Skip to comments.Linux is easier to install than XP
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.
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.
That’s how I run and I’ve yet to have a problem with a trojan.
If you don't care; I certainly don't.
Well I do. And you should care too.
Some 90%+ of spam comes from pwnd Windows machines. My circuit, firewall and mail servers have to deal with all of that spam. That costs me time and money.
As long as his poor practices don't impact the rest of the 'net, you're right, no one cares.
But when people are negligent and let their machines get taken over by bot nets it impacts us.
They aren’t new technology but they do change in how they do things, and most importantly in how the OS accesses them. Heck there’s been at least one MAJOR change in network cards in the last seven years, that being that they frequently AREN’T cards any more. Most network cards now are integral to the motherboard, that would probably seriously change how the OS accesses the card which could be inhibiting XP.
We KNOW XP and Vista and every other MS OS does indeed ship with generic network card drivers. But apparently XPs 7 year old generic network card drivers didn’t like this one. Don’t expand a problem with 1 card into an overall lack, especially when that overall lack doesn’t exist.
Did you have the same network this guy had? The guy needed to do an apples to apples test. None of his criticism means anything without proof that 7 year old Linux handled installing on that machine better.
Hey, if you don't care, neither do I.
The new trojans are nothing like the old days of Nachia and Welchia and Slammer.
The new trojans don't blow up your machine or spew out network traffic and take down your local LAN segment.
They sit there quietly, occasionally checking into the botnet master and execute instructions to send out some spam.
The millions of owners of bot-netted PCs probably think they don't have problems with trojans either.
Well you’re right about that. And in that regard I do care. But you know what I meant.
Nope. Even integrated Ethernet uses exactly the same protocols to work as the old 10Base-2 cards. The only difference is that instead of sitting on a card, the chip is on the mobo. They work exactly the same way.
Did you miss my post above about how I booted brand new hardware with a Linux OS from 2002 and everything worked?
Why? He tried an install of XP and it didn't work on his hardware.
If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a Linux newbie have problems with his particular hardware and then throw up his hands and blame Linux I would be running against Obama myself.
And then along come the MS shills and scream, "See! Linux doesn't work! "
This article is evidence of one person's problem in actually installing a Microsoft operating system. It's actually not that uncommon but he's under no obligation to conform to YOUR rules.
He's doing a very common thing. He's using the most preferred Windows version (XP) on new hardware. And it doesn't work.
Yeah, I know what you meant. And even pointing out the problem to the clueless Windows users won't really get them to change.
But at least it's out there now. They will still probably run in dangerous mode and get eaten up with botnet software.
But they can't say that no one ever told them.
Maybe they use the same stuff maybe not. Remember it’s not the communication with the outside world that matters, it’s the communication with the OS. If that guys network adapter doesn’t talk to the OS the same way network cards did 7 years ago then XP isn’t going to be able to handle it.
I saw that, and asked if it was the same adapter the guy had. If it’s not the same adapter then it means nothing.
Because unless 7 year old Linux handles the same hardware better he didn’t prove anything more than 7 year old OSes have issues with new hardware, which is kind of a no brainer.
No the article is stating that Linux is easier than XP definitely but the truth is his testing didn’t prove that. He’s making a conclusionary statement based on uneven testing of unlike circumstances.
And actually he didn’t prove it doesn’t work. All he proved was that XPs generic network drivers had an issue with his particular network adapter and he needed to use the driver disk that came with the computer. BFD.
Yes, and onboard NICs communicate with the OS in exactly the same way that NIC cards do, they are just on the internal bus rather than the bus that the cards plug into.
This is actually rather easy to determine. I have an antique Pentium II 450 with an onboard Digital ethernet adapter and a PCI NIC with a much newer Digital chipset. The onboard NIC is obviously the same age as the mobo. The PCI NIC is about 6 months old.
OpenBSD shows them as de0 and de1. dmesg shows one on PCI bus 0 and one on PCI bus 1.
I saw that, and asked if it was the same adapter the guy had. If its not the same adapter then it means nothing.
Well, maybe so maybe no. If the cards are the same (I don't know, he didn't give enough information) then the point is proven. But even if the cards aren't, the machine is using a industry standard NIC from a major box supplier. The OS should support it, at least in some degraded mode.
It would be different if it was some rare, obscure hardware like a Token Ring card or an ATM card. But it's an Ethernet card. And Ethernet is Ethernet.
What he did was install the most commonly used version of Windows on generic hardware from a major box manufacturer. And it didn't work.
That's an indication of how Microsoft does things.
Maybe they do maybe they don’t. You can’t make universal statements like that. There’s many manufacturers of motherboards and onboard NICs. Some will follow the generic protocols some won’t. The ones that do follow the generic protocols will work with the generic drivers that ship with XP, the ones that don’t won’t. Another part of the problem is they might not announce themselves properly to XP, there’s a lot of places PnP can fall down, so even if the adapter will work with the generic XP drivers if it doesn’t establish itself with XP as a network adapter that will work with the generic drivers XP won’t try to run it with the generic drivers.
Ethernet might be ethernet, but cards aren’t always cards. If his adapter isn’t 2001 generic, or doesn’t announce through the PnP that it’s 2001 generic then XP won’t work or won’t know it can work. There’s a lot of things missing from the article to determine the exact problem. He could have gone to Device Manager and learned a lot. Anything that shows up in Unknown Devices is not communicating itself to XP properly, thus XP doesn’t know what it is and doesn’t know which generic drivers to try to use with it. You might actually be able to get the generic drivers to work, I’ve done that before, taken a network that was showing as Unknown told Windows it was a network card and it worked long enough to go get the full drivers. He didn’t bother with that though, he just complained about a 2001 OS not living up to 2008 standards and then lied about manufacturers other than Dell not shipping driver disks.
Again that’s BS. It DID work, it just needed some additional drivers, which shipped with the computer. It’s not an indication of anything. IT’S A SEVEN YEAR OLD OPERATING SYSTEM, IT HAS ZERO BEARING ON TODAY. You and the author need to get that through your heads.
XP DOES have generic drivers for things like network adapters.
XP’s generic driver DO work with many devices even today.
here have ALWAYS been devices that didn’t work with the generic drivers in XP and other OSes for a variety of reasons.
As an OS gets older that list of things that don’t work with the generic drivers tends to get longer, it’s a natural part of OS aging.
I've been working with PC hardware for 20 years. I've yet to see an Ethernet card that was sufficiently different that it wouldn't at least be recognized. At least since the death of dip switches.
It might not work properly, but the OS would at least see it.
Another part of the problem is they might not announce themselves properly to XP, theres a lot of places PnP can fall down, so even if the adapter will work with the generic XP drivers if it doesnt establish itself with XP as a network adapter that will work with the generic drivers XP wont try to run it with the generic drivers.
Which only points out how screwed up Windows XP is. PnP hardware with Linux "just works." Even Linux from 8 years ago.
He didnt bother with that though, he just complained about a 2001 OS not living up to 2008 standards and then lied about manufacturers other than Dell not shipping driver disks.
No, what he did was install the most commonly used Windows OS and, out of the box, it fails to do things that even the oldest and simplest Linux install has routinely done for a decade.
I’ve been working with PC hardware and software for 13 years and I’ve seen plenty of hardware of ALL types including network adapters that couldn’t be recognized, especially by OSes more than 5 years older than the hardware.
PnP hardware “just works” with XP too, unless somebody, usually the hardware manufacturer, screwed something up.
No what he said was HIS hardware had some issues which were easily solved with provided disks with ZERO attempt to find out if an equivalent version of Linux would or would not have similar problems. Basically he did half a test made a whole bunch of assumptions about the other half of the test LIED about the general availability of drivers disks and drew a conclusion that’s not backed up. You then expanded that into XP just not working, which is claim even the assuming lying author didn’t jump to.
It's the most commonly used Windows OS. It failed to recognize industry standard Ethernet.
XP DOES have generic drivers for things like network adapters.
Obviously not, since his didn't work.
XPs generic driver DO work with many devices even today.
Except for his Ethernet card.
here have ALWAYS been devices that didnt work with the generic drivers in XP and other OSes for a variety of reasons.
No, just one reason. Microsoft.
As an OS gets older that list of things that dont work with the generic drivers tends to get longer, its a natural part of OS aging.
Only under two circumstances.
One is on completely new types of hardware. If his SATA controller hadn't worked, well that would be understandable. SATA didn't even exist when XP came out.
Second, poor coding. An OS should recognize standardized hardware. It doesn't have to fully support it, but it should run in some kind of minimal function.
If it doesn't, the OS is poorly coded.
Ah, a Windows guy. Yes, this is VERY common with Microsoft operating systems. Much less so with other operating systems.
No what he said was HIS hardware had some issues which were easily solved with provided disks with ZERO attempt to find out if an equivalent version of Linux would or would not have similar problems.
That's just the point. Linux doesn't require "extra disks." The hardware is either supported or not. Ethernet has always been supported.
XP requires extra fiddling to get the most basic of things to work.
That's the whole point of the article.
Why do you assume it’s an industry standard ethernet? Why do you assume it complies with 2001 industry standards? You’re making lots and lots of claims and they’re not even slightly backed up by the information provided.
Sorry one adapter that might or might not be up to standards doesn’t prove XP’s generic drivers don’t work. As another poster pointed out, they worked with his adapter. So now we’re 50/50 with specific adapters.
No sorry, many reasons. I know it hurts your religious belief to recognize that there are companies out there not named MS that do stupid things, but that’s the truth. And actually Intel is high on the list of companies that likes to violate standards.
There you go with your assumptions again. You assume and assume and assume and not even one of you assumptions are slightly backed up. Plenty of new versions of old hardware screw up their PnP announcements which causes the OS to not be able to know what type of device it is. And when the hardware isn’t doing its part of the PnP process right that’s not MS’s fault. Now matter how much you hate them, other companies screw up too.
I’ve used Macs, Unix, VMS, tons of stuff. I make my money in front of Windows machines but I know other OSes just fine.
No the point is he threw a 7 year old OS a new hardware that might or might not follow the PnP standards of 7 years ago and it didn’t work. He didn’t bother to find out if there was a problem with this hardware and any other 7 year old OS so we can’t possibly know where the problem was. He, and you, just ass-u-med it must be XP’s fault. And then he lied about the general availability of driver disks to make his problem sound bigger.
How about this then? The article references a Dell Inspiron 530s. The Dell specs state that it comes with the Intel 82557-based 10/100 network chip.
I pulled the HCL from the Knoppix CD I have from 2002. Guess what? The 82557 chip is fully supported. Intel Ethernet chips are industry standard.
You can whine and complain and spin all you want but facts are facts.
It IS an industry standard chip. And Windows XP took tweaking to get it to recognize on of the most widely used network adapters ever made.
Yep. The most commonly used Windows OS refused to recognize and industry standard network controller.
He didnt bother to find out if there was a problem with this hardware and any other 7 year old OS so we cant possibly know where the problem was.
Well, considering that it worked pefectly with Linux Mint, it's not the hardware. What does that leave?
And then he lied about the general availability of driver disks to make his problem sound bigger.
No, he ran into a very common problem and pointed it out.
He had a fried system. He replaced it with a new system.
He installed his copy of XP and Surprise! no network.
Being a technical type, he knew to look on the CD. Many people with limited technical skill would not have.
On the other hand, Linux just worked.
QED. Linux is easier to install.
So the chip is fully supported. Does that implementation follow 2001 PnP standards?
I’m not whining or spinning I’m pointing out the difference between what we KNOW and what you and the author ASSUME.
Here’s what we know:
He installed a 2001 OS on a 2008 computer with 2008 hardware and there were some devices that XP couldn’t connect to with the generic drivers.
Now here’s the things we don’t know:
If any of that hardware complies with 2001 OS communication layer standards
If any of that hardware complies with 2001 PnP standards
If any XP’s generic drivers could have been forced to work with the hardware
If any other 2001 OS works with that hardware out of the box
You make a lot of assumptions about how it must be MS’s and XP’s fault, which is funny since you claim to have been Windows free since 2 years before XP came out, but they’re all just assumptions. Could the problem be XP? Of course. Could the problem be the hardware? Yup.
Tehre you go again ASSUMING it’s standard. 100% NOT PROVEN. Based on != uses a standard implementation.
STOP THE ASSUMPTIONS. All you’re managing to prove is that you hate MS and believe all faults are always their fault. We get it. Everything else you’ve got is assumptions based on your hatred.
Anybody that doesn’t know to look on the CD marked DRIVERS when a hardware wizard comes up and ASKS FOR THE DRIVER CD, is probably illiterate and shouldn’t be using computers anyway.
Are you trying to honestly say that the Intel Pro 10/100 chipset, that has been out and available for 10 years, isn't a standard implementation?
How about this then? How about a NetBSD man page from 2002 listing full support for the Intel 82557 chip? The Linux drivers use the NetBSD code, BTW.
STOP THE ASSUMPTIONS. All youre managing to prove is that you hate MS and believe all faults are always their fault.
My, my. You certainly are getting wound up about this shortcoming with Windows XP. Personal stake maybe?
Anybody that doesnt know to look on the CD marked DRIVERS when a hardware wizard comes up and ASKS FOR THE DRIVER CD, is probably illiterate and shouldnt be using computers anyway.
What wizard? The writer of the article clearly stated that Windows XP didn't even recognize the card. No wizard, no pop-up. Just nothing.
Now who's doing the assuming?
Who cares? The chip was fully documented, sufficient for the Linux kernel devs to publish a fully functioning driver back in 2002.
It works in Linux today. It worked in Linux in 2002. It doesn't work in Windows XP, the most widely used Windows version.
You are making a lot of excuses for something that is really straightforward.
Flat out, I call BS on the article. XP Pro contains all the base drivers you need to get running.
My HDD died on my laptop - a 2004 Dell Latitude D505. I took out the BONE STOCK XP Pro install from my MSDN pack, put the new HDD in and fired it up. Complete install, no problems. Video, keyboard, mouse, wireless and wired ethernet adapters, audio, even my optional Bluetooth adapter all self-installed and functional from the STOCK XP Pro install.
Bounced over to Dell, downloaded the nice-to-haves (I like some of the advanced power management drivers they offer), ran my NT restore of my data from my network and I was off to the races.
Considering the stock XP Pro install had no problem with a 4 year old laptop, and I have yet to find an install where the stock drivers would NOT at least make the system functional (maybe not all the bells and whistles, but displays and ethernet adapters works), I think the author is simply a highly partisan Linux hack.
For the record, I do run a Linux (Mandriva) server at home, and at the office it’s all Red Hat on the back end. But Windows up front because of the availability of software, ease of integration, familiarity for my employees and it simply works better when adding networked printers, or other shared resources.
No, what he did was try to create a custom slipstreamed CD and then do an install. How do we know he didn't screw up the custom CD? Maybe he selected the wrong driver for the ethernet or the video?
At the very least, it should have come up as an NE2000 compatible ethernet adapter and a generic VGA display - enough to go out and install the right drivers. If it didn't do that, then the author simply FUBAR'd his own install.
So unless you plan to rebut every posting in every forum on the 'net with people complaining that a bone stock XP install won't install the nearly ubiquitous Intel EtherPro network card driver, I think your BS call is BS itself.
Funny. That's why I ditched Windows years ago.
Because a Linux desktop installs easier, works better with networks (including Windows networks), printers, scanners, cameras, UPSes, Firewire, power management, and remote storage, plus has tens of thousands of software programs ready to use with a few clicks.
And that is a flat out lie from the author. I can prove it so, you're welcome to come over ANY time and I'll reload a bone stock XP (not even SP1 or SP2) install on my Dell D505.
So we have conclusive proof that I have the EXACT same Ethernet driver chip as the author, and I can assure you that I have zero issues. You're more than welcome to come and watch an install any time you like.
The author is simply wrong. He's either lying, or he biffed his slipstream CD and is not man enough to admit it. And I can understand you are a Linux fan, but your hatred for all things Microsoft is tinting your objectivity.
Oh, and if you want to know, the XP install on my laptop takes around 20 minutes, everything works right out. Bone stock XP, not SP1 or SP2. This is a Dell D505 Latitude.
Too bad the same can't be said about Linux on this exact same machine...
Strange that using VirtualBox, which provides an option to simulate the IntelPro 10/100 chipset, Windows XP won't see it without installing the VirtualBox extensions....
Too bad the same can't be said about Linux on this exact same machine...
Umm, you did note, didn't you, that that page referred to a Gentoo install? Gentoo, the "build it from scratch" Linux distro?
The instructions are very clear and have nothing to do with the mainstream kernel which provides the Intel EtherPro driver by default.
Even with Gentoo, if you install the default kernel, the Intel EtherPro card works. The instructions you pointed to list what must be left enabled if you build your own kernel and start turning things off.
I know Dell excels at screwing things up. I’ve got Del PowerEdges that probably have the same network adapter, or at the very least it has the same Intel chipset in the network adapter. It doesn’t get recognized by Win2K3 either, it knows it’s a network adapter but it can’t figure out what kind. Now I could probably go through the trouble of telling it’s an Intel blah blah, ie doing what Dell failed to do, or I could just install Dell’s drivers. The driver install takes 3 minutes and doesn’t even require a reboot. It’s not that tough.
It’s not just the Intel chip, it’s what Dell does with the chip. There’s a lot more to PnP than the core Intel chip and if you have half the experience you claim you know that.
My my you sure do love logical fallacies, no I don’t have any personal stake, and it wouldn’t matter if I did. Any winding up happening here is the frustration of watching you hammer the same 100% unsupported assumptions over and over and over. It’s really pathetic. None of your arguments are even slightly supported by facts, they’re all built on your assumptions. You assume too much.
And here’s where you run into a problem because you haven’t touched Windows since 1999. Any time there’s hardware in the computer that XP (and every version of Windows since) does not have drivers installed and configure for there’s a New Hardware wizard displayed on boot, unless the user has explicitly told Windows not to ignore the fact that it doesn’t know what that hardware is. Meaning on the first boot if there’s hardware that didn’t get properly detected and configured during the install there WILL be a New Hardware wizard, period, not negotiable, not avoidable. That’s how he knows Windows didn’t recognize the card, because a New Hardware wizard popped up and said it didn’t recognize the card. Not assuming, actually having experience with what we’re talking about.
Which would be 1 year AFTER XP shipped. Vista and 2008 detect the adapter in my PowerEdges fine.
And remember it DOES work in XP, you just have to spend 3 minutes installing a driver from a disk you were provided. Not that tough.
Ok, fair enough to blame Dell for screwing up the implementation.
But Microsoft still doesn't get off the hook. Using the default Linux driver, the one that hasn't changed since 2002, the Linux Mint install saw the NIC just fine.
And heres where you run into a problem because you havent touched Windows since 1999
Boy, talk about making assumptions.
Just because I'm personally Microsoft free, doesn't mean that I haven't worked with Microsoft products since 1999.
Any time theres hardware in the computer that XP (and every version of Windows since) does not have drivers installed and configure for theres a New Hardware wizard displayed on boot,
Only if Windows recognizes the device to some extent.
Thats how he knows Windows didnt recognize the card, because a New Hardware wizard popped up and said it didnt recognize the card.
Odd, Windows XP SP2 on VirtualBox doesn't see the IntelPro adapter and doesn't pop up anything. It just doesn't see the card at all.
And the writer says so.
He also says that it DOESN'T WORK OUT OF THE BOX.
He had to fiddle with it to get it to work.
It doesn't matter how "tough" it is. What matters is that for all of the hand-wringing about how Linux is "too hard," it's actually easier to install than the most popular version of Windows today.
But again you’re comparing 2002 to 2001. Did a two thousand and ONE Linux have support for that Intel chip?
Hey you’re the one claiming to be MS free for 10 years. Not my fault you don’t actually mean it.
WRONG. ANY device that is not recognized will pop up the New Hardware wizard. That’s what the wizard is for, if XP recognizes it XP will run the PnP install on it and not give you the wizard. You get the wizard when it doesn’t know what it is.
And that’s why we don’t do hardware testing on virtual machines. If it doesn’t see the card at all then it can’t popup the new hardware wizard, it doesn’t see new hardware.
And the write also didn’t bother to find out of a 2001 Linus would work out o the box. Thus his test is invalid. All he proved is that a 2008ish OS will handle new hardware better than a 2001 OS, it’ll also have newer dates on the files.
And of course there’s a lot more to using a computer than the OS install. Sure maybe the Linux install was easier, now it’s time to put Office on there so you can actually get some work done.
The whole test is invalid. From the start. He’s not comparing like eras of OS, he doesn’t bother to find out where the problem is coming from, and he lies about the general availability of driver disks. It’s a BUNK article. And it’s gotten painfully boring showing you that. Have a good day.
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.