The Perception that Windows is Easier to Use than Ubuntu

[aysiu]

I've often read in these forums Ubuntu new users claiming in a matter-of-fact way something along the lines of "Who are we kidding? Just face it--Windows is easier to use than Ubuntu."

It's that obvious, is it? And, of course, it makes anyone who disagrees look like some kind of crazy Linux zealot.

But really, how is that an argument? "Of course"? "Just face it"? "You can't really claim..."?

Let's look at the cold, hard facts.

First of all, let's get past the whole idea of "an ordinary person just wants to use her computer, not fiddle around with it," which usually goes along with the "Windows is just easier" idea. You can substitute Joe Sixpack, Grandma, or the average user for ordinary person. The general gist is--I, as a Windows power user am going to speak for the masses.

Well, most of the fiddling around usually has to do with hardware detection--the sound card doesn't work, the wireless card doesn't work, the screen resolution is off, the multimedia key isn't being recognized. Now imagine for a second if this "average user" installed Windows and those things didn't work. Do you really think she's going to be able to fix all that in Windows--track down all the drivers?

Ordinary user. Not power user. We're talking the kind of person who calls The Geek Squad (http://www.geeksquad.com/). Or who calls you (the Windows power user... or even Linux user who has long since ditched Windows) for help.

Ordinary people do not install operating systems. This has been said many times on these forums, but I think it bears repeating, since I constantly see people complaining that fiddling around is necessary for Ubuntu. Well, that's because they didn't buy a computer with Ubuntu preinstalled (http://www.system76.com) the way they did with Windows. Do you hear Fuscia complaining about wireless not working or having to fiddle around with multimedia keys? (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=191984)

Okay. So now that we've got out of the way installing/configuring, let's talk about actual use.

What's easier about Windows?
I'll concede there are things that are easier about Windows:

1. Clipboard contents get remembered on application exit. I have to say this is one of the most annoying things about Gnome, KDE, and XFCE. It's a basic user expectation--"Wait, I copied that to the clipboard... why isn't it pasting?"

2. You can do contextual searches from within folders. So Dapper finally made it so that if you're in Nautilus, you can press Control-F and search within Nautilus. Great. It won't search in the folder you're in necessarily--it will default to searching in your home folder. Not very useful. Sorry.

3. Just about any software you buy will have a Windows version. While the convenience of the repositories I think would be better for "average users" in the long run, right now this is the kind of convenience they're used to. Walk into Best Buy, see some software, shell out money for it. It works with Windows.

4. Just about any hardware you buy will include Windows drivers. Do you need to worry if your new printer is Mac-compatible or Linux-compatible? Of course not--you use Windows. Buy whatever you want.

5. My Network Places will usually recognize other computers and let you browse to them. It's really sad that people have to post threads like, "How do I get my two Ubuntu computers to see each other?" and it boils down to having to install SSH.

6. Newly-plugged-in Windows drives will automatically be recognized and have read/write permissions. Format a new drive as Ext3 and plug it into Ubuntu--what happens? You have to chown it and then chmod it properly before you can use it.

7. Codecs are easier. Now, keep in mind, this is just for Ubuntu--not for all Linux distributions. If proprietary codecs seem a pain for you to install and you want to write off all Linux because of Ubuntu, try Mepis first. In some ways, though, this is a non-issue, as you'd hope that any "average user" would have someone more knowledgeable who would install Ubuntu for her, and then that person would also install the necessary codecs.

That's about all I can think of. Some of those are major, though, depending on your needs and habits.

What's easier about Ubuntu?
Some things are easier in Ubuntu, though. Let's take a look:

1. I've had a lot of co-workers ask me when they log into another computer (not the one they usually work on) or after we had a Windows XP upgrade at work, "How do I get that button back that lets me see my desktop?" It's discoverable for Windows power users, but not for ordinary users.

Who would think "Yes, I want to add a 'show desktop' button. I think I'll right-click on the taskbar and select Toolbars > Quick Launch"? Doesn't make any sense. In Ubuntu, however, you can right-click, select Add to Panel and find the Show Desktop button and add that one specifically.

In any case, Ubuntu comes with the Show Desktop button by default, and Windows XP doesn't.

2. Print-screens are easier. I've actually been amazed at how many ordinary users want to do screenshots. I used to think that was just a power user thing, but it's becoming a more commonplace desire for ordinary users, too (God knows why).

In Windows, you have to press PrtScn, which copies to the clipboard, and then open up MSPaint or MS Word and paste it in and save the file. Or, you can search around for and download third-party software to have the PrtScn go straight into a file.

In Ubuntu, just press Alt-PrtScn, and your window goes straight into an image file on your desktop. Press PrtScn, and your entire screen goes straight into an image file on your desktop.

3. Changing the background is easier. Right-click and select Change background picture. In Windows, you have to right-click and select Properties and then go to the Desktop tab to find Background.

4. Security is easier. Try running Windows as limited user and using the Run as context menu to approximate something like sudo. I can assure you it's in a royal pain. Some things don't Run as (like Explorer). Some things appear to Run as but then don't work after you run them (like Windows Update).

Ubuntu is built with security in mind--you operate as user and your privileges get escalated temporarily as needed. See the "Update Available" icon, click it, enter your password, and you now have privileges to install updates. In Windows, you can do this only if you run as Administrator all the time (which is a bad idea, from a security standpoint).

5. Software installation is easier. Now keep in mind--I'm talking about for this mythical "average user." No longer need she go to the internet, search about for "freeware," try to figure out if it's pay-for software with a free trial or no trial, try to figure out if it's going to give her a virus or spyware.

She can just open up the package manager and do a search for what she's looking for. Anything that comes up in the results is installable within a few clicks, cost-free, and free of spyware and security worries.

For example, someone was posting recently about how a family member really wanted a poker game. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1237112&postcount=81) Well, would you rather do an online search for "poker games windows" or search in Synaptic for "poker"?

6. Basic software is already available. The flip side of codecs being a bit more complicated--well, at least people don't need to track down an archiving program to unzip a file or buy or pirate MS Office just to have a decent word processing program (yes, Windows users can also install OpenOffice, but the point is that Windows doesn't come with decent office tools).

What's my verdict? Well... the verdict is that it's not such an obvious or easy conclusion to make. Could you make that conclusion--that Windows is easier to use? Sure. You could. Is it obvious or matter-of-fact? No. It must be argued. It's not something you should take for granted. That's all I'm saying.

Every OS has its own culture, its own language. Windows users had to learn to Control-Alt-Delete when something went wrong. They had to learn to click the Start Menu to shut down. They had to learn that software was to be obtained through internet searches for setup.exe files and then clicked through.

Rant over.

[bruce89]

7. Codecs are easier. Now, keep in mind, this is just for Ubuntu--not for all Linux distributions. If proprietary codecs seem a pain for you to install and you want to write off all Linux because of Ubuntu, try Mepis first. In some ways, though, this is a non-issue, as you'd hope that any "average user" would have someone more knowledgeable who would install Ubuntu for her, and then that person would also install the necessary codecs.
Not neccsarily, the codecs in Windows are for MP3 and WMA only, so if you want Vorbis, you have to download it seperately.

[Rackerz]

I agree completely with what you are saying. I have said it myself maybe a few times, but since I've started using Ubuntu more I've realised myself that 'easy' is a matter of opinion and as you say every OS is different.

It is, in no way an easy conclusion to make on exactly what 'easy' is if your comparing OS' unless you want a 72 hour debate.

[T700]

For every friend/relative/co-worker I spend an hour installing Linux and a few hours hand holding, that's a friend/relative/co-worker for whom I will not have to spend evenings and weekends maintaining, cleaning, and rebuilding their Windows boxes because the newest bit of malware killed it. In that sense, Ubuntu is much easier for me.

Paul

[fuscia]

even if windows were easier, that doesn't necessarily make it better. and, even if windows is easier to use, linux is easy enough to learn to use that there really isn't much difference in that regard.

and i certainly have had no trouble with wireless or anything else with my new laptop. i haven't even read the documentation that came with it.

[.t.]

This is a very good post. Add it to your collection, aysiu. I'm often explaining these points to Windows users; hopefully, they'll just find your post, or I'll point them here.

[prizrak]

1. Clipboard contents get remembered on application exit. I have to say this is one of the most annoying things about Gnome, KDE, and XFCE. It's a basic user expectation--"Wait, I copied that to the clipboard... why isn't it pasting?"

It's a security issue. For instance if you use Keepass password manager for Windows it will automatically clear the clipboard in 30 seconds. Not an issue on Linux. Matter of preference I suppose I got used to the Ubuntu way.
5. My Network Places will usually recognize other computers and let you browse to them. It's really sad that people have to post threads like, "How do I get my two Ubuntu computers to see each other?" and it boils down to having to install SSH.
Not in my experience, Places>Network Servers seem to work out of the box on Dapper sees Windows and Linux shares just fine it seems.
7. Codecs are easier. Now, keep in mind, this is just for Ubuntu--not for all Linux distributions. If proprietary codecs seem a pain for you to install and you want to write off all Linux because of Ubuntu, try Mepis first. In some ways, though, this is a non-issue, as you'd hope that any "average user" would have someone more knowledgeable who would install Ubuntu for her, and then that person would also install the necessary codecs.
That is very dependant, in my experience I cannot play alot of stuff in Windows w/o K-Lite codec pack. IMO there isn't much difference between searching and installing that and looking up Automatix/Easy Ubuntu/BUMPS and running it.

Note: Alt+PrtSc works in Windows for single Window as well.

Basically I agree with your post, you have ideas of ease of use that are obviously different from mine, as shown by the above comments. IMO OS X is harder to use than either Ubuntu or Windows cuz it only has one mouse button.

P.S. In Windows you can right click on the taskbar and it has a show desktop option.

[aysiu]

Note: Alt+PrtSc works in Windows for single Window as well. Alt-PrtScn in Windows will copy the single window only to the clipboard. It won't create an image file of it. You will then have to paste it into a Word document or an MSPaint document.


P.S. In Windows you can right click on the taskbar and it has a show desktop option. Yes, but my co-workers wanted a button for showing the desktop.

[Rackerz]

There is a button which has to be enabled through Quick Launch, and as aysiu said most people don't even know what your talking about when it comes to quick launch.

[Brunellus]

this might be semi-OT: do the System76 computers come with the nonfree codecs installed, or do they still require the usual post-install tweakage?

The fact that OEM linux boxes can be bought--and price-competitively!--makes me want to seriously consider them for a future hw purchase....

[aysiu]

this might be semi-OT: do the System76 computers come with the nonfree codecs installed, or do they still require the usual post-install tweakage?

The fact that OEM linux boxes can be bought--and price-competitively!--makes me want to seriously consider them for a future hw purchase....
That's really a question for Fuscia.

I would imagine they don't come with the computer, but I'm only guessing.

[Harold P]

Doesn't this imply to any GNOME-based ditribution?

[aysiu]

Doesn't this imply to any GNOME-based ditribution?
Well, it could in many ways, but since these are the Ubuntu forums, I'm focusing specifically on Ubuntu. For example, Blag is Gnome-based, but it has proprietary codecs installed by default.

[prizrak]

Alt-PrtScn in Windows will copy the single window only to the clipboard. It won't create an image file of it. You will then have to paste it into a Word document or an MSPaint document.


Yeah that's what I meant, sorry I wasn't clear. Your post just made it seem like there is no way to take a single window screenshot in Windows.

Yes, but my co-workers wanted a button for showing the desktop.:oops:

Also I forgot to mention that installing Ubuntu (any Linux really) on supported hardware is easier than Windows, which includes very limited out of the box hardware support due to ready availability of drivers.

[fuscia]

That's really a question for Fuscia.

I would imagine they don't come with the computer, but I'm only guessing.

unfortunately, i didn't know either. i just used automatix to install them and it just occured to me that i never knew if they were already installed, or not. i am a beacon of hope for those working to create linux viruses.

[gruvsyco]

Taken from my experience as an IT guy for about 15 years, I'll address thisfrom my perspective of what an average user wants. Take into account, this is primarily 30+ year old adults and a handful of younger adults.

What's easier about Ubuntu?
Some things are easier in Ubuntu, though. Let's take a look:

1. I've had a lot of co-workers ask me when they log into another computer (not the one they usually work on) or after we had a Windows XP upgrade at work, "How do I get that button back that lets me see my desktop?" It's discoverable for Windows power users, but not for ordinary users.

Who would think "Yes, I want to add a 'show desktop' button. I think I'll right-click on the taskbar and select Toolbars > Quick Launch"? Doesn't make any sense. In Ubuntu, however, you can right-click, select Add to Panel and find the Show Desktop button and add that one specifically.

In any case, Ubuntu comes with the Show Desktop button by default, and Windows XP doesn't.
I've never personally had anyone ask me about show desktop. From my experience, the average user is more or less a single task user, if they do happen to run multiple tasks, generally they find the task bar suitable enough for navigating through open applications.

2. Print-screens are easier. I've actually been amazed at how many ordinary users want to do screenshots. I used to think that was just a power user thing, but it's becoming a more commonplace desire for ordinary users, too (God knows why).

In Windows, you have to press PrtScn, which copies to the clipboard, and then open up MSPaint or MS Word and paste it in and save the file. Or, you can search around for and download third-party software to have the PrtScn go straight into a file.

In Ubuntu, just press Alt-PrtScn, and your window goes straight into an image file on your desktop. Press PrtScn, and your entire screen goes straight into an image file on your desktop.
Again, I don't find this functionality of much use to the average user. In the workplace, print screen was useful for legacy apps that didn't support printing as readily but, I think for general use, standard printing either from the menu or via ctrl-p is what the majority of users would use.

3. Changing the background is easier. Right-click and select Change background picture. In Windows, you have to right-click and select Properties and then go to the Desktop tab to find Background.
I know a lot of people who don't even mess with backgrounds and if they do, it's generally a wallpaper they find from the internet... right click on image and set as wallpaper.

4. Security is easier. Try running Windows as limited user and using the Run as context menu to approximate something like sudo. I can assure you it's in a royal pain. Some things don't Run as (like Explorer). Some things appear to Run as but then don't work after you run them (like Windows Update).

Ubuntu is built with security in mind--you operate as user and your privileges get escalated temporarily as needed. See the "Update Available" icon, click it, enter your password, and you now have privileges to install updates. In Windows, you can do this only if you run as Administrator all the time (which is a bad idea, from a security standpoint).
we're talking about average users here. I think security for the most part (sadly) is of little concern. A default install of XP will give a user enough right to install and run anything they would care to.

