Ubuntu more difficult to install than Windows or Mac

there is no way ubuntu can be considered 'easy to install' compared to windows or macs. Just look at the installations problems on the ubuntu forums. I am getting around to the view that different systems are good for different things. I use linux almost exclusively, with windows just for video editing. I have a friend who has 3 laptops with windows, linux and mac OSs. Interestingly on his mac he has an emulate for linux and windows as well :D well some people are just freaks I suppose

uberdonkey5 said: there is no way ubuntu can be considered 'easy to install' compared to windows or macs.

One seldom "installs" fresh Windows...most people don't-they have an OS image from the manufacturer that easily re-images their HDD to manufacturer default and all it's crapware. If Windows users had to actually install Windows and not just re-image, people would run away quick. I will say a fresh install of Vista is MUCH more straightforward than a fresh install of XP--in the former most things work after install...in the later nothing does until you install drivers for it from hardware vendors.

ubuntu is easier to install then vista and takes half the time. trust me i did a fresh install of both about a month ago

[deleted by user]

I think Ubuntu installs are much easier, you can carry on surfing the web while it installs, or chat to your friends...

[deleted by user]

If your an experienced Linux and Windows user you will find that from the install materials the Linux box will install much faster because it already has all the apps and most of the drivers. Since experienced Linux users will buy a pc with parts that work with Linux.

With WIndows you have to download the driver for each piece of hardware that is not available on the Windows install plus all the applications you use which make something like Ubuntu much faster then Windows to install.

Ok... Ubuntu: nice graphical installation where you can access the web, play games, et cetera, all while it's installing; you can even look at guides online if you're not familiar to the process. Windows: not graphical, you can't do anything but watch it install.

How on Earth is Windows easier?

Barrucadu said: Ok... Ubuntu: nice graphical installation where you can access the web, play games, et cetera, all while it's installing; you can even look at guides online if you're not familiar to the process. Windows: not graphical, you can't do anything but watch it install.

How on Earth is Windows easier?

When installing windows-you don't have to worry about biffing up an existing install. Also, _MOST people do NOT "install windows"_--most people _re-image _their HDD to OEM default. _MOST Win users have NEVER SEEN the bluescreen text based WinXP installer_.

Making a dual boot system is something that _most people_ (not on mac OS or not on Linux) have never done before--and as such, a majority of perspective users don't even know what "partitions" are or know physical addresses etc.

IIRC, Vista's installer is quite graphical...XP Pro offers you a lovely preview of that wonderful bluescreen during install.

I've installed Mac OSX to my Mac Mini before out of boredom, and it was almost as fast as an Ubuntu install.

Now Ubuntu installs have always been quick for me, and without a hitch.

I find Linux easier to install than Windows. Both can be a pain in the rear, though.

Even counting the very first time I installed Linux, I've always found it a lot easier than installing Windows. A few days ago I set up a dual boot system for my brother (Ubuntu and XP), and it took me almost a full day just to find drivers that would work with his graphics card. Some parts (like SD card reader, fingerprint reader, and some other stuff) still don't work in Windows.

Joeb454 said: I think Ubuntu installs are much easier, you can carry on surfing the web while it installs, or chat to your friends...

Agree with you Don't forget you can play music or watch a movie.

:guitar:

Most MODERN linux distros are easy to install. Ubuntu is by far far one of the easiest.

However, that said, neither Windows nor MacOS X are difficult by any means.

I believe I'd give the nod to Ubuntu on this one...

there is no way ubuntu can be considered 'easy to install' compared to windows or macs. Just look at the installations problems on the ubuntu forums.Do yourself a favor and find a windoze and a mac support forum to take a look at......

As with all most all discussion comparing Linux/Windows and OS X, this is a highly unfair comparison.

Think about it for a second. You comparing

1) Installing OS X on Mac hardware, which is supported by OS X 2) Installing Windows on PC hardware which is supported by the hardware manufacturers 3) Installing Linux on PC hardware which is supported by 3rd party people without help from the hardware manufacturers, without access to any of the knowledge they need to properly create drivers.

If you want to fairly compare them, grab some PC hardware which is has Linux drivers created by the original hardware manufacturers then tell me which is the easist.

I've done all 3 and can tell you it's closer than most people think. OS X takes it by a nose, the DVD comes with all the drivers needed on it, the install is pleasing, simple and relatively quick. Ubuntu comes next, again simple and pleasing, added benefit of allowing you to use your computer while you're installing. But the install has got some options that I can imagine would confuse the average user. Windows comes last. The initial blue screen can be shocking on the average user (does Vista still have this? I know XP does), the hd partitioning screen is worse than Ubuntu and although the hardware is supported you find yourself having to dig out CD to find certain drivers that Windows update doesn't detect straight off and aren't on the CD.

Comparing installers is of no consequence. They are all getting better rapidly. Partitioning is and always will be an area where the user MUST have some kind of understanding of their system. How much easier can they possibly get ? I can't speak for Mac or vista but outside of partitioning, XP and Ubuntu are nothing installs.

