OK. The set-up that I should have hashed-out yesterday is, instead, to be found below.
An earlier posting,
this posting as a matter of fact, represents an experiment that I have always wanted to do under documentable conditions, i.e., not in an 'on site' situation, or at a customer's home; namely, install equivalent support versions of xp and Linux to the same machine and observe the problems that crop-up (while becoming quite irritated in the xp-phase of the process ).
What the blazes is an "equivalent support version" anyway?
An equivalent support version of windoze xp is that version, obtainable upon CD-ROM or DVD media, that most closely approximates the installation freedom one has with a downloaded ISO of some Linux distribution. It is not supported with OEM integrated and customized drivers and other garbage. It does not take into account any hardware other than the hardware supported by the original software publisher: microsoft. It is not limited to installation upon a specific machine configuration...just like mainstream distributions of Linux.
In this way, the Operating Systems found on both CD-ROMs, have equal chances of encountering "native hardware issues" without artificial intervention.
Why?
I'm tired of hearing windoze sycophants burble about how good the hardware support is in xp; while, in the same breath, ignorantly claiming that Linux has virtually no hardware support.
Under identical conditions, xp has worse hardware support than Linux does.
The contenders in
my little narrative were:
SimplyMEPIS:I installed the 3.4-3 release to my wife's computer on a scrap hard drive, a few months back. I had no problems with this installation.
I have since tried a 6.0/6.01 installation on a different scrap hard drive, on the same machine, with the same result: no problems with hardware support by the OS.
windoze xp home upgrade (retail box):This is an upgrade version which, like the SimplyMEPIS versions used, have no OEM advantage. We are testing specifically for the installation speed and native hardware support of the respective Operating Systems--and, in the case of xp, resolving the 'not insignificant' problems that crop-up.
Over the past couple of years, I have maintained that; from my own experience, Linux installation speed and hardware support were superior to that of windoze xp. I have repeatedly issued the challenge to do as I have
done here to a number of folks in advocate, hobbyist and professional circles.
"Get the pre-installed OEM hand-holding, customized drivers and restore images out of the way; and take-on Linux in a head-to-head comparison--on a level playing field."
I have yet to see a single taker amongst those who froth at the mouth about the wonderful hardware support of xp; so, in the context of "if you want a job done, you have to do it yourself", I went ahead and 'did it myself'.
Why xp upgrade?
I gave xp the advantage of being able to read a working and driver-supported installation of windoze 98se. It should have been able to do better, with the information in the system configuration files, than it did yesterday. For a commercial Operating System, developed and hyped with the backing of literally billions of dollars and 70,000 employees, it should have done waaaaaay better than it did.
Why SimplyMEPIS?
I have the CDs/DVDs already, and SM is representative of an entry-level Linux distribution that one might download, burn and install on the spur of the moment.
Why my wife's computer?
(1.) It is a converted Gateway chassis. It has been gutted and re-built with an MSI motherboard, video adapter, etc. There is no longer anything Gateway in the cabinet; which makes the machine a sufficiently generic game machine to deal with, giving both Operating Systems an equal chance of success.
(2.) Because of gaming support issues, she wanted it done.
(3.) Because of certain photograph browsing conveniences, endemic to xp, she wanted it done.
(4.) She believed that xp would offer better hardware support.
(5.) Because she will be getting her money back on the OS purchase (California Lawsuit Voucher), she felt that the purchase could be made without destroying the philosophical heart of her beloved husband.
(6.) She told me to do it.
Linux beat xp hands-down.
Installation took between 20 and 30 minutes to fully complete.
The only proactive action I had to take, in order to support any piece of hardware under Linux on my wife's computer hardware, was to open the Print Manager and install her Epson photo printer, which was supported "out of the box". Every other piece of hardware was detected and configured without my intervention...including all networking facilities and resources...in about 20 minutes. Had previous, Linux-based, mail directories and configuration settings existed, they could have been copied straight-across in a matter of seconds.
xp lost merely upon installation time and hardware support.
The basic installation of xp took 163 minutes. This only got me to the point of successful product activation; where I was able to begin searching for, and loading, hardware drivers. Ten hours and twenty five minutes after beginning the installation, the floppy and CD-ROM drives and sound hardware still refused to work properly--even with binary driver support--and settings had yet to be hashed-out.
The settings issue ticks me-off only because it'll take days to get everything shaken-down in a way that my wife likes. After all, it isn't like windoze configuration files are human-readable, and mail stores are in a standard format, is it?
Linux -v- xp hardware support...what's the big deal anyway?
The deal is this: In this "generic computer installation" Linux is superior to xp in most ways, including installation speed and hardware support. microsoft needs the OEMs to carry windoze along because it can't stand by itself...and 80% of microsoft OS sales are through pre-installed OEM channels.
That's a strange state of affairs until you stop to consider why things are the way they are.
microsoft has viciously preyed upon the OEM distribution channels in a number of ways:
Exclusionary contracts.If you do business with microsoft, you are precluded from doing business with microsoft's competitors. This usually involves the mandate that ALL equipment sold by any given OEM, carries only microsoft operating systems and other software offerings. Operating System-less sales are usually prohibited without exception (ms doesn't want price comparisons being routinely made under such conditions), and competitors' software is normally forbidden to be sold as a pre-installed feature.
The high-end of the Cliff-Pricing tactic was usually the punishment for violating the illegal provisions in microsoft's exclusionary contracts.
Per-processor fees.This one is deceptive in the current, multi-processor paradigm, and sounds a bit like Per-Processor Pricing; which is a totally different thing altogether. The way microsoft played the game in the 90's was like this: If you happened to be an integrator, microsoft established the assumption that, for every system sold by you, a microprocessor was sold as a part of the system. The next assumption was that, if you sold a processor, it was going to run microsoft software, and microsoft software only. You, therefore, (according to several conversations I witnessed between microsoft reps and integrators) owed microsoft a fee for each microprocessor sale, even if it wasn't packaged in a computer system. (This is the cowardly tactic that pretty-much destroyed the OEM market for DR-DOS.)
Refuse to do so? Cliff-Pricing kicks in.
Cliff pricing.A nearly microsoft-unique tactic (which has spread since its inception) for locking OEMs exclusively to ms-DOS/windoze, namely, by providing a commercially-reasonable price to OEMs as a positive inducement to comply with illegal contract provisions which directly harm competitors by precluding entry and participation by competing software producers.
A commercially unreasonable, and punitive, price is charged OEMs, should they not play the game the way microsoft dictates it be played.
Price-Tying.Nobody but microsoft has played the game in quite this way: In the days of separate DOS/GUI offerings, microsoft established a pricing structure for windoze that made it prohibitive to buy that product in the absence of ms-DOS. microsoft went so far as to inform certain OEMs that the price of windoze without ms-DOS would be double the price of windoze with ms-DOS. This virtually assured that, until microsoft was able to illegally tie ms-DOS and windoze together, the ms-DOS/windoze combination would be sold to the detriment of DR/Novell-DOS and GeoWorks--both vastly superior to similar microsoft offerings.
"Moving-Target" and Undocumented APIs.microsoft discovered early-on that, if they keep changing the underlying APIs, including diversionary API hooks, and refuse to fully document their API structure (as any responsible company would do), they can control both the OEM market and third-party software market; both of which find themselves highly dependent upon microsoft's capricious good graces. Make a wrong step, in microsoft's eyes, and you won't be privy to the next round of changes. This will most likely increase your costs of doing business to the point at which you either pack-it-in, or cry "Uncle" and accede to microsoft's demands. Some companies, like WordPerfect and Novell, were slated for destruction and, thus, had no choice or opportunity to comply with microsoft's orders. OEM vendors are terrified by this prospect, and usually stay in line--like good sheep.
Complete Boot-Loader Control.OEM vendors are expressly forbidden from distributing any machine that actively dual-boots any version of windoze and any non-microsoft Operating System. The barriers to a direct comparison of microsoft Operating Systems and competing Operating Systems must be maintained at an artificially-high level. Were it not so, microsoft's days would be easily numbered.
OEM vendor kick-backs.microsoft pays OEM vendors to pre-install microsoft operating systems and products on all, or nearly all, equipment sold by said OEM. The vendor then has a cash incentive to play the monopoly game the way microsoft orders it to be played.
