OSNews

looks like we had much the same thought. here's some other gems from the article:

"Given that Windows systems depend so heavily on application software to add functionality"

and what commercial OS is not heavily dependent on applications to give it functionality? what are you going to write up that term paper or resume with on a fresh OSX install? textedit.app?

"Ah! But the problem is that Microsoft doesn't really want you to move your applications. Instead, it wants you to buy new ones from Microsoft"

and when has Apple started giving their stuff out for free? let's see, 100-some dollars every year or two for an OS upgrade. iLife, nope not free, neither's iWork. shoot, you don't even frickin' get full screen quicktime video unless you shell out an extra $30 for the priviledge to unlock the app (along with a bunch of other features that vast majority of us non-video-editing users wouldn't care about).

Mac OS 10.0 > 10.4 is five years
XP - Vista is five years.

He should be comparing migrating from OS X.0 to Tiger, not OS 9 as you stated, that would be like comparing Windows 95 > XP (different kernals entirely)

actually... migrating from 10.3 to 10.4 and XP to Vista... would be fair enough!

It would have been a bad comparison had Vista not been yet another NT-based OS.

So in summary: It is easy to transfer settings between two iterations of OS X, it is not easy to transfer settings between two iterations of NT-based Windows.

Since the former should be taken for granted, the latter is just poor.

I would say the authors comparison may too simplistic. I have seen relatively few problems migrating to Windows XP machines from Win 98SE, ME, and 2000. Some applications required installation after migrating, and some apps required updated versions to work, but that should be expected. I fully expect that if 'Easy Transfer' is not quite polished yet, it will be. Software version issues will have to be resolved where appropriate, and this is no different Macintosh.

Migrating Macs, though, had always been much easier. Of course some applications require updates where different versions of said software are required for OS X 10.2 and 10.4. Most updates are free, while some require a small fee. Not really any different the Windows softwares

Transfering settings from OS 9 to OS X is an absurd point. That said, moving from OS 9 to OS X worked just fine using 'Classic'. Running OS 9 apps worked well, and you could choose to run OS 9 from OS X, or you could dual boot. Many apps during the transition years were 'Carbonized' apps and would run in either OS, and again most app developers provided free or low cost upgrades. MS Office 2001 was 'Carbon'.

I am sure that 'Vista Easy Transfer' will be improved fairly soon, after all as the author said 'Lenovo' has it working.

Over all, any one who expects 100% working migration is too optimistic. When OS versions are very close, it is possible. Even the 'nix will require updated apps and libraries in many cases. Never had many problems with this, but now I am getting too far off topic.

Well, it all depends on what you're used to.

I agree with you on the single menu along the top. Great when when computers had a nine inch screen; then having a single menu saved on screen estate. Now that I have a 20 inch monitor, the single menu is a real pain. I imagine that Apple will drop it eventually, or at least make the window menu an option.

I have the same problem not being able to maximise a window; haven't figured that one out yet.

Edited 2007-02-12 22:17

Weird, no issues maximizing here.

"Weird, no issues maximizing here."

But does the maximized window fill up the entire screen? That's one of my gripes for OSX as well.

But does the maximized window fill up the entire screen? That's one of my gripes for OSX as well.

Why would one want to fill up the entire screen? The desktop is as much of a tool as any toolbar. It's a bit difficult to explain in text, but dragging and dropping to the desktop, or other applications is a core concept of the OS. Filling up the entire screen makes absolutely no sense in that paradigm.

For me it comes down to personal taste I guess...I'm used to having all of my windows maximized on XP and using keyboard shortcuts to navigate around (i.e. to copy something to the desktop, ctrl-c, win-d, ctrl-v).

Occasionally I'll tile windows, or stack them...but most of the time I want them full screen.

Btw, my background is grew up on OS7 & 8, switched to Windows (and still use it most of the time for work related stuff...software developer) but just recently went back to OSX for my casual stuff. I don't care to see much desktop :-).

For me it comes down to personal taste I guess...I'm used to having all of my windows maximized on XP and using keyboard shortcuts to navigate around (i.e. to copy something to the desktop, ctrl-c, win-d, ctrl-v).

Occasionally I'll tile windows, or stack them...but most of the time I want them full screen.

Btw, my background is grew up on OS7 & 8, switched to Windows (and still use it most of the time for work related stuff...software developer) but just recently went back to OSX for my casual stuff. I don't care to see much desktop :-).

I just think it's counter productive to go against one of the core fundamentals of the OS. I obviously prefer the MOSX way, but when I'm on a PC I work in a way to maximize my workflow on that platform. I don't try to use my screwdriver as a hammer.

I think that there are enough similarities between Windows and MOSX that it's very easy to fall into the trap of trying to use them the same, when there are very fundamental differences.

BTW-- This is not to say that one way is better than the other, but I find most users of either platform get frustrated when trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Edited 2007-02-13 07:02

"Why would one want to fill up the entire screen? The desktop is as much of a tool as any toolbar."

You have obviously never used a modern IDE, Eclipse for example. Eclipse will use as much screen real estate as you can throw at it, and puts it to good use.

As for drag and drop - I never use it with the desktop. I have a few applications I launch from the desktop, most others I get from the start menu or quick launch bar. I never drag documents onto application icons - it's just easier to run the app and open the files from within - you get more predictable results as well.

You have obviously never used a modern IDE, Eclipse for example. Eclipse will use as much screen real estate as you can throw at it, and puts it to good use.

You're right, I've never used Eclipse so I can't comment on that.

As for drag and drop - I never use it with the desktop. I have a few applications I launch from the desktop, most others I get from the start menu or quick launch bar. I never drag documents onto application icons - it's just easier to run the app and open the files from within - you get more predictable results as well.

Methinks you do not understand how drag and drop works on the Mac. Dragging documents onto applications, is by no means what I mean by "drag and drop."

It's really difficult to explain in words. I'm talking about moving data around as objects from one app to the next. Copy and Paste is too limiting... Your desktop is a tool, not storage space for shortcuts. I think you really need to see it in action...

Well maximize works a little different on OS X and for good reason. You only have to resize a window once, and the OS remembers that size and that is the size it uses for maximizing.

This might sound dumb and not what you are use to, but remember you are viewing from your system setup only. For people with large screen, 20"+ maximizing to fullscreen is useless. (Most apps don't need that much screen space. (I know there are some.))

So your gripe is more a personal preference than a problem with the OS, and people can argue personal preferences all day.

Interesting read on Mac OS X's "maximize":

"Apple's philosophy is that a maximized environment is inherently inefficent since it makes dragging content from one window to another cumbersome (see Drag & Drop). Many types of documents are vertically oriented (like a printed page), yet monitors are wider than they are tall. So, for instance, it doesn't make sense for a word processing document to fill the width of the screen.

The zoom button toggles its window between 2 states, the standard state and the user state. The standard state is determined by the application developer. Apple's Human Interface Guidelines provide this sensible direction to programmers for deciding the standard state of a window:

"Don't assume that the standard state should be as large as possible; some monitors are much larger than the useful size for a window."

Individual users determine the user state of their window by manually resizing it; the zoom button will then toggle between these two states.

While Apple's concept works in theory, it does lead to some issues in practice. The zoom button is always green, and always displays a plus sign when you move your mouse over it. Yet, because of its very purpose (to switch between two window states), one window state is always smaller in size than the other. This can lead to some confusion, since it is counterintuitive to have a window shrink in size when you click a button with a plus icon on it (and a minus icon is already used for a window's minimize button).

Furthermore, if you want a window to fill the entire screen, you will need to manually resize it yourself (unless the application developer has provided a full-screen window as the standard state)."

But does the maximized window fill up the entire screen? That's one of my gripes for OSX as well.

iMacs and Apple displays are wide-screen. It makes more sense to proportionally enlarge until the vertical limit is reached (height) thus leaving some space on the horizontal (width) for such displays.

Personally, I love the one-menu-bar-across-the-top idea. I think having each window display its own menu is wasteful.

I like the Mac's menu bar so much I have switched to it on KDE.

Of course neither the Mac or KDE do it right - the menu should only appear when you want it to, a la RiscOS or at least AmigaOS.

"I think having each window display its own menu is wasteful."

...

"the menu should only appear when you want it to"

Explorer/IE (and others) do this in Vista...they are hidden until you hit the alt key. Takes a little while to get used to for longtime Windows users (such as myself), but it's so much cleaner.

Explorer/IE (and others) do this in Vista...they are hidden until you hit the alt key. Takes a little while to get used to for longtime Windows users (such as myself), but it's so much cleaner.

Interesting... Having to hit the control key to bring up a contextual menu in MOSX with a single button mouse is ridiculed by PC users for years and suddenly, this concept of having to hit ALT every time you want to bring up a menu is some sort of advancement?

"Interesting... Having to hit the control key to bring up a contextual menu in MOSX with a single button mouse is ridiculed by PC users for years and suddenly, this concept of having to hit ALT every time you want to bring up a menu is some sort of advancement?"

Did I say it was an advancement? I was actually pointing out a similarity...something OSX has done for a while that I like, so it's good to see it in Vista.

Actually, Vista gives you the choice, you can turn menus on, or leave them hidden, and use the alt key. Windows gives you the choice, OS X doesn't. That is the difference

Just get a two button mouse and problem eliminated.(no configuration needed)

That is my greatest beef with Macs, I know they want to keep this simplicity thing and all, but for god's sake, use at least a 2 button mouse. (I think the people can handle it.)

It's a solution, but having to spend more money to get a two button mouse after buying a new Mac, or getting the mighty mouse, either way, it's more cash out of your pocket

i know exactly ONE person that uses the SAME mouse that came with there windows PC.... ONE...

this is NOT a fu*king issue!!!!!!

for fu*ks sake!!!!!! this one button mouse issue DIED years about when OSX first came out... and STILL people bring it up!!!! its sort like me complaining that Vista cant multitask and has rudimentary memory protection!!!!

would you idiots realize the OSX work fantasticly with multbutton scrool mice.... IT ALWAYS HASSSSSS!!!!!

But again... The differences between MOSX and Vista are significant enough that this comparison doesn't make a ton of sense.

In Vista every application is it's own window. Having menus in every single application window is clumsy when working with multiple windows.

In MOSX, you have only the menu of the front-most application displayed. For every application, the menu is in the exact same place. Having multiple windows open doesn't waste any space with unnecessary menus.

I do think that having the dock at the bottom of the screen in MOSX does waist a lot of space (Due to the vertical nature of most documents). I typically pin my dock to the right lower corner.

I guess that with screen real-estate these days, I don't understand the desire to "hide" things.

In Vista every application is it's own window. Having menus in every single application window is clumsy when working with multiple windows.

I disagree, as I find that when you can close an apps window, and still have the app running and it's menu displayed at the top is jarring and time consuming, as after I close the Safari window, I usually have to exit Safari also, as i do not generally think to exit the app, that's what close buttons are for. In Windows and KDE, when I close an apps window, the app is usually closed with it.

Which is clumsier? I think it's OS X, as closing all an app's windows should make the app exit, imho. This can lead to having apps running in the background that you think are closed, but are actually still running, eating resources.

Windows also supports MDI applications, where you have a parent window that encapsulates a number of child windows. This allows for a hybrid between OS X and Windows where you have one menu and multiple windows.

Having multiple windows open doesn't waste any space with unnecessary menus.

The menu bar on most apps do not take up a enough space to be a problem, especially with the screen real estate available with todays hi-res displays. toolbars, now that is another matter, but I digress

I find that when you can close an apps window, and still have the app running and it's menu displayed at the top is jarring and time consuming, as after I close the Safari window, I usually have to exit Safari also, as i do not generally think to exit the app, that's what close buttons are for. In Windows and KDE, when I close an apps window, the app is usually closed with it.

Here you are obviously approaching MOSX as if it were Windows or KDE. It is not. If I want to quit an app, I simply quit the app (file=>quit)-or-(apple+q). It takes no more time or less time than closing a window. (file=>close window)-or-(appe+w)-or-(left click the window close button)

The menus for the front-most application remain only for as long as that application remains the front-most application.

If you approach MOSX as if it were Windows, yes you will be frustrated. Believe it or not, here in the US we drive on the right side of the road. In other places in the world, such as England they drive on the left side of the road. While there are simularities between driving in the US and England, if you attempt to drive in England like you do in the US, you will be frustrated.

Which is clumsier? I think it's OS X, as closing all an app's windows should make the app exit, imho. This can lead to having apps running in the background that you think are closed, but are actually still running, eating resources.

I believe that this is an instance where one isn't necessarily better than the other--they are just different. IMHO, closing a window does not equal quitting an application. Obviously, you should use which ever system makes most sense to you, but to say one method is "better" is really just catering to your personal taste.

The menu bar on most apps do not take up a enough space to be a problem, especially with the screen real estate available with todays hi-res displays. toolbars, now that is another matter, but I digress

I honestly don't have a problem with most menu bars whether they be Mac style, Windows style, etc... There are some crazy toolbars out there though...

Edited 2007-02-13 19:25

Suprising how many major hollywood movies are produced using Macs. And scientific calculations. And music tracks. And DVDs. And Websites.

"fine for light browsing and playing media... and that's about it."? You seriously need to grow up and get out more.

I connect to my Oracle servers, my Linux servers, my Unix server, the Xservers, the OS X clients and the WinDump servers.

As well as light browsing ;-)

Go ahead, mod this down for daring to call it as I see it... Prove how insecure Apple users REALLY are.

You're the one who is preoccupied with being modded. Now that's what I call insecurity.

Ok, how about those of us who AREN'T apple zombies sitting on Ikea furniturue

Ok, so that's me.

try to keep this guys post modded up

No. Because the post is off-topic (see new Guidelines doc). The original commented was, in effect, criticizing OSX for not being like Windows. this is not a well-informed or constructive comment when attached to an article about the ease of upgrades.


MacOS, in all it's incarnations, relatively useless for 'real work' and so completely backwards it slows my productivity to a crawl...

So you don't like Mac OSs. Good for you. Put the reasons for your dislike into a reasoned argument and publish it as an article. People who work in Graphics and Audio/Video production find that their productivity is increased when using things that they are used to.

Go ahead, mod this down

I won't, but this comment is off topic, and technically a criticism of the modding system, both of which are not allowed by the guidelines (see above).

>> I won't, but this comment is off topic, and
>> technically a criticism of the modding system,
>> both of which are not allowed by the guidelines
>> (see above).


I assume you are referring to:
A comment that contains an unpopular opinion should not be voted down, but rather, should warrant a response. The "vote dow" function should be used sparingly to demote comments that do not add to the conversion and/or contain offensive or personal attacks.

It's a discussion about migration, so his comment (and what started me down this path) seems to fit the discussion to me - Mine being off topic, fine... But I highly doubt ANYONE here voted his down for that reason...

BECAUSE there are certain things that the moment you open your mouth to critisize you KNOW every rabid fanboy is going to mod you down no matter how politely you put it... Apple, Linux, Firefox - don't you DARE say and unkind word about them.

It's a discussion about migration, so his comment (and what started me down this path) seems to fit the discussion to me

If you actually read the article, It's about the technicalities involved with migrating Windows > Windows compared with OSX > OSX. NOT about Windows > OSX User experience migration. So comments about Menu bars, are definitely off topic.

BECAUSE there are certain things that the moment you open your mouth to critisize you KNOW every rabid fanboy is going to mod you down no matter how politely you put it... Apple, Linux, Firefox - don't you DARE say and unkind word about them.

Fine. If you say bad things about something, those with invested interests are going to lash out, wherever you are. This site should not be a forum for 'unkind words'. My suggestion is to be civil, and present difficulties and opinions in an objective, concise manner. This way, I have made some positive criticisms about big OSS projects without being modded down. Where I have been less balanced in my presentation (see my Java posts), then I deserve to be modded down.

"Ok, how about those of us who AREN'T apple zombies sitting on Ikea furniturue "


How did he know I was sitting on Ikea furniture?

Edited 2007-02-13 00:34

Pretty creepy that.

Blame the tool, yeah, that's it.

>What about menu always on top, i didn't like it specially because there is no permanent menu like windows which i can use to launch applications quickly or may be i didn't use it long enough.

You're right - You didn't use it long enough, or didn't RTFM. The Finder leads to the Applications folder, where all applications get installed. (Hint - the Finder is on the Dock by default - you can't miss it unless you are sleeping.)

>Anyways in 1 day i was bored with it...

Oh yeah, you're quite the "tester".

>when you minimize an app, it becomes an icon so if you have two of the same application you can't really distinguish them. Windows uses title for each window and that helps a lot switching to that window.

Are you sure you were using OSX or just dreaming of it? When you minimize an application in OSX, it goes to the Dock, and tells you what each icon is during mouse flyover.

>XP serves my needs so why bother...

... He said, as he downloaded his <almost> daily virus patches, defragmented his harddrive, and cleaned the gunk out of his registry.

Let's be honest there is no way you switched from 1 day of use. also there is no way you can get an accurate assessment of the OS in 1 day. This is for any operating system be realistic.

Wow, you spent ONE whole day with the OS and decided to chuck it. Rather than trying to actually learn how it works, you don't want to bother. You can't really critique an OS if you don't know HOW TO USE IT. Especially if you don't bother LEARNING how to use it.

This goes both ways. Mac to Win, Win to Mac, (and Linux).

Edited 2007-02-13 00:17

why do you want to maximize windows?
when you click on the green button in the upper left mac os let you see ALL contents of the window. But nothing more, because it makes no sense to draw only white space.

Windows at the top: click on the application name in the upper left bar. Then on "Hide others", and you see, all other applications are hidden.

And when you have minimized your Windows, go above them with your mouse and you saw the window title.

And by the way: I think Vista is gonna lose in comparison with XP (and nearly any other OS)

News Flash!!!!

Mac OSX does not act the same as Windows!!!! they are different! yes... OSX does not have a "task bar" or "start menu".... nor does the window manager act the same in each platform! yes.... the menu bar is always on top.... yes, Exposes takes a few moment to get used to... yes.... OSX IS NOT THE SAME AS WINDOWS!!!!!

if you were looking for it ot act the same... may i suggust you pull you head out of you tail... OR.... just stick with winodws.... eith way the earth will continue to rotate!

""I recently tried OSX but i wasn't that impressed with it. Whats up with not able to maximize my windows? Is there a setting somewhere? People blame windows for not very customizable, i found OSX even less so. ""

>>true.... OSX windows have a different personality than "OtherP OSs... get over it!


""What about menu always on top, i didn't like it specially because there is no permanent menu like windows which i can use to launch applications quickly or may be i didn't use it long enough.""

>>>jesus man... just because you dont know how to do something... does not mean it can't be done! Put your most used apps in the DOCK for crying out loud!!!! it works VERY well!

""Anyways in 1 day i was bored with it and little annoying things like when you minimize an app, it becomes an icon so if you have two of the same application you can't really distinguish them."

>>> so you were bored and annoyed because.... you expected One OS to act like OS? thats silly!!! i really dont understand your issue with the minimized app.... i mean,... in panther or tiger... when you minimise a window... it srinks in to a small window icon...NOT and app icon?!?!

""Windows uses title for each window and that helps a lot switching to that window."""

>>>um.... i have ONE word for you.... EXPOSE!!!!! (let me stress this again.... STOP EXPECTING OSX TO ACT LIKE WINDOWS!!!!)

"""I switched back to XP in 1 day from OSX may be i should have tried longer but hey XP serves my needs so why bother..."""

>>>why did you bother to even try OSX? i would not have said you switched at all! you dabble with OSX... was disappointed that is was not windows... then went back to windows XP with a chip on your shoulder!!! you did no justice to your self... or the mac platform... and just reinforced the concept of being stuck in "the comfort zone" !!!!

Actually with vista you don't even need to do that (keep the settings on a separate partition). I did a clean install over an existing 2K. instead of just wiping everything however, it took the contents from Documents and Settings, and Programs, moved them over to a Windows.old directory, and then did a fresh install. You can't use the old programs of course, but at least their contents (esp. the stuff in Docs and Settings) are preserved for you.

Imho Linux does this even better - especially when you have /home on a separate partition. If you keep the same distro, you can most likely update it on-the-fly while you're still working at it. This works with Ubuntu for example. Select the new version and it will pull all the updates from the Internet and install them in the background while you can continue to work on your computer. When it's finished, there's a single reboot and you're done - all your settings are still there, and even all your apps are updated too. This worked wonderfully for me so far.

If you want to move to a new PC, simply copy everything in /home over. Installing the missing apps depends on how you installed them, for me I could add everything I need from the repository with one single command.

You can even keep all (or at least most) of your settings when you switch distributions.

He is trying to find the quickest way to move the set of applications he installed on his PC from his old PC to his new PC.

On OSX the program that compares to the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard takes care of transferring installed programs as well, which means that the user will only have to reregister software that needs registering, but that almost everyting else is taken care of.

The Windows Files and Settings Transfer Wizard does exactly that. It transfers only files and settings. Every program will have to be reinstalled from CD, which is why installing a PC can easily take up many hours of attended installation.

Even linux software transfer is harder than just copy-pasting a .app file from one PC to the other (but at least apt/yum/yast will take care of updating, while writers of .apps will have to write their own update function.

A FAIR comparison would be his OSX example against going from XP SP1 to XP SP2... or as someone else mentioned OS9 to OSX vs. XP to Vista.

The only problem with that is that Apple hasn't shipped a computer capable of booting OS 9 since January 2003. Migrating a user would still be fairly trivial with Target disk mode, though you may have to use the import features for some apps like email/browsers...

Not saying that your point isn't valid, but I think most of the MOS9 to MOSX conversion has already happened.

Good point! And that's where Mac outshines Windows. Same can be said for a decent Linux distro.

It does not matter how settings are scattered in Windows. File and setting transfer enables you to migrate all the settings,except those which need access Program Files (and this access should be disabled,if you work correctly).

This article was written either by person who know nothing about Windows and different options for his brain is too difficult to process, or it is one of the routine deceptive article how Windows is bad and MacOSX is good. Nothing to do,today if Apple inc. would start to sell rotten apples, people would "think different" that rotten apples are better ... So come on guys, let praise Mac ;-)

The point is, on Windows, you *need* a program to transfer your files & settings, because everything is spread accross dozens of directories & registry entries. On Linux & Mac, you simply copy your home directory to the new machine and you're done. You don't need an extra program for that. You can simply copy everything.

i can copy my profile from one XP machine to another, and everythign will look exactly the same, you just grab your user folder from under my documents. It's not the best way to do it, but it works

*shees*

Good good. Windows and Mac HW is more or less the same these days. So you might argue about driver support but not about openness of HW.
However, I prefer less drivers that work reliable than more drivers / HW and the annoyances that go with it (hunting for driver updates; instable system because of buggy drivers, have-assed drivers, etc.).

Back on topic: This article is about installation migration.
Can you copy your Windows apps from one installation to another? No?
No support for target disk mode to simple copy your home directories or apps over to your next computer?
No single directory for every user to be sure to get all the relevant user files?
No clean file system layout?
Well, I guess in this case Windows is not more difficult but simply more restricted.

And let's go down to the terminal level and tell me again that the Windows command shell is the price you pay for open HW and that OSX is easier to use.
*LOL*

IMHO, Windows is not difficult to use. It's restricted (and in some areas plain retarded). And it's architecture is too complex and not nearly as clean as *nix or *nix based OSes hence the need for wizards for this and that. And finally Windows has the terrible annoying habit of "thinking for the user" but does that with an IQ below zero.

I prefer an OS that works for me; I don't want to work for the OS..

Every time there is a major release in the OS world, there is a glut of articles praising/denying the wonderfull-ness of this latest big thing.
It happened with Open-suse, Ubuntu, Windows Vista, OSX and many other releases. There's always someone whining about how there are too many articles about Release X, but it never changes anything.

This is a NEWS site, and at the moment, Vista is THE NEWS. Soon, it'll be something else, but for the moment we're stuck with it.

As far as everyone slating Vista goes, Microsoft is doing a good job of overselling Vista. Everyone knows how good Vista is, thanks to MS. So the only real news, is from people pointing out flaws in the Vista release.

Actually this article is part of an ongoing series of OSX vs. Vista head to head (just read the other articles because I was curious).

While the author praises some clear advantages of OSX, like better latency for audio recording, ease of use when transferring programs, and esthetical quality of packaging (while calling it a thin layer of veneer, he deems it important), but he points out the qualities of the PC too, which include a wider range of form factors (most importantly tabletPC), robust build of his Lenovo and wireless options and reliability.

That OSX won this part of the competition hands down, is a quality, but it isn't just a let's bash vista and love mac article.

That's right After using a migration wizard, recompiling the kernel should be a walk in the park

let's see:
# wget "http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.20.tar.bz2"
# sudo mv linux-2.6.20.tar.bz2 /usr/src/
] <admin password>
# cd /usr/src
# sudo tar xjvf linux-2.6.20.tar.bz2
# sudo ln -s /usr/src/linux-2.6.20 /usr/src/linux
# cd linux
# sudo make menuconfig
<4 hours later>
# sudo make dep
# sudo make
<2 hours later>
# sudo make modules
<2 teas later>
# sudo cp /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/zImage /boot/kernel-2.6.20
<edits grub by hand>
# reboot
<prays..>

(...runs for cover)

Whether your comment was meant seriously or not (in either case, I really appreciate your lighthearted humor), I don't know.

But what in three devils name are you doing to spend 4 hours inside menuconfig ????!!!!????

Have you ever tried to use the kernel config from your working kernel and only adapt new / changed settings? Took me about 10 min the last time when I updated my Slackware box to kernel 2.6.20

Sorry for going off-topic

Thanks for appreciating the humor

Actually, I use ubuntu so the compilation method is streamlined by apt and the kernel-build tools.

I spend a long time in menuconfig because the Ubuntu kernels contain so much crap included just to support marginal hardware. I strongly prefer not to have too much chaff knocking around the kernel, even if it doesn't actually affect anything. I guess I'm a bit 'retentive about these things.

I said gentoo:

# emerge vanilla-sources
# opens beer
# boots new kernel

Actually, in gentoo to CUSTOMIZE the kernel:
it's something like:
(I've never used Gentoo, so this is all from the docs)

# su
# USE="-doc symlink" emerge vanilla-sources
# cd /usr/src/linux
# make menuconfig
<4 hours later>
# make
<2 hours later>
# make modules_install
<2 teas later>
# cp <...>/boot/vmlinux.gz /boot/
<edits grub/lilo manually>
# reboot
<prays..>

sort of only I remember it more like

cp ../last-version/.config .
make oldconfig
stand on return for two seconds
make
make modules_install
mv /boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage.old
mv <..>/bzImage /boot
grub figures it out
<rubs buhdda>