This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Ubuntu for Parents and Neighbors

edited August 2010 in Technology
I come into contact with a number of computers which are, for want of a better description, F**ed the F up. While this is often the fault of bloat-ware and can be, to some extent, remedied; A 1GB ram laptop running Vista that takes a good few minutes to load with a pretty basic install is another matter.

With this most recent laptop, there's a strong chance I'll be replacing the hard drive (Read error hangs.) and reinstalling, so I was thinking of adding an Ubuntu partition so the customer could try it out for speed and to have a fall-back if/when Vista goes tits up.

The main things that've been holding me back are the "Why doesn't this program work on my computer?" problem, Ubuntu's often quite experimental development, and having to explain how things are done/done different.
I remember Rym or Scott saying they'd installed Ubuntu on their parents' computer and wanted to know if anyone else had done it, and, if so:

1) How much have you had to help them? (A question every now and then, several hours, etc..)
2) What kind of things should I make known straight away?
3) Should I test this on a family member first?
4) Any other than the basic apps that I might need to add?

Also, please save any rants about the failings of the open source community for another thread.

Comments

  • My mother has used Ubuntu for a few years now, and I think she has less problems than before. When she complained about her computer one day, I said the cause of her problems was the old Windows 98 installation and that she could buy Windows XP, which costs like 200 bucks and os not that much better, or she could try Ubuntu, which is free and which is what I also use.

    She decided to try Ubuntu, so I installed it for her, and I can't remember having to help very much with Ubuntu-specific stuff (OpenOffice doesn't count for me since she had used that on Windows as well). I showed her how to start Firefox, Evolution and OpenOffice. She figured out where Solitaire and Minesweeper are on her own pretty quickly ;)

    I said to her, just try stuff, see what happens, you can't break anything. This is important, since as a non-techy Windows user, you are constantly discouraged from trying new stuff and even intimidated by irritating dialogue boxes and random errors, especially with an old and busted Windows 98. I had to repeat it a few times, until I said "Don't call me before trying something new. I don't want to tell you stuff I think you can figure out by yourself. Just try. Call me when you actually tried it and something's broken and I will happily fix it." Until now I never had to fix anything, except for hardware that would have died anyway.

    My mum has figured out a lot of stuff on her own, for instance how to copy pictures off her digital camera, burn them to CDs and print them. I don't think she would have dared to try that on her own on Windows. Oh, and fortunately, the weird software she has to use for her job runs fine in Wine.

    As for additional apps, I can't remember whether I installed anything extra on that computer. If you have to do remote maintenance and support, you obviously should install stuff like sshd and some kind of VNC server I guess.
  • My parents used Windows and got along fine, except they would always virus and spyware the computer to high heaven.

    I switched them to Firefox, and then switched them to Ubuntu. It's good because now they basically do everything on the web. Migrating them to the web is the best because they can just use any computer. If the hard drive crashes, they can use a LiveCD. They don't play games, so if their computer really breaks, I can give them a netbook. ChromeOS might even be a future possibility.

    The key things to watch out for, though, are that you install all the extra thingies for them. I had problems where my mom would want to watch videos on certain sites, but the codecs weren't in there. Make sure you install Flash, Java, and every video and audio coded imaginable. Make sure that when they browse so a site with videos on it, that it works. Good things to test are YouTube, CNN videos, Apple.com/trailers. Make sure they all work. As long as every website works, they'll be fine.
  • That's become less of a problem in recent years, but I sometimes forget to install ubuntu-restricted-extras right away and wonder why the fonts are funny.
  • Alright guys, I'm relatively new to running Ubuntu natively. So, what should I use for audio playing: Amarok, or Rhythmbox?
  • edited August 2010
    Tough choice, they both kinda suck.

    My recommendation is that, if you can get used to not having a library integrated with your music player, use Audacious.

    If you really can't live without a library, you're going to have to decide between the limited functionality of Rhythmbox and the annoying lagginess of Amorok.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • My recommendation is that, if you can get used to not having a library integrated with your music player, use Audacious.
    Is that preferable, then, to just using VLC for everything?
  • My recommendation is that, if you can get used to not having a library integrated with your music player, use Audacious.
    Is that preferable, then, to just using VLC for everything?
    Yes. Audacious has gapless playback and looks prettier.
  • TryBanshee.
    This is quite slick. I'll TAKE IT!
  • So, I installed Banshee and I really like it. However, when I try to play .avi files, I get a black screen and they won't play. .mkv works fine, so I think it may just be limited to .avi. Any idea what I need to do to make this work?
    First try installing ubuntu-restricted-extras, it sometimes has extra codecs.
  • Alright guys, I'm relatively new to running Ubuntu natively. So, what should I use for audio playing: Amarok, or Rhythmbox?
    Sonata (with mpd and mpc), and purge every trace of Rhythmbox from your system. Same goes for VLC, purge and replace it with mplayer. None of this nonsense with installing bloated crap.
  • You might want to take what Nineless says with a pinch of salt. Running your system super lean can be interesting to learn but you'd probably be better off sticking with VLC and Banshee for now if you're not a fan of hotkeys. Though I recommend giving Gnome-Mplayer a try.
  • I remember trying Banshee back in the day, and it was very crashy. It's probably much better today.

    Also, why not Amarok? Because it uses real databases for the library, it can handle a huge library without screwing up.
  • Amarok post 1.4 had a major redesign and is a mess. I really liked Amarok 1.4 though.

    Another thing is trying to not use QT applications in Ubuntu as you then have to load up all the QT dependency stuff.
  • edited August 2010
    Another thing is trying to not use QT applications in Ubuntu as you then have to load up all the QT dependency stuff.
    So what? Is your hard drive like, 15GB or something?
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited August 2010
    Another thing is trying to not use QT applications in Ubuntu as you then have to load up all the QT dependency stuff.
    So what? Is your hard drive like, 15GB or something?
    I said load up, not install.

    Man, that's crazy, Ubuntu loads so fast that it makes waiting 20 seconds for QT and then Amarok to load makes it feel slow.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • I said load up, not install.
    So what, you've got 256MB of RAM?
  • I said load up, not install.
    So what, you've got 256MB of RAM?
    No, I got plenty.
  • No, I got plenty.
    So what's the problem?
  • No, I got plenty.
    So what's the problem?
    Waiting half a minute to load Amarok.
  • Waiting half a minute to load Amarok.
    How slow is your CPU? Also, just leave it open. Are you closing it and opening it over and over?
  • edited August 2010
    It was a 1.6GHz Celeron I think. Is this point going anywhere? And why would the amount of times you open it affect the loading time?
    Post edited by Rym on
  • It was a 1.6GHz Celeron I think. Is this point going anywhere? And why would the amount of times you open itaffect the loading time?
    So you open it once, and then you leave it open forever. The loading time only happens once. Slow loading times, using lots of memory, or taking up lots of disk space are not good reasons to choose one application over another in this day and age.
  • Slow loading times, using lots of memory, or taking up lots of disk space are not good reasons to choose one application over another in this day and age.
    What.
  • Slow loading times, using lots of memory, or taking up lots of disk space are not good reasons to choose one application over another in this day and age.
    What.
    Because memory and storage is dirt cheap now so it shouldn't be a big deal for the most part.
  • Hey, some of us are working on machines which, at a time, ran XP. It's more the slow loading time thing I didn't get but it's most likely Scott making a blanket statement.
  • Hey, some of us are working on machines which, at a time, ran XP. It's more the slow loading time thing I didn't get but it's most likely Scott making a blanket statement.
    Unless it takes like, an hour to load, what's the big difference between 10 seconds and even 30 seconds? You only have to wait once. Just always leave your computer on and never quit the program. Then you'll never have to wait for that loading time ever again. If you have two programs, and one is way better than the other in terms of features, but the loading time is just slower, use the better one. No reason to use a worse program just because it will cost you 20 seconds once every few weeks when you restart or something.
  • This is going to have to wait until tomorrow.
  • This is going to have to wait until tomorrow.
    Oh do you have to reload firefox? ;)
  • Try subtlety some time.
Sign In or Register to comment.