5. Software installation is easier. Now keep in mind--I'm talking about for this mythical "average user." No longer need she go to the internet, search about for "freeware," try to figure out if it's pay-for software with a free trial or no trial, try to figure out if it's going to give her a virus or spyware.

She can just open up the package manager and do a search for what she's looking for. Anything that comes up in the results is installable within a few clicks, cost-free, and free of spyware and security worries.

For example, someone was posting recently about how a family member really wanted a poker game. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1237112&postcount=81) Well, would you rather do an online search for "poker games windows" or search in Synaptic for "poker"?
Your average user really only cares about 2 things on a PC... Web access and email access. If it goes beyond that, they may be interested in some music or word processing but, media player handles the former and most "purchased" systems like Dells come with MS Word now. If there is a fromat they encounter that won't play in their media player, it's generally Quicktime or Flash and these are easy enough to install from the web site they are visiting.

6. Basic software is already available. The flip side of codecs being a bit more complicated--well, at least people don't need to track down an archiving program to unzip a file or buy or pirate MS Office just to have a decent word processing program (yes, Windows users can also install OpenOffice, but the point is that Windows doesn't come with decent office tools).
You, yourself stated above that these are the types of users that would be more inclined to go to "GeekSquad" for help. The chances are quite likely that if their PC did not come with an Office Package installed, Geek Squad would be more than happy to install that MS Office for them for a nominal fee. Besides that, if a user is so inclined to install their own software, they go to the store, purchase, bring home, pop the CD or DVD into the drive and the autoload takes over... they just click next until they get to finish. There's no typing keywords for searches and deciding between the given results... it's done and overwith easy.

For the average user, stuff like firewall, antivirus and anti-spyware only ever becomes a concern once they've been hit. Then, the average user will take it to Geek Squad, have them clean it, install Norton or McAfee pay the price and the user will then go home and neglect what ever software was installed... until they get hit again... at that point they'll repeat the cycle but asking the Geek Squad guy, why they got hit again if they had the tools installed.

Your analysis is a good one for a proactive user but, I don't think that is the average user. The average user really just wants to get online and look up recipes, dog clubs or porn. Out of the box, Windows XP gives the average user exactly what they want and moreso if they buy a preconfigured system from someone like Dell.

[BlkPhoenix]

The whole perception that Windows is easier to use than Ubuntu may have some merit. Windows for one might seem easier as most of the "ugly back-end stuff, i.e. terminal commands" are usually hidden from you and are instead replaced with really "pretty" icons instead.

For a complete noob, I would steer them towards a Linux machine as I know I wouldn't have to go clean up their machine from spyware, malware, trojans or viruses like how I would have to for the rest of my clients with Windows machines. It just seems like less headaches. There's the added advantage of being able to restore the system to a previous state perfectly without slowing down the system like it does with Windows. I love this feature as it makes upgrading my client's Linux system a heck of alot easier.

Do you realise that the prettier the interface is, some people think that the operating system is easier to use? Think MAC OS X...or even Vista.

[aysiu]

By the way, people can feel free to disagree with me, and I think your disagreements may have much merit.

Part of the difficulty in this discussion is defining what an "average user" is. I know "average users" who need only an internet browser and that's it. Really. They don't need a word processor or email client even--they check their email with the web browser. I also know "average users" who like to buy all sorts of random software and peripheral gadgets for their computers. Some "average users" are proactive (but not enough to really consider themselves "computer literate"); others are not.

What I'm dead against, though, is the idea that Windows being easier is an assumption you can make without backing it up. Same goes for Ubuntu--it can be simpler in many ways, but it also has its shortcomings.

Dialogue is good. Assumptions without making a case are bad.

[nuvo]

If there's two things I'd never give away that Ubuntu has, it'd be Terminals remembering commands and multiple desktops.
Instead of typing the stuff to start webbrick and such every time, or setting up another icon on my desktop, I just scroll though the commands I've used.
Windows only remembers your commands while the console is open, so as soon as it closes, you have to start typing again (I'd like to spend more time writing code and less time writing stuff to get stuff running, and I don't like desktop icons).
As for multiple desktops, they simply remove the hassles of a single desktop.
I mean, i can have Firefox, jEdit, Terminals (though usually tabbed), Synaptic (updates) and XMMS running on different desktops rather than cluttering up one.
Granted, these features seem useless to Joe Nobody, but to power users, these are gifts from the gods.

In terms of hardware, Ubuntu is often easier, but only if your hardware is supported.
My WiFi, for example, was much easier to get running in Ubuntu as I didn't need to install drivers and such, I just entered my WEP key and started Firefox.

Installing applications in Ubuntu is easier, but only if it's supported in the repos, or you can get compatible DEB packages.

[DR_K13]

Windows is easier than Linux, just like crapping your pants is easier than going to the bathroom.

[awakatanka]

I know a lot of people who don't even mess with backgrounds and if they do, it's generally a wallpaper they find from the internet... right click on image and set as wallpaper.

we're talking about average users here. I think security for the most part (sadly) is of little concern. A default install of XP will give a user enough right to install and run anything they would care to.




You, yourself stated above that these are the types of users that would be more inclined to go to "GeekSquad" for help. The chances are quite likely that if their PC did not come with an Office Package installed, Geek Squad would be more than happy to install that MS Office for them for a nominal fee. Besides that, if a user is so inclined to install their own software, they go to the store, purchase, bring home, pop the CD or DVD into the drive and the autoload takes over... they just click next until they get to finish. There's no typing keywords for searches and deciding between the given results... it's done and overwith easy.

For the average user, stuff like firewall, antivirus and anti-spyware only ever becomes a concern once they've been hit. Then, the average user will take it to Geek Squad, have them clean it, install Norton or McAfee pay the price and the user will then go home and neglect what ever software was installed... until they get hit again... at that point they'll repeat the cycle but asking the Geek Squad guy, why they got hit again if they had the tools installed.

Your analysis is a good one for a proactive user but, I don't think that is the average user. The average user really just wants to get online and look up recipes, dog clubs or porn. Out of the box, Windows XP gives the average user exactly what they want and moreso if they buy a preconfigured system from someone like Dell.Having the same experience with the people i do service and repair for. Backgrounds are also mostly photo's they made themself and they also install it with rightclick set as background within there viewing prg.

But then again what aysiu said "what is the definition of a avarage user"

[Nonno Bassotto]

5. My Network Places will usually recognize other computers and let you browse to them.

I definitely don't agree. It took me a week before I was finally able to make the four laptops in my home see each other under windows. The fact is that windows PCs will only see other computers in the same domain. The domain is usually set by default to MSHOME or something like that, but for whatever reason each laptop had a different domain name, so they couldn't see each other. I can't remember how many guides I read about connecting PCs in windows, but every guide I found failed to mention this.

I fiddled a lot with network properties, but do you know where the domain name is set? Under computer name!! It is certainly reasonable to change your computer name when you want to connect to other computers, isn't it? I actually don't remember how i did find the solution.

For the whole time I didn't even try to connect a linux computer. When I finally got it, I tried and: what?! every computer was in the network manager, grouped by domain. If I had tried before, I would have immediately found out this domain thing, but I thought that doing this things under linux should be more difficult...

By the way, letting windows computers browse my linux laptop was (or should I say would have been) easy too. First, for this I had to set a domain, but this time it was under the Shared folders properties. I set up accounts for other people (I guessed something like that should be made, knowing linux security model) and... voilà: it didn't work. I immediately thought (again) that setting up samba should be difficult, so I began to read every possible technicality about samba, and still it didn't work. I lost an evening trying to do this until I realized I forgot to allow people to browse my pc in the firewall. This was the first thing I did in windows, but not in linux, because I had the wrong idea that this would have been difficult. :(

[fluffington]

1. Clipboard contents get remembered on application exit. I have to say this is one of the most annoying things about Gnome, KDE, and XFCE. It's a basic user expectation--"Wait, I copied that to the clipboard... why isn't it pasting?"

On KDE (I'm a Kubuntu user), the clipboard history sticks around (though I may have had to tell it to do that; I don't rememeber). There's a full history too, which means I can copy two things, then paste them both somewhere else without the first one getting overwritten by the second like on Windows.

5. My Network Places will usually recognize other computers and let you browse to them. It's really sad that people have to post threads like, "How do I get my two Ubuntu computers to see each other?" and it boils down to having to install SSH.

In my experience, it's the other way around. I have yet to have a Windows machine see everything on the network properly, but I've never had a problem with it on any of the Ubuntu machines I've worked with.

6. Newly-plugged-in Windows drives will automatically be recognized and have read/write permissions. Format a new drive as Ext3 and plug it into Ubuntu--what happens? You have to chown it and then chmod it properly before you can use it.

If you use FAT32 ('tis what Windows uses for removable drives) instead of Ext3, it works just fine without any extra work. Plus, I think storing user/group ownership on a drive that's going to be accessed by multiple computers with different operating systems is just silly.

7. Codecs are easier. Now, keep in mind, this is just for Ubuntu--not for all Linux distributions. If proprietary codecs seem a pain for you to install and you want to write off all Linux because of Ubuntu, try Mepis first. In some ways, though, this is a non-issue, as you'd hope that any "average user" would have someone more knowledgeable who would install Ubuntu for her, and then that person would also install the necessary codecs.

Windows Media and MPEG codecs are easier ('cause they're installed by default). Ever try playing a .ogm in Windows?

1. I've had a lot of co-workers ask me when they log into another computer (not the one they usually work on) or after we had a Windows XP upgrade at work, "How do I get that button back that lets me see my desktop?" It's discoverable for Windows power users, but not for ordinary users.

I just tell them to press Win+D. They tend to like it much better than the button.

2. Print-screens are easier. I've actually been amazed at how many ordinary users want to do screenshots. I used to think that was just a power user thing, but it's becoming a more commonplace desire for ordinary users, too (God knows why).

In Windows, you have to press PrtScn, which copies to the clipboard, and then open up MSPaint or MS Word and paste it in and save the file. Or, you can search around for and download third-party software to have the PrtScn go straight into a file.

In Ubuntu, just press Alt-PrtScn, and your window goes straight into an image file on your desktop. Press PrtScn, and your entire screen goes straight into an image file on your desktop.

You can grab the current window with Alt+PrtScr in Windows too. And I happen to like the clipboard functionality (which KDE has, so I'm happy).

3. Changing the background is easier. Right-click and select Change background picture. In Windows, you have to right-click and select Properties and then go to the Desktop tab to find Background.

Right-click on image -> set as desktop wallpaper.

[aysiu]

I'm glad people feel the need to nitpick my examples and argue about what's truly easier.

That's really the whole point--it's difficult to tell. It can be argued either way. Some people seemed to think I was giving Windows too much credit. Others seemed to think I was giving Ubuntu too much credit.

People still can't agree on what an "average user" really is capable of or needs.

That's what this is all about--you can't simply dismiss one perspective as obviously wrong in the "which is easier?" debate.

[fluffington]

That's what this is all about--you can't simply dismiss one perspective as obviously wrong in the "which is easier?" debate.

Sure I can. Linux is easier to use than Windows because it has a terminal that actually does stuff.

Note that I switched to Linux from Windows because of the terminal. All that other usability fluff that we like to babble on about is what made me pick Ubuntu over any other Linux distro, but didn't have any bearing on the decision to leave Windows.

[aysiu]

Linux is easier because it has a terminal. Of course. While we can't all agree on the definition of what an "average user" is, I can assure you that most people's definitions of an "average user" don't include anything about considering the terminal a key component of using the computer.

Your reply makes no sense in the context of this thread. I don't know why you feel the need to be contrarian, but I guess that's what floats your boat.

[fluffington]

Linux is easier because it has a terminal. Of course. While we can't all agree on the definition of what an "average user" is, I can assure you that most people's definitions of an "average user" don't include anything about considering the terminal a key component of using the computer.

Your reply makes no sense in the context of this thread.
While the content of my post was completely factual, I meant it as a joke. I really did switch because of the terminal, but I'm fully aware that the only people who would agree with me couldn't really be considered an average anything. I apologize for any confusion.

I don't know why you feel the need to be contrarian, but I guess that's what floats your boat.
I'm just feeling silly today; perhaps it's because I've been awake for nearly 36 hours now. I'll try to restrain myself in the future.

[aysiu]

It's cool. I don't know why, but I tend to lose my sense of humor altogether when I post on the forum!

I actually love the terminal... well, I've grown to love it over the past year, and I do find it "easier." Get some sleep. Get rested.

[Brunellus]

I agree with you aysiu; the command line is... "easier" for me too. harder to learn, easier to use, in your own words.

[agger]

I agree with you aysiu; the command line is... "easier" for me too. harder to learn, easier to use, in your own words.

Well, I just got completed an installation of Xubuntu on and old machine, and I must say that whereas Gnome might seem more complicated and KDE a bit stuffed, the base Xubuntu system is beautifully simple and usable, and supplemented with a few necessary apps (for me: Opera, OpenOffice.org, Eclipse), it seems ver much easier to start using and learning than Windows. So beautifully simple it's a charm, and I think I could actually persuade a lot of Windows users of the same thing too.

Xubuntu is really great for its simplicity and usability, even if I do prefer vanilla Ubuntu with GNOME myself.:)

[RAV TUX]

Linux is terminally easier.

[toolazy2work]

Just read this and im a new linux (ubuntu) user. I love the usefulness of synaptic. But being a new linux user and kinda of a computer geek, I find that windows takes less knowledge to operate on. The programs made for windows are easier to operate on. Now dont take offense to this. Microsoft is gearing towards grandmas and computer idiots. lets face it more of the world is a computer dummy than a computer savvy. Ubuntu only took a little getting used to for me. My dad, on the other hand, was a different story. These are just my thoughts,
toolazy2work
PS sorry for the late post

[ComplexNumber]

I find that windows takes less knowledge to operate on.
isn't that only becuase you are used to it, though?

[skirkpatrick]

Windows is easier than Linux, just like crapping your pants is easier than going to the bathroom.

DR_K13, I have to add this as my tagline! :D

[Lord Illidan]

7. Codecs are easier. Now, keep in mind, this is just for Ubuntu--not for all Linux distributions. If proprietary codecs seem a pain for you to install and you want to write off all Linux because of Ubuntu, try Mepis first. In some ways, though, this is a non-issue, as you'd hope that any "average user" would have someone more knowledgeable who would install Ubuntu for her, and then that person would also install the necessary codecs.
Great thead, aysiu.

I disagree with this section, however. I am still trying to get WMP to play .mpeg files in colour instead of black and white. In Ubuntu it was a matter of downloading a .deb file and I got the whole pack of codecs.

[FooAtari]

I agree Complex...

