Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday January 30 2020, @11:23AM   Printer-friendly

As a followup to an earlier blog post at Ubuntu's blog about why those on Windows 7 should upgrade to Ubuntu, the same blog has a post about how to actually do it.

A few days ago, Rhys Davies wrote a timely article, titled Why you should upgrade to Ubuntu. In it, he outlined a high-level overview of what the end of support of Windows 7 signifies for the typical user, the consideration – and advantages – of migrating to Ubuntu as an alternative, and the basic steps one should undertake to achieve this.

We'd like to expand on this idea. We will provide a series of detailed, step-by-step tutorials that should help less tech-savvy Windows 7 users migrate from their old operating system to Ubuntu. We will start with considerations for the move, with emphasis on applications and data backup. Then, we will follow up with the installation of the new operating system, and finally cover the Ubuntu desktop tour, post-install configuration and setup.

The upcoming Long Term Support (LTS) release will have not just the usual five years of regular support but an optional additional five years for those that decide to pay. That would be 10 years starting from April, 2020.

Previously:
Ditching Windows: 2 Weeks with Ubuntu Linux on a Dell XPS 13 (2018)
How to Create a Custom Ubuntu ISO with Cubic (2018)
Debian vs. Ubuntu: What's the Difference? (2017)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 31 2020, @05:41PM (5 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday January 31 2020, @05:41PM (#951849) Journal

    Anonymous poster - check
    Pushing a conspiracy theory - check
    Claiming that Microsoft killed the EEE when it was in fact killed by the huge crash in laptop prices - check

    When laptops with twice the ram and a 15" screen suddenly were selling for less than an EEE, the game was over. I saw laptop prices drop by half over the space of a single season, and with better specs on top. An oversupply of RAM chips and CPUs and LCD screens and the need for manufacturers to clear out older laptop drives as capacity doubled overnight meant that a machine that couldn't run most software properly was doomed.

    It got a bit of a life extension by switching CPUs and operating systems in 2008, but by then it was starting to get seriously noncompetitive. After all, why buy a toy laptop when you can buy a real one for a few bucks more?

    Like I said, the only people I saw with one (all two of them) never used them for any sort of work. Too damn small. Toys. And no wonder. By then, 800x480 or 1024x600 was a ridiculously small screen resolution.

    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday February 01 2020, @06:51AM (4 children)

    by toddestan (4982) on Saturday February 01 2020, @06:51AM (#952252)

    Microsoft sort-of killed them by offering free or a very low cost version of Windows. At first it was Windows XP, and then Windows 7 "Starter Edition". But in order to qualify to use these versions of Windows the specifications couldn't exceed certain limits. Which is why all the netbooks were essentially identical. Same processors, same screen sizes and resolutions, same max memory, same storage, and so forth. Of course, the Linux versions were basically "take the Windows version but put Linux on it", so the Linux ones - while not under the same restrictions, ended up suffering from this too. There were a few exceptions, including higher-end versions on the Windows side too that had to run the "Home" version, but the volumes were low and it didn't take much added cost to push them into cheap notebook territory. While I don't consider them a replacement, I'm sure tablets ate away at their sales too. And finally Microsoft never really updated their license restrictions meant the netbooks all stayed the same for years with the same weak processors, low ram, and garbage screens until they weren't competitive at all anymore. And that was the end of the netbook fad.

    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:37PM (3 children)

      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:37PM (#952353) Journal

      Windows XP was a full version available to any retail computer builder at a discount from various distributors. Don't no where you got your information from. And it was never free. You could get a refund from Microsoft on the pre-installed OEM version that came with computers from Dell, Best Buy, etc. by providing proof that you refused the license agreement on initial boot-up.

      The netbooks were underpowered because they were designed to be as cheap as possible. Had nothing to do with Microsoft. They weren't even designed to be laptop replacements, never mind desktop replacements. These (the EEE nettop) were based on the OLPC computer that was a disaster. What a waste of money. They didn't figure on the rapid collapse of prices for computer hardware, so what looked very appealing at first was seen as a total ripoff at the end.

      The netbooks were all identical because they were all shooting for the same price point and aimed at the same buyers. No conspiracy here. No evil machinations. Just the workings of the marketplace. You're not going to put $600 worth of hardware into a machine that sells for $200.

      Windows starter edition - did anyone ever buy that? By then computers were so cheap in comparison to historic prices that nobody but a total idiot would buy something that couldn't run regular Windows. You'd actually have to look pretty hard to find something that couldn't run full windows. Most retailers wouldn't even carry it because the hardware was too cheap to make any money on.

      The Vista "Home" edition was in he same class as the regular XP before it. Run as many programs as you wanted, with as much ram and cpu as you wanted. Just missing some advanced features that home and small office users wouldn't use anyway.

      --
      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:33PM (2 children)

        by toddestan (4982) on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:33PM (#952437)

        Maybe you pay more attention to Microsoft and their licensing before spewing out bullshit. Microsoft generally will not license new versions of their "Home" operating systems once version+1 is out. That's why, once Vista came out, excluding old stock, all new non-business oriented PC's came with Vista. Microsoft allows "Pro" versions to be downgraded, which is why all new Windows XP computers in the Vista era all came with Windows XP Professional (excluding netbooks). Exact same story with Windows 7 - no more new Windows 7 Home PC's after Windows 8 came out, all the new PC's with Windows 7 were running Windows 7 Professional

        This presented a problem with the netbooks became popular - they were too weak to really run Vista acceptably, and while the OEMs could load Windows XP Pro on them, the cost would have killed whatever meager margins the OEMs were making on the things. Seeing cheap, Linux-based netbooks as a possible threat, in order to get Windows into the netbook market Microsoft decided to allow OEMs to once again license XP Home to put on netbooks. In order to keep the OEMs from also putting XP Home onto other new PC's where Microsoft was pushing Vista hard, Microsoft stuck a bunch of restrictions on what could be sold with XP Home. Hence the reason why all the netbooks ended up having basically the same specifications. The OEMs wanted to be able to offer both a Windows version too, and since Linux didn't have any restrictions it just got stuck with the same specs as the Windows version.

        The same story with "Starter" edition. I don't know if you could actually buy it retail - all the places I ever saw it was on cheap netbooks or very low end laptops where it was preloaded. I don't remember if it was ever really "free" to OEMs, but Microsoft did have a deal where it was at least very cheap if the machine didn't exceed certain specifications. Which once again made all the netbooks basically all the same. Microsoft never really showed any interest in ever updating those specifications, so either intentionally or out of ineptitude this held back the netbooks until they were not really competitive anymore. The netbook market probably would have ended up dying anyway, but who knows.

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday February 01 2020, @10:02PM (1 child)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday February 01 2020, @10:02PM (#952519) Journal

          Never said they'd re-license anything. However, activation remained even after the next version was out.

          As well, there are cracks for avoiding activation for all versions of windows that require it, so if you have a legit version, just use it. And versions that never had activation, use to your hearts content - the full retail versions were never sold with the proviso of being used only on the original hardware because they weren't sold with hardware. So, the hardware dies, install on newer hardware without violating the license.

          Microsoft tried to retroactively close this loophole by claiming after the fact that you couldn't do that, but the license doesn't say that.

          There is nothing to prevent me from installing Win3.11 or Win95 on newer hardware - they're both full retail versions. I think I have a copy of XP that's also a full retail version. The OEM versions came with more restrictions, which is why they were cheaper.

          Of course, the newer stuff is restricted as heck, but who cares? Not the users.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Sunday February 02 2020, @07:56PM

            by toddestan (4982) on Sunday February 02 2020, @07:56PM (#952812)

            We were talking netbooks and OEMs here. Once version+1 of Windows is out, Microsoft usually will not license old versions of their "Home" Windows to OEMs. That's why Microsoft suddenly allowing XP Home to be installed on netbooks well into the Vista era was so unusual, and effectively allowed them to dictate what and was not a netbook.

            Of course if you already have an existing Windows license, Microsoft will still let you (re-)activate. And if you can find new-old stock of old versions of Windows, Microsoft allows those to activate too.