On 27 October 2013 22:38, Tim Green timothy.j.green@gmail.com wrote:

I'm using XUbuntu and LUbuntu, both well suited to Windows XP users with a similar enough experience and undemanding on hardware. Also I am running 12.04 LTS, which gets all the security updates to Firefox to keep that up-to-date (and the other packages, of course).

Two suggestions to go with Lubuntu, one of which from an LTS user, so that is edging towards being my preference at the moment...

On 28/10/13 09:49, Mark Rogers wrote:

On 28 October 2013 09:46, Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk wrote:

...

Two suggestions to go with Lubuntu, one of which from an LTS user, so that is edging towards being my preference at the moment... From the lubuntu downloads pages:

12.04 Precise Pangolin will be supported until October 2013. The Lubuntu team does not offer a Long term support release (LTS) at this time.

Support ends this month...

Xubuntu 12.04 is LTS so edging that way now.... (I'm starting to see what they mean about too much choice!)

I use Lubuntu but it's is not as polished as Ubuntu. Ubuntu is too different from Windows. Perhaps Xubuntu is a better option, as it's more polished than Lubuntu.

In another post, you asked how to check if Debian works - the answer is a live CD/DVD or USB install. E.g. http://www.debian.org/CD/live Most distros have a live CD/DVD or USB install.

HTH.

Steve

On 28 October 2013 10:07, Ben Whyall ben@whyall-systems.co.uk wrote:

How about Mint Debian edition, which combines the rolling updates with the Mint cinamon desktop ?

I considered it, but from their website:

Cons: - LMDE requires a deeper knowledge and experience with Linux, dpkg and APT. - Debian is a less user-friendly/desktop-ready base than Ubuntu. Expect some rough edges.

Doesn't sound like it's "ready" yet...

On 28 October 2013 08:38, Laurie Brown laurie@brownowl.com wrote:

Well, I hear what you say about EOL, but Linux Mint Cinnamon seems to be the best bet at the moment for users used to XP.

The "best" (ie lowest learning curve, all sorts of other Linux advocacy stuff aside) bet *at the moment* is XP, it is after all still supported until April. Ubuntu 13.10 (and derivatives) are supported until July(?). I can't get people to ditch XP due to lack of ongoing support in favour of something else that only gives them an extra couple of months unless they do something again. They had XP for many years, they're not going to buy into major upgrades every 9 months, even though they are "free".

From an Ubuntu point of view that leaves me limited to LTS releases

(12.04 LTS goes EOL in April 2017, plenty of time for me to have helped them upgrade to a 14.04 release if their hardware hasn't gone past the point of being worth keeping by then).

I don't think Ubuntu itself is the best choice though, so Lubuntu or Mint (13) seem safer bets. But how good were Cinnamon/MATE 18 months ago? Also, upgrading Lubuntu 12.04 -> 14.04 when the time comes is going to be a lot simpler than Mint.

(LMDE sounds like a good concept but the "Cons" listed on its download page make it sound perfect for me, but not close to ready for family/friends.)

I know that Mint requires one to blow away the whole machine to apply a new release (but I hear they are working on that), but if you can steer the XP users into using a server to store data rather than "home", and ti use IMAP rather than POP for email, it makes the process easier as their is a lot less data to migrate.

It still needs an upgrade, ie a major process they can't/won't do themselves.

Graphics hardware has always been a problem, but when XP dies, I'm sure there will be a lot of newish old kit for sale for upgrades.

Again, these are to all intents and purposes unattended upgrades. They're not going to swap out a graphics card. They never needed to do that with XP, and Linux is supposed to be "better"! :-)

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:19:27 +0000 Chris Green cl@isbd.net wrote:

I think for a non-techie ex-windows user you're much better off with one of either Ubuntu or Kubuntu if you're going for an Ubuntu variant. The problem with either of Lubuntu or Xubuntu is that they don't always work the same as Ubuntu and thus you often have to 'read between the lines' when looking for support as menus, applications, etc. aren't exactly as they are in main-line Ubuntu.

As my 'soon to be ex XP-user' is a friend, I thought I might suggest the same distro as the one I'm using. That way, when the phone rings, I know exactly which icon to tell them to click.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:42:52 +0000 Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk allegedly wrote:

I'll do a test install of Xubuntu in a VM (and maybe on real hardware) and play. I wouldn't mind moving to Xubuntu myself if I get along with it.

(Is it trivial to switch the layout to put the "start" button at the bottom XP-style?)

(late to the party)

Yes. Easy to change the complete look, shape, contents and position of panels so you can have your menu button botton left if you want. But you would then have to save that configuration ($HOME/.config/xfce4/) and store it for later deployment to all the XP converts.

Whichever distro you finally settle on (and I must agree that a rolling distro is preferable to a point release) I think you will find XFCE a good desktop choice. Anything else is likely to look way too different for XP users at first.

Mick

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Mick Morgan gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 http://baldric.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On 28 October 2013 14:44, Chris Green cl@isbd.net wrote:

Though I have to say I've always wondered why anyone would want anything at the bottom of the screen as every program window has its controls at the top so you have to move the cursor right across the screen when going from one to the other.

I don't have a strong personal preference but accidentally closing something when I meant to select it is a downside of having the two menus close to each other. I also don't frequently go from opening something to closing it so this issue hasn't really cropped up for me.

But in this case the reason is: it's where XP has its start menu, and I want something similar, rather than (what would seem like) different for difference sake.

On 29 October 2013 04:06, Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk wrote:

I never had breakage via updates with LMDE so once I had it set up right it always seemed to be fine. Though due to the release cycle big things can happen over the course of a "regular" update so one day my default desktop just changed to Gnome Shell which could be a bit unnerving for a casual user.

For me to use that's fine - and in any case I frequently update to the pre-release *buntu versions and ride the wave of changes.

However, this is supposed to be an opportunity to show non-Linux users (a) how easy it is to use, (b) how fast/secure it is, and (c) how reliable it is. If I get this wrong all I'll do is send them to Windows 8, which - no matter how bad Windows 8 is - "at least it's better than that Linux rubbish Mark tried to force onto me".

On 29 October 2013 09:34, Laurie Brown laurie@brownowl.com wrote:

Why would they go to W8, when you have emphatically and repeatedly stated that new hardware is out of the question? Also, although the same applies in terms of hardware, why not W7? I know a lot of XP users who are very happy with W7, and none who are even a little happy with W8.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

They have options: upgrade to Linux on the old hardware, or bite the bullet and buy new PCs (or laptops). They are not going to buy new hardware for Linux.

The point about obtaining new hardware elsewhere in this thread (eg a new graphics card if an upgrade broke the Linux install) was about the ability to install it, not the cost of buying it.

Bottom line, that I'm sure many here have experience of: If Windows doesn't work, they'll either blame Microsoft (but put up with it), or just accept it without blaming anyone. If Linux doesn't work they'll blame me and/or Linux and ditch it in favour of Windows. If they try Linux and it causes them problems, all it will do is "validate" their eventual decision to spend money on a Windows PC, even if they don't like the Windows 8 it arrives with. (On the why not W7 question: the PC's we've looked at (at around the £250 mark) are Win8 Home so no option to use Win7.)

Therefore I need to provide as smooth an experience as possible, when their *only* issue with XP is that it is no longer to be updated after April and they have accepted my (valid) warnings that they should do something before then. That and the vulnerability to nasties is causing them concerns, but none of the people I am talking to have been hit particularly hard by a nasty so I'm not sure how high up their priority list that comes.

If/when they are established Linux users, all sorts of options open up. But we're not there yet. (My wife, who's had Kubuntu forced on her at home for a while now, is looking for a new laptop and has already said she wants it to be dual-boot, which is progress!)

It seems to me that you're going around in circles, constantly telling yourself that whatever has been suggested won't work, and moving the goal posts. Maybe you should set out in detail the criteria and parameters, and if, as it appears, it turns out that you want the moon on a stick, bring some compromise to bear...

OK, I'll try, and if I want the moon on a stick I'm open to that criticism...

(a) Needs to run on their existing hardware (and at a sensible speed, obviously) (b) Needs to be easy to use for an XP user. (Pretty much a given with all options except perhaps Ubuntu/Unity and maybe Gnome 3 which are a bit "too" different.) (c) Needs to not need any re-installs in the near future. In-place upgrades are fine as long as they meet criteria (a) and (b) above. (d) Preferable: Easy for me to maintain, which really means .deb based, but if I'd let (d) go before (a)-(c)

From this thread, I think (having not yet tried them) that Xubuntu LTS

and LXLE should meet these criteria. Almost certainly the "right" version of Debian will too, although I don't yet know which the "right" version is.

I don't *think* I've contradicted any of those points in this thread, but on the other hand I am an argumentative sod by nature and if that's come out in this thread I apologise - I've gained a lot of useful info from it.

Mark

On 29 October 2013 11:01, Laurie Brown laurie@brownowl.com wrote:

Check out the Zoostorm boxes on ebuyer.com that come with no OS installed.

If I can get them using Linux then when their existing boxes die then this is an option. At the moment they'd just suffer the extra £100 and go for a Windows box.

It's not really about the money, it's about spending it when there's no perceived "need" (ie XP still works fine, and they don't like that MS is forcing an upgrade). There's also a general feel that the PCs aren't being heavily used anyway, as more and more gets done on phones. I think one person, for example, would prefer to buy some cheap tablets for the kids to keep them away from her work laptop, than spend it on a new PC. But that said, having a PC in a controlled environment is better if she can start there.

"easy to use" can mean many things. I would argue that jumping from XP to W8 is a path of major pain and frustration. The same can be said of XP to W7, although that path is vastly easier - hardware issues aside.

Agreed. But as I noted, one will get blamed on MS and one on me :-)

I can't be the only one who sees this happen regularly. Eg: Upgrade to latest office, it messes up the import of an old Word document, it's just "progress". But instead, install LibreOffice and have the same result (or indeed a better result, but still not perfect), and it's all down to that open source rubbish. I have to fight this all the time and I'm sick of it!

Looking back, the big one was "it works in IE5 so Firefox must be broken". At least now the world has become multi-browser and standards matter more than they used to. It's the complete failure of MS to get a well established phone/tablet OS going, and the success of Apple and Android, that has forced this more than anything else. This same change means that it's no longer acceptable to have documents that only open on a Windows platform running Office, because people expect them to open on their tablets as well. If we move to a place where no one manufacturer has monopoly share it will be a great place to be and a long time coming, a side effect of which is that Linux-on-the-desktop starts to actually be viable for "normal" people.

You have until next year, probably the autumn, before this becomes urgent.

I'd say it needs sorting before April. That's the only "real" deadline. Go past that and things won't break and there'll be no reason to fix them until forced to by an exploit that targets XP and goes unfixed, by which point (for those affected) it will be too late.

"Before April" rules out new LTS versions of Ubuntu. It's a shame nobody saw the XP issue coming and got ready to capitalise on it; the current Ubuntu releases should have been LTS, allowing them to bring a new graphics stack into the next (now non-LTS) release, as well as putting a decent LTS version out there just in time for XP refugees. (It's still not too late to reclassify 13.10, Canonical!)

Mark

On 29 October 2013 12:35, mick mbm@rlogin.net wrote:

At this stage I think the actual distro is irrelevant. What you need to do, as Laurie and others have said, is actually trial a few desktops with the potential users.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Maybe my "users" are different from the people everyone else deals with but they have zero interest in the OS, they just want it to "work". Sadly, examples of "not working" will include not being able to find things where they're used to finding them (despite the fact that when the same applies with Windows they'll just put up with it).

The best level of engagement I can hope to get from people is to try something, and go back to Windows (or buy new Windows hardware) if they don't like it. It's not that they don't have the time or money to look at other options (although both will be cited as reasons), it's because they don't have the interest. I had exactly the same inertia before moving the same people to Firefox years ago. Now they won't consider using anything else.

There need to be reasons to move, and "new and shiny" don't apply otherwise they'd already been on Windows 8. Since for the most part the OS is just how they locate and launch Firefox and Word/LibreOffice, it needs to do that and do it well, without presenting a learning curve that they'll jump off before they get started. Any level of maintenance tasks will be seen as a negative - a necessary evil perhaps, but I can't pick an option that requires more work that Windows does. The current (non-LTS) release of Mint, for example, might be excellent but it needs a re-install in only a few months time, and that just isn't going to work. Letting them trial it on a Live DVD isn't going to pre-empt this.

You never know, they might even like Unity. I've heard that some people do.

Indeed. And therein lies another problem with choice: I don't mind "supporting" one or two distros that I don't use, but if I'm not careful I'll get a dozen people using a dozen different choices and that isn't going to work out very well at all when they have a question I can't answer. Some of them may well "discover" Linux through this - realise it's not as bad as they thought it might be and go and explore. Otherwise will just settle into using it the way they do XP: launch Firefox and go to Facebook (or CBBC or whatever).

That's why, for me, advice from people who've done similar things for friends/family is more important than what these people might pick from a quick trial. I'm certainly not going to stop them exploring and finding/trying new options themselves - and might even suggest it - but I need to present a single "recommended" option if I want them to give this a go.

Mark

On 29 October 2013 14:15, mick mbm@rlogin.net wrote:

In that case simply impose your preferred option upon them. Pick Xubuntu (or whatever), configure the panels with a menu bottom left and prominent icons for FF, mail and LibreOffice. Job done.

Much as it might surprise people based on this thread, I don't despise these people :-)

I do want to make a good choice for them (hence this thread). I don't want to give them options. I could doubtless find examples where were the tables turned I'd be exactly the same.

You say they will moan whatever you do, so why worry?

I don't think I said that. I said if it doesn't work they'll moan at me, if Windows doesn't work they'll accept it (even if I recommend it). I don't particularly mind this; they can always go to Windows. But I'd like to win them over to Linux at least at some level. I likely only have one chance to get it right, and as a "power user" my needs are different so I don't have any direct experience of what makes for a good distro choice for the people in question.

Re-reading my first post in this thread I don't think I have actually gone round in circles as much as its been suggested I have - my "requirements" haven't really changed since then.

On 29 October 2013 17:05, John Woodard mail@johnwoodard.co.uk wrote:

As a late comer to this discussion I'm surprised no one has mentioned Zorin http://zorin-os.com/. According to various sources on the 'net (lifehacker et al) it seems to be designed for making the transition from Windows to Linux easy for the average Joe.

Not seen it before, thanks for the pointer.

I took a quick look and their website is full of gloss but not a lot of details. I had to Google to discover that it's Ubuntu-based (which is good from my perspective). There are Core, Lite and Educational versions but I can't find any comparison of the options. There's two versions (6LTS & 7) with no information about support periods (although I can make assumptions now I know they derive from Ubuntu).

With no comparative information I don't know which of three disks to download which makes it hard to get started... Does anyone have experience of Zorin?

Personally I'd present them with Mint/Cinnamon but that's just because it's what I use for my day to day default box, so I'm most comfortable supporting that.

I think this would be the direction I'd go in if Mint supported in-place upgrades, but remotely supporting a re-install every 6 months isn't my cup of tea!

On 30 October 2013 10:18, steve-ALUG@hst.me.uk wrote:

This explains the rationale and how-to for Mint updates http://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/2

It says "Each release receives bug fixes and security updates for about 18 months (or 3 years in the case of "Long Term Support" releases such as Linux Mint 5 or Linux Mint 9)".

At the time of LM5/8 this was true of Ubuntu but more recently they dropped to 9 months (ie you only have three months in which to upgrade to the next release). I assume that LM follows Ubuntu in this regard and this tutorial is out of date?

but then links to this

http://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/2

Actually: http://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/62

which shows you how to do an in-place update. Does that change your mind? :-)

Not really, because it's beyond the capability (or interest!) of my "users".

BTW, I've never tried to update mint, so I don't know what works!

When I first installed Mint I assumed (as an Ubuntu derivative) that it had an upgrade procedure. When I discovered it didn't I followed the apt update process. As far as I can remember it worked fine (I subsequently bought new hardware and installed Kubuntu - the main reason I avoided Mint was the lack of upgrade process).

Reading the reasons "against" an upgrade as described by Mint, I agree that Ubuntu skips the backup step and shouldn't, but aside from that the argument isn't really made to me. They should tweak the upgrade process to force a backup.

The ideal upgrade process for me would be: - Download and trial new version as LiveCD - In-place upgrade using the LiveCD as apt repository (presumably having rebooted back into the installed version first, although it could be automated by the CD). - Backup steps incorporated as part of the in-place upgrade.

In other words somewhere between Ubuntu and Mint...

On 30 October 2013 14:05, Laurie Brown laurie@brownowl.com wrote:

I am now convinced that you want the moon on a stick, and that you seem unwilling to compromise in the face of reality. That reality is that you will not find a distro that you can install and forget, that your users will think is XP, and that will be so trouble-free they will stop thinking Windows is better.

Hmm.... I don't think I've said things quite this strongly but just in case:

- "Install and forget": LTS releases give me that - updates provided by the distro until 2017, way past what a non-LTS release gives me. - "think is XP": A question of extremes. All I want is workable to someone used to XP. Having a start menu (preferably at the bottom where XP puts it) is pretty much the only request I've made here in that regard. - "trouble-free": No worse than Windows would suffice. Having to re-install every 9 months does not qualify. Doing an upgrade every 9 months does (it's not ideal) as long as there's a reasonable expectation that support for the existing hardware won't break (which I am not convinced about).

Windows XP is a rolling update system. The rolling updates stop next year, at which point you will need to upgrade to W7 or W8.

So: XP: 2003 -> 2014, with a mixture of minor and major (service pack) upgrades but no forced re-installs. Compared with Mint: Oct (Nov?) 2013 -> July 2014, includes minor upgrades but then re-install needed.

My research for the best replacement for XP has persistently led me to Linux Mint. Like XP, LM 15 is a rolling update system, with base support for 9 months from release (until January 2014). At this point, an upgrade to the next version is "required", just like Windows. The difference is, however, that the rolling upgrades don't immediately stop, and the distro doesn't suddenly stop working...

Not sure what you're saying here. XP won't "stop working" in April. With Mint, "rolling upgrades" do immediately stop (as I understand it?) after that 9 months. Incidentally that also means that "apt-get install <something I don't have but was available in my version of the distro>" also stops working at that point, as the repos disappear (correct me if I'm wrong on this?).

That's why I'm leaning towards LXLE - released 2012-04 and updates available to 2017, with an upgrade (not reinstall) to the next LTS version available from 2014 if I want it.

The next version of LM (16, Petra) is due out at the end of November 2013, and will include the much-improved Cinnamon 2.0 (which is already out). This will be back-ported to the LM LTS version (13, based on Ubuntu Maya and supported until April 2017) soon after LM 16 is released.

This bit is news to me. Cinnamon 2 on LM13 would also suit me (I don't like that LM13 -> LM17 will require a reinstall but I don't need to worry until 2017 so its not a big deal). As stated in this thread, my concern in choosing LM13 was getting an old version of the (newcomer) Cinnamon. You appear to have found be a solution to this that does not require me to wait until April/May for the next LM LTS.

As I see it, you have 2 choices:

Forget Linux and give them W7, hoping it will run on their hardware. or Give them LM16 when it comes out, and deal with the work in keeping it up-to-date.

With regard to option 2, it's a rolling update distro. I suspect you're making too much of LTS...

I'm confused about this "rolling update distro" phrase. Are we talking about LM13/16/etc or LMDE (which I though was the only rolling LM distro, but which is described on their website as being very unsuitable for my needs here)? I feel like we're talking at cross purposes somewhere...

