Can anyone explain ubuntu/linux

[yenrod]

To me

Is it worth it - does it work better than Vista

Is it smaller on the drive :?:

Will it be quicker :?:

Vista aint bad but something really simple rather than 'system massive' and 'can get confused', at times, would appeal :?:

 

[yello]

It's campag v shimano yenners.

Pays your money and takes your choice.... except you don't pay anything for the linux operating system or applications. Reason enough in itself some would say!

 

[Garz]

Well.. hmm

Yes, depends on what you want it to do.

Probably.

Not necessarily so, this is hardware dependant then secondary bloatware dependant.

Last one isnt really a question, more of an observation/statement.

 

[Dilbert]

You can download an image for a live disc for ubuntu so you can try it without committing yourself to installing it. Also you can install it (and other Linux Distributions) on a system that has Windows as a dual boot so you can use either. I use Linux (Fedora Core 10) on this machine dual booted with XP and it is quicker to boot up and shut down and seems to hold the wireless connection better. There is loads of free software available for it and it is getting quite user friendly.
There are hundreds of different versions tailored for different uses but Ubuntu is a good general one, as is Fedora.
HTH

Alasdair

 

[rh100]

The thing is - the more user friendly it becomes etc, and moves away from the enthusiast to the average user, the more it will be compared to Windows, and will fall short because of a lack of specific driver support from the manufacturers. Ok so it's free - so is Windows effectively free for the majority of users - it comes with the hardware and the licence can be reused on subsequent PC upgrades. I don't think PC's in general will come cheaper installed with Linux instead of Windows - if it does become common the prices will creep up so buyers don't get the benefit anyway.

As for Vista being flaky, ask why is it flaky - probably because the hardware isn't quite good enough. I recall when upgrading to Win 2000 from Win98 - crashing all the time on a couple of systems - changed the RAM for same spec but higher quality, the problems went away (I'm not saying that is a fix all). Vista won't sit well on older hardware, and the protected operating environment didn't help peoples perception of it, along with the slow provision of drivers. Windows 7 seems to have redressed some of the problems - seems to be able to run the hardware out of the box with it's own set of drivers. I reckon give it six months for the bugs to be ironed out and get Win 7. Just about any type of software can be found for free - same as Linux software.

I think the strength of linux is the different flavours, for netbooks, server's etc. Ubuntu seems to be the desktop choice. If you're not an enthusiast, I really wonder why put it on a desktop?

The live disc is a good choice - a way of previewing it. Be carefull of dual boot - very easy to scrub your windows install.

 

[beanzontoast]

Seconding rh100's comment about being wary of dual boot situations.

I've run dual boot Xp with Ubuntu and Xp with SuSE as well. I also dual boot Xp with Windows 7 on another machine. Undoing a Linux dual boot situation and reverting to single boot can be tricky. In particular, I found getting rid of Grub wasn't at all straightforward first time I had to do it.

In the Xp - Windows 7 situation, when removing Windows 7, the bootloader nevertheless insisted on asking me at startup which OS I wanted to run - even though Windows 7 had been completely uninstalled. To get rid of this, I had to do a 'repair' reinstall of Xp (which at least had the benefit of preserving all the installed programs and files) and then run Windows update - something like 50-odd of them - to get Xp back up to full functioning. (Example - the Xp reinstall put IE 6 back: suddenly all my existing IE bookmarks reported errors. Only reinstalling IE8 put it right). Quite a faff.

So, the live cd option may well be a good alternative.

 

[HJ]

To me

Is it worth it - does it work better than Vista :?:

Yes

Is it smaller on the drive :?:

Yes

Will it be quicker :?:

Define quicker? It will certainly boot and shut down faster, as to whether application run faster, that is harder to say....

Vista aint bad but something really simple rather than 'system massive' and 'can get confused', at times, would appeal :?:

If you want to try it, it is easy:

• just download a copy,
• burn it to a CD,
• then reboot your system and hold down F12 (or which ever key you need to get into the BIOS),
• choose boot from CD and follow the instructions.

It can run from the CD without making any changes to your computer. If you decide that to like it, then there is an icon on the desktop which will let you install it on you computer alongside Vista, so that you have the choice of OS in the future, known as Dual Booting.

 

[HJ]

Seconding rh100's comment about being wary of dual boot situations.

I've run dual boot Xp with Ubuntu and Xp with SuSE as well. I also dual boot Xp with Windows 7 on another machine. Undoing a Linux dual boot situation and reverting to single boot can be tricky. In particular, I found getting rid of Grub wasn't at all straightforward first time I had to do it.

In the Xp - Windows 7 situation, when removing Windows 7, the bootloader nevertheless insisted on asking me at startup which OS I wanted to run - even though Windows 7 had been completely uninstalled. To get rid of this, I had to do a 'repair' reinstall of Xp (which at least had the benefit of preserving all the installed programs and files) and then run Windows update - something like 50-odd of them - to get Xp back up to full functioning. (Example - the Xp reinstall put IE 6 back: suddenly all my existing IE bookmarks reported errors. Only reinstalling IE8 put it right). Quite a faff.

So, the live cd option may well be a good alternative.

I would disagree, getting rid of Grub is easy if you no longer want to run Linux, if there is one thing that Windows is good at, it is over writing other software. All you need to do is overwrite MBR.

Using MS-DOS/Windows 9x boot disk:

In order to remove the GRUB bootloader from a Linux and Windows XP machine, boot with a Windows 9x start up disk or CD and execute the MS-DOS command:

fdisk /mbr

Using Windows XP boot disk

Boot computer using Windows XP (Windows 2000) setup disc / CD / DVD. Next, type the following commands:

# fixmbr
# exit

None of these methods will effect your existing windows installation, as they only deal with the MBR, just reboot and you will go straight into Windows as before. However, if you really want to do things the hard way, reinstall of XP, which could also reformat your hard drive at the same time

 

[Deleted member 1258]

Moved to Ubuntu beginning of the year, started dual booting with XP, after a few weeks got rid of XP and been on Ubuntu ever since. It does what I want, is quick, stable, and rarely gives me grief, if it does give me grief theres a good forum and plenty of information around to help me solve it, I am a computer user with very limited technical knowledge.

 

[ASC1951]

Is it worth it - does it work better than Vista

I think most OS are better than Vista. Certainly XP is.

 

[beanzontoast]

I would disagree, getting rid of Grub is easy if you no longer want to run Linux, if there is one thing that Windows is good at, it is over writing other software. All you need to do is overwrite MBR.

Using MS-DOS/Windows 9x boot disk:

In order to remove the GRUB bootloader from a Linux and Windows XP machine, boot with a Windows 9x start up disk or CD and execute the MS-DOS command:

fdisk /mbr

Using Windows XP boot disk

Boot computer using Windows XP (Windows 2000) setup disc / CD / DVD. Next, type the following commands:

# fixmbr
# exit

None of these methods will effect your existing windows installation, as they only deal with the MBR, just reboot and you will go straight into Windows as before. However, if you really want to do things the hard way, reinstall of XP, which could also reformat your hard drive at the same time

Indeedy. I have used both methods in the past.

My point is that rather than someone who is trying out Linux for the first time getting embroiled in fixing the MBR when they decide to go back to single booting (something most people would want to avoid: I had to find out how to do it by Googling the first time), the live cd offers a better option for getting used to the Linux way of doing things.

 

[rh100]

Indeedy. I have used both methods in the past.

My point is that rather than someone who is trying out Linux for the first time getting embroiled in fixing the MBR when they decide to go back to single booting (something most people would want to avoid: I had to find out how to do it by Googling the first time), the live cd offers a better option for getting used to the Linux way of doing things.

+1

Another alternative - get an old drive - mount in the case next to the main one - and just swap over the cables - quick and easy and keeps the other drive safe. I use this method if really unsure - but the MBR fix described by HJ is quicker than a reload I agree, which should not be necessary. The main risk is overwriting the partition of Windows when installing the other OS.

Startup and recovery options in system properties should allow you to change the default OS and timer on bootup - assuming you can get into Windows in the first place. Otherwise the MBR fix is the best thing to learn to save time.

 

[HJ]

+1

Another alternative - get an old drive - mount in the case next to the main one - and just swap over the cables - quick and easy and keeps the other drive safe. I use this method if really unsure - but the MBR fix described by HJ is quicker than a reload I agree, which should not be necessary. The main risk is overwriting the partition of Windows when installing the other OS.

Startup and recovery options in system properties should allow you to change the default OS and timer on bootup - assuming you can get into Windows in the first place. Otherwise the MBR fix is the best thing to learn to save time.

If you are using a recent Ubuntu distro (or similar) the risk of overwriting the partition of Windows is remote, most main stream Linux distro and well behaved and have their own GUI partitioning tools as part of the install process. Whereas installing Window will always over write the whole disk, with no regard for any other software...

 

[rh100]

If you are using a recent Ubuntu distro (or similar) the risk of overwriting the partition of Windows is remote, most main stream Linux distro and well behaved and have their own GUI partitioning tools as part of the install process. Whereas installing Window will always over write the whole disk, with no regard for any other software...

Not true if you select the right options - you can delete pations and do quick formats from the install menu - Vista and 7 have a GUI where XP and previous had DOS based shells. But I take your point that they have made it easier (I think when i tried Ubuntu it was V7).

One thing to make it easier - is rename your partitions something like Vista or XP or whatever - and then you won't be trying to double guess which partition to write over.

 

[solmisation]

Another way to try out Ubuntu is to install it via Wubi, download the Wubi install file and run it, you will be asked if you want to install Ubuntu,Kubuntu or Xubuntu, next you will be asked how much space you want to allocate( min is approx 4Gb) and finally you set a password. Wubi then creates a folder on your hard drive and Ubuntu is run from within this folder( virtual drive). On start up you get the option to boot Windows or Ubuntu (Grub menu).
If you find you don't like Ubuntu go to the program list in Windows, find Wubi and simply uninstall.