Can Linux beat XP in homes yet or NOT?

[Les Mikesell]

Tomas Larsson wrote:
> 
> XP I can get up and running regardless of hardware in say 30 min's Linux
> takes considerably longer time (days, weeks, months in some cases).

That's not "regardless of hardware".  That's on machines designed to run 
Windows with Microsoft or vendor written drivers because you really 
can't buy anything else in the intel world.  For a fair comparison, try 
it on a Sparc or PowerPC box and see how long it takes to get Windows 
running.

> XP has basically everything, without hassle, extremly stable (basically
> never crashes).

XP comes with no applications.  Most Linux distros come with almost 
everything you'd need except multimedia codecs.

> Antivirus software is not an issue really. You probably need
> it on linux as well, at least in the near future.

Is that a joke?  If you ever installed a pre-SP2 version of XP on an 
internet exposed machine you'd know better because they were routinely 
compromised in seconds, long before you could get the updates downloaded.

> If you buy a preloaded PC, you probably have everything you need, for basic
> home use.
> It is cheaper for most people to purchase a valid XP license than spending
> hours to get a linux-box to work.

Now that Dell has mainstream boxes preloaded with Linux, that's no 
longer a distinguishing point.

> Similar with Office, its cheaper to buy MS Office than spending time to get
> Open Officce or whatever thay are called to work.

Errr - what?  Not only is this not true, it is not related to windows 
vs. Linux.  The windows version of OOo is just fine too.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com