Whatever, good luck!

I think I'm going to need it! Thanks for your input, it's very valuable to me.

Mark

On 30 October 2013 17:50, mick mbm@rlogin.net wrote:

A true "rolling update" distro never needs re-installing. In the rolling update model individual /packages/ get rolled out when they are upgraded. There is no "point release" of a complete new working distribution a la *buntu or debian.

That was my understanding, thanks for confirming.

Mint does NOT do a rolling release.

It does: LMDE (Linux Mint Debian Edition: http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php)

Basically Debian Testing with Mint niceness on top. Well they describe it as "semi-rolling", I haven't looked into quite what they mean by this, but it's close enough for our purposes.

As an aside, if you are really bothered about the risk of trashing your users' data at a point release, why not have all their home directories as network mounts?

That assumes they have networks to mount to. These aren't people I live/work with, but friends and family, using standalone XP PCs.

On 31 October 2013 14:17, mick mbm@rlogin.net wrote:

Which, as you note, says: "Linux Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) is a semi-rolling distribution based on Debian Testing."

That is not my understanding of a rolling release distro. Mint rolls several pacakges into a new release bundle before shoving them out.

Having just read their FAQ I agree, that's not quite "rolling", but is actually better as it (in theory anyway) addresses your concerns with a rolling distro without really having any downside from the end user's point of view.

I say "in theory" because they're very clear it's not yet ready for "prime time", but it would be great if they can do it. It would be nice to see the non-LTS versions of Ubuntu go this route.

No-one in my immediate family uses anything other than Linux.

No-one in my immediate family uses anything other than XP, with the exception of the wife who has little choice :-)

Maybe soon I'll be able to report the same as you.

On 30 October 2013 14:11, John Woodard mail@johnwoodard.co.uk wrote:

I've upgraded mint with apt and all worked perfectly I think it was mint 10 ->11. I've also had an upgrade on Ubuntu break so bad that it was unrecoverable, and learned a valuable lesson on backing up. I expect with a sensible backup of /home all bass should be well covered with an apt upgrade if you are going to give support.

I understand, but disagree with, Mint's position. I wouldn't expect to change their mind, but it would be nice if there was a tool (third-party if necessary) that did the apt-based updates. That way I can set up backups on the PC, and I can install the updater, and then leave it to the user to upgrade as needed - I only need to be involved if something goes wrong.

Maybe the rolling upgrade enabled Mint Debian Edition with Cinnamon is worth a try.

The thing stopping me entertaining LMDE for this task is the very clear instructions on their download page telling me it's not aimed at the kind of users I want it for.

LXLE is looking like the best option.

On 30 October 2013 19:16, John Woodard mail@johnwoodard.co.uk wrote:

Having had a good look at LXLE I think you are wise to look in that direction.

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

Good luck with whatever you go with and please post to the list on how it's going I for one am very interested. I have quite a few clients in exactly the same position who don't want to upgrade their hardware, have very basic computing needs, email, web and the odd letter but want a secure supported system.

Hopefully I'm going to trial it with my parents and sister tonight, and I'll report back afterwards.

On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:15:01 +0000 Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk allegedly wrote:

In case anyone is eagerly waiting on an update, it turns out (apparently unbeknown to me) that yesterday was Thursday... I'm actually doing it tonight (Friday).

<eager>

And today is sunday.

So, good news? bad news?

</eager>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Mick Morgan gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 http://baldric.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark,

It turns out the someone I know who has used Zorin only used it for multi media stuff. Sorry not to have been more help.

Bev.

On 30/10/13 08:58, Mark Rogers wrote:

With no comparative information I don't know which of three disks to download which makes it hard to get started... Does anyone have experience of Zorin?

I don't, but I know someone who has. I have asked.

Bev.

On 28/10/13 09:27, Mark Rogers wrote:

On 28 October 2013 08:59, Anthony Anson tony.anson@girolle.co.uk wrote:

...

The only distro *I* can think of which fits your upgrade worries is Debian

The only place I use Debian in anything close to a "raw Debian" format is Raspbian, and even then almost entirely at a commandline level.

How easy is it for an XP user to use?

I used it straight from Win 2000 and it was fairly intuitive. It's a great deal easier now.

Basically: I need to install something (dual boot with XP) that they can and will use, and that will stay up to date and secure without further intervention from me. If they don't "take" to it then it's a waste of everyone's time and worrying about upgrade cycles is irrelevant!

You can lead a horse to water...

On my old full tower it is dual boot with XP (under Grub), and boots into Debian by default.

This fliptop is dual boot and defaults into Mint, but Debian can be fired-up if required. I haven't used Win for agesandagesandages - and that only for Irfanview. (I don't like The Gimp for adjusting graphics...)

On 28/10/13 09:44, Mark Rogers wrote:

On 28 October 2013 09:37, Anthony Anson tony.anson@girolle.co.uk wrote:

...

I used it straight from Win 2000 and it was fairly intuitive. It's a great deal easier now.

OK, I'm happy to try this:

1. Which desktop environment should I pick for XP users on old hardware?

What do you mean by 'desktop environment'? If I'm correct in my guess, I prefer Gnome - been using it since around 2000 though, so I'd be a bit biased.

But I must say that I dislike KDE

2. How do I test the OS with the hardware before install?

Blind Bambi - I just installed it and everything worked, and has done ever since. It runs OK on my PIII, whereas XP won't. (Admittedly, nothing NT-based works on it, though it did at one time. DOS 6.22 works, Win 3,11 works, Win 98 works, Debian works. Win 2000, XP etc won't even try...)

3. Which Debian disk should I start with?

If I can find them, I can send you a set of Lenny and apps - 6 or 7 discs.

...

This fliptop is dual boot and defaults into Mint, but Debian can be fired-up if required. I haven't used Win for agesandagesandages - and that only for Irfanview. (I don't like The Gimp for adjusting graphics...)

From memory, Irfanview runs fine under Wine - but don't quote me on that! Might be worth checking though.

Probably - I always forget to install it when I have access to wi-fi - this dongle would take a week.

On 28/10/13 10:37, Mark Rogers wrote:

I am luck enough to have good Internet access at home so obtaining the disks when I work out which ones I need shouldn't be too hard. really grateful for the offer though.

I chose Debian when FT was bought and used to develop SuSI because I had a fiend of long(ish) standing who is a Debian developer. (And was at the time CEO of my then ISP - he is still an arch-fiend and when the ISP dumped on him I changed to the Norwich-based Paston)

I was chosen Mint at one of the Coach and Horses meets and haven't regretted someone's choice - thank you, and I'm sorry I can't unforget who it was.

BTW, have the Norwich meetings ceased, or is it just the reminders?

On 28/10/13 14:06, Steve Engledow wrote:

On 28/10/13 11:09, Anthony Anson wrote:

...

BTW, have the Norwich meetings ceased, or is it just the reminders?

Yeah they're still going. I *think* the emails were meant to be automatic but it sounds like they've gone awry.

Or gone away - I haven't seen one for at least two months, either in this list or 'Announce'.

As to the original topic... how does the distro make a difference? I find that an odd question that seems to get asked a lot these days. Aside from a few exceptions, the majority of software is available in nice packages for all the distros :)

</pedantic-git>

Well, some (Eg. SuSE) are not SFP (Sheddi Favourite Price, = free), and this might make a difference? (Yes, I know there's an 'Open SuSE)

We were considering distros suitable for a more senior machine IIRC, and this could affect whether it will run on it, or whether some programs will ditto.

On 28/10/13 15:44, Mark Rogers wrote:

Reason for ditching XP: Support is ending. (There are loads of reasons I'd ditch it personally but that's the reason in this case.)

+1

Therefore solution must have on-going support (by which I mean OS updates).

Why?

The current *buntu releases "expire" only shortly after XP, and the LTS versions are quite old meaning that some of the newer goodies (eg Cinnamon) may be too early in their lives to thrust onto unsuspecting XP users.

If users are only going to run old programs compatible or similar to XP ones, there's little, if any, point.

So I'm looking for a distro that makes a point of (a) supporting old hardware (so that current versions will run on PCs at least 5 years old), and (b) has a long period before it will "break" (so either has easy/rolling updates that will still support the old hardware, or is supported in its current version for years not months).

OK, Debian Lenny. I have it installed on a memory stick if you want to try it.

Most users will not actually install much - Firefox/Chrome and LibreOffice will do what they need most of the time - so it's the longevity that matters not the package manager etc.

Lenny still copes with everything on my old 2001 PIII, and with anything I've used up to the end of last year.

On 28 October 2013 15:56, Anthony Anson tony.anson@girolle.co.uk wrote:

...

Therefore solution must have on-going support (by which I mean OS updates).

Why?

I'm not sure what you're questioning here? Surely keeping any OS updated with security updates is considered good practice (assuming it has Internet access)?

...

The current *buntu releases "expire" only shortly after XP, and the LTS versions are quite old meaning that some of the newer goodies (eg Cinnamon) may be too early in their lives to thrust onto unsuspecting XP users.

If users are only going to run old programs compatible or similar to XP ones, there's little, if any, point.

The suggestion in this thread and elsewhere is that Cinnamon is a good desktop environment for XP users, but to my mind (and I'm happy to be told the contrary) it was very "new" back in April 2012 and so picking a distro that has such an early release of Cinnamon isn't ideal. On the other hand, newer OS releases aren't LTS and need too-frequent upgrades.

Putting all this together is why I am now looking at LTS versions of Xubuntu and Lubuntu (as XFCE etc are much older and a 2012-04 release doesn't concern me).

OK, Debian Lenny. I have it installed on a memory stick if you want to try it.

I have a 16GB USB stick with a few distrs on already and I'll be adding Debian to it. But I was looking at Wheezy rather than Lenny, is there a reason I should look at Lenny?

Lenny still copes with everything on my old 2001 PIII, and with anything I've used up to the end of last year.

.. unless this is the reason, that is. (Ie would Wheezy cause problems, either in hardware support or system requirements?)

On 28/10/13 10:23, Chris Walker wrote:

Back came the reply, Parsix. I thought I'd grab a copy and see how it ran for me. I'm running it in VirtualBox and already I don't like it. Yes it looks pretty - that might appeal to some XP users - but when you tell it to install, it fires up GParted. While I might be able to cope with that, I suggest that the average XP user won't so I've already removed the VBox install and deleted the iso file.

I found GParted easy enough when installing Debian for the first time from either Win 3.11 or maybe, Win 2000.

True,I'd been using FT for a while - I can't remember what I used to partition the HDD for that (it was so long ago...)

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:49:34 +0000 Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk wrote:

On 28 October 2013 10:23, Chris Walker cdw_alug@the-walker-household.co.uk wrote:

...

Back came the reply, Parsix. I thought I'd grab a copy and see how it ran for me. I'm running it in VirtualBox and already I don't like it. Yes it looks pretty - that might appeal to some XP users - but when you tell it to install, it fires up GParted. While I might be able to cope with that, I suggest that the average XP user won't so I've already removed the VBox install and deleted the iso file.

I'm assuming I'll do the install so this isn't necessarily an issue, but I'm also going to be supporting it and as I'd never even heard of it...

My friend, like me is an ex-service engineer so I would expect him to do the install.

...

I saw in another reply that you have a Pi. Would it be possible for you to lend that to one or two of your XP users and ask them to try out the various distros available for it? That might give them a clearer idea of the things they liked and disliked. That might help frame your ideas of a replacement.

I like that idea. First obvious issue is that it wants to talk to a TV not a monitor but aside from that it might be a good way to demo it.

It talks to my monitor :-)

I have an HDMI to VGA adapter though which helps to avoid disturbing management when she's trying to watch something.