Here is what I posted (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1320230&postcount=71) in another thread after a bit of a rant about Linux and then having a proper think about it.

"When thinking about this, something else also occured to me. Recently my Granda bought a PC, and it was a hard 6 months or so teaching him how to do the most basic things, and it occured to me what a dautining task it would be to teach him everything I know, there is so much when you actually think about it. Things that now seem simple and second nature are very difficult for a complete Novice to understand and remember, just making him understand simple concepts was difficult.

Now if I was good enough with Linux, and picked up an easy to use distro I could have taught my granda how to do the basic things, Internet, email, photos etc etc, and it would have been no more easy or difficult for him than it was to learn Windows.

It's not Linux that is hard to use, it is because people are brought up with Windows in schools, in the office or with the PC they bought and they get into a way of doing things and get habbits, it's hard to let them go, also it's so well supported over the phone, on web sites and on the CD's provided my manufacturers. Especially for an advanced user, to go from doing everything to nothing and having to learn so much so quickly (it was a gradual process when I first got a PC and windows) to get to where you are with Windows it is very annoying and so easy to blame someone/something else and bin the whole idea, going back to the comfort Windows.

It's not the fault of Linux or the user to an extent, it's the way things are in the computing world at the moment. Windows rules all and for most people their first experience of computing is with Windows, and you learn how to use that, and it's only after you have developed a real interest for computing that you hear about this thing called Linux, but for many people it's already to late"

So basically I think what you are used to does make a difference. If my Granda had bought a PC with linux setup and pre-installed I'm sure, having never seen or used any OS before, he would have found using linux (in the same way as he uses windows), no more difficult or easier. To him it would have been just as hard learning how to use Windows or Linux.

I am more proficient with Windows so it was easier for me to show him how to use that, and the PC came with Windows installed. And also initially, I think Windows is easier to use for someone new, but it seems that way to me because I myself can use Windows, and not Linux (very well, yet). If it had been other way around, and I was proficinet in Linux I would have thought that would be easier for him, because I understand it, so it's easier for me to show him. And because I find it easier, I automatically assume that it must be the easier for a Novice, which is not the case. I just don't know any better, being a Windows only user until very recently. You could call it arrogance, I think I know best because I consider my self an advanced user, but having never really used OSX or Linux, what the hell do I know when it comes to which is easier for someone new to PC's to learn :)

[djsroknrol]

As always, well said aysiu..but I think it's a matter of what everyone was raised on..it's not about being "easier" per se, but what has become "second nature" to most...MS has just plain made it easier for the masses...

Linux needs to have that edge if it's going to attract and hold on to the end user in the future..

my .02 worth on the subject...

[Dinerty]

Really intresting thread this one, coming from a linux newcomer (Only been using it for about 2 weeks or so).

Windows or Ubuntu easier, I personally dont think there is a answer due to the knowledge/experience of the user, from personal experience it takes me alot longer to have Windows XP fully working (3hrs of installing OS, Drivers, Software, Updating), but then again I know excatly what to do, the average user would be lost, whereas I can have Ubuntu working within 30 mins as for the question "Whats a average user", I personally think it is

"User who requires minimal needs and functionality from the system, whether this by internet browsing, checking email or using instant messaging (Commonly msn)"

The main 2 I say are Internet and checking email, like previous people have said in this thread, the basic user won't bother installing a OS from scratch, neither would they be to bothered about virus scans or updating software.

Ubuntu for me, was simpler to install, due to the programs and drivers it installed automatically, no need to install my Belkin PCI firewire drivers, Sound blaster drivers, ATI card drivers (Installs the default/basic graphics driver)

In a ideal world, if Ubuntu was so simple for everyone and detected every piece of hardware under the sun, I would say Ubuntu has the easier install, however in reality we know this is not the case at all. (This isnt the case of Ubuntu being at fault its the manufaceturs of hardware, and no OS would detect everything hardware, even windows ;))

What makes Ubuntu different is if it does not find hardware, what do you do?, most cases it's time to fire up the terminal, with windows you go to manufacteurs website and download the driver and install, however is your average joe going to know to do that and excatly what type of driver to download? (e.g. Windows Me, XP, 2000)

My conclusion would be is if things go wrong on install then neither would that easy for the average user to correct

[prizrak]

I agree with habbit being a big things. I have been Linux only for a while and I find myself lost in Windows from time to time. Especially when it comes to software, I'm so used to clickin on Synaptic to dl just about anything I need that I get stomped for a second on a Windows machine before I remember the Google button :)

[Iandefor]

Good anaysis. I wonder why I didn't see it before:confused:?

[ubuntu_demon]

I posted about this thread on my blog :
http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/the-perception-that-windows-is-easier-to-use-than-ubuntu/

My opinion :

For most use cases using Windows is more hard than using Ubuntu. (For example Ubuntu is easy to maintain and there is a lot of good open source software easy available from the “add/remove” menu entry.)

But for some use cases using Ubuntu is more hard than using Windows. (For example for gamers or for people who are forced to use MS Office.)

[aysiu]

Every day I'm appalled at the faulty assumption that Windows is easier or "just works."

Last Saturday, a Windows-using friend of ours was complaining about how she can't install the latest Quicktime (something about how it was "unable to complete the installation"). This is Windows XP. It's a double-click setup.exe. I suggested she install iTunes because that comes with Quicktime. She said she'd already tried that. I asked if she had administrative privileges on her account, and she assured me she did. I had no other option to offer her. I have no idea what's wrong. Instead of her saying, "Windows sucks. Why won't anything work? I should just switch to Linux," she just says "This sucks."

Today at work, two co-workers were complaining about how it took a really long time after logging in to see their desktop icons. If they hit the Enter key, the icons would appear, though. They were baffled. Didn't complain about how Windows is difficult to use or doesn't "just work." They just were really confused.

Another co-worker of mine complained about how difficult it was to add a network printer to his list of printers. I couldn't figure out the add print "wizard" either (I can do it for physically attached printers, but not networked ones--we're on a domain; it's complicated).

So this whole "it's just easier" or "it just works" thing is nonsense, and I'm reminded of it every day when my co-workers and friends complain. But they don't blame Windows. Windows is the only OS to them. Even Mac is considered a pretty toy, not a computer. Linux is unheard of.

The only people who think Windows "just works" are the ones who've learned to work it.

Right now, even I (someone who has put in a lot of ours to figure out how to work Windows) am having an issue with my Windows computer at work. Whenever I try to attach attachments or open something from an open dialogue, the dialogue hangs for about ten seconds. Then the action completes. It's annoying, and I have no idea how to fix it. If this were Ubuntu, I'd just launch the application from the terminal and then Google the error in the terminal output.

Oh, well. Just venting!

[skymt]

I have my mom, who has a Mac background, learning Windows and Ubuntu (GNOME) at the same time. Ubuntu is much easier for her, for several reasons:

* The Places menu. It's fantastically usable for a new user. My Computer is nowhere near as intuitive for her.
* File save dialogs. Several times, I've had to help her with the Windows save dialog, finding the folder she wants to save to. Never with Ubuntu.
* Add/Remove Programs. Enough said.
* The Applications menu. All your applications, automatically ordered by category rather than company like most Windows installers default to.

[aysiu]

By the way, I'm not really venting about my friends and co-workers. They don't insist Windows "just works." I'm really venting about posts like these:

From PLEASE READ: The Latest Updates Break the Xserver! (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1411471#post1411471): So the foundation of linux is still the CLI? Well, why don't you tell the people who want to switch from Windows this, instead of erroneously claiming Ubuntu as a Windows replacement?

Human Beings don't want to learn the command line. They want an OS that just works. Stop claiming that Ubuntu can meet their needs From Good simple configuration tool for its X server to change resolution, frequency (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=459181#post459181) I've been faced with a 640x480 display more times than I can count. I'm weary of editing xorg.conf from a command line with no GUI at all. And I've never yet got a laptop working satisfactorily with an external display. I've even had one scenario where I had to plug in a spare monitor to fool X during boot, and then replace it with the real thing later. Sometimes I've had to install extra packages to get things going (855 resolution, official nvidia drivers), sometimes I can't use these packages. And every time, Windows just works. From Well, Windows is back on the disk. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=662780#post662780): if I though windows was better than linux, then I
would be using it, because I do have a legal copy which is going unused
at the moment. What I was saying is that Windows does not stuff up in
the way linux sometimes does. To use a cliche, it "Just Works." That is
very impressive and should be acknowledged. Also, if that is all people
wqant and need from heir computer, ultimately, windows is a better
choice than linux.

Also, no windows except for xp is supported with frequent updates, or
sometimes, any updates, so I'm not sure where you are getting your
information from.

Finally, contrasting windows with linux in terms of usability, or room
to grow, etc. is in fact very easy. It is only difficult to contrast the
code. The end user experience can be and is contrasted all the time.

[.t.]

So true. It pisses me off as well. I just want to tell them to bugger off.

[prizrak]

Aysiu,
Why were you having such difficulties with the network printers? They seemed pretty straight forward to set up on both OS's for me (also domain). Maybe the people who set up your domain are idiots as usually you just join the domain on login and won't have to do more than just point the computer at the print server and the printer you want to use.

I love the second quote you posted and would like to give my account. On the laptop I am currently using the internal display was working 100% from the get go. To make matters worse, it would work EXACTLY like Windows with the external display, down to hitting Fn+F5 (something that was set up automatically) to switch between: internal only, both and external only. My tablet didn't work as nicely (and I was too lazy to figure it out) but SuSE and Fedora Core both have excellent GUI for X configuration and Dual Head.

It's definetly funny how people who just don't know about something assume it's difficult. Back in college a few of my professors could not for the life of them set their laptops to work with overhead projectors and one of them was a former electrical engineer. Not a single person who wasn't in the techie field that I know had any idea where to change the screen resolution.

Probably the worst Linux ignorance I ever seen was from my co-worker. His a cool guy (mostly cuz he drives as crazy as I do) and is a Senior DBA here. I had my tablet with XGL hooked up and was playing with the effects. He saw it and asked what OS it was and how I got it like that. I said it was Linux and I used a simple script (Automatix Bleeder) to get it like that. His response floored me: "Oh I thought it was all CLI stuff". Now this is not a stupid guy, he is a very experienced IT worker. What would you expect from a regular person?

[aysiu]

I don't think they're idiots, but there's a high turnover and some disorganization sometimes. I don't know. Each printer has an IP address, but there's no obvious place to put it, and when you browse the network printers, you can't find the ones you're looking for. It's weird.

[limitedmage]

Well, for people who have been using Windows for 10+ years and have never used Linux before, it is quite hard to make the switch. Maybe the Windows way of doing things is hard, but these kind of users are used to it. They try to do things the Windows way on Linux, and it is very different. For instance, donwloading programs directly from a browser is a hassle on Linux, because of the number of different packages available (RPM, DEB, source, etc), which a Windows user isn't familiar with. A very easy to use program (apt and its front-end) is used for that. But who, coming from a Windows background, would instinctively think of this?

[aysiu]

There are some people who do not concede as much, though, limitedmage.

There are plenty of people who actually believe Windows is empirically "easy," and Ubuntu is empirically "difficult"--that has nothing to do with familiarity, culture, and fear of the unknown.

It's like Americans thinking English is an easy language to learn... because that's the language they speak! Never mind the fact that English has fewer consistent grammar and spelling rules than any other popular language.

[carloslosgrande]

Hi to you all, I've been using windows for over 10 years and its been difficult the entire time. Nothing in it makes sense to me, from the file and menu system to the error messages. A most unfriendly system.
I began using Mainframe computers in the 80's and then moved to PC's because my work changed. Employers wouldn't consider Mac's and I never new that Linu/Unix were being used on PCs until just a couple of weeks ago.

I'm finding the Ubuntu thats working [the main parts] is very good but I'm also having a lot trouble getting some apps running that I want to have. A BIG learning curve for me. Luckily I'm stubborn.
I very much doubt that my wife would consider this move as her goal is a system that just does what she is used to, even with the frustating illogicalities.

She's jealous of, and says I'm spending more time with, Ubuntu than her!

All in all, it would take a MAJOR problem, ie insurmountable difficulty, to push me back to XP!

[Fred Doolie]

Windows is easier than Linux, just like crapping your pants is easier than going to the bathroom.

LOL! Good analogy. Winblows systems come ready to roll out of the box and have the general message of "I'll handle it for you" so people see it as "easier". Here is my two cents.

My current computer came without an OS and I'd have to say that Windows is harder to install. A virgin install of Winblows leaves me with a 640x480 16 color screen and no sound. No hardware drivers. 80,000 updates to be downloaded. It over took three hours to get the system ready to go. I was smart and made an image copy of the drive. Now I can install a virgin Win in under 15 minutes but still...WOW!

A virgin install of Ubuntu leaves me with a system that is all ready to go. All hardware works when the install is finished. 77 Updates to be installed. Big whoop.

Which is "easier" to actually use? I'll say this. Unbuntu (well, Linux) has a steep learning curve. The first couple weeks are difficult but after that Ubuntu is easier than Winblows because YOU KNOW HOW IT WORKS!

Example: The Win user needs to get "Drive Image" or "CreateISO "and "Virtual CD" or "Daemon Tools" and learn new apps. The Ubuntu user uses dd and mount. Which is easier?

[Reshin]

LOL! Good analogy. Winblows systems come ready to roll out of the box and have the general message of "I'll handle it for you" so people see it as "easier". Here is my two cents.

My current computer came without an OS and I'd have to say that Windows is harder to install. A virgin install of Winblows leaves me with a 640x480 16 color screen and no sound. No hardware drivers. 80,000 updates to be downloaded. It over took three hours to get the system ready to go. I was smart and made an image copy of the drive. Now I can install a virgin Win in under 15 minutes but still...WOW!

A virgin install of Ubuntu leaves me with a system that is all ready to go. All hardware works when the install is finished. 77 Updates to be installed. Big whoop.

Which is "easier" to actually use? I'll say this. Unbuntu (well, Linux) has a steep learning curve. The first couple weeks are difficult but after that Ubuntu is easier than Winblows because YOU KNOW HOW IT WORKS!

Example: The Win user needs to get "Drive Image" or "CreateISO "and "Virtual CD" or "Daemon Tools" and learn new apps. The Ubuntu user uses dd and mount. Which is easier?

Daemon Tools and such are relatively easy with guis. DD and mount are command-line tools requiring not-so-easy-to-learn-or-remember options.

[billT]

LOL! Good analogy. Winblows systems come ready to roll out of the box and have the general message of "I'll handle it for you" so people see it as "easier". Here is my two cents.

My current computer came without an OS and I'd have to say that Windows is harder to install. A virgin install of Winblows leaves me with a 640x480 16 color screen and no sound. No hardware drivers. 80,000 updates to be downloaded. It over took three hours to get the system ready to go. I was smart and made an image copy of the drive. Now I can install a virgin Win in under 15 minutes but still...WOW!

A virgin install of Ubuntu leaves me with a system that is all ready to go. All hardware works when the install is finished. 77 Updates to be installed. Big whoop.

Which is "easier" to actually use? I'll say this. Unbuntu (well, Linux) has a steep learning curve. The first couple weeks are difficult but after that Ubuntu is easier than Winblows because YOU KNOW HOW IT WORKS!

Example: The Win user needs to get "Drive Image" or "CreateISO "and "Virtual CD" or "Daemon Tools" and learn new apps. The Ubuntu user uses dd and mount. Which is easier?

Clever use of 'blows' in the word Windows. Man, that stuff never gets old! Also nice work exaggerating the number of updates that needed to be installed for XP. It sure makes 77 look much smaller. I bet in reality the exact numbers were pretty close, especially since SP2 includes pretty much all patches before it.

All that said, I'll agree with the others who have said that 'easy' is relative. Things that one is used to are easy. Hitting a baseball is pretty easy, but I can't play tennis to save my life.

[Stone123]

ayisu you should start your own Ubuntu magazine. Avarage user is forced to learn Windows.

[punkinside]

Daemon Tools and such are relatively easy with guis. DD and mount are command-line tools requiring not-so-easy-to-learn-or-remember options.

Not really, for most cases you just use the options someone put in the howto and never ever try to do man dd or man mount. In those other programs you have to scanvenge through a sea of buttons, wizards and the like.

Whats really the problem here is that new users are afraid of actually writing commands in the terminal. Their "comfort zone" lies within that click-and-drag hell.

[prizrak]

It's like Americans thinking English is an easy language to learn... because that's the language they speak! Never mind the fact that English has fewer consistent grammar and spelling rules than any other popular language.
As someone who had to learn English as his second language I must say that to me it always seemed like there was not a single rule of grammar in this language. I pretty much just memorized HOW it's suppose to sound when you say/write and go by that. If it don't sound right it's probably wrong :) Though English is quite a bit easier to learn than Russian if you are learning a second language.
Also nice work exaggerating the number of updates that needed to be installed for XP. It sure makes 77 look much smaller. I bet in reality the exact numbers were pretty close, especially since SP2 includes pretty much all patches before it.

Actually after an XP SP2 install I had 86 initial patches. After those were installed I had about 15 more, after those were installed I had 4 or 5, then 2 and then 1. so the total is 93 patches for Windows alone. After installing MS Office (had OO on it first but THOUGHT that something was having trouble opening the .docs I made in it) there were and another 3-5 updates to install. The numbers are actual since I did an XP install recently.

I must say that for me it was never the number of patches, Linux, Windows and OS X all have a crap load of patches that is normal. What always got me about Windows was the fact that newer patches seldom integrate earlier ones so you have to get the earlier patches first and then patches for those patches. The other thing was always install time, it takes me a day to install XP from scratch because installing patches takes at least 2 hours and that's not including service packs. Ubuntu patches take like 20 minutes at most and don't require grabbing more patches after that batch is done. Not to mention that the only time you restart Linux is after a kernel ugprade.

[kuriharu]

<i>5. Software installation is easier. Now keep in mind--I'm talking about for this mythical "average user." No longer need she go to the internet, search about for "freeware," try to figure out if it's pay-for software with a free trial or no trial, try to figure out if it's going to give her a virus or spyware.</I>

This is decidedly NOT true. For Windows, you basically have to just click on a link to an .exe file on someone's website, for example, and you install the software. One easy step.

In Ubuntu, IF you can get a user to understand what a "package manager" is, he may get it. But he's limited to getting software from the package manager.

Let's not forget that he'll inevitably come across software from the Internet for Linux that WILL NOT INSTALL. Forget having users even look at tarballs (which invariable won't install, despite meeting all of the requirements). And they have to weed through more than one format to install programs; tarballs, rpms, etc. debs will install but again this requires more work from the user.

Of course, you can explain to them how to edit the /etc/apt/sources.list to include more repositories -- if you're very brave. And that assumes the software they want is available that way.

The point that users don't have to search for freeware and what not is valid but that doesn't make software "easier to install"

[tagra123]

What's easier about Windows?
I'll concede there are things that are easier about Windows:

1. Clipboard contents get remembered on application exit. I have to say this is one of the most annoying things about Gnome, KDE, and XFCE. It's a basic user expectation--"Wait, I copied that to the clipboard... why isn't it pasting?"

2. You can do contextual searches from within folders. So Dapper finally made it so that if you're in Nautilus, you can press Control-F and search within Nautilus. Great. It won't search in the folder you're in necessarily--it will default to searching in your home folder. Not very useful. Sorry.

3. Just about any software you buy will have a Windows version. While the convenience of the repositories I think would be better for "average users" in the long run, right now this is the kind of convenience they're used to. Walk into Best Buy, see some software, shell out money for it. It works with Windows.

4. Just about any hardware you buy will include Windows drivers. Do you need to worry if your new printer is Mac-compatible or Linux-compatible? Of course not--you use Windows. Buy whatever you want.

5. My Network Places will usually recognize other computers and let you browse to them. It's really sad that people have to post threads like, "How do I get my two Ubuntu computers to see each other?" and it boils down to having to install SSH.

6. Newly-plugged-in Windows drives will automatically be recognized and have read/write permissions. Format a new drive as Ext3 and plug it into Ubuntu--what happens? You have to chown it and then chmod it properly before you can use it.

7. Codecs are easier. Now, keep in mind, this is just for Ubuntu--not for all Linux distributions. If proprietary codecs seem a pain for you to install and you want to write off all Linux because of Ubuntu, try Mepis first. In some ways, though, this is a non-issue, as you'd hope that any "average user" would have someone more knowledgeable who would install Ubuntu for her, and then that person would also install the necessary codecs.



For item #1, I couldn't agree more. A common clipboard would be very useful.

#2 is not that big of issue to me but it is nice when you want it.

#3 CrossOver Office is getting even better at running "unsupported applications"

#4 I agree but what really needs to be is a real Hardware Compatibility Library for linux. A works / doesn't work type of listing where I can go to the store and know that it will work when I hook it up.

#5 Networking - yes it will work. I like a secure computer too. The most secure computer is the one that's turned off. Security is important but usability is important too. By default everything could be setup to find the other computers or why not have a gui configuration for samba with the options (Unusable Ubuntu Networking or Usuable Networking). The least they could do is make it easier GUI style to turn off some of the security overkill.

#6 Been there

#7 If they are not going to be installed by default have a quick how to or link to a place that tells you how too. Once I knew where to look I have sound and video working great in about 10 minutes. Took longer than that to find it. Like I said a link to inform the user instead of wasting valuable time finding the solution.

You forgot #8

Printing needs to work, period. Instead of making a user search and search to find out the XXX brand printer is a paperweight with ubuntu, let them know up front. Yes the ppd file might exist and ubuntu recognizes that your a XXX-XXX Model printer -- so you set it up try to print a test page and get nothing then you spend 3 hours reading to find out it might work with 20 to 30 steps.

#9 Test updates ----- before release.

Don't get me wrong I really like using ubuntu once its working, I have had no trouble keeping it running smoothly and I have VMware and CrossoverOffice to help with the windows apps I need.

[aysiu]

The setup.exe doesn't come from nowhere. You have to search for it. Package management is built into Ubuntu.

[ago]

This is decidedly NOT true. For Windows, you basically have to just click on a link to an .exe file on someone's website, for example, and you install the software. One easy step.

To begin with you have to find the website first, and the download page within it. So it is at least 2 steps. Then, you need to check the autenticity of the website, you need to google to see if there is any known spyware/malawere associated with the file (which with windows software is quite common, also for commercial offerings), you need to pray that nobody swaps the files when you download it (you cannot even check that, faith is your only answer), you need to scan the file for viruses, you need to select where to install it, change the default menu path (which 99% of the times is a meaningless proposition), and even so you have to pray that it does not mess up anything else. And when you uninstall, you have to pray again. Of course many avoid one or more of the steps above, but then, either you install very little software from trusted sources or your machine will not last long...

In Ubuntu I only have to select an item from a list. Full stop.

In Ubuntu, IF you can get a user to understand what a "package manager" is, he may get it. But he's limited to getting software from the package manager.

All I have to explain to new users is to click on Add/Remove programs and select/unselect from the list what they want... Beat that...

...And they are limited to "only" 20,000+ offerings...

Let's not forget that he'll inevitably come across software from the Internet for Linux that WILL NOT INSTALL

If something is not in Ubuntu repositories chances are that: 1) it is not required by 99% of people, 2) it is still alpha code and should not be be installed anyway by "normal" users.

Of course, you can explain to them how to edit the /etc/apt/sources.list to include more repositories
You can do easily so by graphical interface. And again, it is not required since the software provided in the main repositories is the one "normal" users should get. More advanced users will have no problems clicking a couple of buttons to add a repository

[aysiu]

I've shown package management is fewer steps:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/winuxinstall

Now with Add/Remove programs, it's even simpler than Synaptic Package Manager.

And you don't need to manually edit the /etc/apt/sources.list to add more repositories:
http://www.monkeyblog.org/ubuntu/installing

[Mime]

One thing that I've seen happen to a lot of new linux users is that they're not used to having as many choices as a typical linux system gives them. I think it's great personally to have a choice between different programs for basic utilities, but I've also seen some people get bogged down because of it since they have to think about what program to use before they can actually start doing stuff.

Friendlier error messages might be a good idea also. There's been a lot of progress here, and I hate the error messages windows uses because they hardly ever tell you anything about what really went wrong(I am my system administrator, stupid machine), but some of the error messages provided I think are still a bit too complicated to be very useful to new users.

[Mihkal]

Friendlier error messages might be a good idea also. There's been a lot of progress here, and I hate the error messages windows uses because they hardly ever tell you anything about what really went wrong(I am my system administrator, stupid machine), but some of the error messages provided I think are still a bit too complicated to be very useful to new users.

But with linux error messages, I can always find a solution through any forum by searching with that exact message.

Unlike the "problem light" error messages in windows that only tells me one thing: PROBLEM.

[tagra123]

Windows XP Network Wizard will set up the network automatically in just a few minutes, Oun the wizard on each pc and everrything gets connected and is able to see each other. Something like this would be nice to have especially for a new user / and even an advanced user that doesn't want to waste a lot of time messing.

I didn't find the networking that difficult to accomplish in either system at least for internet access, but sharing required reading. I personally prefer NFS but do share with window with samba.

Wireless especially WPA needs some work to be easier to use in Linux.

[Quake]

I have to say the easiness of an OS depends on someone's needs.

For exemple, my mother Video chat in MSN Messenger with her family in Morocco quite often.
So Ubuntu in that case would be out of question since the person would have to configure MSN with Wine (AMSN support webcam but unfortunately no audio). In Windows, they only need to be directed to messenger.msn.com, download it, install it, off they go.

Another exemple: I know a lot of people where Ubuntu would be perfect for them since they don't IM. They only use Word, Surf the internet and check their e-mails.

So it depends on the persons needs.

[prizrak]

Wireless especially WPA needs some work to be easier to use in Linux.

I still don't see how Wireless + WPA is better in Windows? We need Network-Manager out of the box on Ubuntu and that's about it. I would say that network manager is actually better than XP Wireless Zero in some ways. All in all I would put the equal on that. Yes Linux has issues with obscure wireless adapters but lets face it, if you have any sense you gonna get a Centrino, Duo or w/e is Intel calling it now laptop.

[tagra123]

I still don't see how Wireless + WPA is better in Windows? We need Network-Manager out of the box on Ubuntu and that's about it. I would say that network manager is actually better than XP Wireless Zero in some ways. All in all I would put the equal on that. Yes Linux has issues with obscure wireless adapters but lets face it, if you have any sense you gonna get a Centrino, Duo or w/e is Intel calling it now laptop.


That gets back to one of my original statements a real 100% Compatiblity Database for Ubuntu.

I like Ubuntu better than windows, but 5 minutes to set up WPA with a couple of clicks and a password is easier than hunting down the right program for the particular piece of hardware you already have.

[Fred Doolie]

Daemon Tools and such are relatively easy with guis. DD and mount are command-line tools requiring not-so-easy-to-learn-or-remember options.

True. Allow me to rephrase.

The Windows user has to find, download and install three or four new apps and learn them. Then if he wants to do more neat stuff he finds, downloads, installs and learns more apps.

The Linux user learns only two very powerful built-in flexible commands that do all that neat stuff and much more.

Clearer?

[Fred Doolie]

> Actually after an XP SP2 install I had 86 initial patches.
>After those were installed I had about 15 more, after those
>were installed I had 4 or 5, then 2 and then 1. so the total
> is 93 patches for Windows alone.

Yes, that's what I meant. The hyperbole was intentional. You update and reboot over and over a bunch of times. Ubuntu gets it's much smaller number of updates with no reboot and it's ready to go. If you do need a reboot you can do it later. Windows usually forces those reboots.

[Fred Doolie]

updates that needed to be installed for XP.

XP? That cpu cycle and memory sucking piece of junk? I'm using Win2000. It's WAY faster, has no bloatware, takes up a LOT less room, runs my games (XP will *not*) and doesn't phone home.

When I get my new laptop the first thing I'm going to do is reformat that XP off of there. Well, second thing. There are no restore CDs so first thing is make an image copy of the HDD just in case of emergency. Then Ubuntu-ize the new system.

[IYY]

Very good and balanced analysis, my opinion is this: Ubuntu would be many times easier than Windows if Windows didn't exist (or wasn't as commonly used). However, right now it is not as easy. It mainly comes down to the fact that everything is designed for Windows, and this is a very big deal! And also, everybody uses Windows, so it doesn't feel like you're alone.

[ubuntuman001]

I'm just thinking, how horrible the day will be, if aysiu leaves or forsakes these forums. i couldn't imagine a bigger loss. aysiu, you're like a one-man army, clearing up myths, justifying your points, and always giving your time for support. thank you.

[Spano]

When I get my new laptop the first thing I'm going to do is reformat that XP off of there. Well, second thing. There are no restore CDs so first thing is make an image copy of the HDD just in case of emergency.
Or in case you want to sell it.

[aysiu]

I'm just thinking, how horrible the day will be, if aysiu leaves or forsakes these forums. i couldn't imagine a bigger loss. aysiu, you're like a one-man army, clearing up myths, justifying your points, and always giving your time for support. thank you.
I don't have plans to leave any time soon, but I don't think it'd be a total loss. I'm flattered you think so, but I disagree with it, nonetheless.

What attracted me to Ubuntu was its great community, and that community was great before I got here, and it'll remain great even if I leave.

And who's to say someone else wouldn't come in and be Ubuntu-clearing-of-myths person?

I actually think Carrots171 (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=64768) does a great job of clearing up myths in a succinct and well-argued fashion.

[dmizer]

aysiu:

networked printing in windows is about as baffling as it gets.

here's your "windows is intuitive" answer: http://uis.georgetown.edu/software/documentation/winxp/winxp.network.printer.html

for networked printers, you don't add the printer as a networked printer, you add it as a local printer and create a tcp/ip port. it took me months to figure this out.

but this is still far better than my linux printing experience which over the course of an entire year has yielded one entirely screwed up test page. i am only able to successfully print to an ancient dot matrix printer.

i think it all really comes down to this:
different yes. one better than the other? no.

[prizrak]

for networked printers, you don't add the printer as a networked printer, you add it as a local printer and create a tcp/ip port.
What Windows are you using? (or what drug are you smoking?). In Windows you go to add printer then choose networked printer or a printer connected to another computer. Then either manually put \\server\printer in or browse your network for one. If it requires a login Windows will ask for username and password and the printer drivers will get loaded onto your machine.

In Ubuntu it's pretty much the same, except that you have a uname/pwd box right there and you have to select the printer make/model yourself and if it's not in the list hope that it works.

At work I got a Dapper laptop and an XP desktop both connect to the same networked printer without any issues and both took a grand total of 5 minutes to setup (including printing a test page and going to the printer to retrieve it). It boils down to drivers, if the manufacturer supports Linux then you will be fine, if not you are screwed for the most part. Real network printers (ones that plug directly into the network) tend to work well with Linux since Linux is pretty big on servers.

[raul_]

Back to that average user thing. Someone said that the average user is someone who wants to browse the web and view e-mails...how is linux difficult in that? Browser and e-mail client come pre installed and (at least in my case) ubuntu recognizes most modems/routers/whatever . You can ever surf the web with Dapper Live CD!

I think that linux is difficult, for someone who "searches" for difficult things.If u want to tweak to the maximum, and customize every single bit of it(kinda like what i do, and by the way, Windows is way more limited in that, and then again, it's supposed to)
Ok, maybe your hardware is not supported (video card, modem, webcam), in that windows is better, but why? Because it has the monopoly, and when someone wants to sell a webcam, they make it work for windows, because that's what most people have, and that's a cycle(more people use windows, more companies make their produts based on Windows). Of course there are webcams for Apple, i was making a point.

On the other hand, someone said that Linux sucks to use in work. I disagree. It sucks in your work, i don't doubt that (maybe u have to work with excel or something), but i'm an IT student, and it's way easier for me to program in C, Java, u name it, in Linux. Hell, it's easier for me to do anything with Linux. Ok, i'm an IT student, i'm not an "average user" (back to the same). But the point is, Linux is also a very powerful productivity OS , and i'm only saying this because i think that many people think that Linux is that thing u have in your home computer because it's kinda fun to mess with it (or if u prefer it, the "toy" OS), and it's actually the other way round.

Just to finish, i'm not saying which one is easier, i'm just making some points. U just decide for urself

[prizrak]

ack to that average user thing. Someone said that the average user is someone who wants to browse the web and view e-mails...how is linux difficult in that? Browser and e-mail client come pre installed and (at least in my case) ubuntu recognizes most modems/routers/whatever . You can ever surf the web with Dapper Live CD!
Yes and no really. I mean it's just as easy to browse the web with Linux but if you want flash then basically forget about it. I won't mention codecs cuz that's a mess on Windows just as much as it is on Linux.

As far as hardware goes I've had much less trouble with it on Linux than Windows never had to hunt the drivers down.

Personal opinion is that both OS's are about the same to use each has strengths and weakneses.

[aysiu]

Yes and no really. I mean it's just as easy to browse the web with Linux but if you want flash then basically forget about it. While your point in general may stand for other things (Java, perhaps), Flash has become easier to install because I think Firefox now acknowledges its Linux base.

See the first example here:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/flashubuntu

I think it used to just tell you to install "unknown plugin."

[Gargamella]

mmm i am a almost new linux user... i think i would like to have a easier connection manager,to set up easily adsl and wifi connections.
However i say this because i have tried Mandriva Linux 2006 before Ubuntu, and i have not had problem with ndiswrapper and it has a graphical connection setup,by the way i love Ubuntu ;D

so i say NETWORK set up

[raul_]

i use ADSL and it was working out of the box

[prizrak]

While your point in general may stand for other things (Java, perhaps), Flash has become easier to install because I think Firefox now acknowledges its Linux base.

See the first example here:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/flashubuntu

I think it used to just tell you to install "unknown plugin."

The installation is no problem. Automatix will do it for you and install many other things including XGL/compiz(beryl?) with the bleeder version. I meant that we still only got Flash 7. Windows is up to Flash 9 and Adobe has been taking hella time developing 9 for Linux.
Java is very easy in my experience, after all Sun developed it on Unix (well Solaris) originally.

[aysiu]

The installation is no problem. Automatix will do it for you and install many other things including XGL/compiz(beryl?) with the bleeder version. I meant that we still only got Flash 7. Windows is up to Flash 9 and Adobe has been taking hella time developing 9 for Linux.
Java is very easy in my experience, after all Sun developed it on Unix (well Solaris) originally.
Ah, I get it.

[prizrak]

LOL this definetly is on topic http://www.bash.org/?81840

[dmizer]

What Windows are you using? (or what drug are you smoking?).

thanks for taking the time to browse to my link (http://uis.georgetown.edu/software/documentation/winxp/winxp.network.printer.html) where screenshot examples are given in xp.

win2000 works the same way.

[emarkay]

Win98SE vs. Ubuntu/Linux

Do a search on a few of my posts here and [please] see this post regarding SETI/BOINC:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=34470#435875

and then see what I feel. I am making much effort to wean myself from the M$ empire!

Sincere assistance and observations welcome personally.

MRK

[basketcase]

Sorry I didnt' read all of this....

Easiest to most complicated...

OSX
Ubuntu
Windows

The reason I put Ubuntu before Windows was because more often than not on any system I've used, hardware is detected and functional. With windows, I'm installing drivers till the cows come home.

In regards to networking, it's sort of a toss up. I've seen ubuntu out of the box browse my windows network, connect to network (windows) shares, and work wonderfully. Often times with Windows, it's a little more PITA to get things to function seemlessly.

In my (very) limited experience with OS X, it is amazing how things 'just work'. I think Ubuntu is just short of it, and Windows is 2 steps behind.

Again only my experience.

[aysiu]

basketcase, I'm with you there.

In some ways, I wish Ubuntu were more like OS X, in that there would be the software designed to work on specific hardware (not all hardware) and hardware designed for the specific software.

I'm not talking about just System76, which has preinstalled Ubuntu. After all, Dell has preinstalled Windows, but Dell is not Apple. With Apple, everything has to be compatible because it's designed that way.

I would love to have a brand of products that is small but reliable and known to always work with Ubuntu that the Ubuntu developers also cater to and test heavily on than have Ubuntu trying hard to work on just about everything. Just my opinion.

[Yossarian]

This is my experience (and likely aysiu has written an article on this):

Ubuntu is better on paper. If you're an engineer or designer or something you will whistle in appreciation when you learn about Unix/Ubuntu's design. Windows is basically a piece of crap, but with commerical support.

Unfortunately, some people need commerical software (ie software for windows). I myself will need specific CAD/CAM software for the self-same named course in 12 months (but that means a new PC anyways). Them's the breaks.

Anyways, Ubuntu is great at what it does. If you want to do office/email/web or whatever, Ubuntu is your baby.

Actually, the topic was about which is easier: both are point and click, once set up.

[daynah]

Yeah, I find ubuntu "easier." Even finding the drivers, as long as they exist, is easier. I'm pretty dumb. I don't know how to do drivers. I'm stuck in gui-land. So when I go "uuhhh. something's messing up." I know where to go to get help... ubuntuforums

Um where do I go for windows help?

Seriously? Like... one of a billion different places? And then I have to think critically to try to make sure it's not a fake .dll I just downloaded or maybe it was a real .dll but they just had a bad webdesign... omg who knows.

But help for ubuntu is on one place. The instructions will involve two or less things, synaptic and terminal. Installing things does not require subjecting yourself to spam and wasting hours. It requires asking a question and getting an answer and doing it.

[basketcase]

I'll add this. When working with OS X and I want to know how to do something, the help feature has been amazing.

In Windows, I don't know if it has ever helped me really, only made me feel like I was chasing my tail.

[prizrak]

thanks for taking the time to browse to my link (http://uis.georgetown.edu/software/documentation/winxp/winxp.network.printer.html) where screenshot examples are given in xp.

win2000 works the same way.

Look at the screenshots, under the Local printer you had an option of networked printer....

[3rdalbum]

As someone who's been using Ubuntu longer than they've been using Windows (and had Windows preinstalled on their computer):

What you know is easier than what you don't know.

Ubuntu is easier for me to use than Windows.

Also, I'd like to address the #1 point in the first post. KDE comes with Klipper, which solves the clipboard problem. Gnome and XFCE users can install Glipper, which does the same thing. You can install it from source (compiled in seconds without problems) or from the Deb at http://www.getdeb.net. Or PM me and I'll send you my Checkinstalled Deb.

[dmizer]

Look at the screenshots, under the Local printer you had an option of networked printer....

yes, and at the risk of beating this horse to a bloody pulp ... you cannot add a networked printer as a networked printer if it is not shared as part of the windows domain (mshome, et al). ie, if an internet cable runs from the router to the printer.

if your networked printer only has an ip and is not a part of windows domain (which aysiu indicates is the case), it is not possible to make it work correctly (yes you can make it work intermittently) as a networked printer. you must add it as a local printer and add a tcp/ip port, as shown in that link.

which ... in a heroic attempt at trying to keep this from being completely unrelated and useless, i feel is an excellent example of the fact that people say windows is intuitive only because it is what they are most familiar with.

it is not possible to judge two things fairly and objectively when your knowledge of one greatly outweighs the other. it's only really fair to compare windows and linux once your knowledge of both have reached the same level.

[frup]

I just had to help my mum on her windows XP get some photos of her camera... I've been running only Ubuntu since January and i found it almost impossible to do on windows! Took me 10 minutes to work it out! It was a really refreshing experience to see how a new user feels using something unfamiliar...

This was a little different as the cameras connection had been hidden as an F drive and wierd stuff which normally doesnt happen on XP but considering on linux i just plug in the camera and bang.. do you want to copy your files?? lol

[dmizer]

an experience i recall having that is comparable: internet connection sharing.

coming from a background of zero local networking experience, i found this to be next to impossible in windows. i spent over a month researching and running up and down stairs to get it all to work right. then any time the network went down, or an update came through ... i'd have to go through it all over again. over time, though, i got to the point where i could set things up from scratch and have it running in a matter of minutes.

it took me significantly less time to accomplish the same feat in linux. however, i came to linux internet connection sharing with knowledge i gained from my experience in windows, which shortened my learning curve.

i'm sure, had i started in linux learning about ics, that i would have spent just as much time to learn the process as i had in windows.

it is not the system that matters, it is the bias of experience you carry with you to the table which makes windows or linux seem more or less user friendly.

i'm sure that neither windows nor linux has the corner market on suffering users.

[Shin_Gouki2501]

is the Topic still "on-topic"?
Because in my opinion the author is quite a bit wrong :)
wbr Shin Gouki

[prizrak]

yes, and at the risk of beating this horse to a bloody pulp ... you cannot add a networked printer as a networked printer if it is not shared as part of the windows domain (mshome, et al). ie, if an internet cable runs from the router to the printer.

if your networked printer only has an ip and is not a part of windows domain (which aysiu indicates is the case), it is not possible to make it work correctly (yes you can make it work intermittently) as a networked printer. you must add it as a local printer and add a tcp/ip port, as shown in that link.

which ... in a heroic attempt at trying to keep this from being completely unrelated and useless, i feel is an excellent example of the fact that people say windows is intuitive only because it is what they are most familiar with.

it is not possible to judge two things fairly and objectively when your knowledge of one greatly outweighs the other. it's only really fair to compare windows and linux once your knowledge of both have reached the same level.

Oh OK I get it now, you meant a printer that doesn't have any kind of a print server just an IP. Then yes it's a pain.

I agree that there is no way whatsoever to judge any system as easy. I for one can't figure out OS X, it's just completely foreign and idiotic to me. I run Windows and various flavors of Linux w/o much issue though.

The only meaningful argument you can have about OS's is discoverability. The command line is very powerful and easy (typing duh) but it isn't very discoverable as you can't even really look for help unless you know the command in the first place.

In that department I think that the big 4 (OS X, Gnome, KDE, Windows) are about equal.

[prizrak]

is the Topic still "on-topic"?
Because in my opinion the author is quite a bit wrong :)
wbr Shin Gouki

While you are entitled to your opinion, I suggest you provide a supporting argument.

[aysiu]

A couple of interesting things...

1. The hardest transition is the transition--culture shock. Just read this "article" (http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1160730321685) slamming Mac OS X. Of course, if you use OS X regularly, you'll probably think the writer is a moron, but I think it really just goes to show that if you've used a particular operating system for years (decades, even) it can be very difficult to switch.

You're used to what you're used to. You're used to doing things the way you're used to doing them. I know it was difficult for me to switch a year and a half ago. I'd been using Windows since 3.1 and DOS before that. Microsoft's ways were deeply ingrained in me when it came to computers.

I'm actually quite amazed that in such a short period of time (I've been using Ubuntu for only a year and a half and was a full convert after a month), I was able to adapt and brainwash myself into doing things "the Linux way."

2. S**t happens. I get really annoyed when Windows power users come on here and say that Windows "just works" or "always works." Daily... or at least every two or three days... some co-worker of mine has a Windows problem. My boss' Palm won't sync all of a sudden. People's desktop icons disappear. What was today's problem? One of my co-workers was unable to play embedded media in a PDF file. He insisted he had the latest version of Quicktime, and we checked the Quicktime preferences, and everything seemed good, but Adobe Reader kept insisting that he had to "get" a media player. And when he clicked on the link, it would take him to Apple's Quicktime page.

I had to do some Googling around and eventually found out it was a weird compatibility issue with an older version of Adobe Reader and a newer version of Quicktime. So he just had to upgrade to the absolute newest version of Adobe Reader.

