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.
- 02-23-2010 #21
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
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!
- 02-24-2010 #22
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!).
- 02-24-2010 #23
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.
- 02-24-2010 #24
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
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?
- 02-25-2010 #25
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
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!
- 02-25-2010 #26
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.
- 03-22-2010 #27
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
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?
- 03-22-2010 #28
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.
- 03-22-2010 #29
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
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.
- 03-22-2010 #30
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.