Linux won’t be ready for mainstream use until it “just works.”

Or maybe:

I wanted to like Linux, but after installing it my (insert hardware) and (insert hardware) didn’t work.

Some are even so elegant as to say it like this:

LINUX SUX IT DONT WORK ON MY AWSOME COMPUTER. WINDOWS RULZ!

All these arguments boil down to the same flawed perception: that getting hardware to work in a Linux environment is unreasonably difficult.

I would like to provide two examples – one, an analogy; the other, a personal experience – that help explain why Linux hardware support is much better than many people perceive.

The Analogy

Imagine, for a moment, that you have a car that’s several years old.  You like this car – the body’s in decent shape, the color is nice, it runs well – but you’re simply not getting the performance out of it that you’d like.  Rather than buy a whole new car, you make the reasonable decision to simply upgrade the engine.

So you do some shopping around, and eventually you stumble upon a website where someone is giving away brand new engines… for free.  The engine claims to be powerful (the article states that this type of engine is used on 80% of the world’s sports cars), reasonably easy to install and use, and you’re also allowed to modify the engine however you would like.  In return, the website simply asks you to donate some money to their cause if you can, and pass along word of what they’re offering.

It sounds too good to be true, but since they offer to send you an engine for free, you go for it.

While you wait for the engine to arrive, you go about stripping the current engine out of your car.  You take careful notes on the location of every hose, belt, and bolt, and by the time the new engine arrives, the car is ready for it.

With the help of a friend you drop the new engine into place and reattach all the critical parts.  After checking and double-checking to make sure you haven’t missed anything, you start up the car…and to your amazement, it actually starts!  After a couple final adjustments to get everything perfect, you close the hood and take your almost-new car for a ride.

*PAUSE*

I’ll admit – no analogy is perfect.  But I find this one both relevant and instructive.

As you’ve probably figured out, the car in this analogy represents a PC’s hardware, while the engine represents a PC’s operating system.

Like cars and engines, PC hardware and operating systems are theoretically interchangeable.  It might take a hacksaw and a welding iron, but you could theoretically get any internal combustion engine to run in almost any chassis.  Similarly, it might take some time and hacking, but you could theoretically get any OS to run on almost any PC hardware.

Unfortunately, some individuals mistakenly think that any OS should run on any hardware configuration without user intervention.  This is as foolish as thinking you could stick any engine in any car and – without any effort – have it magically work.  Mixing and matching parts that weren’t designed for each other is not a perfect science.  It will almost always take some tweaking to get everything working.

By and large, manufacturers assume the burden of ensuring that a stock engine works in its associated car.  You don’t typically buy a new car, take it home, then realize that the manufacturer has forgotten to connect three or four hoses.  Similarly, when you buy a PC, you can be reasonably sure that the PC vendor – Dell, HP, whoever – has ensured that the computer’s hardware and OS play together nicely.

To summarize:

When you purchase a PC pre-loaded with an operating system, it should always “just work”

Obviously a new computer with a pre-installed OS should be expected to “just work.”  If it doesn’t, it’s the fault of the PC vendor – not the hardware manufacturers or the OS.

Many zealots (on both sides of the aisle) fail to acknowledge this point.  Pro-Windows zealots wrongly assume that because they bought a PC with Windows on it and it “just worked,” Windows is a superior operating system.  This is a faulty correlation. It’s akin to saying “the stock tires that came with my car are superior because they just worked.”  Remember: stock parts should always “just work.”

Which leads to my next point.

In the example above, you did some homework before sticking a new engine into your car.  You carefully removed the old engine, taking note of where each belt, hose, and bolt went.  You probably made use of all of that information when installing the new engine.

Only a crazy person would take the stock engine out of a car, then drop in a new one and expect the car to “just work.”  Obviously, some hoses are going to need to be re-attached, some belts are going to need to be hooked up, etc.

Why should a computer be any different?

It is not reasonable to drop a new operating system onto a computer and expect it to “just work.”

I don’t care what you’ve heard about Windows or Linux – if you install a new operating system onto a computer for which it was not specifically designed – and by specifically, I mean “specific down to every single piece of hardware” – there is a chance you will need to perform some manual adjustments.  Sometimes you may get lucky and have it “just work.”  But most of the time, regardless of OS choice, you will need to tie up a couple loose ends.  Such is life.

Now I know what some of you are thinking – “yeah, but I installed (insert OS here) on my computer and it just worked.”  If that’s the case, consider yourself one of the lucky ones.  Very, very few people can install an OS onto randomly assembled hardware and have it work on the first try.

It’s unfortunate that so many people misunderstand this basic issue, and they broadly label the quality of a secondary operating system based on whether or not it “just works.” Aftermarket equipment – be it software or material goods – should always be installed by a professional, or by someone capable of “reattaching all the hoses and belts,” so-to-speak. If you choose to install a secondary operating system without a firm grasp of the technology behind it, any problems that arise are not really the operating system’s fault… they’re yours. (Don’t take this personally – the same applies if you try to replace your car’s engine with a new one, despite having no idea how an engine works.)

It is my personal opinion that when all aspects are considered, the overall operating system with best hardware support is Linux.  This is a fundamentally unfair generalization, since there are actually thousands of different Linux distributions, each one with its own strengths and weaknesses – but if we’re going to broadly label whole software ecosystems by the titles “Linux” and/or “Windows,” I think it’s safe to say that Linux comes out on top.

As you may have noticed from the link in the analogy above, Linux runs on almost 80% of the world’s supercomputers.  It also runs on an ever-growing number of servers.  Desktop Linux users number somewhere in the 15+ millions.  Some 90+% of the desktops and servers in Hollywood run on Linux.  Offshoots of Linux power cellphones, traffic signals, election machines, satellites, military equipment, medical equipment, particle accelerators, digital cameras, TVs, DVD players, mp3 players, and many government systems.  If you’re interested in reading a huge list of specific uses for Linux, check out the bottom of this link.

Impressive as this is, it unfortunately doesn’t apply to the everyday user.  After all, I’m not building my own particle accelerator or traffic signal.

So the real question for most users is – how well will Linux work for me?

And the answer is, of necessity, vague.  No one can say for certain how well Linux will work for you.  The only way to know is to try it.

One of the problems with attempting to predict how well an OS will work on a particular set of PC hardware is that there are more possible hardware combinations in a modern computer than there are atoms in the universe.  (That isn’t an exaggeration, btw.)  And that’s just for major hardware – processor, motherboard, RAM, hard drive, video card, sound card, monitor, keyboard, mouse.  When you start factoring in optional hardware (like any of a million possible USB devices), the list of possible computer configurations quickly approaches numbers difficult to quantify.

So in reality, it is impossible to guarantee that a given OS will work on any system other than ones for which it has been specifically designed.

I realize that an esoteric answer like that still doesn’t answer the core question of “will Linux work for me?” For that, let me try something else – sharing a personal experience.

A Random Experiment with Linux and Windows Hardware Support

This Christmas I picked up a refurbished HP Pavilion Media Center PC.  The specs are similar to this, including:

• 2.8ghz AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+
• 2gb RAM (667mhz DDR2)
• 500gb SATA hard drive, plus another 200gb SATA drive manually installed by me
• NVidia GeForce 9400GT video card
• Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS sound card with recording hub (pulled from my old PC)
• LightScribe DVD Burner
• Memory card reader (one of those 9-in-1 or 10-in-1 things)
• TV Tuner Card (Hauppauge 1600)
• The usual set of ports (6xUSB, 2xFirewire)

In addition, I’d be tying the PC into an existing monitor (22″ HP LCD), 5.1 surround speakers, Epson Stylus CX8400 printer/scanner/copier, an off-brand graphics tablet, and a webcam.

In all honesty, I consider this to be a pretty nasty adventure for any OS.  That’s an eclectic mix of hardware ranging from almost brand-new parts (the video card came out August 2008) to relatively old parts (my sound card was purchased in 2002).

As for an OS, because the system was refurbished it came without a pre-installed OS.  I made the choice to install Ubuntu 8.10 to the 500gb drive and Windows XP on the 200gb drive.

Here’s how it all went down.

Ubuntu 8.10:

By and large, Ubuntu 8.10 worked shockingly well.  I had to manually configure only the following three pieces of hardware:

• Hauppauge 1600 TV Tuner card (simple process using these instructions)
• Epson printer/scanner/copier (my model is CX8400, to make it work you just have to select the CX7800 model – found that by a quick googling).
• Graphics tablet (using this guide)

Windows XP:

Unfortunately, Windows XP was a different story.  Upon install my ethernet refused to work, which prevented me from using any automated means of updating drivers.

After some serious google-hunting on a separate laptop, I finally tracked down an NVidia installer that got my ethernet working (apparently that ASUS motherboard utilized an NVidia chipset).  With that fixed, I set about finding and installing drivers for the following devices:

• NVidia GeForce 9400GT (video card worked, but to change any of the settings and enable 3D acceleration I had to download and install specific drivers)
• TV Tuner Card (non-functional until I tracked down official Hauppauge drivers online; however, I don’t have any recording software, so the card is still technically useless).
• Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS (sound worked, but to get surround sound I had to find the CD that came with the card and install specific drivers)
• Epson Stylus printer (printing worked, but to access printer-specific settings I had to find the CD that came with the card and install specific drivers)
• Graphics tablet (non-functional and drivers not available for download; fortunately, I had a Windows driver CD that came with the tablet)
• Webcam (non-functional until I used my webcam installer CD).

After a lot of restarts (five, I think), I eventually got my XP install up and running.

What’s the Point of This Story

My final point is this: with some determination, you can get both Windows and Linux to run on almost any hardware.  If you have driver CDs for every piece hardware, Windows should be fairly trivial to install.  Linux is much more a function of googling, since very few hardware manufacturers include Linux drivers on their included CDs.

In my specific case, installing Ubuntu 8.10 was a much more pleasant experience than installing Windows XP.  Part of this is because Linux is specifically designed to be installed on random hardware.  Very few computers come pre-installed with Linux, and many hardware manufacturers don’t provide comprehensive Linux support. Linux has evolved to deal with this as elegantly as it can, and in many cases it is surprisingly successful at self-configuring new hardware.

Installing XP was ugly because XP was not designed to be dumped onto untested computers.  Microsoft goes to great lengths to ensure that hardware manufacturers comply with Windows hardware-compatibility requirements, as well as requiring PC vendors to ensure that pre-installed (or OEM) copies of Windows are properly configured.  XP has very few drivers pre-configured, since they rely on hardware manufacturers to provide install CDs with their hardware.  Since my refurbished machine came with no install CDs, tracking down the necessary drivers was a nightmare.

In Conclusion

Maybe this is your first time seeing an example where installing Windows was significantly harder than installing Linux (in the form of Ubuntu 8.10).  If you bought a computer with Windows pre-installed, chances are that it will work better “out of the box” than Linux will.  Don’t be surprised, and don’t fault Linux for that.  Besides – if you’re installing Linux solely for better hardware support, you may not know what you’re doing.

For this particular set of hardware, I found it well worth the effort to get Linux up and running, and I am indebted to the hard-working developers that provided me with an open-source operating system and accompanying software that helped this particular PC be much more enjoyable and productive to use.

Will Linux do the same for you?  Who knows! If you’re feeling adventurous, head to www.ubuntu.com (or any other Linux distro’s homepage) and give it a try.

Just remember the analogy from the start of this article: like replacing the engine in a car, you may have to do a bit of work to get Linux working just the way you like it, and you’ll definitely have a better experience if you go in prepared.

But for what it’s worth – if you’re willing to put in a little extra work, I think you’ll find Linux well worth the effort.

(After this article was released, I went back and edited it for accuracy and clarity. Out of fairness to certain commenters [including myself], I have deleted comments no longer relevant to the updated article. My apologies for making ex post facto changes.)

1) My intended target audience: intermediate computer users who aren’t afraid to do some troubleshooting. I’m going to assume you fall into the same category as me: someone with a bit of experiencing “tinkering” with computers.  My hope is that you’ve installed at least SOME hardware before, that you’re familiar with basic computer terminology, and that you aren’t afraid to use a command-line program if you absolutely have to. If you don’t meet any of these criteria, feel free to tag along – but remember that this article is not intended to address YOUR specific needs.

2) I am not a Linux or Microsoft “fanboy.” I am a home PC owner who wants my home PC to work as well as humanly possible.  I don’t mind a bit of tinkering – but IMO, the best OS is a low-maintenance one.

3) This is not an exhaustive comparison. For a more complete, in-depth look at specific features, you might try these links:

http://www.itcomparison.com/OS/vistavsubuntu/vistavsubuntu.htm

http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=199201179

Both have their biases, but they are a bit more in-depth than I am looking to provide here.

–End Disclaimers–

If you’ve made it all the way here, I am going to assume that you are seriously considering an XP upgrade to either Ubuntu or Vista.  I was in this same location a month ago, and after doing loads of online homework I made the decision to try Ubuntu 8.04. I installed it to a separate hard drive (and kept my Windows XP install on its original hard drive, just in case)…

…and since that initial install, I’ve only booted to Windows XP once.  Overall I have been extremely happy with Ubuntu, and hope that this summary of my own Ubuntu vs. Vista research is useful in helping you make a similar decision.

The goal of this article is to help you make an informed decision regarding your post-XP operating system. I mean that.  My goal with this article is not necessarily to convince you to switch to Ubuntu (although I would be happy if that happened).  Rather, my goal is to encourage you to give Ubuntu a fair look.  After you’ve seriously considered the pros and cons of both Ubuntu and Vista, I’ll leave it up to you to make whatever decision is best for you and your specific situation.

All ready?  Here goes!

Step 1: Consider recommended hardware requirements

Each OS’s recommended hardware specs are as follows, along with my “just-to-be-safe” recommendations (in parentheses).

Vista:

• 1 GHz processor (2.0+ GHz is better)
• 1 GB of memory (2+ GB is better)
• 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space (20 GB+ free space is better)
• DirectX 9.0 compatible memory card with 128 MB vRAM (256+ MB is better)

Ubuntu:

• 700 MHz processor (1.0+ GHz is better)
• 384 MB of memory (512+ MB is better)
• 8 GB available hard drive space (20+ GB available is better)
• Graphics card capable of 1024×768 resolution (but any 3D acceleration features will be useful)

I’d welcome anyone to correct me, but the hardware specs in parentheses are probably what you’ll need to get the best experience out of either of these two operating systems.  Basically, a mid-level PC is capable of running either OS, but as you move towards the low end of the spectrum, Ubuntu may be your only real choice.  (The minimum specs for an Ubuntu install include a 300 MHz processor and 64 MB RAM – wow!)  If you have a high-end PC, consider hardware specs a moot point as both OSes will be plenty fast enough for you.

My PC specs are the following:

• 2.2ghz AMD processor (Athlon 64 3800+)
• 1 GB memory
• 200 GB empty hard drive (SATA, bought new at geeks.com for under $50 USD)
• 128 MB ATI video card (ATI Radeon 9200)

This placed me within the recommended hardware specs for both OSes, but my video card and RAM seemed safer under Ubuntu.

Step 2: Hardware compatibility

Both Ubuntu and Vista include tools for estimating hardware compatibility BEFORE you install.

Microsoft’s “Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor” tool is available here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/upgrade-advisor.aspx

To test Ubuntu, you will need to either download the ISO for a Ubuntu CD, or place an order for free Ubuntu CDs.  (Yes, they will send you CDs free-of-charge.)  Ubuntu’s official download page is available here: http://www.ubuntu.com/GetUbuntu/download

Once you have a Ubuntu CD at your disposal, insert the CD and reboot your computer.  This CD is a Live CD, meaning that you can run Ubuntu from the CD.  You do not need to install anything – simply reboot with the Live CD in the drive, and your computer will boot to Ubuntu.  Very cool.

Once Ubuntu is up and running, feel free to play around a bit.  This should give you a good indication of what a default Ubuntu install looks like.  Feel free to try some of the included apps, browse the web, maybe even play some mp3s from your existing XP hard drive.

Eventually you’ll want to head to “System” -> “Administration” -> “Hardware Testing”.  This little wizard will run through some basic tests to ensure that your keyboard, mouse, video, and sound all work.

IMPORTANT NOTE: this wizard does not test ALL hardware.  You may want to manually test your printer and/or any other peripherals currently attached to your system.

After you’ve had your fill, shut down your computer (and remove the CD when reminded), then reboot it to return to XP.

Step 3: Reevaluate your upgrade choices based on your hardware

If you’ve run both the upgrade tools from Step 2, chances are that you have a pretty good idea of how your hardware will handle an OS upgrade.

So now it’s time to make a choice: does hardware compatibility/incompatibility force your hand?  Does one upgrade seem easier than the other?  If you do have incompatible hardware, is it a device you can live without?  Are there fixes available for whatever hardware problems you may have encountered?

After I ran both upgrade tools, I found the following:

• My video card worked and was supported in Ubuntu, but enabling hardware-accelerated 3D would require some command line instructions.  The same video card – despite having the recommended amount of VRAM – was marked as not capable of running Vista’s Aero interface.
• My printer/scanner/copier didn’t work by default under Ubuntu, but this was easily remedied by selecting a similar model number (7200 instead of 8400).  Vista marked the device as “unknown compatibility,” but some Googling led me to find that it would be supported – I’d just have to download some new drivers from Epson’s website.

Other than these two issues, it looked like all my core hardware was compatible with both OSes, and any peripheral hardware (webcam, digital camera, a MIDI keyboard) was a crapshoot.  (Both OSes were unspecific as to whether or not these devices would work.)

So for me, hardware compatibility didn’t tip the scale in favor of either OS – but I was unhappy at not being able to run Vista’s Aero interface.

Step 4: Software compatibility

Software compatibility is a tricky step because the level of software compatibility you may require could be anywhere from “don’t need any of my XP-specific programs” to “I can’t live without some XP-specific programs.”  Honestly, my recommendation – for either OS – would be setup a dual-boot environment, which would allow you to keep XP entirely intact.

This is what I did.  I bought a cheap 2nd hard drive online and installed my new OS to that drive, leaving the XP drive untouched.  If this is an option for you, I would HIGHLY recommend it.

And really – unless you are locked into a tiny laptop hard drive you don’t want to upgrade, there is no reason to NOT setup a dual-boot system.  Even if you decide to use Vista, I can almost guarantee that a spare XP installation will come in handy at some point in your life.

In my case, the Vista upgrade advisor warned me that several of my favorite programs (including Visual Studio 6.0, ActiveSync, and potentially some of my ATI video card drivers) were known to have compatibility issues with Vista.  Obviously, the vast majority of my XP programs wouldn’t work in Ubuntu.

(Yes, I know about Wine, and yes, most of those programs still wouldn’t work.)

Then there was always the option of setting up a virtual XP environment in either OS, but I wasn’t interested in this.

For me, dual-boot was definitely the way to go, regardless of my OS choice.  This meant that as of this step, I was still debating between Vista and Ubuntu.

Step 5: Cost

I could stick this step anywhere, but this seemed as good a place as any to address the elephant in the room.

Ubuntu is free.  Vista is not.  The price of Vista varies, but since I was looking to do a dual-boot setup, I would need a complete (non-upgrade) version.

(Yes, I know – there are ways to install a Vista upgrade onto a blank hard drive.  If you want to try that, do it at your own risk.)

Vista Ultimate with SP1 retails at $319 USD while Home Premium with SP1 goes for $239 USD.  I don’t know about you, but that’s more money than I tend to part with easily.

And thus, the scale starts to tip in favor of Ubuntu.

Step 6: New software

This step is undeniably unfair, but IMO it is an important one.  Vista is just an OS: nothing more, nothing less.  It comes with some screensavers, a couple simple games, a basic text editor, IE and WMP, and a whole bunch of system utilities.

Ubuntu, however, is really an entire software suite.  Yes, you get the OS – but you also get a catalog of thousands of pieces of free software.  Among these?

OpenOffice.org, a complete replacement for Microsoft Office

GIMP, a Photoshop replacement

A game from pretty much every genre imaginable, including RTS, FPS, arcade, retro, simulators…

Multiple music players and video players

Firefox

…And way more than I can possibly list here.  For a more complete list (sorted by category), please visit https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SoftwareRepoDefault.  I think you’ll be amazed by the software offering.

And the best part?  To install and/or remove software in Ubuntu, all you do is hit “Applications” -> “Add/Remove…”, then check or uncheck the boxes next to software you want installed or uninstalled.  When done, hit “Apply Changes” and let the system take care of the rest.

It really is that simple.

Step 7: Security

Different people can present valid opinions on whether or not Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro) or Vista is more secure.  Both OSes will be more secure than XP, but ultimately OS security is primarily a matter of vigilance.  The vast majority of PC security breaches are caused by the USER – not by a hacker.  If you download insecure software in any OS, you run the risk of harming your PC.

But in terms of out-of-the-box security, there are several things to consider.

One is that Vista will setup a software firewall by default.  Ubuntu will not.  There is some debate over whether or not you should even worry about setting up a firewall in Ubuntu (see here and here, for example), but unless you are running a server or installing questionable software (i.e. NOT from the add/remove dialog), Ubuntu should not require a firewall.

Next, Vista needs a dedicated virus scanner.  Ubuntu, generally speaking, does not.  Again, there is some debate on this issue (see here and here), but by and large your chances of (a) acquiring a linux virus and (b) receiving any damage from said virus is minute.  You probably have a higher chance of being struck by lightning than you do downloading a virus-infected program from an official Ubuntu repository.

This is a significant Linux advantage.  Because you automatically download programs from a central repository, you only download programs that are vigilantly checked for malware, spyware, and viruses of any sort.  This is a far cry from any version of Windows, which allows you to download an infected program from any website you encounter.

To sum up security: both OSes are an improvement over XP.  Because I tend to err on the side of caution, I found Ubuntu to have the edge here – if for no other reason than the number of Linux-based viruses is a tiny fraction of the number of Windows viruses.

Step 8: UI and overall prettiness

Because my video card wasn’t capable of running Vista’s Aero interface, Ubuntu was a hands-down winner in the appearance category.  If, however, you are capable of using Aero, this may be more of a competition.

Most of Ubuntu’s visual coolness comes from a program called Compiz-Fusion.  The Wikipedia entry for Compiz Fusion describes many of the core features in detail, and clicking on the specific plugin links will give you an idea of what CF can do.  The Animation plugin is one of my favorite features – particularly “Burn.”  :)

In terms of customizability, Ubuntu is a strong winner in the UI category.  However, Vista w/ Aero will look a lot prettier “out of the box.”  Ubuntu’s default font and color scheme is a bit on the crappy side, and it will take some work to setup your desktop just how you want it.

So if you’re not afraid of tweaking some things, Ubuntu is the clear winner.  If, however, you simply want to install your OS and have it be beautiful, Vista is a better choice.

Step 9: Miscellaneous considerations

If you haven’t made up your mind already, here are some additional things you may consider:

• Ubuntu requires a solid internet connection to make use of its huge software collection.  If you are on dialup or if your internet connection is spotty, you may find this frustrating.
• If you don’t want a dual-boot setup (can’t imagine why…), Vista can be installed on top of XP.  Ubuntu cannot.  If you insist on going the non-dual-boot route, you would need to wipe out XP before installing Ubuntu.
• Wine is a Linux program that theoretically allows you to run Windows programs without ever leaving Linux.  I have found it perfectly successful for some of my favorite applications (Photoshop, DVD Catalyst), while useless for others (Finale, my old VB6 exe’s).  If you have some XP programs you would like to use in Ubuntu, try Wine.  This may/may not be encouraging.  :)
• Vista includes official tech support from Microsoft.  Ubuntu is much more of a DIY experience, unless you want to pay for professional support.
• Ubuntu is not the only Linux distribution available.  It is my personal favorite – and often recommended for first-time Linux users – but if you’re interested, feel free to explore some other Linux distributions.
• From an idealistic standpoint, Ubuntu is undoubtedly the favored choice.  You can copy your Ubuntu install CD for your friends and coworkers, install Ubuntu on every computer you own, and never pay a penny for using it.  Vista can only be installed on one computer, and if you install it over XP you will invalidate your XP license.

Can you think of anything else to add to this list?  Let me know!

Step 10: Take the plunge

By now I hope you’ve had a chance to see what you’re up against when it comes to upgrading XP.  As I mentioned at the outset of this article, I made the choice to try Ubuntu…and now I doubt I will ever again buy a Microsoft OS.  And, since I use a dual-boot setup, I can still return to XP if I ever need it.

If this guide was useful or not useful, feel free to leave a comment!  Also, I’d love to hear from people who have tried upgrading from XP to either Linux or Vista – please leave your input, and I’ll try to integrate applicable comments into the main body of the article.

This is part TWO of a two-part article.  Part 1: “So you want to upgrade from Windows XP…” is a casual introduction to the question of which OS is the best upgrade from XP.