Linux Versus Windows: A Comparison on Installations

Part I: Windows vs. Linux, Assumptions

As a UNIX administrator, I work with Linux and Solaris. As an IT professional, I spend a significant amount of time working with Windows. As a Mac user, I frequently read about the latest virus/spyware/trojan/patch batch, sighing in relief that it's not my problem. Although I believe things are going to get tougher for Mac users in 2006, we still skate by most of the crud that makes life unpleasant for Windows users.

For several years now, I've been aware of a consensus that Linux is almost (but not yet) ready for use as a mainstream desktop operating system, because it's harder to use than Microsoft Windows & Office, and much harder to install. I recently got a new PC, and was quite surprised by how much trouble installing Windows could be. Even worse, the Windows installation required me to use the web several times. Had I not had other working computers and a working broadband connection, I would have been stuck trying to lift myself up by my own bootstraps. On the other hand, installing Linux on the same machine was painless (as it normally is, in my experience). After a hard look at the whole "Linux is not ready" idea, I no longer accept it.

Installing Windows: Not for Normal People -- When I mentioned how much grief my Windows installation was causing to a co-worker, he pointed out that relatively few Windows users ever actually install it. Microsoft goes to great lengths (including major lawsuits with governments and corporations) to ensure that Windows is pre-installed on most PCs. Statistically, more "installations" of Windows are handled by cloning an existing installed copy (called a "golden master") onto a hard drive than by actually running through the Windows installer, which isn't efficient for large numbers of machines. New PCs from OEMs such as Dell and HP are set up by imaging a master installation (often heavily customized), and IT staffs at large organizations prefer imaging as well, for time savings and consistency. One vendor estimates that 95% of their systems are immediately re-imaged by their (mostly business) customers. The remainder, the one-off installations, are a mixture of full Windows installations, Windows upgrades (discounted over full Windows licenses), and "Software Restores", using preconfigured custom re-installers.

Installing Windows is not something users normally do. Further, PC vendors tend to ship machine-specific Software Restore CDs (as does Apple), which don't use Microsoft's installer. OEMs don't do this because they like developing software which doesn't generate revenue, but rather to reduce support calls from customers struggling with the Windows installer. Additionally, Microsoft pushes vendors towards machine-specific restore programs (often not even shipped on CD-ROM, but pre-installed on the hard drive), to avoid proliferation of Windows installers, which can be copied, sold, traded, and pirated.

The New York Times recently reported that, rather than re-install Windows, a growing number of people instead choose to buy new PCs when their Windows systems become unstable (typically due to viruses and spyware). These people spend money on new PCs rather than reinstall Windows, which would remove any infections for free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/technology/17spy.html

Installing Linux: Just Part of the Game -- On the other hand, Linux is still in the early-adopter phase, which means Linux users tend to be the types of people who install Linux and Windows a lot, for themselves (on multiple computers), friends, and co-workers (perhaps as the aforementioned IT staff). This means the various Linux installers get a great deal more exposure, compared to number of hours spent just using Linux, than the Windows installers.

When I considered these facts, I realized that many people casually assume Linux is harder to install and use than Windows without experience installing either. Additionally, Microsoft has demonstrated quite effectively that people don't actually have to install their own operating systems. Computer vendors are happy to do this, and IT staff can handle the details as well. This is not to say that Linux installations are consistently simple. Configuring X11 for the display and video card can be extremely complicated, but it's getting better, and it would be very easy for a Software Restore CD to include configuration files for one or many different hardware configurations. Since most Linux distributions already include a full set of drivers, it would be easy to add the configuration files for a broad range of PC models to existing install or restore CDs and DVDs.

Mac users tend to fall in between these two extremes. Most are satisfied with the OS as installed by Apple on their new Macs, but every time Apple releases a major system upgrade such as Tiger or Panther, the large number of people who rush out to get the new version makes headlines.

http://news.com.com/2102-1016_3-5690618.html?tag=st.util.print

Apple's Mac OS X installers have several substantial advantages over Windows and Linux installers. First, the number of supported systems and components is much smaller than on the PC side, which makes the installer smaller and simpler. This remains true as Apple switches to Intel processors, because Apple only supports Mac OS X on Apple computers.

Second, because Apple controls both hardware and software, Apple-supported drivers are basically a non-issue. Apple simply provides all drivers for all supported Apple equipment, on the disc. For non-Apple equipment, Apple also provides good generic drivers for standard devices such as mice and hard drives. Of course, things aren't perfect. Drivers for components which aren't standardized, such as printers and specialty equipment, may be simply unavailable on the Mac, although there are sometimes workarounds like Gutenprint, included in Mac OS X as GIMP-Print.

http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/

Third, most Apple installations are single-partition and single-OS. Disk partitioning is not simple, and multi-booting (putting Linux and Windows on a single PC) can be extremely complicated. Because APM (Apple Partition Map) lacks the problematic limitations of BIOS-compatible old-style PC partitioning, and even more because Macs have historically not been multi-boot systems, partitioning has historically not been a problem on the Mac. Now that Apple has introduced Intel Macs which use EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) instead of BIOS or Open Firmware, and added support for GPT (GUID Partition Table) partitioning, things are more complicated. Despite this, staying away from old-school fdisk-style partitioning should avoid most of the aggravation of Windows/Linux multi-booting. On Mac-only Intel systems, partitioning is almost trivial, as it has been all along on Mac-only PowerPC systems (and before that 68k systems).

http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-2.html#ss2.11

Part II: Installing Windows -- How Bad Could It Be?

To examine the Windows installation experience, here is a run-down of my recent experience installing both Windows and Linux on the same PC. Note that the Windows installation was unusually bad, but it demonstrates many of the pitfalls. This nightmare made me appreciate Red Hat's and Apple's installers. Considering this along with other operating system installations I've done, I see no advantage for Windows over Linux, and a marked disadvantage compared to Mac OS X.

In this recap, I'll skip various dead ends that wasted my time, because they aren't particularly interesting, but please keep in mind that this description is edited for brevity -- my actual experience was worse. Not all of this is Microsoft's fault. Most of my problems were caused by Compaq and eCost, although Microsoft has to shoulder a share of the blame for problems it only contributed to indirectly, as the controlling player in the PC industry.

I ordered a $300 PC, a 1.7GHz Pentium 4-based refurbished Compaq Evo 500 Small Form Factor desktop model with Windows XP Pro, from eCost for $307 with shipping. I actually received a 1.8GHz Evo 510 SFF, without any explanation. It arrived at my home with 256mb RAM, 20gb HD, CD-ROM drive. The computer is small and quiet (although much bigger than a mini), and is now ns2.reppep.com, running Linux.

I don't much like PCs or Windows, but I maintain all my own systems; currently between work and home, that includes 5 Macs, 3 working PCs, and a Sun. I run Windows XP on one for Windows-only applications, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 on another for testing, and RHEL4 on ns2 (replacing a Dell server with FreeBSD, where the hard disk died). The Dell was big & noisy enough that I decided to replace it, rather than only the dead disk.

For $300 refurbished, I knew I wasn't getting a speed demon, but 1.7GHz is more than sufficient for a small-scale DNS server. It's okay for Windows, and plenty fast for Linux, especially since I don't normally use a graphical desktop on this system -- I do most of my work via ssh from a Mac, and occasionally pop an X Window back to the Mac.

http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/
http://www.freebsd.org/

I sometimes find it valuable to have Windows available. A few years ago I put Windows on a FreeBSD server, to watch a friend being interviewed on CNN Asia and send him the Windows Media clip. Unfortunately, when I installed Windows, it overwrote the boot sector and made FreeBSD unbootable (Windows does this to other operating systems; Linux and FreeBSD do not). This problem is fixable, but means that standard operating procedure for multi-boot systems is to install Windows first, and other operating systems afterwards.

