Re: I can't beleive this
I know that everyone loves to hate Microsoft, and its Windows products. I
know they are an easy target becuase they make a very successful product
that has quite a few problems. They are a big corporation that "controls"
the pc industry. and Linux is the "underdog"... All of this makes Windows
VERY easy to pick on. BUT Windows has grown out of one mans dream. It
started as a small OS (dos) that was every bit like a linux. They were the
underdog. Instead of just looking at windows as the "enemy" why not learn
from it!!! It didnt get this successful becuase it is a horrible product.
Now, as to your post. There are some mistakes in it that I feel should be
corrected...
>it goes on the first bootable partition, PERIOD,
Well, not true, if you are using NT, you can install it on what ever
partition you would like. All it needs is the NT loader to exist on the boot
device. This could be a floppy...
<snip>
>it [windows] does not allow multi-boot of other
>operating systems, AT ALL,
Not true. I can setup a computer to (dual) boot, old DOS, Windows3.1,
Windows 95, Windows 98 & WindowsNT all on the same computer. I could even
throw Netware in that mix as well...
>I install the base OS in a set configuration
>(no partitioning, etc by the user during install)
Partitioning is done by the user before installation. (like in linux)
>with a specific set of
>applications that the user has no control over.
You can customize the installation process to install what ever parts of the
OS that you want to. You dont have 100% control, but it is far from "no
control".
>It will install quite
>nicely and the longest part is the reformat of the hard drive to remove
>that "alien" filesystem that it found living there.
That IS true in most cases, WindowsNT is much better at it. Windows 95 has a
terrible temper and hates other OSes installed. You should always install 95
FIRST, then install NT/LINUX.
>The problem comes in when you want to give control over the installation.
>The more control you give the more difficult it becomes because you HAVE
>to assume that the person with the control knows what to do with it.
True... but...
>Comparing the two operating system's installation procedure is apples and
>oranges. The closest you can come with a commercial OS is POSSIBLY OS/2
>... and you know what .... people complained that OS/2 was too difficult
>to install.
This is one area that I think Linux could take some hints. The installation
process is not intended for the average user. Just saying to
"joe-average-windows-user" "hdd 0" would completely throw them... Even
telling them "c:" might throw them...
instead of completely discounting everything that windows has to offer, why
not improve on some of its design features and show them how it should be
done. Maybe an option during install that give the end user a friendly
installation procedure? Give the user (if they want it) plug-and-play...
Give the user "simple-wording" in a GUI interface that makes sense to a
person without 5 years of computer experience. Give the user the OPTION.
don't snub your nose at those "technology-have-nots". If linux is to go onto
EVERYONE'S desktop, it certainly needs to be MUCH more user friendly.
Like I said, don't "snub" the windows OS, learn from its MANY mistakes and
make it one better. There is nothing more "ignorant" then to just ignore
something (windows) that has such a large installed base. Look at the way
Windows did it. They took the MAC OS, and made its own improvements. Why
does Windows have a recycle-bin? they "stole" the idea from the MAC. That is
why they have the market share that they do. They have learned from other
peoples mistakes...
Reply to: