Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
Originally Posted by gersongarcia67 If I understand you correctly, you have one Windows XP and various Linux distributions. I believe multiple boots are time consuming for your need. Why don't ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #21
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    76

    Quote Originally Posted by gersongarcia67 View Post
    If I understand you correctly, you have one Windows XP and various Linux distributions. I believe multiple boots are time consuming for your need. Why don't you virtualize your environment?
    I use VMWare Server for Linux running on Ubuntu 9.10 server and I can bring up at least 4 virtual machines running Linux OS at the same time.
    I also used VMWare Server for Windows and works fine as well.
    And it is free!!!
    I want to try VirtualBox but I can't decide yet on a host! Isn't that silly? I know...

    I want to use Ubuntu.... I'm liking xfce and liking using up less resources.... I am still not sure whether KDE or Gnome uses less but anyway... I guess I would like to use the same OS as what is on my laptop... just makes things easier whenever I move from one computer to the other. Although, if they were both varieties of Debian, that would work. I have Debian Testing and AntiX on the laptop, currently. 'was thinking of trying sidux-xfce.

    I had problems on my laptop with Ubuntu 9.10 and I guess it bothered me a bit

    Ubuntu 9.10 would probably work fine on my desktop: it's a Quad Core machine so should be fine.

    If I go with a SSD drive for the Linux side, I might not need virtualiation or VMWare/VirtualBox, though?

    P.S. Ubuntu 10.04 looks promising. I tried in my laptop, Thinkpad T41.

    I think Arch and Gentoo are among the best but I know my limits. lol!

  2. #22
    Just Joined! simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    29
    re distro choice, there is no objective "best", since everyone has their own preferences and priorities, but yes, arch and gentoo are both good distributions in their own ways. arch is good if you want really up-to-date packages without reinstalling, and gentoo is another one that can be installed once and then kept up-to-date indefinitely. as a slackware user i don't find arch as simple and lightweight as it claims to be, but it's still much tidier and more easily customisable than the debian/ubuntu variants. gentoo's ability to make easy system-wide changes to compilation options (what you'd normally have to do via lots of separate ./configure settings) makes it a great choice if you're a psychotic fiddler who wants an entire system built with gnome support but without kde support and then the next day you decide, what the heck, let's rebuild everything with kde support and without gnome support...it's great fun for customising the hell out of everything, but again if i want to build stuff from source then personally i prefer the finer control you get from reading the docs and ./configure --help and doing it manually.

    each to his own though. and i'm not knocking the debian family: debian is a beautiful reliable distro, and ubuntu is the distro i recommend to people new to linux, not only because it does a good job of getting things working automatically, but also because it's so popular now that much of the online support is ubuntu-focused. then there's fedora for bleeding-edge technologies, or any of the red hat enterprise linux clones if you want to build up your skills for a techie job, or novell/suse if you want to be microsoft's *****, linux from scratch if you want to learn what's under the hood...etc., etc...there just isn't any "best", and as for "i know my limits", you might be surprised! i reckon go for what you actually want the most, and leave the worrying about how difficult it is until after you've achieved it. lol.

    ANY popular distro (including arch and gentoo) is easy to use once you've spent a bit of time with it and learned its particular ways of doing things: by far the biggest learning hurdle is the switch from windows to linux. the differences between linux distros are really insignificant in comparison with that. if you enjoy playing with different setups then distro-hopping is a good reason for multi-booting (and probably a good reason to use more than one disk too, since if you're tinkering with different filesystems and partitioning tools it's nice to know your backups are on a different physical disk!).

  3. #23
    Linux Newbie previso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    116
    You really need only one Linux. Many distos on one machine is wasteful. You only need one Windows. The only choice, really, is XP.
    deb vs RPM: umm... RPM is the commercial choice (Red Hat, Novell). Not cutting edge but solid
    Gnome vs KDE: umm... KDE if you want a more Windows-like environment. Gnome if you want it to run faster.
    LXDE is fast, very.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #24
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by previso View Post
    You really need only one Linux. Many distos on one machine is wasteful. You only need one Windows. The only choice, really, is XP.
    deb vs RPM: umm... RPM is the commercial choice (Red Hat, Novell). Not cutting edge but solid
    Gnome vs KDE: umm... KDE if you want a more Windows-like environment. Gnome if you want it to run faster.
    LXDE is fast, very.
    Which distro do you use?

    I guess I am leaning towards this plan provided it is doable and not too complicated for me:

    I want to get two SSDs, one with Windows 7 and one with Linux. I will keep my current 320GB drive for LINUX and this drive will be my 'experimental' drive.

    The two SSDs will be my production or main drives so the Linux on it, I want something relatively stable or at least, I want to pursue some sort of proficiency or strive to. I'll want to become familiar enough with the distro in order to solve issues relatively quickly. I guess that's why I'm considering Ubuntu since I can seek support here, Ubuntu forums and there's tons of 'Ubuntu-related' "hits" via Google etc.

    I'd like to know Fedora, too, due to the Red Hat connection. So, that could on the 320GB drive. The SSD drives would be best for one OS (only 60 to 80GB capacity) so that is why I'm proposing this plan.

    But, this means a THREE DRIVE setup! lol! Is this doable? Oh, gee, I'd have to get grub to access and read three drives but it's basically going to do the same as it would with 2 drives but this time, 3, right?

    I thought maybe two distros on the 320GB drive, sidux xfce and Fedora 12. Lots of space for each.

    Windows 7 on SSD 1. Ubuntu on SSD 2.

    Why do you say to stick to XP?

  6. #25
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by penguin2 View Post
    I had an idea and wanted to put it out there. If it is no good, please recommend an alternative.

    I was wondering if even a third drive could be included into the mix. Ideally, I'd like to split them into separate computers but I'm investing in storage drives right now.

    Let me explain. I currently have a dual boot or multiboot system using a 320 GB OS drive. It is an adequate method, I installed XP and several distros. But, I have to clean things up. I might have to re-install Windows as I am nearly out of partition space. My Linux partitions are running out of space, too. Not sure if I have to re-install but probably. I don't know how much space will be freed by copying/moving data files to a storage drive.

    This is a project in itself but here's my idea: I was thinking of using two hard drives, one for Windows and one for Linux. Is this not recommended? Is it a pain and complicated to set up? Grub Legacy can do it but what about Grub 2? I think Grub Legacy required you to manually edit your menu.list with the 'mapping' command? I don't know how Grub 2 handles two booting drives. I don't want to switch the booting in the BIOS if I can help it.

    Okay, the reason for this idea is because I was looking at SSD drives and I think the 30 and 60/64GB drives are too small to dual boot.

    Am I better off to continue a dual boot method on on drive or are there distinct advantages to using one drive for Windows and one for Linux?

    If I dual boot, is 80GB good for Windows? Then the rest of the 320GB drive split like this: Ubuntu 10.04 - 50GB, Debian Testing or sidux; 50GB, Fedora 12 - 40GB, OpenSUSE 11.2 - 40 GB (rest of space for swap etc.)

    Which method is better?
    I only quick-scanned the responses, but I didn't see anyone question WHY you are running out of space. I just did a full rebuild of Win XP Pro SP3 with MS Office 200, including Visio, Project, Publish, and Foxpro on a friend's HP Pavilion zv6000. Even after installing a bunch of HP drivers, Kaspersky Internet Security Suite, and Acronis True Image Home... the total size of the data on the drive was less tham 7 GB. So all you really need for your Windows partition is 10 to 15 GB. And that's being extremely generous with extra space for many more apps. That leads me to think that what's filling up your drive is your saved files, music, pics, videos, etc.

    So that brings me to yet another point. A "mount" point, in fact. Linux has always used them. MS finally got on board with them with the release of Win XP (maybe not until SP1, I'm not sure about that though). But suffice to say that both of the OS options you are using can take advantage of mount points. So I suggest that you add a second drive, but use it only for your personal files. then continue to use your original drive as a dual-boot drive.

    On the Linux OS partition, it should be fairly simple to create a mount point that will direct all files you save onto the second drive. With Windows XP, it can be a little extra work, but not horrible. See, what you need to do, for the mount point to function seamlesly and transparently, is TRICK to OS into using your mount point instead of the Documents and Settings folder assigned to your login. What I did was log in as Administrator. That way me personal Doc & Settings directory and files were not in use. Then I created a mount point at the same directory-level as my account's Documents & Settings folder, made all hidden and system files visible, moved EVERYthing from inside the Documents & Settings folder into the mount point, moved the now empty documents and Settings folder out to the Desktop, Changed the name of the mount point folder to Documents and Settings, then logged out from Administrator and back into my regular account.

    With the system outlined above, I've been able to extend the life of an perfectly serviceable 40 GB hdd, half belongs to Win XP Pro and half to Ubuntu. Meanwhile, all of my files are stored on a speedy litte 300 GB SATA. Oh, a couple of caveats... file indexing? MUCH faster. Saving and retrieving? Ditto. Backups? I have everything backed up to an eSata. But one backup file is of the Windows partition. that only gets a monthly incremental, because really, except for temp files, how much is that gonna change, right? Now the files drive, that gets daily incremental backups at each startup, up to once per day max. I don't bother to back up the Linux OS pertition, because... well... because its Linux!

    Good luck.

  7. #26
    Linux Newbie previso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    116
    Just about anything which went wrong with XP has been fixed. Vista has been a hardware disaster and, 7 is XP with eye candy. If you're planning Linux as your main OS, you won't be keen in paying a 3X footprint for Windows 7 over XP.
    You can add all the eye candy to Linux if you want, but it really adds very little functionality for the $$$ in hardware (VidCard, RAM, CPU)
    As for SSD, the GB per $$ is about 4X that of a HDD.
    Three drives are not an issue for GRUB.

  8. #27
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    76
    How much disk or partition space is sufficient for a host OS for VirtualBox?

    I know it can virtually be anything but I am wondering if 60GB is enough. I figure 100GB+ is way better but I thought if anyone uses VirtualBox can comment?

  9. #28
    Linux Newbie previso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    116
    60 GB should be plenty for vbox XP. I keep 20GB for OS+ M$ Office. (~2 GB)
    Be aware that vbox has a resource penalty, specially in video performance. Don't go in thinking of playing hi-res games, you'll be disappointed.
    You'll be able to share data between vbox folders and Linux host.

  10. #29
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by previso View Post
    60 GB should be plenty for vbox XP. I keep 20GB for OS+ M$ Office. (~2 GB)
    Be aware that vbox has a resource penalty, specially in video performance. Don't go in thinking of playing hi-res games, you'll be disappointed.
    You'll be able to share data between vbox folders and Linux host.
    Thanks so much for this quick reply!! I've been so curious about the answer.

    I know that I need the resources but I thought if I want, say, a Windows OS guest and a Linux OS guest, how large should the host Linux OS be, min.

    I ultimately want a SSD for my host Linux OS and I thought, gee, wouldn't my VirtualBox really fly then? But, those things are expensive so my choices are 60GB, 80GB and 120/128GB. But, the larger capacity drives are expensive yet provide the most options in terms of space.

    My desktop has 4GB of DDR2 RAM and a Q6600 cpu so I can devote a considerable amount of RAM to each guess if I want to and there's two cores I can give a guest, too, right?

    I suspect TRIM and SSDs will advance enough on the Linux side when I do get a drive so until then, my legacy HDD (320GB WD) will be more than sufficient.

  11. #30
    Linux Newbie previso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    116
    A nice thing of vbox is "save state". When you restart your vbox OS it takes only 10 seconds. (kinda what M$ is trying to achieve with the new hybrid ssd/hd). With 320 Gb at hand, you should have no problem allocating space for guest OS.
    I usually don't have more than 2 apps running in host while using vbox XP. In my case, vbox is more convenient than rebooting to XP in the second HD just for that one application. And frankly, it is just a stopgap while I learn to do the things in native Linux. (transcoding video took me 2 months, just because M$ makes one lazy). One exception has been VB.NET. There is no satisfactory equivalent because the code is propietary, but I'm working on it.
    Again, it's just a matter of time before you forget about M$, and you'll become increasingly annoyed by your friends' Windows problems.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •