Is Windows XP or Ubuntu Breezy easier to install?

[aysiu]

Okay.

Potential flamebait. Move to the Backyard if it gets out of hand.

I'm just curious about people's experiences installing OSes...

Please answer according to your own experience on your own computer.
No generalizations!

And using restore CDs that came with your computer to reinstall does not count as "installing" the operating system.

[ember]

O.k. Leaving out my bad experience with harddisk-partitioning, neither was easier to install. Windows came up with a graphical interface a bit earlier, yet it took a while to download and install all software I need. Ubuntu had most software only an apt-get away. Also windows has the advantage that I am installing it now for say a decade and so I pretty much could install it blindly.

Anyway - I would say, summing up, Ubuntu is slightly easier to install, yet needs a bit more tweaking after install (flash, java, mplayer, w32codes).

[Ted D.]

If one is just talking about the operating system itself Ubuntu is significantly easier in my experience - especially in time of installation. On the downside many more hardware manufacturers cater to Windows. Finding hardware drivers sometimes requires patience in Ubuntu. As newcomer to Linux I found the Ubuntu install to be surprisingly painless.

[kenweill]

Windows XP is easier to install.

Downloading additional software is another story.

You don't have to be an expert to install Windows XP. Its automatic.
Even if you don't have the drivers for your motherboard, sound card, and display adapter, you can still boot in the GUI.

It will still display the GUI. Automatically adjust the resolution.

In Linux, if your hardware is not supported, you can't get the GUI.

[23meg]

I've installed both on multiple computers and both have been quite straightforward, just about equally so. I've never had installation problems with any OS; I've only had post-install configuration problems.

kenwell, and anyone planning to post to this thread, please read the first post if you havent.

[Perfect Storm]

Ubuntu was easier to install for me. The only thing I need to tweak with ubuntu was the refresh rate of my monitor. With Windows I had to update whole windows. Find all the drivers to get my hardware to work. Even with the right monitor driver windows couldn't show the right refresh rate for my monitor. then I have to install anti-virus, Firewall and adaware and office package which also need an update.

So ubuntu and other linux distros was easier for me :)

[junior aspirin]

ubuntu was easyer for me.

it took ages to install xp. i have sata hard drives, xp needs a driver at installation in order to install on these disks, i took me ages to work that out. also to make it more anoying the driver was on a cd rom, but xp install only takes floppy disks, so i had to use another pc to copy the driver to floppy. ooh and anlther thing, i didnt have a floppy drive at the time (didnt think i would need it) so i had to go out and buy one.

then you have the drivers issue. it takes ages to install all the drivers on the machine. without them i have no sound/decent graphics card support/wifi etc.

ubuntu did all the above for me, well except for the gfx card drver, but thats installed in a few seconds, and my wireless internet - i needed to mess with ndiswrapper for that.

[jonathanm]

Windows was a lot easier, managed to install 3 in the same time as one for breezy, i suppose my standard hardware makes it a lot easier for both but with ubuntu i found there was a lot of messing about with the keyboard.

[bonzodog]

windows Xp install was relatively painless, and they both took the same time. Ubuntu was easy to install for me, but i'm used to slackware anyway. Post install was a different story. ubuntu had Everything working. In windows it was an absolute nightmare. None of my hardware was operating properly, and it entailed over another hour of installing extra drivers just to get the system close to operable. I also had to install SP2, and get recent updates. Then get AVG, remove IE, Install firefox and Thunderbird. just to make my system relatively safe for use on the net. Windows in my experience is harder to maintain and use than linux now, and h/w recognition is better in linux now, and has surpassed windows by a long way.

[cstudent]

Ubuntu installed much faster than XP. I've apparently reached a point where I've re-installed my XP enough times that Billy thinks I should call him to get his permission each time now. Which is a big hassle that I try to avoid. I probably won't mess with it the next time. I think I'll just sling my XP disk out the window and see how far it flies.

[rickyjones]

I'm a brand new Ubuntu user (just began working with it about three weeks ago), and I chose the following option: They were both difficult/easy, depending on which computer.

I've been working with computers for the last 7 years or so, and for the most part I'm a Microsoft fan. I have certifications in it, and it just works for myself and my customers. However, I'm a very firm believer in having the knowledge of different operating systems and expanding your horizons. That, and I believe in using the right tool for the job.

In my experience, both can be easy to install depending on the hardware. I've had servers where Windows Server 2003 just wouldn't install, even though all hardware *should* have been good. I've seen machines that wouldn't take Windows XP. But I've also has a lot of machines that worked no matter what, even when they are below the necessary requirements. Sure I have to spend an extra few hours installing all my drivers, my applications, etc... but how is that different in Linux? While Linux is spectacular, I've had some not-so-good experiences with it.

My first ever install was with Mandrake about 3 years ago. It *detected* all my hardware, or so it seemed, but for the life of me I couldn't get sound to work, nor any type of decent video driver. 2 years ago I was all about Gentoo, which just took forever (but I was aware of that, not complaining :P). As of late I've been trying to increase my awareness of Open Source and Alternatives to a Microsoft shop. So I looked at Ubuntu. Brand new laptop, decided to do a dual boot. Naturally I spent three days on Linux and I managed to screw up with the ATI video card drivers, so I reinstalled. 20 minutes after the install I had the drivers working, thanks to you guys in the forums :).

To step down from my soapbox, I've seen pro's and con's to BOTH operating systems. I just use whichever one will better suit me and my client. As of right now, I'm happily working on plans to migrate all my personal "stuff" and my business to Open Source software. But both WILL work, you just have to understand the system that you'll be using.

Thanks for listening to me,

-Richard

[MetalMusicAddict]

I think they are on par as far as difficulty and post config of software. Some things are harder post on XP and vice versa.

Its the stuff after using windows I dont like anymore. :)

[truthfatal]

If by "easy" you mean -- stick in the cd restart your compy and wait -- then yes, both installations were incredibly easy for me.

If you mean: "Install, and get everything working as best as it can under the Operating System you choose," then Ubuntu was vastly superior to Windows in it's ease of installation (in that the included drivers are already probably the best I'm going to find, but in windows I have to go to the websites for all the hardware that I use to download a lot of updated drivers software, and firmware.)

edit--
I think I must be one of the few for whom linux "Just Works"
--done

[BSDFreak]

Okay.

Potential flamebait. Move to the Backyard if it gets out of hand.

I'm just curious about people's experiences installing OSes...

Please answer according to your own experience on your own computer.
No generalizations!

And using restore CDs that came with your computer to reinstall does not count as "installing" the operating system.

I pretty much hated both installations but i hated Ubuntu a bit less.

I do better with old installation programs that these new ones though, neither is intended for me so i won't vote.

[Norberg]

I would say that neither was significantly easier than the other but Ubuntu need less work after the installation. In windows i have to install Antivirus, Office, a real browser, drivers for Printer and sound in Ubuntu i have the drivers, Office and a real browser installed by default.

[eriqk]

After having installed various Mac OSses, Windowses and Linuxeses, I'm not sure what "easy" means. Pre install configuration? Post install? Ideosynchratic formatting schemes? Fancy graphical installers (or lack thereof)?
I'd say WinXP and Ubuntu are roughly similar on the same box, with the exception of having to install all kinds of drivers on Windows.

Then again, after all this installing, I found the Gentoo installation easy, if a bit time consuming.

Groet, Erik

[Master Shake]

I pretty much think they're about the same, personally...

My testimonial about the install is here:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=105567

[jsgotangco]

I have the opinion that any person that actually got to install Windows from scratch can actually install any Linux-based operating system available (even Gentoo!). These are the people who have the patience to actually tinker their machines to their liking.

[Rumor]

Perhaps I am taking a different tack on my answer. For me, ubuntu is FAR easier to install. But, but install, I mean erase my primary HD and then reinstall the OS and the software I use and get my desktop back the way I like it. A soup-to-nuts installation, if you will.

My experience has been something like this:
Ubuntu:

Reformat HD and install the OS - 30 minutes or so
Set up the printer as a shared network printer - One minute
Enable my second HD - One minute (or five when I mistype something)
Install additional programs - 20 -30 minutes
Set up my FTP server and enable remote desktop - 15 minutes
Set up gdesklets and get my desktop the way I want it - 15 minutes


Windows XP Pro:

Reformat HD and install the OS - 45 minutes to an hour
Set up printer as a shared network printer - 2-3 minutes if I don't have to load the driver.
Enable my second HD - 0 minutes
Install additional programs - Several hours (find disks, registration codes, etc.)
Set up my FTP server and enable remote desktop - 15 minutes
Get my desktop the way I want it . . . well, never, really.
Set up security measures (anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall, processguard, etc) - 30 minutes.


Setting up Windows is far more time consuming for me. I literally have to allow half a day or more to do a complete reinstall and be back the way I want my computer. In the end, I would rather have the time I save using Ubuntu than spend the time to set up windows. That last step in windows is the one I miss the least using Ubuntu.

[Mr_J_]

I've installed windows maybe around 20 or so times, but Ubuntu only around 5.
The Ubuntu install asks for less to be answered and still does the work i need it too.

I think the Ubuntu installation is just simpler and smaller than the Windows installation.

None really are that hard once you know how to do them, but i still remember all the problems i had with my first windows installation and i still remember my Ubuntu one to have gone without a problem.
Even when comparing to other linux installations Ubuntu is simpler.

Then again... My current computer was planned from day one to suit linux.
I only had problems with breezy-rc and it had to do with my wifi card. Which is now fixed and working perfect last i saw. Which is every day.

This is not favoritism or anti-MSFT or anything like that.
They both work. Ubuntu just happens to be faster, smaller and simpler.:smile:

[littlered]

As a whole, Breezy was easier to install than Windows. Breezy works much better 'straight out of the box.' Maybe I'm just bitter about all those times I had to root around for driver discs...

x

[John.Michael.Kane]

almost any Os will be easy to install, it's the work the neds to be done after the install that get's most user put off, and this is true for windows aswell it needs user interaction to get it to the users need's just as linux needs the user to interact to get it to a useable state..


Just my feelings..

[piopawlu]

Eh.. I must admit that it was much easier to install 2k/XP on my ASUS notebook.

Windows:
+ wifi + wpa just works
+ multiscreen support - had to install provided driver
- takes quite much time > 50 min

ubuntu:
- wifi + wpa - had to compile wpa_supplicant, recompile kernel due to conflicts with new ieee802 module :/
- multiscreen support - still can't make it work properly (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=110196)
+ very fast installation ~ 10 min (not including custom kernel making of course)
- default KDE fonts are horrible for LCD displays

[mstlyevil]

I had to vote Ubuntu myself. It detected my internet connection and configured my hardware before it ever finnished installing. It also updated itself to some extent during install. I hate to have to install a gazzillion updates as soon as I install an OS.

[jc87]

In my personal experience is Ubuntu , because :

- Windows (go figure) only let me install it on the primary hard drive , Ubuntu lets me choose in which hard drive i want him.

- Ubuntu recognizes my hardware better than windows out of the box , ok i have official drivers for windows , but they only make the difference when it comes to my graphic card ATI (besides funny story , windows in the past uninstalled just like that , my modem official drivers more than once , and i have a friend who had the same problem with a different modem).

- Ubuntu warns me at the precise moment when i need to eject the install cd , windows don't .

- If i install Ubuntu first , and windows later at dual boot , windows screws my MBR and goes automatically for windows , if i do the opposite grub let me choose automatically in the menu which OS i wish to boot.

