Partitioning for XP & Linux, How Much for What?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.

So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
partitions:
one for the XP OS,
one for Linux, and
one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
partitions?

How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
arrangement make sense?

My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as a
regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've been
told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then a
reinstall is easier.

And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .

And one more question. When I install a program on the document-program
partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition too?
Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
Files\Common Files , the usual default place?

--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really screw
with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it would
be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux distros
that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot with
the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it up so
that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix enables
you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to reconfigure
everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration to a
USB key.

http://www.knoppix.net/docs/

http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Nehmo Sergheyev" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mAy8d.96442$nA6.86356@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
| I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
| 80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
| as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
| hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.
|
| So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
| partitions:
| one for the XP OS,
| one for Linux, and
| one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
| partitions?
|
| How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
| arrangement make sense?
|
| My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as a
| regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've been
| told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then a
| reinstall is easier.
|
| And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
| interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .
|
| And one more question. When I install a program on the document-program
| partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition too?
| Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
| Files\Common Files , the usual default place?
|
| --
| *********************
| * Nehmo Sergheyev *
| *********************
|
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

- Harry Ohrn -
> You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
> installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
screw
> with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
> alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
would
> be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
distros
> that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
with
> the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
up so
> that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
enables
> you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
reconfigure
> everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
to a
> USB key.
> http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
> Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
> www.webtree.ca/windowsxp

- Nehmo -
Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.


--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Nehmo Sergheyev" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mAy8d.96442$nA6.86356@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
> 80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
> as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
> hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.
>
> So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
> partitions:
> one for the XP OS,
> one for Linux, and
> one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
> partitions?

Linux doesn't need much room. If you set aside 5GB for it, you'll probably
use less than half of that, even with all linux software you want to use
installed. Linux will play nice with Windows if you install Windows first.

I'd suggest:

Install Windows XP, but when it creates partitions, create two partitions.
If your disk was exactly 120GB (it will show up as less than that during
partition creation), then I'd suggest 110GB for Windows, 5GB for Windows
swap file and 5GB NOT partitioned at all. Whatever the actual size of your
hard drive is when you run the partition program, just subtract about
11000MB, and use whatever's left to create a partition to install windows
on. Then create a second partition of about 5000MB for a window swap file.
That should leave about ~6000MB of unpartitioned space on your hard drive.
(linux will be happy to use that)

After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora) During the linux
install, you will need to create at least two partitions including a linux
swap partition. The linux swap file only needs to be about 500MB, so that
will leave plenty of space for other partitions. Obviously, when you are
creating your linux partitions, you should use the previously UNpartitioned
space on your 120GB drive.

In case you are worried about storing large files downloaded or created in
linux, you should keep in mind that linux will mount windows partitions
automatically. Thus you will have a mostly empty windows partition to use
for storage space in linux. Or you can use any free space there is on the
80GB drive you are recycling.

During the linux install, a boot menu will be set up that will allow you to
choose which OS you want to boot.

Whether you experiment with linux or not, you might want to get yourself a
DVDR/W drive and a image program like Ghost or similar (I use acronis true
image). With Windows and all software installed correctly, I am able to
back up my entire hard drive on two DVD-Rom disks. You won't likely have a
problem with linux, but it's good to have a backup anyway. -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Nehmo,

There is another alternative from Linspire (a.k.a Lindows). This is a
simple setup and rather 'mickey mouse' for the true Linux user, but on
the other hand it is very straight forward and gives you the opportunity
to play around with Linux.

I have XP Pro setup on my primary HDD and I just let Linspire do its
thing on the secondary HDD. Linspire does setup as the primary boot when
booting up, but that isn't a big deal.

There had been a deal on www.linspire.com. Somewhere in the ordering
process you will be able to enter a coupon code ( deviant9 ) which will
then give you a credit for the purchase price. I'm not sure if the deal
is still available, but I took advantage of it 2 weeks ago. You also get
a 15 day subscription to their software library.

Wayne

Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
> - Harry Ohrn -
>
>>You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
>>installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
>
> screw
>
>>with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
>>alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
>
> would
>
>>be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
>
> distros
>
>>that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
>
> with
>
>>the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
>
> up so
>
>>that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
>
> enables
>
>>you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
>
> reconfigure
>
>>everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
>
> to a
>
>>USB key.
>>http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
>>http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
>>Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
>>www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>
>
> - Nehmo -
> Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
> and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
> physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
> the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

- wayneP -
> There is another alternative from Linspire (a.k.a Lindows). This is a
> simple setup and rather 'mickey mouse' for the true Linux user, but on
> the other hand it is very straight forward and gives you the
opportunity
> to play around with Linux.
>
> I have XP Pro setup on my primary HDD and I just let Linspire do its
> thing on the secondary HDD. Linspire does setup as the primary boot
when
> booting up, but that isn't a big deal.
>
> There had been a deal on www.linspire.com. Somewhere in the ordering
> process you will be able to enter a coupon code ( deviant9 ) which
will
> then give you a credit for the purchase price. I'm not sure if the
deal
> is still available, but I took advantage of it 2 weeks ago. You also
get
> a 15 day subscription to their software library.

