new look installer... why?

[dave]

> 
> I know this has been extensively commented on, and I would think this
> topic has certainly come up before.  The first review I saw of Ubuntu
> made the comment that it's text-based installer was a trip down memory
> lane (this was not a compliment).  At the time I agreed, and thought
> that for such a great desktop it needed a graphical installer...
> 
> BUT, then I actually installed the OS, and it was simple and easy.  It
> didn't give me an abundance of choices.  If there were applications that
> didn't come with the initial install it was relatively trivial to add
> them, and I didn't have to have the root password to so...
> 

Agreed, I gave the Ubuntu CD to my wife's cousin, who is NOT
knowledgeable about the inner workings of any OS. I'd meant to send
him off with the advice "Stick to the defaults.", but for one reason
or another that didn't happen. (Mind you, he is computer literate, but
he's not in the habit of reinstalling his OS.)

He reported to me not long ago that he was able to get Ubuntu
installed with no problems. He does need help configuring it to dial
up his ISP, but then again I've never set ppp up myself.

I think this speaks volumes to the merits of the "antiquated" installer!

> If you polled them how many Windows users have every actually installed
> an OS.  Windows users don't install Windows.  They upgrade when they buy
> a new computer, and the OS comes pre-installed.  The IT geeks are the
> ones installing, and if they can't figure out this installer they should
> be fired.
> 

This came up once at work and I pointed out the same thing. I don't
know a single person (talking end-user here) who has ever installed
Windows for themselves. In my family, myself or my brother is always
pressed into duty and we both work in the industry.

While a gui would be nice, I do believe at this point, the energy and
effort involved might better serve the userbase elsewhere.

dave