Linux version for dual booting? - Setup

This is a discussion on Linux version for dual booting? - Setup ; Hi all, A friend has a laptop with XPH on it. He is tired of all the hassles with viruses etc... He has asked me to put Linux on it in dual boot mode. It has a 40G hard drive. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Linux version for dual booting?

  1. Linux version for dual booting?

    Hi all,

    A friend has a laptop with XPH on it. He is tired of
    all the hassles with viruses etc... He has asked me
    to put Linux on it in dual boot mode. It has a 40G
    hard drive. I plan to "shrink" the Windows partition
    with Partition Magic down to around 20G. But
    after that I am at a quandry about with distro is the
    easiest for dual boot with a "beginner". Any thoughts?

    thanks,
    charles....



  2. Re: Linux version for dual booting?

    On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:58:25 GMT, ***** charles wrote:

    > I am at a quandry about with distro is the easiest
    > for dual boot with a "beginner". Any thoughts?


    Speaking as a Linux (but not computing) beginner, I can cast a strong
    vote for Ubuntu. I've not tried any other recent distribution, though,
    so my vote isn't a fully-informed one.


  3. Re: Linux version for dual booting?


    ***** charles wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > A friend has a laptop with XPH on it. He is tired of
    > all the hassles with viruses etc... He has asked me
    > to put Linux on it in dual boot mode. It has a 40G
    > hard drive. I plan to "shrink" the Windows partition
    > with Partition Magic down to around 20G. But
    > after that I am at a quandry about with distro is the
    > easiest for dual boot with a "beginner". Any thoughts?
    >
    > thanks,
    > charles....


    If the laptop is not wildly antique, be careful to shrink the XP
    partition to the beginning of the disk, partition 1. Modern Linuxes and
    modern laptops can easily boot this way, and if you re-arrange the
    partitions such as making the XP partition at the *end* of the disk to
    ease handling Linux boot loaders, you risk winding up with your
    partitions out of order by usingi Partition Magic. This is known to
    seriously screw up some Linux installers: SuSE 9.2 was ghods-awful
    about it.

    I'm fond of RedHat releases, for stability and managability reasons:
    they take the idea of an actual release version seriously. And various
    industry grade tools work well there and are supported, in ways that
    some of the numerous Debian variants such as Ubunto are not. But tastes
    vary.

    Perhaps, to get a feel for it, you can boot with some live CD
    distributions and see if you like the interfaces?


  4. Re: Linux version for dual booting?


    ***** charles wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > A friend has a laptop with XPH on it. He is tired of
    > all the hassles with viruses etc... He has asked me
    > to put Linux on it in dual boot mode. It has a 40G
    > hard drive. I plan to "shrink" the Windows partition
    > with Partition Magic down to around 20G. But
    > after that I am at a quandry about with distro is the
    > easiest for dual boot with a "beginner". Any thoughts?
    >
    > thanks,
    > charles....


    If the laptop is not wildly antique, be careful to shrink the XP
    partition to the beginning of the disk, partition 1. Modern Linuxes and
    modern laptops can easily boot this way, and if you re-arrange the
    partitions such as making the XP partition at the *end* of the disk to
    ease handling Linux boot loaders, you risk winding up with your
    partitions out of order by usingi Partition Magic. This is known to
    seriously screw up some Linux installers: SuSE 9.2 was ghods-awful
    about it.

    I'm fond of RedHat releases, for stability and managability reasons:
    they take the idea of an actual release version seriously. And various
    industry grade tools work well there and are supported, in ways that
    some of the numerous Debian variants such as Ubunto are not. But tastes
    vary.

    Perhaps, to get a feel for it, you can boot with some live CD
    distributions and see if you like the interfaces?


  5. Re: Linux version for dual booting?


    Nico wrote:
    > ***** charles wrote:
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > A friend has a laptop with XPH on it. He is tired of
    > > all the hassles with viruses etc... He has asked me
    > > to put Linux on it in dual boot mode. It has a 40G
    > > hard drive. I plan to "shrink" the Windows partition
    > > with Partition Magic down to around 20G. But
    > > after that I am at a quandry about with distro is the
    > > easiest for dual boot with a "beginner". Any thoughts?
    > >
    > > thanks,
    > > charles....

    >
    > If the laptop is not wildly antique, be careful to shrink the XP
    > partition to the beginning of the disk, partition 1. Modern Linuxes and
    > modern laptops can easily boot this way, and if you re-arrange the
    > partitions such as making the XP partition at the *end* of the disk to
    > ease handling Linux boot loaders, you risk winding up with your
    > partitions out of order by usingi Partition Magic. This is known to
    > seriously screw up some Linux installers: SuSE 9.2 was ghods-awful
    > about it.
    >
    > I'm fond of RedHat releases, for stability and managability reasons:
    > they take the idea of an actual release version seriously. And various
    > industry grade tools work well there and are supported, in ways that
    > some of the numerous Debian variants such as Ubunto are not. But tastes
    > vary.
    >
    > Perhaps, to get a feel for it, you can boot with some live CD
    > distributions and see if you like the interfaces?


    I starded with mandriva Linux. It is the best way to start with linux
    chiers mate


  6. Re: Linux version for dual booting?

    On Oct 21, 10:58 am, "***** charles" wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > A friend has a laptop with XPH on it. He is tired of
    > all the hassles with viruses etc... He has asked me
    > to put Linux on it in dual boot mode. It has a 40G
    > hard drive. I plan to "shrink" the Windows partition
    > with Partition Magic down to around 20G. But
    > after that I am at a quandry about with distro is the
    > easiest for dual boot with a "beginner". Any thoughts?


    Hi Charles,

    Well, opinions vary and there are many good distributions to choose
    from.

    Since its a laptop, I'd gravitate toward SuSE as their support for
    wireless devices is quite good -- not that you can't tweak any other
    distro to work, you can, but SuSE is pretty easy to recognise, install
    and configure it.

    Fedora is also always a good choice. It is very well supported by the
    community and just about all packages are available.

    I'd stay away from Partition Magic though. Just about all modern
    distros can shrink that partition for you during install, any of them
    would be better than using partition magic, I bet. The things that
    program does to your disk are just not very compatible with linux.

    Tom


  7. Re: Linux version for dual booting?

    "Michael DeBusk" wrote in
    message news:s_r_g.10487$Lv3.9624@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...
    > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:58:25 GMT,
    > ***** charles wrote:
    >
    > > I am at a quandry about with distro is the easiest
    > > for dual boot with a "beginner". Any thoughts?

    >
    > Speaking as a Linux (but not computing) beginner, I can cast a strong
    > vote for Ubuntu. I've not tried any other recent distribution, though,
    > so my vote isn't a fully-informed one.


    I tried Ubuntu 6.06 DT i386 on the laptop in question. The X
    server crashed. Appearently the video subsystem is "to new"
    for any of the drivers. ATI Radeon Mobility 200M.

    later....



  8. Re: Linux version for dual booting?


    ***** charles wrote:

    > "Michael DeBusk" wrote in
    > message news:s_r_g.10487$Lv3.9624@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...
    > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:58:25 GMT,
    > > ***** charles wrote:
    > >
    > > > I am at a quandry about with distro is the easiest
    > > > for dual boot with a "beginner". Any thoughts?

    > >
    > > Speaking as a Linux (but not computing) beginner, I can cast a strong
    > > vote for Ubuntu. I've not tried any other recent distribution, though,
    > > so my vote isn't a fully-informed one.

    >
    > I tried Ubuntu 6.06 DT i386 on the laptop in question. The X
    > server crashed. Appearently the video subsystem is "to new"
    > for any of the drivers. ATI Radeon Mobility 200M.


    Yeah, laptops are the hardest systems for configuring. They tend to
    have new graphics chipsets that no one in the Linux world has had the
    time or energy to integrate new drivers for, and other strange
    peripheral chipsets that can be very difficult to integrate. It's why I
    prefer not to work with brand new laptops, but those that are about six
    years old, so some other person has the opportunity to work out and
    publish any difficult workarounds.


+ Reply to Thread