Desktop/Live vs. Alternate Install?

[Johnsie]

Which do you prefer... the Live CD or the Alternate Install?

I personally prefer alternate install because it gets straight to the business of installing. I find the performance of the live CD quite annoying in many computers. No flamming please :-)

[frodon]

I love the Desktop CD it's so sweet to be on internet during the install :)

[richbarna]

I'm not bothered either way, I voted Desktop/Live as I can show it to my friends who know nothing about linux. As far as actually installing goes I had no problems with either. I think most problems are caused by human error or hardware compatability.

[maagimies]

I trust the Alternate install cd more.
Plus, the alternate one supports lvm ;)

[Engnome]

I trust the Alternate install cd more.
Plus, the alternate one supports lvm ;)

Yep, the Live install feels kinda rushed.

[LanceM]

Live makes it easy to show people, on their own hardware, what it's all about.

[Rackerz]

I like the Desktop CD, but prefer the Alternate. It's a shame I've never been able to actually get it to work.

[jeremy]

I refrained from voting as I think that both are good, but which you use depends on what you are trying to achieve.

[GarethMB]

I've not used text install since breezy. But i think i prefer it. But as i haven't tried it since i can't really say.

[RAV TUX]

I would have to say, Alternate install.

I recently turned the front desk clerk of the building I live in on to Ubuntu, and even though I gave him the free CD distribution which only has the desktop/live CD now.

I burned him a copy of the Alternate install and this is what he used.

It is a shame because it makes the desktop CD at least in this case, obsolete.

He is a proud Ubuntu user now and glad to be free from Microsoft.

[sagarhshah]

I use alternate cds when installing it myself although I hand out the live cd to my friends for them to install it by themselves.

I actually havent used the live cd myself but I read somewhere on this forum that you can't do a few things which you can with the alternate cd e.g. the live cd always installs the bootloader to the MBR whereas the alternate cd lets you choose what partition you want to install it to. Please do correct me if I got this wrong.

[Compucore]

I prefer the text one for installation for all of my ubuntu. Since I can easily choose the screen resolution befoer I get to the actual login screen. When I had tried doing a live cd installation on my old ubuntu. I couldn't even see the screen itseld due to the resolution was too high and I couldn't bring it down to the proper resolution to my monitor. With the text I was able to see the screen resolution without ahitch and be able to choose it and leave it at that. Here its not even available on the ubuntu or Kubuntu of Dapper drake.

Compucore

[forrestcupp]

I voted alternate even though I used Live CD for Dapper. The last version I installed was Hoary, and I liked the old installation much better than Live for one reason: It took about 30 minutes for my computer to boot the Live CD before I could even begin installing. I just bought my computer new about a month before I installed it, too, so it's not a dinosaur. That's pretty ridiculous. I was pleased with how quickly it installed after I finally got it booted up.

[K.Mandla]

I use the alternate CD myself and give away the desktop CDs. When I want to install, I want to install. But people who haven't seen or used Ubuntu before ought to have a chance to see it in action first.

[ubuntu_demon]

Personally I prefer the alternate install cd.

But I prefer the desktop cd to be the default shipit cd because most new users are graphically oriented (used to windows).

[vayu]

Definately not the live CD. The live CD was so slow on my sons PIII it was almost unusable. Actually it was unusable because it would not partition the drive. (I don't believe it is any less confusing either). I finally ended up using a Gparted Live CD which was quite a bit faster and had no trouble partitioning the drive.

I read at least two accounts of it screwing up BSD partitions. If my FreeBSD install were ruined I'd be extremely upset. I opted to use dist-upgrade on that computer (it had a Breezy partition). I wanted to fresh install, but I didn't want to regret it. Dist-upgraded my laptop and my other desktop too. I guess I'd say I prefer dist-upgrade.

I find the Live CD install is nice flash but I'd prefer if the energy spent developing it went to getting WPA working on my wireless.

After working out several issues, I am finally extremely happy with Dapper. With XGL it is one of the most polished computing environments I've experienced in 20 years.

[montgoej]

I prefer the Live CD as I'm still used to Windows and I'm a Linux noob. I haven't been able to install Linux yet as I haven't got my new PC, so I'm using it on my parent's(who don't like the fact that Linux is an Open Source OS, and won't let me install it on their PC) but I'm using it so much each day that I sometimes forget that it's not installed yet. My friends really like the Live CD too and I'm gonna give them copies once I get my Shipit order in(which was sent to the factory a few days ago). I had used a Live CD of Ubuntu about 6 months or a year ago(which by the way amazed me running faster than XP on my 450mhz PC), but being in high school I lost the CD, and kinda forgot about it with all the school work I had.