- When i install windows i need to have in a cd a anti-virus and firewall and install them before installing the modem drivers.

- Ubuntu brings me a lot more software for default .

- If i want to install software in windows i need to go to the web , search , etc... in Ubuntu i just have to add the repositories that i need , and then a giant.


sudo apt-get install .

[BarfBag]

Without a doubt, Ubuntu Breezy was easier to install. It was basically nothing but hitting the enter key (at least on my hardware). The only times you actually have to type something are name, password, etc. With Windows, you go through a long text installer then switch to graphical. Once you get to graphical, it does everything for you. Ubuntu is still easier, and faster to install may I add.

[simohell]

Ubuntu was easy to install, fun but difficult to tweak and fix what didn't quite work right away.

My previous laptop had Windows XP as well ad it was HP OEM version. It wasn't difficult to install exept that once the same product code I had used for multiple reinstallations suddently refused to work and I had to call the helpline for that.

Windows had more drivers to install manually after the main setup than what I experienced with Ubuntu.

Also I include in the term "install" all the "compulsory" security updates. With windows XP this includes SP2. Also a Windows installation is not complete without a 3rd party virus protection.

For my previous laptop in the end I didn't get everything working in Ubuntu. (incomplete Radeon IGP 320M support) With my new one I have already everything I've tested working. Only WXGA resolution needed serious tweaking.

[BSDFreak]

almost any Os will be easy to install, it's the work the neds to be done after the install that get's most user put off, and this is true for windows aswell it needs user interaction to get it to the users need's just as linux needs the user to interact to get it to a useable state..


Just my feelings..

It's true, which is why everyone should be using OpenBSD, secured by default.

[BSDFreak]

I have the opinion that any person that actually got to install Windows from scratch can actually install any Linux-based operating system available (even Gentoo!). These are the people who have the patience to actually tinker their machines to their liking.

I give you Slackware, with an installation thingie so confusing that it STILL confuses me after installing it for ten years.

Yet i'd take that over Winstall or Ubuntu install any day of the week.

[pete]

I find the basic install procedures basically the same-- neither if very difficult.

As for post-install, I've found it to be completely dependent on hardware. I've had Ubuntu installs that don't recognize an old monitor or oddball video card, and I have to spend a long time tinkering with the X configuration.

Likewise, I've XP/2K/2K3 installs that don't have any of the right drivers, so I have to go to another machine, track down the network driver, get that running, then start searching for the rest.

I'll say this, though-- at least with Ubuntu I don't have to sit through the annoying marketing copy about all the great new features. Every time I install XP, I'm struck by the silliness of what they thought was going to be great about the OS circa 2001.

[fordfan753]

I've never had a problem with either installer, I find the choices logical 99% of the time. As a lot of people pointed out the Ubuntu installer is faster, I can have it fully installed in about 20 minutes!

Neither of them are very hard, but I've had a few glitches with "losing" product codes for Windows. Also with Windows I need about a hundred driver CDs and CDs for all the programs I like, only to find out that some obscure site has a better version, with Ubuntu it's just a quick look in the repositories, you can even write a script to do it all for you.

I guess it's fine to say it's easy, but this is coming from a guy that had no trouble with FreeBSD, Debian Woody, Gentoo, and Slackware installations, this poll, I think, is for the n00bs to fight out.

[Arktis]

Yes, the ubuntu install goes much faster. Plus the windows installer has problems with putting it's boot stuff on a totally different drive when it is undesired. I've run into this issue several times. Rather annoying.

Plus, with my two separate (and different model) graphics cards, the microsoft drivers cause windows to be unbootable. Joy. This creates further complications... I have to go through hardware removal and reinstallation steps just to get it to boot fully so I can get it to work right with my two cards. All this just so I can play CS:S? No thanks.

I'd rather play TC:E anyways. It's more fun, no wine/cedega, and it's based on a really good game/engine which is now free. http://www.truecombat.com/intro.php

[xequence]

If you include just the normal installation, XP is easier. If you include all the drivers and stuff you have to install after, breezy is easier.

As in... Linux has better hardware detection then windows, but if linux cant detect it, it is doubtful you will find a driver for it. If windows cant detect it, you will be able to find a driver SOMEWHERE, though it might take awhile.

[firenurse4]

Neither was easier for me. Now if the question was about upgrading say from Windows 98 or ME to XP versus Ubuntu, that would be different. I have borked both windows and ubuntu upgrades (equal opportunity idot I guess ;) ) but with ubuntu I could at least get a backup of my data from the command line. Try doing that with a windows upgrade gone awry.

[erikpiper]

Ubuntu IS easier, UNLESS you are like me who has to go break it doing odd things!

[darth_vector]

the only thing that annoys me about winxp (and i heard that this has been fixed in SP2) is that the installer doesnt recognise SCSI or SATA disks and you have to load drivers for them before you can begin the install.

[Kurt Dodrill]

Ubuntu was nice because I didnt have to redownload a raid driver thats needed on a floppy when installing XP. I think some of the options given in the beggining of the Ubuntu installation could confuse a new user, like setting the swap space. Both versions of the "use entire disk space" are very easy, everything is done for you. I think the question should be "Which OS is easier to get back uptodate with patches, programs and all utilities installed." I personally hate having to restart my computer 20x to get it running after a fresh install...

[JeffS]

At work I've installed Windows 95, 98, Me, NT 4.0, 2000 Professional, 2000 Server, 2000 Advanced Server, XP home, XP professional, XP Server, XP Advanced Server, and Windows Server 2003. I've also installed multiple langauge versions of Windows NT, 2000, and XP, including versions in Japanese, Mandarin, Cantonese, Thai, Spanish, Dutch, German, and French. I've also installed both SuSE and Red Hat at work.

At home I've installed Red Hat, Mandrake/Mandriva, Mepis, Ubuntu, Debian Sarge, Slackware, Kanotix, Linspire, Knoppix, Damn Small Linux, PCLinuxOS, SuSE, and an assortment of other minor distros. I've also installed, at home, Windows 98, 2000, and XP home (and done so for other people, helping them out).

So I'm commenting based on tons of real world experience, and I can say with out a shadow of a doubt, that every version of Linux (including the "harder" version such as Slack and Deb) was easier to install than every version of Windows. The Linux installs, whether text based or GUI, have always been faster, more intuitive, more comprehensive, and more robust. Plus, with Linux installs, there is the extra bonus of all hardware having driver modules automatically detected, configured, and loaded, where as with Windows you either have to have a separate driver CD supplied by the PC vendor or you have to hunt down the drivers yourself.

Most definetely, Linux is waaaaaay easier to install than Windows, in every case, with every version of both, in my (very extensive) experience, and IMHO. ;)

But the sad thing is, most casual computer users never have to install Windows, as it always comes preinstalled (unless a PC without OS or with Linux is ordered/purchased). And when/if they install Linux, since they've never installed any OS before, sometimes they come back with complaining that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", since they sometimes have to do stuff that they've never had to do before.

[Iandefor]

Windows was easier to install, but Ubuntu is easily within my abilities to install (assuming I don't get bad disks, a condition I seem to be damned with) even with the Expert install, my preferred method of installation. Post-install is a different matter; Windows seems to be inherently incapable of being customized to my liking, whereas it is a trivial matter to configure Ubuntu to my preferences.

[DevilsAdvocate]

In my experience, the initial install of both OSs was equally easy. Ubuntu was definately speedier though. Post install configureing is another matter. I've installed Windows so many times I've got it down to a science; i.e., very easy. Ubuntu, on the other hand, was a gigantic learning curve for me. I could easily see it being the other way around if I had been more experienced w/ Linux. So, I guess that's what it comes down to.