I believe that I last read that the price paid to Dell, per computer sold with xp installed, was something on the order of $50.00-$75.00. Dell, in accordance with their contract with microsoft, is prohibited from selling any model of their computer line without an Operating System installed...or it's Cliff-Pricing time for Dell. Flat-out illegal, BTW.
Some of these under-handed tactics are examined here.
microsoft's presence in the market has nothing to do with offering a superior product, or even a reasonably good one. It's all about economic thuggery, used to destroy the competition. microsoft leans upon OEMs as crutches, and pays them kick-backs for both the favor of leaning, and excluding the competition from the OEM distribution channel.
Read that last bit again: "...excluding the competition from the OEM distribution channel."
The microsoft-OEM relationship exists for four reasons:
(1.) The Operating System installed on a computer system, at the time of sale, is the Operating System that will--and this is a statistically valid generalization--be used for the life of the machine. It nearly guarantees the use of windoze, of one flavor or another.
(2.) Adam Smith's theories predict that, out of selfish financial interests, OEMs will protect their microsoft pricing and kick-back scheme. This bars competing Operating Systems--Linux included-- and productivity suites--StarOffice/OpenOffice.org included--from the OEM distribution channels. The OEMs happily cooperate with microsoft--some of them to the point of criminality.
(3.) The OEM becomes responsible for warranty and support. microsoft has off-loaded its own responsibilities of liability and OS support upon the OEM vendors; relieving it of tremendous legal liability and expense; while, at the same time, guaranteeing microsoft a constant revenue stream that is independent of actual rate of OS delivery to the consumer desktop venue. One can see this in the "refund scenario" that we're beginning to hear more about: Customer
x buys a laptop from OEM
y and refuses to agree to the microsoft EULA, wipes the drive and installs Linux. Customer
x returns the software to OEM vendor
y, demanding a refund. OEM vendor
y refunds money to customer
x. OEM vendor
y is out the money, according to their contract with microsoft. microsoft never has to refund the money back to the OEM vendor.
(4.) What the pedestrian computing public isn't offered as a pre-installed software configuration, is unlikely to ever be requested or even used during the life of the computer. The public remains ignorant as to their alternative choices, and considers any alternative as something less than what they originally obtained with the computer--no matter how superior that alternative may happen to be.
The OEMs are, in fact, nothing more than a cartel...supporting the microsoft monopoly.
Strip-away the OEM layer, and deal with xp at the same level as one would deal with Linux, namely, as I outlined in
my little narrative; then it's easy to see that microsoft is far behind Linux in a huge number of ways.
Let's look at the the value proposition of xp:
Amazon.com:Microsoft windoze xp Home Edition UPGRADE with SP2 CD-ROM (B0002423YK) = $90.99
Order Placed on 2006.11.28
Order delivered on 2006.12.11
Time to install to a minimally-usable configuration was 10 hours, 25 minutes.
A further 16, or so, hours will be required to configure everything according to my wife's desires.
I will have to buy a new CD-ROM drive and sound card for her machine, because of compatibility issues: $100.00+ for good hardware (forget the floppy drive).
Cost: $190.99+
Time from decision to final installation: 14 days and counting.
Hardware support: What hardware support?
MEPIS.org:Download current ISO from mirror site (1 hour).
Burn ISO image to CD (5 minutes).
Install SimplyMEPIS 6.0 (20-30 minutes).
Full hardware support.
Install Printer and print test page (5 minutes).
Configure email and desktop settings (Email takes only about 5 minutes to do, and a few seconds to copy email archives into the new installation. Give it an hour or so for the casual, eye-candy/theme stuff, OK?).
Cost: $ 0.75 (Pro-rata download time, electricity, equipment wear & tear & devaluation and CD-ROM blank)
Time from decision to final installation: Actual install was only 20-30 minutes, but let's include download time and eye-candy-stuff...how about 2 to 3 hours?
Hardware support: Perfect.
In a direct-from-publisher, install-CD-to-install-CD, honest, comparison with Linux, xp has no real value whatsoever.
It should also be obvious to you that, microsoft is most vulnerable to attack in two areas: The illegality of their OEM relationships, and the formation and acceptance of true Open Standards (ODF should be in the front of your brain).