How would he know that? He wouldn't.

S**t happens. It doesn't matter if you're using Windows, Mac, or Linux. Usually, it's smooth sailing, and then every now and then you have to search for the answer to some weird quirky thing.

[RAV TUX]

moving this thread to the Windows discussion forum

[uDanimal]

Very well put. I am a LONG term windows user ( Windows 3.1 anyone? ewwwwwwww!!!!) I recently switched to Ubuntu Dapper. Before I read it, I would have stated that Windows was easier, but now I have to admit that some things are only easier because they were preinstalled that way.

The only thing I miss in running a pure Ubuntu machine is the gaming incompatability. What would it kill developers to hire a handful of Linux programmers to port the games or even just make Wine/Cedega plugins for their respective games?

[.t.]

[...]**** happens[...]

And that's the strength of open source software: if **** does happen, and it's down to the code and not you, you can file a bug and expect it to be fixed relatively quickly!

[Shin_Gouki2501]

"relatively "
:D
Thats a nice one :)

[.t.]

Well, in terms of open source vs closed source development, it is often incredibly quick. But compared to other, more "urgent" bugs, it often feels slow. I filed a bug about ejecting my Audigy 2 ZS CardBus card, and it was fixed one release later. This seems slow to some people, but if there were bugs like this on Windows, I doubt they'd be fixed quickly.

[tubasoldier]

I'm a long time *nix user who recently tried to switch to windows. Here is my story.


1 - I was shocked that the graphical install was only able to use 256 colors. Yuck! I expected more from a proprietary installer.

2 - Once it finally installed after nearly an hour I found out that I had to install drivers for all my hardware. WTF M8? So I pulled out the old box that my pc came in and dusted it off, found the disks, and put them in the computer. I installed my video driver so I could acutally see what I was doing, and then it said it needed to restart. What? restart? I figured I would play along. But this got rather annoying after installing the drivers for my audio card, motherboard, modem, mouse and keyboard... Who needs to restart that often? Really?

3 - I found the terminal after a long time of searching. I think they called it the MS-Dos prompt or something. I at first thought it was trying to send a DOS (denial of service). But once I figured it out I was really dissapointed to see the meager commands that I could do with it.

4 - I finally found the "Add/Remove" programs button tucked under a very unintuitive menu. I was highly dissapointed to see that there were no programs to install! After doing some searching on Google I soon found out that I acutally had to go out and purchase some software on a disk and put it in my cd-rom to install it. Really? Whats the purpose of the Add/Remove Programs then? And who wants all those disks laying around anyways?

5 - My wireless did not work out of the box! I was rather preturbed about this one! I had to install yet another driver and wait for the system to restart just so i could connect to the internet.

6 - I went looking for an editor so I could write up programs for my intro to Java class at school. I was yet again really dissapointed with the editor that was provided. It could only save in the .txt format and was really weak.

7 - I could not share my scanner over the network. Now this was almost too much for me. I always make sure my scanner is available for anyone on my network in case they need to scan something in on that computer. I searched and searched through the network neighborhood and I could not find it. Niether could I find my printers. It didnt take long to figure out how to share my printer on the network but it was sure a pain in the A**!

8 - I went looking for office and productivity software. Again dissapointment set in as i found out I had to go out and purchase even more software and have more disks lying around (which I apparently dont have the right to copy, even though I paid for them).

9 - After a little bit of time my computer started giving me random pop-up messages telling me that I had won something and I needed to click on the window to claim my prize. This was quite interesting behavior as this doesnt happen in linux. Again after some help from Google I learned that I had to run another program in the background to keep what they call "adware and spyware" off my computer. Thanks for the info. I'll make sure I practice "safe internet usage" from now on. But I have also heard about these things they call viruses so I went out and bought even more software on a disk to install so that my computer would not get "sick". I'm sorry, but all this stuff to practice safe internet usage reminds me too much of why I wear condoms when I sleep around with slutty women.

All in all I would have to say that trying to switch to windows is a rather difficult challenge. I dont think windows is quite ready for the desktop. How in the world do they expect new users to be able to run this stuff if they do not supply the proper tools? As for me and my computer we are sticking with Linux.

[FineE]

I'm a long time *nix user who recently tried to switch to windows. Here is my story. ...




I am curious which version of Microsoft Windows? There is no mention of Windows product activation, Windows genuine advantage validation, Windows genuine advantage notifications, calls to Microsoft support to resolve false "piracy accusations" etc.

[tubasoldier]

I am curious which version of Microsoft Windows? There is no mention of Windows product activation, Windows genuine advantage validation, Windows genuine advantage notifications, calls to Microsoft support to resolve false "piracy accusations" etc.

Sorry, I should have mentioned. It was a restore disk that came with the computer. XP Home. It was the first time I installed it and it did not ask for any of that. Now that you mention it I'm quite suprised it did not say that it was too old to be installed. But trying to figure out where that registration code was hidden was sure a pain too.

[Fedz]

Geez! This is sooo true aysiu.

I've just spent the day playing on a work colleagues XP Pro - what a nightmare it turned out to be. In the end we downloaded Ubuntu ISO and installed that - he's alot happier now - obviously.


His startup took forever as he had every piece of 'freeware' software to run on startup.
I had to download an AV, FW, Spybot and a registry cleaner to sort out his startup, scan his PC and clean the registry.
Half the software was broken due to other software taking over what he actually wanted.His comp was just a complete mess and nightmare - fixed one thing to find another problem. I (we) gave up and simply put Ubuntu on :mrgreen:

Up until a few months ago I always used Windows, since 95 and in all my years I have never seen a PC so messed-up.

We put on Ubuntu and I showed him a few things and he had the gore to seriously ask about AV and a FW - I snapped back and said well you never thought that before Ubuntu was put on but, explained your quite fine without AV and a FW and that the software is safe. It took some convincing as he was bewildered after having windows.

He was impressed with all the software that was available via Synaptic Package Manager (no need to crawl through freeware sites ...etc), his hardware worked first time (luckily) and he I left him playing with his new OS.

It dawned on me with the stark reminder of exactly why I left Windows and why I am so thankful for Ubuntu 8)

[mahy]

In any case, Ubuntu comes with the Show Desktop button by default, and Windows XP doesn't.

Sorry, maybe someone already mentioned this, but it actually does come... :(

Too bad there are so few people who actually start their 'computing career' on Linux/Unix. They would definitely have an entirely different opinion on how exactly windows is usable. I happen to know a few such people, they can get neither head nor tail of windows.

One more idea: if you want to compare Lin & win, you have to go further than just comparing the features of each system. Many windows-addicts ask me, "well if windows is so bad, why do so many people use it?". It's because what people value most is comfort (this is NOT to say Linux uncomfortable!). If the people always chose the best option, no one'd watch reality shows, no one'd drink coke and no one'd use windows.

[aysiu]

Sorry, maybe someone already mentioned this, but it actually does come... :( Sorry, but it actually doesn't--not by default. You have to enable it by right-clicking on the task bar and selecting Toolbars and then Quicklaunch.

[Reshin]

Sorry, but it actually doesn't--not by default. You have to enable it by right-clicking on the task bar and selecting Toolbars and then Quicklaunch.

Well, there's also Win+D ;)

[aysiu]

Well, there's also Win+D ;)
Yes, but how would you know about Win+D?

I bring it up because recently (about a half year ago) my office upgraded from Windows 2000 to Windows XP and almost all of my co-workers asked me "Where did my 'show desktop' button go?" They did not think, "Oh, of course, I can just Win+D or add the Quicklaunch Toolbar."

They were also baffled by the missing My Documents and My Computer. All that was there on the basic installation was a recycle bin on the desktop.

[mahy]

Sorry, but it actually doesn't--not by default. You have to enable it by right-clicking on the task bar and selecting Toolbars and then Quicklaunch.

Oh yeah, sorry, it'a been a while since i last meddled with quicklaunch bar on winxp... :-#

[Reshin]

Yes, but how would you know about Win+D?

I bring it up because recently (about a half year ago) my office upgraded from Windows 2000 to Windows XP and almost all of my co-workers asked me "Where did my 'show desktop' button go?" They did not think, "Oh, of course, I can just Win+D or add the Quicklaunch Toolbar."

They were also baffled by the missing My Documents and My Computer. All that was there on the basic installation was a recycle bin on the desktop.

But isn't it like that in ubuntu? By default there's no icons for trash, my documents, etc? They're on the main menu same way as in xp. Trashcan? Tiny icon in the taskbar in lower right corner.

How do you get to show on desktop in xp? Start menu -> Right-click My Documents/My Computer/whatever -> Show on desktop.

Same in ubuntu: Console -> 'gconf-editor' -> Apps -> Nautilus -> Preferences(?) -> Check what you want. Every beginning ubuntu-user knows this automatically, right?

[.t.]

Ah, but in Windows, the default start menu is lacking. Like no access to the Control Panel (I haven't used XP in a while so I may be wrong, but...), no My Documents. Ubuntu has Applications, Places and System, which are much more descriptive.

[Reshin]

Ah, but in Windows, the default start menu is lacking. Like no access to the Control Panel (I haven't used XP in a while so I may be wrong, but...), no My Documents. Ubuntu has Applications, Places and System, which are much more descriptive.

Nope, they're there

[nocturn]

Not neccsarily, the codecs in Windows are for MP3 and WMA only, so if you want Vorbis, you have to download it seperately.

Xvid was a bit of a pain to install on Windows too. (Had to do this for a friend who received a disk with an xvid file on it and double clicked it).

Definately not newbie stuff.

[Reshin]

Xvid was a bit of a pain to install on Windows too. (Had to do this for a friend who received a disk with an xvid file on it and double clicked it).

Definately not newbie stuff.

Setting up single codecs in windows is truly a pain in the ***.

[ctgray]

One area where Windows is easier is multi monitor support... at least in my experiences.

[aysiu]

But isn't it like that in ubuntu? By default there's no icons for trash, my documents, etc? They're on the main menu same way as in xp. Trashcan? Tiny icon in the taskbar in lower right corner. There's no icon for your home folder on the desktop, but in Ubuntu you have a trash icon by default (on the taskbar) and there's a clearly visible menu (not a submenu) item for Places. The "show desktop" button is also standard on the taskbar.


How do you get to show on desktop in xp? Start menu -> Right-click My Documents/My Computer/whatever -> Show on desktop. I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "show desktop." There's a button on the Quicklaunch Toolbar that looks like a physical desk. If you press it, all your applications minimize so you can see your desktop. Pressing the button does not put icons on your desktop.

[Reshin]

There's no icon for your home folder on the desktop, but in Ubuntu you have a trash icon by default (on the taskbar) and there's a clearly visible menu (not a submenu) item for Places. The "show desktop" button is also standard on the taskbar.

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "show desktop." There's a button on the Quicklaunch Toolbar that looks like a physical desk. If you press it, all your applications minimize so you can see your desktop. Pressing the button does not put icons on your desktop.

Oh, I understood what you meant. I was just commenting this part
They were also baffled by the missing My Documents and My Computer. All that was there on the basic installation was a recycle bin on the desktop.

But yeah, I also find it silly that quicklaunch bar is hidden by default. But you gotta admit that getting those icons I said to desktop is harder on ubuntu.

[aysiu]

Yes, enabling desktop icons for folders in Gnome is beyond what is easily discoverable, especially since they took gconf-editor out of the default set of menu items (it's available in A la Carte, but the box is unchecked).

That's what this thread is really about, though. It's not about Windows bashing or Ubuntu bashing. It's about being fully honest about what is easier in Windows and what's easier in Ubuntu.

[indigoshift]

FWIW, my lovely wife has recently started using Ubuntu. She's not what you'd call the computer type. When she was using XP, I was constantly helping her with everything.

Since she switched, she's had one problem: playing video clips from CNN, which is a common issue. Other than that, she's been puttering away happily for weeks now.

She's caught on to this OS a lot quicker than I thought she would, and tells me that it's just easier to figure out. I'm amazed at how quickly she's caught on to some of the more esoteric computer concepts, because she's using an OS that doesn't try to hide those things from the user, or ask "Are you sure?" every time you click an "OK" button.

Most importantly, though: I get to spend less time doing tech support at home, and more time playing video games. :)

[Sef]

Since she switched, she's had one problem: playing video clips from CNN, which is a common issue.

Had the same problem until I went back to Restricted Formats (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats) and reinstalled the w32codecs (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats#head-6c942d1939d97331f96e42b63774003fde7daed5). After that, I had have had both sound and video.

[ShadowVlican]

i have to admit ubuntu has become pretty easy to use

customizing it though it more difficult (lack of GUI, need command lines that regular joe like me don't know :) )

setting up codecs in windows isn't hard, just as linux experts can help you, i can help you setup codecs in windows to enable playback of almost everything you can download (easy as running three *.exe files)

show desktop..... the shortcut key is "windows key + M" that basically minimizes all your windows to show your desktop.... and as mentioned you can also click that icon in the quicklaunch bar

[indigoshift]

Had the same problem until I went back to Restricted Formats (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats) and reinstalled the w32codecs (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats#head-6c942d1939d97331f96e42b63774003fde7daed5). After that, I had have had both sound and video.

I'll try that. Thanks!

[zcal]

I think the real answer is that which will make operating the computer easier for the user in the long run. Sure, Windows often seems easier at first since "everyone" you know and their mother uses it, you can buy software for it in the store, and your kid is tech-savvy enough to fix it up for you when things go wrong. But learning the ins and outs of another operating system isn't really THAT hard. I know people who have made the switch to Apple and were quite fine with that.

The thing that scares most people away from Linux is the perceived lack of reference and help resources. It seems more secure and direct to receive a manual with your OS that also provides a 1-800 number for help when you need it, rather than picking through Google and forum searches to find what you need. At any rate, the help information is there, it's just that people need to get used to looking for it in a different way.

Also, I think the issue of security and general upkeep ought to play a big role. I've had friends whose Windows installs just get so trashed that they have virtually no choice but to reinstall...and do most of them even know how to do that? Certainly not. :( This creates quite a dilemma. If you're using Windows, are you prepared for the upkeep? Many people simply aren't. There's spyware to be scanned for, antivirus to update (as well as licenses to renew), destructive .exe's to look out for, not to mention the updates to the OS itself. I find that system maintenance with Ubuntu (can't speak for all Linux distros) is miles ahead of what I have experienced with Windows, as virtually every update you'll need, for the OS, programs, etc, comes through the repositories. Turn on your auto-update feature and you're good to go. Update when there's something to be patched and you really shouldn't run into problems. Add this one-shot update system on top of a secure system that's virtually impossible to gunk up with spyware designed to exploit a Windows environment and you've got an operating system that should run like a top for a few years without having to reinstall (unless you get geeky and start really screwing around ;) ). Just try to get that out of even a few months old Windows install administered by the "average user".

