install and work but still pretty easy.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter