Can Linux Pick Up Users Abandoning Win98? 491
Mark writes, "When Microsoft announced the end of support for Windows 98 and Millennium Edition on June 30th, there was a lot of talk of these users migrating over to Linux desktops. In the weeks since this announcement, there is a very noticeable increase of activity on community boards and blogs from newbies asking questions about switching over to Linux, and how would they support their new systems." According to OneStat.com, Windows 98 and Windows ME account for about 4% of the total PCs in the world.
Actually, I suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
Not all but some. (Score:5, Interesting)
I figure it would be a 10%/40%/50% Split.
50% Will just stay with Windows 98. First because they don't care MS has stopped support. Second it works for there needs. Third it is the path of least resistance.
40% Will probably get a new computer with XP/Vista. They figured that their 3rd party apps that only work in 98 are end of life and time to bite the bullet and upgrade to the new versions. They may or may not know about Linux but they are use to windows and they will get a new system and use it for the next 10 years.
10% will probably switch to Linux. (Which probably accounts to the traffic on the Linux Groups). The only reason they were on Windows 98 and didn't upgrade because they had some application that only worked on windows. Now with 98 being officially dead they have a chance to start anew. If you are going to start over again lets try Linux. The app that they have may have an open source alternative or linux still uses the old hardware so they can continue, with linux.
I would have said 'yes'...... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have any complaints with the Linux kernel, or most of the applications. All her hardware was supported immediately, and the installation actually went rather smoothly. But when GNOME started up, we ran into problems. 64 MB of RAM just wasn't enough. I had 512 MB of unused RAM lying around that was compatible with her system, so we installed that. It did help a fair bit.
But in the end, we found that GNOME and Firefox were just too slow. It's quite easy to install KDE when using the Ubuntu packages system, so we gave that a try. It was significantly more responsive than GNOME. Konqueror worked quite a bit better for her than Firefox, as well. We were able to find her a theme that she liked, and she's been pleased with the system so far.
Were it not for the 512 MB of RAM I had lying around, I don't think we would have been able to use Linux with either GNOME or KDE. Fluxbox, XFCE and the other light window managers or desktops just don't cut it for users who want a Windows-like experience. And they're just the sort of users who would be transitioning from Windows 98.
Unless the major desktops do something significant to reduce their memory consumption, Linux on the desktop will remain something that only those with rather high-end systems will be able to enjoy. Such software will run on older systems, but it won't be enjoyable, even with special effects and stuff like that disabled. It's the sort of thing that will give Linux a very bad name, and will make users switch back to older versions of Windows.
Re:Depends on the situation (Score:3, Interesting)
Not many (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't mind spending money, you can get a relatively modern refurbished PC for under $200, that would be more than enough to run any OS you throw at it. Almost a year ago, I got an IBM NetVista with a 1.8ghz Celeron, 512mb ram, a 40gb HD, and a CDRW/DVD combo for about $200 from TigerDirect. Right now it's running Windows Server 2003 R2 enterprise edition. Heresy, I know, but I didn't give Microsoft a dime, and haven't since 2003, nor is it pirated, and my primary desktop runs Ubuntu. Right now I'm installing NetBSD on Virtual PC.
There's potential for turning those systems into thin clients, and you just replace them with real thin clients when they finally give up the ghost.
Re:support (Score:2, Interesting)
Technical support hasn't been available for some time now. Microsoft has ended the "extended support" period - meaning stopped even issuing patches for publicly-known exploits that allow someone to execute arbitrary code with no interaction on your part whatsoever.
That was enough for me to inform my wife that the ME box (stop snickering, it came with the wife) was going off the 'net and the old hand-me-down 700Mhz grey box would be running Linux and would be the only available machine for Internet access.
I haven't had occasion to talk to any less-savvy individuals running Windows 9x, but I would explain to them what I just told you, so I imagine that a lot of people are getting an earful from the people who de-gunk their machines.
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there a decent Citrix client for Linux we could suggest? Is it time for a new one? I wouldn't recommend Tarantella, given the SCO tie-in. But if someone built a Linux box that could natively handle Citrix, enterprise customers could save big bucks at the client end by not worrying about Windows licenses or hardware upgrade just to handle what amounts to a juiced up browser. A simple Linux implementation that supports a Citrix client, all packaged and ready to go, zero to minimum config. Think about it.
Re:and that word is "reinstall" (Score:1, Interesting)
I know that Microsoft knows about people like us, and that's why they very patiently and subtly added activation schemes. Guess what: most people who run legit copies of Windows, and will not steal an illegal or cracked copy will find themselves in the dust when they attempt a reinstall of XP in the future. Unlike its earlier cousins, XP will say "hey, welcome to XP. please activate this copy!" and then microsoft will say back "oh, i see you typed the correct serial number for your legit activation. however, we are considering your old OS as an upgrade candidate only. Please call 1800-xxx-xxxx with a credit card at hand so we can mail you a fresh copy of Vista [or whatever OS comes out after it.]"
Come to think of it, with the huge requirements of Vista, they may not even do that. I wonder what underhanded way they will use to convincing you of getting a brand new PC while denying your former right to reinstall your "old" OS. I just know that the activation servers will stop providing keys once microsoft believes it's time to remotely pull the plug on XP to increase sales of newer iterations of its OS. Mark my words. Nobody has made this a big deal
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:1, Interesting)
Ubuntu sure has changed since I last saw it, because now, during the install process, we did not need to use a terminal for anything at all. It was a really nice GUI setup. In fact, you can even use Ubuntu as a LiveCD as it's installing, which is really useful.
