Posted on 07/23/2008 5:54:47 AM PDT by twntaipan
When you buy a new PC today, unless you hunt down a Linux system or you buy a Mac, you're pretty much stuck with Vista. Sad, but true.
So, when I had to get a new PC in a hurry, after one of my PCs went to the big bit-ranch in the sky with a fried motherboard, the one I bought, a Dell Inspiron 530S from my local Best Buy came pre-infected with Vista Home Premium. Big deal. It took me less than an hour to install Linux Mint 5 Elyssa R1 on it.
As expected, everything on this 2.4GHz Intel Core2 Duo Processor E4600-powered PC ran perfectly with Mint. But, then it struck me, everyone is talking about having to buy Vista systems and then 'downgrading' them to XP Pro, how hard really is it to do that.? Since I had left half the 500BG SATA hard drive unpartitioned, I decided to install XP SP3 on it to see how much, if any, trouble I'd run into. The answer: a lot.
First, thanks to my Microsoft TechNet membership I could download an XP disk image, which included all the patches up to and including SP3. Many people aren't going to be that lucky. They'll need to install XP and then download perhaps hundreds of megabytes of patches. Boy, doesn't that sound like a lot of fun?
If you don't have a MSDN (Microsoft Developers Network) or TechNet membership, there are two ways to approach this problem. The first is to manually slipstream the patches into an XP installation CD. You can find a good set of instructions on how to do this in Slipstreaming Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Create Bootable CD. While the article is for SP2, the same technique works for XP SP3 as well.
The other way is use nLite. This is a program that allows you to customize Windows XP and 2000. While it's primarily so that you can set up Windows without components you don't want, such as Internet Explorer 6, Outlook Express, MSN Explorer, or Messenger, you can also use it to create fully patched-up boot/installation CDs. I highly recommend it.
This time I didn't need to use either one. I simply put in my newly burned XP SP3 CD and went through the usual XP installation routine. Within an hour, I was booting XP.
If this had been Linux my work would have been done. With XP, I soon discovered my job was just beginning. I soon found that XP couldn't recognize my graphics sub-system, a totally ordinary Integrated Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) 3100; the audio system, the Realtek HD Audio chipset, or, most annoying of all, the Intel 10/100Mbps Ethernet port. How can an operating system in 2008 not recognize an Ethernet port?
Well, XP doesn't.
Fortunately, Dell includes a CD with the full range of Windows drivers on it. With it, I was able to install the drivers for all the equipment without much trouble. Within another hour, I finally had a working XP SP3 system.
That wasn't so bad was it? Well, here's my problem, except for Dell, I don't know of any vendors who ship their PCs with driver disks anymore. The usual vendor answer for when you have a driver problem is for you to go online, search down the right driver, download, and install it. Except, of course, had that been my only course of action, I would have been up the creek without a paddle because XP wasn't capable of letting me talk to my network.
Mint, on the other hand, let me point out, had no trouble with any of my hardware. Thus Ubuntu-based Linux recognized the equipment, it set it up and let me get to work. It was Windows that proved to be a pain in the rump.
Greg Kroah-Hartman, a prominent Linux developer, is right. Linux Journal recently reported that he recently told an audience at the Ottawa Linux Symposium that "Linux supports more different types of devices than any other operating system ever has in the history of computing."
Linux isn't perfect that way, as Kroah-Hartman would be the first to admit. Based on what I experienced, though, Linux is much better than Windows at supporting modern hardware.
We have this illusion, that's just because Windows works on the systems it comes pre-installed on, that Windows has great built-in driver support. No, it doesn't. Once you move to installing Windows on a new system, you'll quickly find that Linux, not Windows, has the better built-in hardware support.
Yes, that's right. Linux, not Windows, is easier to install on a new PC. Just something to think about as you get ready to strip Vista off your new computer.
MS doesn’t develop drivers for new hardware, the hardware makers develop the drivers. MS ships a bunch with the OS, but with rare exceptions they don’t actually make them.
Actually most Windows drivers are pretty small, in the same range as Linux drivers. The difference is that with Windows the company will also generally ship some sort of configuration utility (which 99% of the time is completely useless) which has all that GUI overhead and gives you megabytes of stuff. But the ACTUAL driver, the part that’s needed, is tiny.
There's a lot of truth to that. A hardware manufacturer will provide a package that has both the driver and the utility. And quite often that utility provides a lot of garbage that just mucks up the system.
With Linux, the utility is generally provided by the distro and is much smaller.
The reason for this is that many manufacturer's software is driven by marketing: "Now with the Gunkulator 3000! A new tool to do what the old tool did! Buy some more of our stuff!"
Under Linux, the drivers are written (mostly) by the people that write the kernel. The utilities are written by the people that write the distribution. So you get a leaner, more efficient OS.
Microsoft has always let manufacturers provide drivers and utilities, many of which do horrendous things and violate basic security protocols. They decided to do something about this (theoretically) with Vista and only allow drivers that Microsoft has signed off on.
This hasn't been nearly as successful as hoped. Either you don't get drivers at all because either the manufacturer won't provide a driver or Microsoft won't sign off on it, or the company puts pressure on Microsoft to ship a faulty driver (Intel graphics chip) so they can sell their product.
So, while the theory is good, it really has ended up being just as bad as before as far as driver stability, or worse, with no driver at all.
Never had a trojan from an installed application. I only install applications I know are safe and widely used.
Sorry, but Linux is not for everyone.
The vast majority of hardware is rather generic. A network card should be recognized and initialized by the OS using a generic driver. If there is a more specific driver for the card provided by a newer update, that's fine, but the card should at least be seen by the OS and run in some simplistic mode.
And drivers are from the manufacturer. Is it MS’ fault for the size of HP’s printer drivers?
The stock drivers (generic) that ship with XP or Vista are about the same size - 150-200K. It’s the ones from the manufacturers directly that are huge.
The beef over driver size should be with the device makers, not Microsoft.
A lot of the junk is advertising showing you all the cool features in that thing you just bought, stupid advertising since you already bought the product, but basically advertising. But it’s part of the Windows PC world, of course with harddrive space as cheap as it is I just delete the icons and don’t worry about the junk.
Vista and 2008 actually will let you install and use non-signed drivers. They just whine about it, and then only if you haven’t turned off some options and install the drivers the way Windows likes (through the “new hardware” dialog).
i use Windows (various versions from W98SE to Vista), Linux (mostly Ubuntu) and OpenBSD computers every day. Trust me, on any random PC, unless you are using the system restore CD that came with it, Linux is MUCH easier to install than any version of Windows.
It was not alway so, until four or five years ago Linux would always require some fiddle to get something working. These days, only multiple monitors have given me trouble. Everything else is pretty automatic.
I'm sure lots of people feel this way. That's why there are millions of unsuspecting users whose computers are members of bot nets.
Sorry, but Linux is not for everyone.
Neither is Windows. But that's never stopped Microsoft from pushing it.
My default XP installs all recognize - as generic - the network cards I use. Including some ancient 3COM cards (which still have coax connections on them).
This article is nothing but FUD... Starting with "Vista infection" and moving on to condemn Microsoft for NOT bundling Dell's custom drivers to building a slipstreamed CD (when the by-far-easier AND faster approach is to do the default XP install then install the patches).
I guess I should condemn Linux for requiring archaic command line interfaces, for not including MS Office as a standard configuration option through Dell, and requiring me to use apt-get a ton to get what I need?
It might be rather generic but then there’s the question of how generic was it 7 years ago? And how close does the card in this guy’s system match up to what was a generic network card 7 years ago? XP does run with generic drivers on stuff when it can, many times I’ve had the 640x480x16 screen while I installed video drivers. Really the guy needed to take a 7 year old version of Linux and see how well it handled installing on this system, if 7 year old generic Linux network drivers handled this card then he has a point (though a small one since driver disks are actually pretty standard issue in spite of what he says).
No OS is truly intuitive for the computer illiterate.
There are many people who won’t make any effort to learn any more than they need to get online and read their email.
Microsoft should provide mostly functional generic drivers for most generic hardware, like network cards, video cards and printers. That's the function of an OS anyway, to be the part between the user and the hardware.
They don't. Instead they require the hardware manufacturers to do it. And since many of the docs detailing how hardware should interface with Windows are contradictory, incomplete or just plain wrong, you get crappy drivers.
From the article: "I soon found that XP couldn't recognize my graphics sub-system, a totally ordinary Integrated Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) 3100; the audio system, the Realtek HD Audio chipset, or, most annoying of all, the Intel 10/100Mbps Ethernet port."
and moving on to condemn Microsoft for NOT bundling Dell's custom drivers to building a slipstreamed CD (when the by-far-easier AND faster approach is to do the default XP install then install the patches
Get back to me when Grandma can do that. That's the typical MS troll standard, isn't it?
I guess I should condemn Linux for requiring archaic command line interfaces, for not including MS Office as a standard configuration option through Dell, and requiring me to use apt-get a ton to get what I need?
You could, but you'd be wrong. For a standard install current Linux distros don't require you to use the command line. It's just as GUIfied as Windows. You can install software, configure a network, or set up a printer.
As for Office, modern Linux distros provide an office suite, but if you really find that you need MS Office, ask Microsoft to provide an RPM or a DEB installer package.
Linux distros don't provide MS Office because Microsoft doesn't want them to.
But you knew that.
And as Win XP is no longer preinstalled on new systems, hardware makers will not write drivers for XP for those devices (because they are writing them for Vista).
I've actually done this recently...by accident.
I had a newly built system that I accidentally booted up with an antique Knoppix LiveCD from 2002.
It saw my new Lexmark Laser printer, the Intel gigabit network card and the nVidia video card just fine.
Network cards are not new technology. While some of the new ones may provide larger buffers or encryption or VLANs, the basic underlying technology hasn't changed in decades. For Microsoft to build an OS that can't fire up a network card is bordering on idiocy.
So in other words: You run your XP and W2K systems as Administrator or a user a user with Administrator rights. Either way, that is not considered "best practice" from a security point of view. Any malicious code that you could encounter on-line will have full access to your system.
I can't tell you the number of times I've had to wipe a friends system because they had all sorts of trojans, spyware, virus' et al on their systems because they ran it as Admin.
Information protection begins with you. If it is too inconvenient for you to have to switch over to Admin to install software or configure your system, and don't care about the info it contains getting into the wrong hands, then have it.
If you don't care; I certainly don't.
For those of you who do care, follow "best practices" and run your computer with a restricted account. The inconvenience of doing so, can/will far outweigh any headaches you get from having a compromised system.
The average Windows user has never installed Windows. They buy the machine with the OS preinstalled. When the machine slows down for whatever reason (usually crashes, malware, etc.) they go to Best Buy, and the blue shirts say, “Oh, what you need is a new computer”. And they buy new hardware rather than learning how to clean off the crap and tune their machine or hire that done (and if they hire it done, they go to Geek Squad and pay ridiculous prices).
Have you looked at the install base XP still has? Yes they are now and will continue to write hardware drivers for XP for a while. Heck I got Win2K drivers with some stuff I bought earlier this year. Manufacturers will make the drivers for versions of Windows they think will be on machines their users have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.