The Compaq came with Windows installed on the hard disk, a Windows XP Pro Product Key (serial number), glued to the case, and one CD: "Compaq Operating System CD, Microsoft Windows XP Professional / Only for use with Compaq Restore CD". I put this in the PC, booted it up, and got a message telling me to boot from the Compaq Restore CD, which eCost did not provide. The Evo 510 is about 3 years old, so it didn't come with Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Windows XP. A new Windows XP system without SP2, connected directly to the Internet, is likely to be broken into and under a criminal's control in less time than it takes to download all Microsoft's suggested patches.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-11-29-honeypot_x.htm

Not realizing how much trouble installing Windows would be, I repartitioned the Compaq's hard drive to hold both Linux and Windows (destroying the installed copy of Windows in the process). If I had realized how precious a fully installed and configured installation of Windows is, I would have gotten a Partition Magic CD from work, and repartitioned the drive without destroying Windows. Alas, I did not know any better then, and I wasn't aware of SystemRescueCd, which I could have immediately downloaded and used as a free alternative to Partition Magic.

http://www.partitionmagic.com/home_homeoffice/products/system_performance/pm80/
http://www.sysresccd.org/

I had a generic Windows XP Pro (SP1) install CD, from the last time I installed Windows at home. I put it in the PC (with the Ethernet cable disconnected for security) and started the installer. Unfortunately, it got stuck at "installing drivers", and kept cycling the Windows advertising without advancing through the installation process. I shut down and quit for the night. I tried the next day with an XP Pro SP2 CD from work. No joy, as we use the Volume installer for XP2, which wouldn't accept my (non-volume) Product Key.

I next brought home a normal (non-volume) XP install CD with SP2. This completed installation (finally!). Then Windows popped up a notification that it was "optimizing" my display, and everything got very very ugly. Despite the installer running and looking fine, Windows decided that I had an unsupported video card, and switched to basic VGA mode (640x480, with 16 colors). Note that although Windows defaults to this configuration if it can't recognize the video card, Windows is not designed to actually run this way. Configuration windows are too wide to fit on the screen, and the default color Windows theme looks bizarre with only 16 colors. I couldn't do much except install drivers. Even worse, the network interface was not recognized, so the PC couldn't connect to the Internet to get the drivers.

If this had been my only computer I would have been stuck, and had to either a) get a new Restore CD from HP (who bought Compaq) or eCost, or b) give up on Windows. Fortunately I had a working Mac, so I went to www.hp.com and looked up "Evo 510 SFF". I found 10 different graphics downloads and 6 different network downloads! I read a bunch of documentation for the PC, none of which identified the components used. I was more than a bit frustrated.

http://h18007.www1.hp.com/support/files/EvoDesktop/us/locate/64_4358.html

Linux to the rescue! I downloaded a Knoppix (Linux) CD-ROM image, and burned it on the Mac. I booted the PC from the Knoppix CD, and it immediately identified a common Intel 845G video chipset & Intel PRO/100+ Ethernet interface. I made a note, went to hp.com, downloaded Compaq's Windows XP drivers, and burned them onto a CD. I installed the drivers and rebooted. After reboot the display was much better, but it still didn't recognize the Ethernet card. On the Mac, I downloaded a different Compaq Ethernet driver for Intel chipsets. I installed the alternate driver, rebooted, and cursed. The Ethernet controller was still unrecognized.

http://knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html

I visited www.intel.com, got Intel's driver, and installed. This time the PC recognized the network card. Hooray!

http://www.intel.com/

Note that the PC's Ethernet cable was still disconnected at this point, because Windows PCs without the latest patches (even with SP2) are not safe on the Internet. Fully patched PCs aren't really safe on the Internet either, but they're less unsafe. I temporarily plugged the PC in behind my Linksys router, which provides some protection from Internet attackers, but let the PC reach Windows Update. Running Linux, Mac OS X, or FreeBSD on a system directly connected to the Internet isn't as much of a risk.

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/

Internet Explorer (IE) has a very complicated security preferences area (which strangely lacks decent cookie control), with multiple trust zones and a long checklist of what's allowed for sites in each zone. I went here in an effort to protect myself from malicious web sites. I started by locking everything down (choosing higher security levels than the defaults), but Windows Update didn't work. I got an error page telling me to trust 3 URLs for Windows Update, but after allowing those URLs I got another similar page with 3 different URLs. Complicating the process is the fact that IE applies some strange transformational rules (not normal regular expressions) to the URLs entered in the dialog box, so I got unexpected errors about mysteriously overlapping URLs.

Eventually, I got IE configured to WU could do its thing. Unfortunately, this required trusting the non-SSL WU sites, despite a MS warning in the dialog box not to do so. WU is not fully SSL-enabled, and MS obviously knows this is a bad thing, but still hasn't fixed it.

I ran WU and got a bunch of patches; installed; rebooted. Ran WU again, patched more, rebooted again. Ran WU again, and sighed in relief, as no more patches were needed. In fairness, Apple also sometimes requires a couple Software Update & reboot runs on brand-new installations of Mac OS X -- some patches must be installed before other patches are available via Software Update. Red Hat recommends a reboot for kernel upgrades, but never two.

At this point (a week after starting) I had a working Windows XP Pro installation with SP2 and all patches, proper 1280x1024 resolution with thousands of colors, and a functioning network connection. I moved the PC to its proper network connection (outside the Linksys), on the big scary Internet.

A few weeks later, I got a customer satisfaction email from eCost, asking me to rate my experience. Surprisingly, it asked that I not immediately send in a negative review, but instead first give eCost a chance to fix anything I was dissatisfied with, and provided a phone number. I called the number, and explained to the rep that I hadn't gotten a needed CD. He told me he'd speak to the product manager at eCost, they'd sort it out, and someone would call back that day. I never heard back, and decided not to waste any more time on eCost. I clicked a negative rating link in the email, but the URL wasn't valid.

Vendor Dissatisfaction -- Here's a recap of what the various companies did wrong and right (more wrong than right, alas).

eCost: They didn't include the Compaq Restore CD (which probably would have avoided most of my problems), send me the CD when requested, or even call me back as promised. These are very serious. Less serious: they didn't ship what I ordered, but shipped a faster machine instead (a wash); and they sent a broken BizRate link.

Compaq (HP) screwed up in several different ways. They designed a computer for Windows XP (it says so on the case!), but used components which Windows XP (even SP2) doesn't recognize directly. Compaq/HP provides several different video driver downloads, but no guidance on which is appropriate (I had to use Knoppix to find out). They provide several network drivers (again without identifying which is needed), which don't work! Compaq/HP provides no Linux drivers for the Evo 510 at all. Searching through hp.com, the search engine suggests at least 3 different versions of the video driver, two obsolete. The built-in low-quality "beep" speaker apparently cannot be shut off, and doesn't mute with earphones plugged in (this may be standard, but it's still a pointless nuisance).

Microsoft: The latest Windows XP SP2 CD installer doesn't recognize my Intel 845G video controller or Intel PRO/100+ network interface -- both are very common components, and have been since long before Service Pack 2 was released. Running Windows XP in VGA mode (its default, per design) is remarkably unpleasant. Lack of network support is more serious, as it prevents the computer from downloading drivers -- this is a serious bootstrapping problem. I've since been told that Microsoft may recognize standard Intel 845G & PRO/100+ parts, but perhaps Compaq tweaked the device IDs in a way that Windows cannot recognize (but Knoppix can). Microsoft's critically important Windows Update website doesn't meet their own security standards, and is incompatible with stronger security in IE.

Intel had both drivers I needed. They weren't easy to find, but they were much quicker downloads than Compaq's, and they worked (unlike Compaq's)!

Part III: My Painless Linux Install

Note that I bought this PC primarily to run Linux, not Windows. I like FreeBSD, but don't have any particular need to use it any more, and I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux daily as part of my job.

PC are saddled with some ugly legacies. The BIOS standards don't properly handle hard disks over 8gb, due to limitations in the Cylinders/Heads/Sectors interface used between PC boot loaders and the BIOS; there are workarounds, but BIOS-based PCs still need a fake (bogus) partition map for compatibility reasons. BIOS boots by running a program in the first block of the disk, which means only 446 bytes are available for the "stage 1 bootstrap" program (64 of 512 bytes are used for the maddeningly primitive partition table). This means that booting a PC must be a multi-stage process, and using 5 or more partitions requires at least two different partition tables. It's a mess. The simple rule of thumb I learned several years for ago dual-boot Windows & Linux is: put a Linux /boot partition first on the disk, then put the Windows C: drive (which must end before the 8gb mark on the disk), then put whatever else you like. With newer PCs, this limitation has largely been worked around, but it's fundamental to BIOS, like the old 640k memory maximum. Intel's EFI replaces this horribly limited environment with a much simpler and more flexible environment, more like Open Firmware in many ways, which is why Apple uses EFI and doesn't provide old-style BIOS in the new Intel-based Macs.

http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/firmware/

Now that I had the desired partitioning, and Windows installed on a suitable C: partition, I was ready to install Linux. I had copies of the 4 RHEL4 CDs, downloaded and burned. I booted from CD 1, picked my partitions (set up before installing Windows), and ran through the Linux installer. RHEL4 recognized & correctly auto-configured my video card & display, as well as the Ethernet interface. I answered configuration questions and fed it CDs. Less than an hour later, installation was done. I then clicked on the up2date icon in the taskbar, entered Red Hat Network account info, and let up2date download & install patches. I then rebooted to use the new kernel installed by up2date, and configured the firewall (in the file /etc/sysconfig/iptables).

If I couldn't use a RHEL license from work, I might have stuck with FreeBSD or tried Ubuntu (completely free) or CentOS (a free Linux distribution derived from RHEL). I do, however, have access to educational licensing for RHEL. Our pricing is excellent -- a subscription to "RHEL Academic Server", which gets us RHEL Advanced Server without support, costs $50/year. This product competes with the very expensive Windows 2003 Advanced Server (I was unable to find educational pricing online) and Mac OS X Server (more expensive for education). Red Hat Academic Desktop costs $25/year. List price for Windows XP Professional is $300 (including limited support), and J&R quotes $90 for an academic license. Note that XP licenses are perpetual, while Red Hat subscriptions require annual renewal.

http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/details/academic/
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/
http://www.microsoft.com/Education/USAcademicPricing.mspx
http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?ln=en-us&prid=3518&gprid=185522
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/default.mspx

If you were wondering why RHEL4 comes on 4 CDs, while Windows XP comes on 1, it's because RHEL4 includes a great many free applications, including OpenOffice.org (also available for Windows and Mac OS X). In contrast, Microsoft would prefer that every Windows user separately purchase and install Office and a variety of (separately sold and installed) MS products. In fairness, there's a significant amount of redundancy in RHEL, but it still includes much more capability than Windows.

http://www.openoffice.org/

Mac OS X As an Alternative -- Mac OS X obviously wouldn't run on this system, but if I hadn't wanted a PC, a PowerPC Mac mini with the bundled Tiger OS would make a dandy DNS server and be even smaller. An Intel-based mini would be somewhat more expensive, but smaller -- they weren't available when I purchased, though.

An important part of the Apple experience is that Apple makes a point of including all relevant drivers with each OS upgrade, so a Mac OS X 10.4.5 DVD includes all the drivers for all supported systems shipping as of the date 10.4.5 was finalized. Apple thus avoid all the disconnects between limited Microsoft installers, integrated components such as video and network interfaces (from companies like Intel, nVidia, and Via), vendor documentation (provided by HP/Compaq, Dell, etc.), and vendor installers. This is managed by coupling the core hardware with the software and providing good generic drivers for the rest. This whole experience made me thank Apple again for taking care of drivers, so I don't have to. This simplicity can break down with third-party hardware, but Apple's very successful at ensuring the basic experience is a good one, and people who don't buy peripherals from other vendors don't have to worry about driver compatibility. For people who do want non-Apple hardware, choices are much more limited than on Windows (or Linux), but drivers (when available) are rarely the source of confusion and frustration they can be under non-Apple operating systems.

What about Intel Macs? -- Lots of people have been wondering what Apple's switch to Intel processors means. The brief answer is: it's just another transition. As with the PowerPC, some things are faster, some things are slower, and deciding when to buy a new computer is more complicated (all true during Apple's MC680x0-to-PowerPC and Classic-to-Mac OS X transitions as well). Apple's installer looks exactly the same, and the installation experience hasn't changed much. For those who want to run Windows or Linux, though, things have gotten more complicated. Previously, the only serious option for PowerPC users needing Windows was the expensive and slow Virtual PC. Now that new Macs are extremely similar (but definitely not quite the same) as mainstream Windows/Linux PCs, the options for running Windows or Linux directly on the Mac (multi-booting) are opening up. The possibilities for running Windows or Linux simultaneously with Mac OS X are expected to improve substantially. Hopefully Microsoft will release a much faster version of Virtual PC, and several other groups are working on free and commercial alternatives.

Don't use the rest -- use RM's article instead.