Everything is just so damn polished in it now, I almost wanted to go home and install it on my box running SuSE =)
I can definitely see Linux being a thing users switch to now that Windows 98 and ME are being phased out. The only thing is that the users need a bit of a guiding force in helping them make their decision on what they would like to use. See, if we don't help them out, they'll just end up buying Windows XP or a new computer or something of the sort.
The FOSS community should definitely be taking this opportunity to welcome new users to Open Source operating systems.
A commercial perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I alread did (Score:3, Interesting)
When the frequency of the rebuild moved up to just a couple months, I dropped Ubuntu Breezy Badger on it and later upgraded to Daper Drake. It is still the fastest machine in the house. The kids only complaint is myspace upgraded to flash 9 and the newest falsh for Linux is Flash 7.
I liked the lack of any need to install any drivers whatsoever. Everything worked with the exception with it not playing MP3 files due to the propritary format. Installed the Lame encoder and all is fine.
A google search was required to learn how the edit the hosts file to do the ad blocking. But all in all it was a lot less online searching than I needed to do to edit the Windows registry to remove malware.
Even installing my networked printers did not require installing any drivers.
Re:Yes but why would you want that kind of user? (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe because there are a lot of people right now that just can't afford to upgrade their software, much less their hardware. I am one of those people, if just one of my paychecks were missed, I would be hurting majorly. I am looking for a better job and hope to have one soon but for now I am using hardware that is around 18 to 24 months old. Don't say that I should drop my cell or cable or something because the only things I am buying are food, gas for my car, car insurance and a few odds and ends. There is nothing left to cut so no money for new expensive things. Not everyone can afford to get the latest bleeding edge systems every 6 months. That is why they should be encouraged.
Re:Yeah, what do you suppose the situation is, tho (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe after they have a taste of Vista (Score:3, Interesting)
I installed Vista RC1 on my main Windows workstation at work and one of the first things I noticed was how crappy the Control Panel layout was. It was even crappier than KDE or Gnome's control panels. Having an easy to use UI is a key part of being productive and enjoying your computer using experience, and in turn your OS.
A little background... I used to use KDE as my primary UI back in the Mandrake 7 or 8 days. Before that I didn't even know there was a difference in window management, and before that all I had was
(So, as if I'm not asking for a flaming enough as it is, now I'm going to bring OS X into it) About the time I was on Mandrake, some Mac fanatic I knew was talking on and on about "Rhapsody", the new Mac OS. I didn't care one bit to hear about all that crap. Any OS that doesn't have a CLI is worthless to me, I'm a CLI freak. Pointy Clicky can go out the window and I'd be happy as a clam for half of what I do. The second he mentioned that it was built on unix technology my interest perked up. I knew Mac OS was simple, even if I hated using it. I dreamed that they might get it all right... the handling of the preferences and home folders how *nix does it rather than that retched registry. *Real* administration privileges (eg: deleting files that are currently being used). The security system that I'd grown to know... symbolic links, grep, perl, more extensive glob matching, correct URI slashing, regex, the init system I'd grown to love... yeah, I dreamed. Amazingly, they've done pretty much everything I had dreamed they'd do with a unix system, and more (except the linux init system, but hey, now I'm more familiar with BSD), however, that's not the point.
(Now if I may try to reclaim some faith so the readers will put down their torches) The whole point here is that an OS is supposed to make you more productive. One way to do that is by making things easier. Unfortunately, with Vista, we've taken a step back to where most Linux distro's put you, with this non-unified control panel. Fortunately, some Linux distros seem to be putting things together in a more reasonable standpoint. I mean, honestly, I think Ubuntu has stuff laid out more sensibly by default than Vista does. (Plus compiz rules, their exposé knock-off smokes the Vista 3d-flip thingy... Katapult has the right idea too, we need more of the Launchbar knock-offs. Who cares if it's copying, it's good shizz.)
I seriously do think that Linux has better and better chances at getting in the Desktop market as each day goes by. I'm not yet recommending it to everyday people who stop by the IT department to ask what they should do about their next computer, but hopefully in the next year or so...
Re:I would have said 'yes'...... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, what do you suppose the situation is, tho (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, it is probably quite the opposite of your claim. There are people who take pride in being able to work with older stuff. My 6 years old Win98 box in practice runs faster then most of the WinXP boxes of people around me. And I am proud of it.
Monolithic kernal strikes again. (Score:2, Interesting)
Tons of hardware support was dropped from the 2.6 kernel, not all of it legacy hardware by any means. I still have a computer with a Via 10/100 ethernet card that worked perfectly with the 2.4 kernel and still works fine with DSL, but no distro with a 2.6 kernel can configure it.
And this is why Linux will never be a serious desktop OS. Server guys can be expected to compile their own custom kernal with their choice of drivers, but not all desktop users can; so a consumer monolithic kernal only works in a closed hardware environment, otherwise it bloats. Drivers for a consumer OS cannot be part of the kernal.
Why is Linux monolithic? Because it was originally one man's hobby and a monolithic kernal is easier to write than a microkernal architecture. Linux was always something of a hack, and in my opinion it has reached the end of its life. Let's have a modern micro-kernal architecture, folks!
HAL.
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I wouldn't bet on that, a lot of the remaining Win98 boxes are doing fairly esoteric things controlling devices that are light years away from mainstream, the reason they stay on Win98 is because it's the only box that does support the devices they are using, take a look at:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2017830,00.a
For some discussion on just this issue.
Re:Upgrading boxes (Score:3, Interesting)