[basketcase]

Which OS is easier....Some more of my thoughts.

The above posts makes a good statement...most Windows installs become so trashed they have to be reinstalled. If a windows installation is setup from the beginning with proper tools (firefox, spybot, adaware, etc. and some sort of Antivirus protection) a windows user would be ahead of the game in today's world related to PC's and the Internet.

Installing software --

With Windows, drivers/software is 99.9% of the time provided by the manufacturer. Insert disk, install, next, agree, next, next, next, finish. DONE!! Even the average user can't screw this up, but trust me, I've seen my fair share who are capable of screwing up a simple windows installs.

With OSX -- Hardware seems to be a little more hard to come by, but it seems that it is becoming easier. Need to install software, insert CD, drag file OVER THE HDD on the desktop, let it do its thing...DONE. This for me personally is the simplest install. Now, I will admit at some point, finding where it installed, can be a little tricky, and for the average end user, could prove to be more difficult.

Installing in Linux -- back in the day, you needed to be a cli-junky, not so much today, but sometimes is still necessary. So between knowing the cli-syntax necessary to get whatever it is you want installed, and then knowing your favorite text editor so that you can edit the file so it will work for your specific hardware, in some cases proves to be quite the chore. In the recent years, with automatix and the likes, it has become easier to update/install software. In linux essentially all a person needs to know (if the packages are in some repositories) is apt-get update, apt-get install package name and they're golden. Again, like OSX sometimes trying to find that program that was installed or how to run the said program proves to be a little difficult.

So which one is the easiest...Depends on how I look at it (as this is my opinion). OSX for installing stuff for its simplicity. Windows 2nd with it's basic next, agree, next, next, finish routine and the ability to find just about any piece of software necessary as it has the largest market share. For a different thread I know, but I'll add that I hate windows for the fact, that I have to pay to use software, when there is usually an Open Source project that is just as good if not better. I'm a little more of a geek than others, so I'm comfortable in a command line, and I like text editors. I LOVE apt-get, and the fact that most software is available to me with just the apt-get, you got me sold.

As was said earlier, it is not about what is easier, it is about what a person is most comfortable with. Linux has made leaps and bounds in the last 5 years no doubt, I imagine in the next 2-3, it will be more refined and have a greater market share.

again just my .03$

[Fatec]

Sure I can. Linux is easier to use than Windows because it has a terminal that actually does stuff.

Note that I switched to Linux from Windows because of the terminal. All that other usability fluff that we like to babble on about is what made me pick Ubuntu over any other Linux distro, but didn't have any bearing on the decision to leave Windows.

Yes because an average user finds it alot easier to open a command, search the forums to work out what to type, then hope for the best over double click, install, run.

Sorry...but no, while i enjoy linux and ubuntu in general i often why i bother spending half an hour of my life to do something that i can do with 2 clicks in windows.

and with so many howtos, all of which are different in some ways, some wont work, some will, you can easily mess your distro up.

im by no means a power user, but im not exactly an 'average' user either...but at the end of the day, when i get home from work, i want to sit down, browse the net, read email, listen to music, talk on msn...and that's it, not open a terminal, type commands, get confused when something dont work, spend an hour trailing forums to find an answer....and by the time i've got whatever i wanted working, i do sometimes wonder why i even bother.

i know linux has progressed alot over the past few years and alot more stuff is gui based.

But im sorry, wether you like to admit it or not, if you want everyone to move over to linux, you need to have everything gui based and still have terminal there as a power user option.

some of you wont agree with me, but it's the truth...and it's what keeps linux in the dark, it's not that people dont want to learn...but lets face it, my spare time is limited, i want it to just 'work' not have to mess around with everything..especially simple things like changing resolution, sure i can sudo gedit xorg.conf...but why should i have to?...why cant i just go to desktop options and set it to the resolution i want?

/end rant.

And yes, i've had a bad day with edgy, which i completely give up with and im going back to dapper.

[aysiu]

but at the end of the day, when i get home from work, i want to sit down, browse the net, read email, listen to music, talk on msn...and that's it, not open a terminal, type commands, get confused when something dont work, spend an hour trailing forums to find an answer.... Sounds like Linux desktop is perfect for you, then. If all you want is internet, email, music, and MSN talk...


but lets face it, my spare time is limited, i want it to just 'work' not have to mess around with everything..especially simple things like changing resolution, sure i can sudo gedit xorg.conf...but why should i have to?...why cant i just go to desktop options and set it to the resolution i want? Buy Linux preinstalled, then. That's what people do whose time is limited--they don't install operating systems themselves, not even Windows. This argument is irrelevant.

[Fatec]

Sounds like Linux desktop is perfect for you, then. If all you want is internet, email, music, and MSN talk...

Buy Linux preinstalled, then. That's what people do whose time is limited--they don't install operating systems themselves, not even Windows. This argument is irrelevant.

even people with limited spare time like to have choice...and i have more than half a brain so i dont/wont buy anything pre-installed.

P.S Also, linix isnt for me, just out of the box, ubuntu is ALOT slower than xp for me..and i've never found out why, but from reading on the forums it seems it is just slow on some setups..and my pc is by no means slow.

But ah well...i love ubuntu, so i keep dual boot

[aysiu]

even people with limited spare time like to have choice...and i have more than half a brain so i dont/wont buy anything pre-installed. You don't have time to configure, but you won't buy preinstalled? Okay.

Well, I, apparently, have half a brain or less, since I've always bought preinstalled. I had to install Ubuntu myself, though, since I'm in no position to buy a new computer right now.

[3rdalbum]

Is it even possible to buy a PC without Windows preinstalled? Obviously, you can buy parts and build the machine yourself, but that would require some "configuring" too.

[aysiu]

Actually, there are some places that will sell you "white" computers--rare though they are.

Regardless--if you buy those and install and configure Windows by itself or if you build your own machine, you can hardly claim you "don't have time" to mess around with your OS.

People who really don't have time buy preinstalled.

[ShadowVlican]

Sorry...but no, while i enjoy linux and ubuntu in general i often why i bother spending half an hour of my life to do something that i can do with 2 clicks in windows.

and with so many howtos, all of which are different in some ways, some wont work, some will, you can easily mess your distro up.

im by no means a power user, but im not exactly an 'average' user either...but at the end of the day, when i get home from work, i want to sit down, browse the net, read email, listen to music, talk on msn...and that's it, not open a terminal, type commands, get confused when something dont work, spend an hour trailing forums to find an answer....and by the time i've got whatever i wanted working, i do sometimes wonder why i even bother.

i know linux has progressed alot over the past few years and alot more stuff is gui based.

But im sorry, wether you like to admit it or not, if you want everyone to move over to linux, you need to have everything gui based and still have terminal there as a power user option.

some of you wont agree with me, but it's the truth...and it's what keeps linux in the dark, it's not that people dont want to learn...but lets face it, my spare time is limited, i want it to just 'work' not have to mess around with everything..especially simple things like changing resolution, sure i can sudo gedit xorg.conf...but why should i have to?...why cant i just go to desktop options and set it to the resolution i want?

/end rant.
i'll agree with you :) cuz i feel the same way

and yes, you can buy fully built computers without an OS (very common here in Toronto, CANADA... smart people don't shop for computers at the bigbox stores like bestbuy)

[scrooge_74]

I used windows for too many years and got fed up with having to fix things for "normal users" and having to reinstall everything becuase windows could not handle the work load.

Finally decided to change into Linux a few months ago, I can manage myself pocking around and making things work the way I want.

I made a test, made my wife who is less than a normal user and my 11 year old daugther and 9 year old son use a Linux system everyday to do the usual things.

6 months later, they use Ubuntu like they had been doing this for ages. So I guess Ubuntu is easier than Windows since they used to complaint a lot when using windows

[motin]

I agree with you on most points. However, I believe comparing "Ubuntu" and "Windows" is a bit vague. I guess you are referring to Edgy and Vista, ie what most users are using today? If you compare the latest versions, Feisty and Vista - read comments below:

What's easier about Windows?
I'll concede there are things that are easier about Windows:

1. Clipboard contents get remembered on application exit. I have to say this is one of the most annoying things about Gnome, KDE, and XFCE. It's a basic user expectation--"Wait, I copied that to the clipboard... why isn't it pasting?"

Glipper, solving this issue, is included by default in Feisty.

2. You can do contextual searches from within folders. So Dapper finally made it so that if you're in Nautilus, you can press Control-F and search within Nautilus. Great. It won't search in the folder you're in necessarily--it will default to searching in your home folder. Not very useful. Sorry.

Running Feisty, I just tried this and the searches are now stemming from the directory I was in, not my home-dir.

3. Just about any software you buy will have a Windows version. While the convenience of the repositories I think would be better for "average users" in the long run, right now this is the kind of convenience they're used to. Walk into Best Buy, see some software, shell out money for it. It works with Windows.

Yeah, however, the amount of users that prefers that over not having to go to a store or pay anything at all will diminish if they are offered the free world alternative. I guess you refer to the fact that many commercial products are only compatible with Windows - that is positive today for Windows users.

4. Just about any hardware you buy will include Windows drivers. Do you need to worry if your new printer is Mac-compatible or Linux-compatible? Of course not--you use Windows. Buy whatever you want.

Yeah - this is a great advantage for Windows users today.

5. My Network Places will usually recognize other computers and let you browse to them. It's really sad that people have to post threads like, "How do I get my two Ubuntu computers to see each other?" and it boils down to having to install SSH.

Not sure I ever had to install SSH for this? But I am not anyone to talk about it since I only have one Ubuntu box and three windows boxes (rest of my family) and they show up automatically.

6. Newly-plugged-in Windows drives will automatically be recognized and have read/write permissions. Format a new drive as Ext3 and plug it into Ubuntu--what happens? You have to chown it and then chmod it properly before you can use it.

I cannot recognize this at all! Are you using Ubuntu Breezy Badger? Since Dapper drives appear on the desktop after plugging them in.

7. Codecs are easier. Now, keep in mind, this is just for Ubuntu--not for all Linux distributions. If proprietary codecs seem a pain for you to install and you want to write off all Linux because of Ubuntu, try Mepis first. In some ways, though, this is a non-issue, as you'd hope that any "average user" would have someone more knowledgeable who would install Ubuntu for her, and then that person would also install the necessary codecs.

The only reason Codecs are easier in Windows is from the fact that the resellers preinstall them + that mp3 is supported by default. Windows users need to install Divx, Mpeg2, Vorbis codecs etc.

Since Feisty codec installation is more or less automatic when needed.

What's easier about Ubuntu?
Some things are easier in Ubuntu, though. Let's take a look:

1. I've had a lot of co-workers ask me when they log into another computer (not the one they usually work on) or after we had a Windows XP upgrade at work, "How do I get that button back that lets me see my desktop?" It's discoverable for Windows power users, but not for ordinary users.

Who would think "Yes, I want to add a 'show desktop' button. I think I'll right-click on the taskbar and select Toolbars > Quick Launch"? Doesn't make any sense. In Ubuntu, however, you can right-click, select Add to Panel and find the Show Desktop button and add that one specifically.

In any case, Ubuntu comes with the Show Desktop button by default, and Windows XP doesn't.

Small thing but important. I wish more had your perspective. It doesn't matter if the Linux kernel is more stable than Windows' - these things matter for "average users".

2. Print-screens are easier. I've actually been amazed at how many ordinary users want to do screenshots. I used to think that was just a power user thing, but it's becoming a more commonplace desire for ordinary users, too (God knows why).

In Windows, you have to press PrtScn, which copies to the clipboard, and then open up MSPaint or MS Word and paste it in and save the file. Or, you can search around for and download third-party software to have the PrtScn go straight into a file.

In Ubuntu, just press Alt-PrtScn, and your window goes straight into an image file on your desktop. Press PrtScn, and your entire screen goes straight into an image file on your desktop.

Good point, but how is this now with Vista?

3. Changing the background is easier. Right-click and select Change background picture. In Windows, you have to right-click and select Properties and then go to the Desktop tab to find Background.

Good point, but how is this now with Vista?

4. Security is easier. Try running Windows as limited user and using the Run as context menu to approximate something like sudo. I can assure you it's in a royal pain. Some things don't Run as (like Explorer). Some things appear to Run as but then don't work after you run them (like Windows Update).

Ubuntu is built with security in mind--you operate as user and your privileges get escalated temporarily as needed. See the "Update Available" icon, click it, enter your password, and you now have privileges to install updates. In Windows, you can do this only if you run as Administrator all the time (which is a bad idea, from a security standpoint).

Good point, but how is this now with Vista? Xp is very old and a lot of effort has been laid on Security now.

5. Software installation is easier. Now keep in mind--I'm talking about for this mythical "average user." No longer need she go to the internet, search about for "freeware," try to figure out if it's pay-for software with a free trial or no trial, try to figure out if it's going to give her a virus or spyware.

She can just open up the package manager and do a search for what she's looking for. Anything that comes up in the results is installable within a few clicks, cost-free, and free of spyware and security worries.

For example, someone was posting recently about how a family member really wanted a poker game. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1237112&postcount=81) Well, would you rather do an online search for "poker games windows" or search in Synaptic for "poker"?[/QUOTE]

A point that in my perspective is the most important aspect for average users to use Ubuntu instead.

6. Basic software is already available. The flip side of codecs being a bit more complicated--well, at least people don't need to track down an archiving program to unzip a file or buy or pirate MS Office just to have a decent word processing program (yes, Windows users can also install OpenOffice, but the point is that Windows doesn't come with decent office tools).

A point that in my perspective is the most important aspect for "grandma" users to use Ubuntu. ;)

[aysiu]

I agree with you on most points. However, I believe comparing "Ubuntu" and "Windows" is a bit vague. I guess you are referring to Edgy and Vista, ie what most users are using today? Actually, since my original post was made 10 July, 2006, I was probably referring to Dapper Drake (6.06) and Windows XP.

[motin]

Is it even possible to buy a PC without Windows preinstalled? Obviously, you can buy parts and build the machine yourself, but that would require some "configuring" too.

Actually, since my original post was made 10 July, 2006, I was probably referring to Dapper Drake (6.06) and Windows XP.

Hehe long-lived thread how did I miss that?

I just upgraded from Dapper to Feisty so I couldn't tell if the problems were prevalent in Edgy as well.

You coming over to Feisty soon? A follow up would be nice.