Hell, even gentoo and arch are easy if you READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.

Hey Namtabmai, this is not aimed at you :) just general.

Please windows XP on a fresh install is WAAAAAAY harder then Ubuntu, its crap and takes forever.

namtabmai said: as with all most all discussion comparing linux/windows and os x, this is a highly unfair comparison.

Think about it for a second. You comparing

1) installing os x on mac hardware, which is supported by os x 2) installing windows on pc hardware which is supported by the hardware manufacturers 3) installing linux on pc hardware which is supported by 3rd party people without help from the hardware manufacturers, without access to any of the knowledge they need to properly create drivers.

If you want to fairly compare them, grab some pc hardware which is has linux drivers created by the original hardware manufacturers then tell me which is the easist.

I've done all 3 and can tell you it's closer than most people think. Os x takes it by a nose, the dvd comes with all the drivers needed on it, the install is pleasing, simple and relatively quick. Ubuntu comes next, again simple and pleasing, added benefit of allowing you to use your computer while you're installing. But the install has got some options that i can imagine would confuse the average user. Windows comes last. The initial blue screen can be shocking on the average user (does vista still have this? I know xp does), the hd partitioning screen is worse than ubuntu and although the hardware is supported you find yourself having to dig out cd to find certain drivers that windows update doesn't detect straight off and aren't on the cd.

+1

Compared to an average install of XP, Ubuntu is really easy. After I install XP (which goes through several reboots and lots of questions scattered throughout), I have to flash drive over Everst home to find out what Ethernet I have. then flash drive over an Ethernet driver, download Firefox, get a graphics driver, use Everest home to find out what sound card I have, get that, etc. In Ubuntu: Next, next, next, wait 20 minutes, click restricted drivers, done. Vista is an improvement over XP though. Most Ethernet cards and many Wifi cards, as well as graphics and sound drivers, are included by default. Huge improvement, although it still has its own set of problems.

Partitioning is and always will be an area where the user MUST have some kind of understanding of their system.

I disagree. They only need this knowledge if they plan to fool around with multiboot.

Otherwise, a user who is installing Ubuntu by itself on a hard disk needs to know nothing about partitioning.

This is one of the features of the Ubuntu installer that makes it easy.

doorknob60 said: Compared to an average install of XP, Ubuntu is really easy. After I install XP (which goes through several reboots and lots of questions scattered throughout), I have to flash drive over Everst home to find out what Ethernet I have. then flash drive over an Ethernet driver, download Firefox, get a graphics driver, use Everest home to find out what sound card I have, get that, etc. In Ubuntu: Next, next, next, wait 20 minutes, click restricted drivers, done. Vista is an improvement over XP though. Most Ethernet cards and many Wifi cards, as well as graphics and sound drivers, are included by default. Huge improvement, although it still has its own set of problems.

I always hear about having to hunt drivers for XP in this manner but I've never had to do it. My XP and Vista installs have been as uneventful as any of my Ubuntu installs.

I am connected to the internet via cable modem. The WinXP installer has had no trouble driving every NIC and video card (in a basic sense) I've encountered. It searches the 'net for all of the hardware drivers and installs them for me - automatically. I had this same experience with Vista.

tsali said: I always hear about having to hunt drivers for XP in this manner but I've never had to do it. My XP and Vista installs have been as uneventful as any of my Ubuntu installs.

I am connected to the internet via cable modem. The WinXP installer has had no trouble driving every NIC and video card (in a basic sense) I've encountered. It searches the 'net for all of the hardware drivers and installs them for me - automatically. I had this same experience with Vista.You, my friend, are lucky. I have always had to find (online or via app CD) drivers to get things working.

I do agree, however, with "*The WinXP installer has had no trouble driving every NIC and video card (in a basic sense) I've encountered.*".

I know that this thread is old, but I spent the whole day today trying to install Ubuntu and I failed. I have never been able to install ubuntu on any machine. I work in the I.T. field and I've tried installing Ubuntu on 5 different machines. The common problems that I'm experiencing are that it freezes on the install screen or that it installs fine, but then after restarting I get a black screen. I keep on searching the forums and none of the solutions that are given to seem to work or I don't understand what I'm being told to do. In windows when there are video driver issues the machine still boots up, but it boots up in a limited mode that doesn't let you do much until you install the drivers. Windows is definitely easier to install and fix. I've run Ubuntu as a virtual machine and I love it, but I find it sad that it's so difficult to install. This is the downside of a free OS. You get better a product when you have to pay for it vs it being free. People spend thousands of dollars on apple products for a reason. They're getting great support for their product. Even if there are issues the company quickly resolves them. They are only able to do this because they are paying programmers to work round the clock to do so.

[I][B]Thread Closed

Reason:[/B][/I] Necromancy

@ silencer230. This thread is well dead and hasn't been active for four years. Please post a new thread with a descriptive title in the appropriate section and include as much info as possible regarding your issue rather than burying yourself twenty four posts deep on a dead thread. You will improve your chances of help. Thanks.