[angkor]

Other.

The Ubuntu install was drop dead easy after setting up the partitions correctly. Note that I haven't really installed breezy, I upgraded from Hoary which was tricky but doable. (lot's of apt-get -f installs ;))

I have never installed Windows XP (never had it pre-installed either, since I've never bought a complete system). I've only experienced W98 which is quite easy to install, yet time-consuming and in the end you have practically nothing (just a browser and wordpad).

[Sirin]

I've apparently reached a point where I've re-installed my XP enough times that Billy thinks I should call him to get his permission each time now. Which is a big hassle that I try to avoid.

Vice-Versa for me. :???:

WIndows was easier to install. Clearly. With ubuntu, there was always a file corrupted on the disc. Actually, I'm using Ubuntu installed from the only CD that works out of 40 CDs that came with ShipIt. Doesn't ANYBODY test the CDs before shipping them? :confused:

[Sheinar]

I don't find either any more difficult to install than the other. They're both pretty self-explanatory.

[ubuntu_demon]

I voted : "They were both difficult/easy, depending on which computer"

Both are easy to install for "nerds" like me. Both are hard to install for non-nerds.

Windows has the disadvantage that you can't install it after Ubuntu is installed.

IMHO after installation and configuration Ubuntu is easier than windows XP. Although a lot of people are used to windows so Ubuntu might be a bit more difficult for them.

[meborc]

my ubuntu install was much easier than the xp... cuz i dont have my motherboard and soundcard original cd's with me - my xp didn'r recognize enything... no sound no nothing... in ubuntu everything works out of the box... super :D

[aysiu]

Doesn't ANYBODY test the CDs before shipping them? I don't think so. In fact, both here and on LinuxQuestions, I've seen many complaints about the official installation disks freezing during the installation. I myself have had a couple of bum ISO downloads for Ubuntu--and it seems to be Ubuntu-specific. For other Linux ISOs, they always did a perfect checksum.

I don't know why it's a hit or miss on disk image integrity...

[Brando569]

i feel ubuntu was easier to install then windows but ubuntu was harder to get stuff working correctly right after an install. with windows after you installed it and rebooted into the desktop everything worked, with ubuntu alot of things still didnt work after it was installed

but in the end i love kubuntu compared to windows xp

[DigitalDuality]

I've probably installed multiple versions of Win hundredS of times over both at various jobs, home, for family and for friends. the install process even for 95 is engrained into my head.

That being said, Ubuntu is much easier to install. It's not as pretty, but requires alot less interaction. It gets most of the questions asked upfront.. while Win is ..install some drivers..format... questions... install.. more question...etc..

Neither really have a difficult install process, actually most modern OSes don't have bad install processes. OS X is easy, Xp is, Ubuntu/Fedora/Suse/Mandrake.. all pretty simple.

[Bandit]

If windows actualy installs without crashing its miricale. Then there is all the drama of installing the software you want.
Linux and Ubuntu both are so much easier.

I look at windows as a commercial virus on the world...

Cheers,
Bandit

[DigitalDuality]

If windows actualy installs without crashing its miricale. Then there is all the drama of installing the software you want.
Linux and Ubuntu both are so much easier.

I look at windows as a commercial virus on the world...

Cheers,
Bandit
I'll re-iterate i'm no fan of MS or Windows once again, but since the inception of the NTFS file system and XP in general, Windows has been a pretty stable OS. Proprietary, yes. Security-hole ridden software that's not removable.. yup (well it is removable, you just lose the ability to do Auto Updates through IE and have to go through hell to get it completely off). Over-priced, most definately. Software packages that one would actually like to use included? Not at all. But the OS itself.. is pretty stable.

Since 2k you don't hear about half the crashes that you used to. You DO hear of alot of security issues, which can effect OS stability, but it's not one and the same.

[Koobi]

i've installed Windows numerous times since 1999 and i've installed Ubuntu 2-3 times and i think Ubuntu was a lot easier to install.

[sabredog]

I have installed Windows XP many times and Breezy twice now.

Coupled with Automatix, Breezy installs with one CD change compared to the multiple CD changes needed for XP and associated apps.

Breezy is almost automatic.

[nocturn]

Ok, I selected Breezy. Though, the experiende covers multiple machines.

- Hoary install on my HP Pav. ZV5474 laptop took about 45-60 minutes to get fully running with all apps I required (including k3b, scribus etc), of this time about 10-15 minutes where interactive.
Hoary2Breezy took about 1h 30m to complete, had to run dist-upgrade 3 times but after a reboot there was no breakage.

- Breezy install on the laptop in our store (Maxdata Eco 4000A) completed in about 60 minutes, fully working including wireless and hibernate *out-of-the-box* and adding a printer (all-in-one). About 5-10 minutes of this install where interactive (I watched TV for the rest)

- (re)Install of WinXP on a Compaq Celeron 2 Ghz for a friend (I don't remeber the exact model) took about 4 hours, including installing third party drivers from CD and installing an Office suite and Anti-Virus. Off those 4 hours, I had to be about 3 hours behind the system to answer on-screen questions or insert disks.

After this time, some things like the printer (all-in-one) turned out not to function, even though all drivers where installed and it had succesfully printed a testpage. It required an additional download from the manufacturer site to get it to print anything else then the test page.

[BSDFreak]

If windows actualy installs without crashing its miricale. Then there is all the drama of installing the software you want.

Then i have witnessed hundreds of miracles first hand.


Linux and Ubuntu both are so much easier.

Linux and Ubuntu both? It's kinda hard to do ANYTHING with just the kernel, is it not?



I look at windows as a commercial virus on the world...

Cheers,
Bandit

I look at it as a fairly good OS that is horribly overpriced and uses an inferior development model.

[Madpilot]

I installed both XP & Ubuntu (Hoary) from bare metal on this machine, so it's interesting to compare the two sessions.

I've got a fairly standard mobo with onboard sound, dual onboard LAN, and an ATI 9600XT mobo.

When I installed XP, neither the sound nor the net worked until I ran another pair of CDs containing Asus' drivers.

Ubuntu found the net connection during install, and once the GUI came up it worked flawlessly. The sound "just worked" in Ubuntu, no drivers or tweaking needed.

The ATI card worked with 2d in both installs, and installing the 3d drivers in either OS wasn't that big a deal.

The big HUGE difference was with what's available in terms of applications on a stock install... XP has f*** all - Notepad, MSPaint, IE, and nothing else. No security, either.

Ubuntu is a fully functional desktop - the only thing I had to add was Opera, because I can't use Firefox comfortably!

[TeeAhr1]

No experience installing XP (however, I will get some experience in uninstalling it this weekend). I've installed Breezy twice now, and I've got to say, if it got any easier, I might slip into a coma. The first time, configuring was, of course, difficult, owing more to my total lack of *nix experience than anything else. Second time around I got stuff done way faster (a night as opposed to a week and a half). Thank the gods I have an HP computer, absolutely everything was recognized and working immediately, I have yet to have a hardware issue. Printers, flash drives, you name it, I plug it in, it works. Now. HP has earned my repeat business.

[Kernel Sanders]

Windows XP by far....... simply because its designed for noobs and advanced users alike...... the whole install has an intuitive GUI....... even if there is a problem with the install, it will still install and will allow you to sort out those problems from windows later......

(thats all I got for now) :D

[tseliot]

Other:

I find Ubuntu installer to be faster than that of Windows. Moreover Windows installer (on some computers) has problems to detect the LAN and the internet (ADSL) connection.

An important feature that Windows installer lacks is the option to make a partition dedicated to your personal files (a /home partition) and one to the OS system files, so as not to format everything when you have to reinstall Windows from scratch (and if you play games as I did before you need to reinstall Windows every now and then).

I know that there is an option to do a partial reinstallation of Windows but I think Windows' reinstallation is the only one that can solve your problems in most cases.

P.S. I have used Windows for many years before wiping it out from my computer (and from my life) last year.

[mikedtemple]

As a test, I just wiped my WinXP/Ubuntu dual boot desktop and reinstalled WinXP Pro and Dapper. Here are my results:

Time to Install:

WinXP- 42 Mins
Ubuntu- 24 Mins

Post Install (Get to a "usuable for me" state- make things $pretty, get codecs, flash, java, pdf support, VPN, attach to local SMB file server etc, etc, etc.)

WinXP- ~3 hours (but I had an issue with Antivirus download)
Ubuntu- ~1 hour to write script (I'm still learning- AND it's a 1x deal) ~30 mins to run script, get coffee and have lunch.

Plus, if you're using Breezy, you have Automatix to do what I scripted.

Note this is just my experience, and totally not scientific. Ubuntu was easier for me- but strictly due to the fact that you have to download so many other things post install for XP (like AV)- I think the basic install for both systems is not that hard.

[kittycatsexycat]

I reckon that if you know some one that can give you a hand over the phone then breezy is definatly better.. but unfortunatly most people start off learning windows then change to linux... Linux should come first... Ubuntu anyway.... lol

[Footissimo]

I've voted Windows ('boo' yes, I know, but hear me out) - simply because of the question. Windows XP does take longer than either Ubuntu or Mandriva (two linux flavours that I've installed more than once), but in terms of how much it asks you, Windows is quite a bit easier than Mandriva (which gives you options as to which packages you'd like) and just very slightly easier than Ubuntu IMO.

Of course, if the question had been about installing to a 'finished' state then Windows would be last by a mile - I can understand why an old OS like XP would require you to spend ages finding all the driver disks for newer hardware, but it completely narks me when I have to trawl the net for AC97 drivers and whatnot - the '97' bit is there for a reason! I guess I've been lucky with Linux, but the only thing that I've had trouble installing hardware-wise has been bluetooth stuff on Ubuntu (on the KDE-centric Mandriva, it was a doddle)..oh and activesync for Windows Mobile, but being a MS product, that's hardly surprising.

[Sirin]

Ubuntu took me 4 days (non-stop). Windows only took me 30 minutes. nuff said. :rolleyes:

[BoyOfDestiny]

Ubuntu took me 4 days (non-stop). Windows only took me 30 minutes. nuff said. :rolleyes:

96 hours huh? Takes me 20-30 minutes to install Ubuntu... Windows was always around an hour or so...

[midwinter]

I'd say Ubuntu was a little easier, but i've always found both easy really. Must be lucky.

[Minyaliel]

I've installed (and re- installed) Windows more times than I could count. I can do it asleep. In fact, that's what I did the last twenty- or- so times I had to do it, because it was deadly boring to look at that install screen which never seemed to get anywhere for half an hour. I've installed Ubuntu and Kubuntu twice, all by myself. I was dead tired of reinstalling Windows (a chore I had to do every 14 days or so), so I ordered a Hoary CD set and installed it without hesitation. Alas, I had no idea what partition was. So I lost all the stuff I'd had on Windows because I didn't think about doing a backup. You learn as long as you live, as we say up here in the North. But well, I managed to install it all by myself, as a Windows user, and it worked out of the box until I decided to try Dapper and messed it up and had to reinstall. I decided to install Kubuntu right away, since I knew I'd want KDE anyway. That was even easier. Just as easy as WinXP, in fact, only that it was _a lot_ faster. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that both have their positive and negative sides. And that that is only natural, and a good thing. Because then, there's always something that can be worked on and made better. The reason why so many Win users migrate (even only temporarily) to Ubuntu and Linux in general, may lie in the simple thing that Microsoft seems only to look for new features, not to fix the old ones.