Also, I am trying to build some overview on the concept here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ComparisonOfUbuntuOSXAndWindows

If you can help out it would be great!

[hsweet]

You also need to take into account the fact that Windows is easier to use if you already know windows. English is easier for me to speak if I grew up speaking English too, but that does not mean it is necessarily easier (or more logical) than Spanish, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek or Japanese.

[motin]

You also need to take into account the fact that Windows is easier to use if you already know windows. English is easier for me to speak if I grew up speaking English too, but that does not mean it is necessarily easier (or more logical) than Spanish, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek or Japanese.

This analogy is perfect when compared to the language Esperanto. It is the most logical language in the world - having no irregular grammatics and using a vocabulary made up from most European languages so that everybody attempting to learn it already recognize and/or understand 15-25% of it.

At the same time - of course we do not want only one language - that isn't freedom of choice - but the anology stays for the learning curve.

[nvteighen]

I had the "Show Desktop" button problem (both in ME and XP) and I can assure no normal user can restore it.

Just for the curious/desperate:

1. After having made all hidden files visible, go to " Go to "C:\Documents and Settings\username\Application Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Start\". Replace username with your login name.

2. If you're lucky, there you'll find ShowDesktop.scf; drag-and-drop to the Quick Start taskbar.

3. But, if you got the ShowDesktop.scf file deleted (my case, for example), then: open Notepad and copy this:

[Shell]
Command=2
IconFile=explorer.exe,3
[Taskbar]
Command=ToogleDesktop

4. Save it as ShowDesktop.scf, making sure that the filter in the save dialog is set in "All files (*.*)",

5. Drag and drop.

Nope: no average user can do this. And the "Microsoft Knowledge Base" gives the code to copy without linebreaks, so that it doesn't work (I had to figure out by myself how the lines should be broken).

Ubuntu: 1. Right-Click, 2. Add to panel, 3. There it is.

Yours,
Neigel von Teighen

[nvteighen]

Offtopic: Ehm... Look at my webpage http://conlangstudies.googlepages.com/esperanto and you'll see Esperanto is not as regular as you think.

[PhatStreet]

My parents are pretty average users, all they really do is use the internet/email and occasionally upload some pictures to the computer from their camera. But I found it amusing one day that my dad had sat down during my VMWare install of Feisty and was in the middle of using Firefox. My mother also says "she doesn't notice a difference." So given an install that just works, I would venture to say that many, many users would never have a problem. While I don't think either of them would have a clue how to work the terminal, if their computer never breaks, they won't have a problem. :D

[stanbeer]

Hi - this my first post here in the past year. However, I'm reasonably well known outside in the cold hard world - perhaps infamously so for some of the articles I've written recently.:)

Let me say first up that I couldn't agree more with the first poster. This was precisely the point I was trying to make in my most recent article The Myth of Free Linux - for which I was much maligned.

It's not about Windows being easier to install than Linux. For ordinary non technical users, all operating systems are difficult to install and to get working properly with their hardware. Heck, I bought a new Dell recently pre-installed with Windows XP and I had to send it back because they didn't configure the wireless networking with the hardware correctly.

What I said outside this forum and which I will say again: for ordinary users who do not want to spend valuable time on getting their hands dirty, there is no such thing as free (as in no financial cost) Linux. If they want the benefits of a Linux distro like Ubuntu, they may as well pay a Linux consultant to get everything running with their particular hardware and network.

The only difference with Windows is that they can readily buy a first tier computer with the OS pre-installed. The minute they want to do anything a little bit complex, like set up a wireless network from scratch, ordinary users generally need to call in a MCSE.

Myself, I found Kubuntu Feisty a breeze to install - very quick and painless. The problem I haven't been able to get past is getting the system to recognise my wireless keyboard and mouse. Since I write about this stuff, I'm prepared to get my hands dirty (and get flamed by let us say impolite Linux users for airing my dirty laundry). An ordinary user, however, would be forced to call in a consultant of some form.

[motin]

It is all about TCO even for private users, with the exception of that the time factor often weighs less in a user's spare time, depending on values.

I use Linux because of the flexibility, applications and support that excels any other option out there. As a web developer with a musical interest on the spare time I simple get more freedom of choice, better applications and support than I would with a Windows or a Mac system. I am technical and can handle (without liking it) incompatibilities and hardware problems on the way - it is still worth it in the end.

It is very simple: If you can get a greater mix of enjoyment and revenue using Windows or Mac instead of Linux of course you should use on of those systems - no question. A recurring problem however is the lack of information most users have of what a free world actually stands for. Getting hands dirty yes - but not alone and not while paying $150 and hour if you have the skill and patience to write in forums and in IRC channels for help. Some comments:

What I said outside this forum and which I will say again: for ordinary users who do not want to spend valuable time on getting their hands dirty, there is no such thing as free (as in no financial cost) Linux. If they want the benefits of a Linux distro like Ubuntu, they may as well pay a Linux consultant to get everything running with their particular hardware and network.

Or buy a computer with Ubuntu pre-installed - thus not having to worry. System76.com (http://www.system76.com)

The only difference with Windows is that they can readily buy a first tier computer with the OS pre-installed. The minute they want to do anything a little bit complex, like set up a wireless network from scratch, ordinary users generally need to call in a MCSE.

"Readily" is the word of focus here. System76.com and the likes are not as famous as Walmart etc... Dell however is planning to sell Linux pre-installed (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8436091466.html) - hopefully more will follow.

Myself, I found Kubuntu Feisty a breeze to install - very quick and painless. The problem I haven't been able to get past is getting the system to recognise my wireless keyboard and mouse. Since I write about this stuff, I'm prepared to get my hands dirty (and get flamed by let us say impolite Linux users for airing my dirty laundry). An ordinary user, however, would be forced to call in a consultant of some form.

Everyone who doesn't buy a OS that is pre-installed is expected to have to get their hands dirty.

This response is in no way an opposition to your post stanbeer, merely a comment on the common fact that I often see people saying "Windows is Easier to Use than Ubuntu" because in Windows there is support for their hardware as opposed to Ubuntu - when the computer this conclusion is drawn for was a OEM Windows computer! Buy a OEM Ubuntu computer and start comparing from there.

[aysiu]

there is no such thing as free (as in no financial cost) Linux. If they want the benefits of a Linux distro like Ubuntu, they may as well pay a Linux consultant to get everything running with their particular hardware and network. I agree with you in theory, but in practice, that isn't always true. If a non-technical user knows any Linux user in real life (a co-worker, a family member, a friend, even an acquaintance), I'm sure that Linux user would be more than happy to install and configure Linux for free. In fact, there are these things called InstallFests where Linux users will troubleshoot and/or install Linux for strangers for free. So, no, you don't have to pay a consultant unless you're a business.

[motin]

I agree with you in theory, but in practice, that isn't always true. If a non-technical user knows any Linux user in real life (a co-worker, a family member, a friend, even an acquaintance), I'm sure that Linux user would be more than happy to install and configure Linux for free. In fact, there are these things called InstallFests where Linux users will troubleshoot and/or install Linux for strangers for free. So, no, you don't have to pay a consultant unless you're a business.

Yeah, one of the greatest advantages of a Linux distro is often the generous community surrounding it.

[Hex_Mandos]

Now, don't people do ANY kind of work for themselves? Installing an OS should just be an hour or so. The hard part is making backups. I can't believe NOBODY can install an OS by themselves... I'm no hacker, I study law. And the first OS I installed was MS-DOS 5.0 + Windows 3.1 when I was 9 (IMO, far easier than installing Win XP today). If I could do it back then, at least 20% of the Windows userbase can install an OS once or twice a year. Maybe more than that. Most non-techies are not stupid. Installing Ubuntu following all the standard steps (next->next->nexting) is terribly easy.

[zoogTHOMzoog]

I am what you might call a Windows power user... that said I love installing linux distros. It's almost an obsession with me. Prior to going to college (where I studying computer science and program in windows and linux daily), I was on the geeksquad... and let me tell you, it's easier to fix a broken linux distro (which usually break because I broke them:D ) than windows. The best ways to fix Windows is with a destructive re-install... talk about data loss. Anyways, more to the point, I build computers out of extra hardware I've got lying around, and I build a machine for my mother and installed Ubuntu. She can barely get around on windows (computer illiterate), but has no problems using gnome, open office, and all the standard apps. I set up beryl on that machine and she loves playing around with the different themes. So, Windows isn't always easier and Linux is great for that old hardware sitting around, my theory is you can never have too many computers!:guitar:

[nvteighen]

Hex: There's a problem people have: they don't install OS... they just buy a computer (guess which OS they get!) and, whenever they've a problem, ask someone else for help. That's not something bad... the bad thing is that they don't try to figure out how the techie has done it (and by the way, learn how to save some money).

My first install was similar to yours: MS-DOS 6.2 + Windows 3.11. I hope my newest install will soonly be Ubuntu 6.10 (and a subsequent upgrade to Feisty when it gets a bit more established... I like to wait before upgrading).

It's not difficult. You just have to work on it and you'll know how to manage an OS install.

E.

[karhulitos]

Case: my mom, need computer for web surfing, emailing and internet banking, 63 years. Many, many calls to service provider basically every time she opened the box. Windows 98.

Service Provider: me, unfortunately. Cases like virus scanner this and virus scanner that, "Where's my email?" (OL express), etc.

Solution: got her Compaq M700 old laptop, Ubuntu 6.06, instructed to find browser, email, start/shutdown the box

Outcome: 0 calls from my mom. Zero. I admit that I must be lucky she haven't had any problems while using new PC (since when was 6.06 released? 1y?). But still.. zero!

Remarks: Win98 and U6.06 not really comparable but useability of Ubuntu really cannot be bad for a 'very low power user'. Not a good example but that zero-contact result amazed me and needed to you!

[Hex_Mandos]

Hex: There's a problem people have: they don't install OS... they just buy a computer (guess which OS they get!) and, whenever they've a problem, ask someone else for help. That's not something bad... the bad thing is that they don't try to figure out how the techie has done it (and by the way, learn how to save some money).

My first install was similar to yours: MS-DOS 6.2 + Windows 3.11. I hope my newest install will soonly be Ubuntu 6.10 (and a subsequent upgrade to Feisty when it gets a bit more established... I like to wait before upgrading).

It's not difficult. You just have to work on it and you'll know how to manage an OS install.

E.

My point is: don't people fix ANYTHING for themselves? I mean, I'm not a DIY person. But at least computers are something I can handle. I was dismayed when I leant from my brother that people would send their PCs "to be formatted". Still, I'm sure at least a significant minority must perform this kind of maintenance for themselves. After all, copies of Windows ARE sold in stores. Someone must be buying them. And those same people could be installing Linux without much re-learning.

[motin]

My point is: don't people fix ANYTHING for themselves? I mean, I'm not a DIY person. But at least computers are something I can handle. I was dismayed when I leant from my brother that people would send their PCs "to be formatted". Still, I'm sure at least a significant minority must perform this kind of maintenance for themselves. After all, copies of Windows ARE sold in stores. Someone must be buying them. And those same people could be installing Linux without much re-learning.

What is your point here that is relevant to the thread's subject? The point that more people should be able to do more on their own is very vaguely connected with anything discussed here.

Btw, very very few buy retail Windows compared to OEM.

[Hex_Mandos]

Installing an OS is basic computer maintenance. IMO, it's included in the general "maintenance" category of housework. I don't see why some people think NOBODY installs an OS. Most people probably don't. But I'm sure that there's a sizeable majority that does.

[zoogTHOMzoog]

Installing an OS is basic computer maintenance. IMO, it's included in the general "maintenance" category of housework. I don't see why some people think NOBODY installs an OS. Most people probably don't. But I'm sure that there's a sizeable majority that does.

Yeah, it's a definite bummer that more computer resellers don't offer machines with Linux pre-installed. I know that takes away from the fun of installing it yourself, but for the less savvy folks like my grandparents, it would be a nice option.

[theDaveTheRave]

Hi all,

There are a number of issues that are being opened here.

What is an "average user" and how much do they want to get out of their system.

I've recently moved to France, and my French version XP is a pain. I know how to change stuff, but the language seems to have things in different places, strange really. Adding on English langage support would have been easy enough, but do I really have to pay for that? With Linux I can add a different language and locale for all my requirements from the repo's (I haven't done so as I don't need to for my personal laptop.

I recently installed a new networked printer, in the XP box it didn't recognise the printer or the driver, Ubuntu just found the printer and CUPS did the rest, half the time, no hunting on HP's website for the corect driver, having to decide which one I really needed etc, simple really.

My only problem is that the firewall at work won't allow me to use samba to backup my test MySQL database to my laptop... or even to see the files on my samba share on my laptop? I'm sure I'll find a solution for this soon enough though! Would an average user with XP be able to do this either, without going to the local IT guy? probably not.

Personally I think that Linux is finaly coming of age, I recomend it to everyone, Ubuntu is my current favourite flavour, easy with the auto updates etc.

The home folder is easier in windows too, simple to find ( \home\yourName ) in windows it is all searching \documents and setting\yourName\my documents or various other places that windows like to occasionally dump stuff.

I had this experience with my neighbour, his USB connected camera seemed to save files to a different \my documents\photos folder compared to when he saved a photo there from a USB key or off his email. I confused the hell out of me, one minute I could find his files, the next they were somewhere else!

Try patitioning a drive in windows and you create even more problems or home folders etc, especially if you decide to remove that partition or attempt to make one of them larger. The same neighbour had a partitioned hard drive for the windows and it's programmes, unfortunately it wasn't large enough and after a few months started throwing up errors due to attempting to download patches for the sytem.

Then, unsurprisingly, he got a virus! and I couldn't just reload the system from a CD as he didn't receive one when he bought his computer (in my oppinion a system disk is essential for a full recovery, which is often neccessary on any system) so I couldn't simply copy his personal files to a CD and wipe his HDD to give a new clean start to his system. Why supplies don't "give" away or cheaply supply a system disk for Vista, XP or any other system is beyond me, I guess it is their way of ensuring that they get return business when the "average" user gets a major virus, sends their system back to the support department who then tells them that the only thing they can do is re-install the system for some obscene amount of cash!

I can do the same thing on a Linux distro, almost for free!... save the contents of the home folder to a USB key or CD/DVD, re-insert the iso disk from Ubuntu or whatever source I am using, and away I go. 30 minutes later a newly installed system..... well OK maybe not 30 minutes, due all the downloads and updates that you receive, but at least the system is back up and running and hasn't had to spend 3 weeks away from the user at huge expense.

I love linux, and the more I use it the better it seems to become!

Dave