- Nehmo -
I once tired to download Lindows (it was supposed to be free), but I
couldn't download. I never got the problem resolved, but I didn't devote
much time to it. The brief email exchange was discouraging. I'm sure,
however, if I had worked more on the problem, it would have been solved.

Anyway, now I just want to use one of the regular versions of Linux. I
really can't go wrong because I'll always have my XP OS available.

--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Nehmo,

There is another alternative from Linspire (a.k.a Lindows). This is a
simple setup and rather 'mickey mouse' for the true Linux user, but on
the other hand it is very straight forward and gives you the opportunity
to play around with Linux.

I have XP Pro setup on my primary HDD and I just let Linspire do its
thing on the secondary HDD. Linspire does setup as the primary boot when
booting up, but that isn't a big deal.

There had been a deal on www.linspire.com. Somewhere in the ordering
process you will be able to enter a coupon code ( deviant9 ) which will
then give you a credit for the purchase price. I'm not sure if the deal
is still available, but I took advantage of it 2 weeks ago. You also get
a 15 day subscription to their software library.

Wayne

Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
> - Harry Ohrn -
>
>>You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
>>installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
>
> screw
>
>>with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
>>alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
>
> would
>
>>be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
>
> distros
>
>>that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
>
> with
>
>>the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
>
> up so
>
>>that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
>
> enables
>
>>you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
>
> reconfigure
>
>>everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
>
> to a
>
>>USB key.
>>http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
>>http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
>>Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
>>www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>
>
> - Nehmo -
> Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
> and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
> physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
> the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:

> - Harry Ohrn -
>> You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
>> installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
> screw
>> with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
>> alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
> would
>> be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
> distros
>> that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
> with
>> the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
> up so
>> that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
> enables
>> you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
> reconfigure
>> everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
> to a
>> USB key.
>> http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
>> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
>> Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
>> www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>
> - Nehmo -
> Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
> and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
> physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
> the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.

If your primary OS is Windows XP and you just want to dink around with Unix
(note--Linux is just one flavor of Unix--if you can drive one flavor of
Unix you can generally figure out another one without too much trouble) a
little, then install Cygwin <http://www.cygwin.com>--you can get a very
good feel for it and at the same time use its capabilities in conjunction
with Windows. If you want to go a little deeper, then pay Microsoft the
hundred bucks for Virtual PC and then install whatever flavor of Unix you
like on the virtual machine. Works far better than one would expect.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:
> Linux will play nice with Windows if you install Windows first.
>
> [......]
> After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
> THEN install linux.
> [.......]
> During the linux install, a boot menu will be set up that will
> allow you to choose which OS you want to boot.
>
> Whether you experiment with linux or not, you might want to
> get yourself a DVDR/W drive and a image program like
> Ghost or similar (I use acronis true image). With Windows
> and all software installed correctly, I am able to back up my
> entire hard drive on two DVD-Rom disks.


Do you use the WinXP multi-boot capability for choosing
between Windows and Linux? Is that why you choose to install
WinXP first?

I assume you run Ghost from the Windows partition. How
is it at cloning/copying a Linux partition? Can it copy a Linux
system *to* your system drive to be bootable?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

It's not THAT hard to setup partitions so that you can install linux &
windows on the same drive. Especially now that recent versions of various
bootloaders don't need to be installed in the first 1024 cylinders.

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:22:54 -0600, Harry Ohrn <harry---@webtree.ca> wrote:

> You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
> installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really screw
> with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
> alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
> would
> be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux distros
> that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot with
> the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it up
> so
> that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix enables
> you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
> reconfigure
> everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
> to a
> USB key.
>
> http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
>
> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Nehmo Sergheyev <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
> 80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
> as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
> hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.

> So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
> partitions:
> one for the XP OS,
> one for Linux, and
> one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
> partitions?

Yes, that would be better. Use FAT32 for the windows partitions
and ext2/3 for the Linux partitions. One reason is that FAT32
does not support the Unix/Linux permission model to a reasonable
degree.

> How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
> arrangement make sense?

For Linux I use Debian sarge (download form the net, needs
DSL/Cable modem to be comfortable) and generally have found
6GB for the root partition to be generous if a lot and large
apps are installed. Same for data, unless you plan to
put media files in there. For XP you also need something
like 4GB for the OS and swap-file. Install applications
preferrably not on c:.

Also advisable is a 500MB (or so) partition for Linux swap space.
As bootloader I would advise Grub, which can boot both
Linux and XP without problems.

> My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as a
> regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've been
> told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then a
> reinstall is easier.

I would advise doing the backup with Linux. If the Windows partitons
are FAT32 that works well.

> And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
> interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .

If you have a fats internet connectivity, I advise to go for
Debian Sarge (testing). A bit confusing in the begionning, but
once you did the first major update without even a reboot,
you will be convinced.

> And one more question. When I install a program on the document-program
> partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition too?
> Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
> Files\Common Files , the usual default place?

You should have all programms store their data in the document
partition. The problem is that Windows has a tendency to foul up the
c: partition in a way that only a complete cleanup of that partition
helps. If your data and apps are elsewere, they still work.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Sorry about the double posting. I posted from Linspire for the first time
and must have done something wrong. I got some kind of a error message
during first attempt at posting; so I reposted. Must be the error didn't
keep the first post from going through .

Wayne

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2sg6h8F1gsp3eU2@uni-berlin.de...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Nehmo Sergheyev <nehmo54@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
>> 80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
>> as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
>> hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.
>
>> So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
>> partitions:
>> one for the XP OS,
>> one for Linux, and
>> one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
>> partitions?
>
> Yes, that would be better. Use FAT32 for the windows partitions
> and ext2/3 for the Linux partitions. One reason is that FAT32
> does not support the Unix/Linux permission model to a reasonable
> degree.
>
>> How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
>> arrangement make sense?
>
> For Linux I use Debian sarge (download form the net, needs
> DSL/Cable modem to be comfortable) and generally have found
> 6GB for the root partition to be generous if a lot and large
> apps are installed. Same for data, unless you plan to
> put media files in there. For XP you also need something
> like 4GB for the OS and swap-file. Install applications
> preferrably not on c:.
>
> Also advisable is a 500MB (or so) partition for Linux swap space.
> As bootloader I would advise Grub, which can boot both
> Linux and XP without problems.
>
>> My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as a
>> regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've been
>> told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then a
>> reinstall is easier.
>
> I would advise doing the backup with Linux. If the Windows partitons
> are FAT32 that works well.
>
>> And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
>> interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .
>
> If you have a fats internet connectivity, I advise to go for
> Debian Sarge (testing). A bit confusing in the begionning, but
> once you did the first major update without even a reboot,
> you will be convinced.
>
>> And one more question. When I install a program on the document-program
>> partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition too?
>> Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
>> Files\Common Files , the usual default place?
>
> You should have all programms store their data in the document
> partition. The problem is that Windows has a tendency to foul up the
> c: partition in a way that only a complete cleanup of that partition
> helps. If your data and apps are elsewere, they still work.
>
> Arno
> --
> For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
> GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
> "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:32:37 -0400, Dave C. <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

> In case you are worried about storing large files downloaded or created
> in
> linux, you should keep in mind that linux will mount windows partitions
> automatically. Thus you will have a mostly empty windows partition to
> use
> for storage space in linux.

If you intend to do that, you should remember that linux currently doesn't
support writing to NTFS partitions (the XP default). You will need to
format the XP partition as FAT32.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
>>
>>
>>>- Harry Ohrn -
>>>
>>>>You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
>>>>installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
>>>
>>>screw
>>>
>>>>with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
>>>>alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
>>>
>>>would
>>>
>>>>be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
>>>
>>>distros
>>>
>>>>that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
>>>
>>>with
>>>
>>>>the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
>>>
>>>up so
>>>
>>>>that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
>>>
>>>enables
>>>
>>>>you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
>>>
>>>reconfigure
>>>
>>>>everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
>>>
>>>to a
>>>
>>>>USB key.
>>>>http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
>>>>http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
>>>>Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
>>>>www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>>>
>>>- Nehmo -
>>>Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
>>>and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
>>>physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
>>>the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.
>>
>>
>> If your primary OS is Windows XP and you just want to dink around with
>> Unix (note--Linux is just one flavor of Unix--if you can drive one flavor
>> of Unix you can generally figure out another one without too much
>> trouble) a little, then install Cygwin <http://www.cygwin.com>--you can
>> get a very good feel for it and at the same time use its capabilities in
>> conjunction
>> with Windows. If you want to go a little deeper, then pay Microsoft the
>> hundred bucks for Virtual PC and then install whatever flavor of Unix you
>> like on the virtual machine. Works far better than one would expect.
>>
>
> That is pretty much wrongheaded. The OP should just try Linux, and so
> should you.

Next time you're tempted to spout off in this fashion, check headers first.
Want some ketchup for that foot?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
>linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)

You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
previously-installed Linux partition. So, basically, you're screwed
for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
regard as kludges).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Nehmo Sergheyev" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ZNA8d.96449$nA6.6376@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:

> I once tired to download Lindows (it was supposed to be free), but
> I couldn't download. I never got the problem resolved, but I
> didn't devote much time to it. The brief email exchange was
> discouraging. I'm sure, however, if I had worked more on the
> problem, it would have been solved.

You should try and resolve the problem. I've tried several distros of
Linux and only Mandrake 10.1 or Mandrake 10.0RC1 64bit or, believe it
or not, Linspire, will find and install correctly all my hardware! I'm
impressed but I believe Linspire could become costly over time if you
needed a lot of software?

Anyway, back to WindowsXP and Windows XP 64-bit edition as Linux isn't
quite what I need.... yet....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:43:56 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
>
>> After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN
>> install
>> linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
>
> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
> Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
> documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
>
> Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
> previously-installed Linux partition. So, basically, you're screwed
> for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
> regard as kludges).


You what? Since when? I've just installed Gentoo 2004.2 with 2.6, lilo &
no problems whatsoever. I don't see why the kernel should affect how the
boot works, since its not loaded until after you start booting linux.

Of course, since I haven't yet bothered to go google for it, could well be
talking outta my ass, so feel free to ignore me if thats the case....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
>>linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)

> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
> Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
> documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Huh? I have been using stock 2.6.x up to 2.6.9-rc2 without any
problem like this. Care to give a reference? Or is this just
a problem of Fedora?

> Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
> previously-installed Linux partition.

Not if you create the installation partition with Linux. At least
I have done this successfully several times.

> So, basically, you're screwed
> for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
> regard as kludges).

"Huh?" again: Lilo and Grub do the job without problem. And they
are not "third-party".

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>>>If your primary OS is Windows XP and you just want to dink around with
>>>>Unix (note--Linux is just one flavor of Unix--if you can drive one
>>>>flavor of Unix you can generally figure out another one without too much
>>>>trouble) a little, then install Cygwin <http://www.cygwin.com>--you can
>>>>get a very good feel for it and at the same time use its capabilities in
>>>>conjunction
>>>>with Windows. If you want to go a little deeper, then pay Microsoft the
>>>>hundred bucks for Virtual PC and then install whatever flavor of Unix
>>>>you
>>>>like on the virtual machine. Works far better than one would expect.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is pretty much wrongheaded. The OP should just try Linux, and so
>>>should you.
>>
>>
>> Next time you're tempted to spout off in this fashion, check headers
>> first. Want some ketchup for that foot?
>>
>
> Nah, but thanks for asking!
>
> Cygwin is good if you must run Windows, but the OP is able to install
> and run Linux.

Yes, he is, and that might be the most attractive alternative for him, but
just because he can doesn't mean that doing so is the most desirable
alternative for him.

> You want him to pay $100 (to Microsoft!) for Virtual PC and then pay
> again for "whatever flavor of Unix you like"? I confess I don't know
> what the options are in this regard. How much would you have him spend
> for Unix (what "flavor"?) on top of Virtual PC?

The only major Unix variants that are not available under an open license
are Solaris and SCO System V. NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux are all
open-source and available at no charge. Personally I'm partial to Gentoo
Linux, but others have other preferences.

> I'd like to know what specific belief or assumption is making you come
> up with these odd approaches. It sound like you don't want to reboot.

I don't find it an "odd approach" at all. If you come from the mainframe
world the use of virtual machines is SOP--it's very, very old technology,
commercially available since the late '60s or early '70s. If you've never
used one you might want to try it. Personally I find the notion that you
must reboot to run a different OS on a machine that was designed to support
virtual operation is the "odd approach". The use of a virtual machine is
_much_ more convenient that repeated rebooting. Yes, there's a performance
penalty, but if you're doing something that critical it should have a
dedicated machine anyway.

> By the way, Linux is not Unix.

By what reasoning? If you mean that it can't legally be called that as a
brand name because SCO owns the brand, that is true, but that is also true
of Solaris, NetBSD, and FreeBSD among others. If you mean that the code is
not derived from AT&T source, that is also true but again the same is true
of NetBSD and FreeBSD, both of which were sanitized so as to allow them to
be made open-source. Now, you may think that NetBSD and FreeBSD are also
not Unix, but in that case you are most assuredly in the minority. If you
mean that it's not good enough for production use, IBM is providing it as
an alternative on their mainframes, either natively or under VM. If it
wasn't ready for prime time businesses wouldn't be putting it on
multimillion dollar hardware.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Matt" wrote:
>> "Dave C." wrote:
>>
>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
>>>THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
>>
>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
>
> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.


Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@nospamdot.com> wrote:
> "Matt" wrote:
>>> "Dave C." wrote:
>>>
>>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
>>>>THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
>>>
>>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
>>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
>>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
>>
>> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
>> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.


> Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
> Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
> or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?

What about using a bootmanager from Linux (in the widest sense)?
The bootmanager form XP is perhaps the worst choice possible.

Grub or LILO can boot XP just fine. And yes, I have XP and
Linux on the same disk in my laptop, and have a linux recovery
system on the first disk in my desktop, were also XP is on the
same disk. The main Linux system in on RAID1 and only half on
the first disk...

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Arno Wagner" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> "Matt" wrote:
>>>> "Dave C." wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
>>>>>THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
>>>>
>>>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
>>>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
>>>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
>>>
>>> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
>>> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.
>
>
>> Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
>> Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
>> or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?
>
> What about using a bootmanager from Linux (in the widest sense)?
> The bootmanager form XP is perhaps the worst choice possible.
>
> Grub or LILO can boot XP just fine. And yes, I have XP and
> Linux on the same disk in my laptop, and have a linux recovery
> system on the first disk in my desktop, were also XP is on the
> same disk. The main Linux system in on RAID1 and only half on
> the first disk...


Do Grub and LILO run under Linux, or are they stand-alone?
IOW, can they be used for Windows-only systems?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Malke]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> Do Grub and LILO run under Linux, or are they stand-alone?
> IOW, can they be used for Windows-only systems?
>
> *TimDaniels*

No, Grub and the older LILO (Linux Loader) are boot managers for Linux
systems which can boot non-Linux systems too if you install it in the
MBR. Windows XP has its own boot manager which can boot Windows
operating systems, and there are third-party boot managers for Windows
that can boot Windows and non-Windows operating systems. BootIT NG is
one, Boot Magic is another.

Malke
--
MS MVP - Windows Shell/User
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Matt" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> "Matt" wrote:
>>
>>>> "Dave C." wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
>>>>> THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
>>>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
>>>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
>>> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
>
> XP on the first disk. FC2, SUSE, and FreeBSD on the second disk.
>
>> Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
>> or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?
>
> I use GRUB (Grand Unified Boot Loader) on the MBR of the first disk so
> that it points to a grub.conf file in the /boot directory of the FC2
> installation. That grub.conf is a specification of a boot menu and of
> the locations of the several OSes. I find GRUB's documents easier than
> LILO's, and LILO is partly deprecated.


Before I do a Google search, do you have any hot tips on where
to find the best documentation on these boot managers? Must
GRUB run under Linux/UNIX? Can it reside on a partition formatted
for NTFS (if, indeed, it resides on a partition)?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@nospamdot.com> wrote:
> "Arno Wagner" wrote:
>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>> "Matt" wrote:
>>>>> "Dave C." wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
>>>>>>THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
>>>>>
>>>>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
>>>>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
>>>>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
>>>>
>>>> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
>>>> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.
>>
>>
>>> Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
>>> Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
>>> or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?
>>
>> What about using a bootmanager from Linux (in the widest sense)?
>> The bootmanager form XP is perhaps the worst choice possible.
>>
>> Grub or LILO can boot XP just fine. And yes, I have XP and
>> Linux on the same disk in my laptop, and have a linux recovery
>> system on the first disk in my desktop, were also XP is on the
>> same disk. The main Linux system in on RAID1 and only half on
>> the first disk...


> Do Grub and LILO run under Linux, or are they stand-alone?
> IOW, can they be used for Windows-only systems?

For booting both can do without Linux. Configuration is a
different question.

LILO has to be configured with Linux.

For Grub I have to admit I am not sure. Interactive mode
from a floppy can be used with any configuration on the HDD
also one that does not include Linux. However you have to
specify everything manually, so this is more of an emergency
option.

For HDD installation of Grub and/or adjusted configuration, I think
you need a running GNU Mach, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD.

However, why not installing a small Linux, say 200MB partition
size or so, just with a text editor and lilo or Grub configuration?
You can use e.g. a minimal Debian system for this. If
you dont use X, sound, mouse, etc. configuration is essentially
a non-issue.

Alternatively you can also use a Linux CD, e.g. a Knoppix
variant to maintain the bootloader.

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus