Ubuntu installation problem
I am trying to install Ubuntu 7.04 on a system for my mother in law. It boots from the CD OK and works fine as a "Live CD" system. However, when I start the 'Install' program to actually install on the hard disk the window the Install program opens is too large and can't be resized such that the important buttons at the bottom appear on the screen. Thus I can't progress the install. Is this a problem that anyone else has seen? Any ideas on how to fix it? -- Chris Green
Is this a problem that anyone else has seen? Any ideas on how to fix it?
Nope, but I'd suggest using the Alternate CD - which is the old skool non-live CD version ... should work just as well and generally avoids any of the auto-detect graphical issues that LiveCDs can experience. Peter.
On 05-Jun-07 15:33:48, Chris G wrote:
I am trying to install Ubuntu 7.04 on a system for my mother in law.
It boots from the CD OK and works fine as a "Live CD" system.
However, when I start the 'Install' program to actually install on the hard disk the window the Install program opens is too large and can't be resized such that the important buttons at the bottom appear on the screen. Thus I can't progress the install.
Is this a problem that anyone else has seen? Any ideas on how to fix it?
-- Chris Green
The Ubuntu CD (at least both 6.06 and6.10, which I have) gives you a brief opportunity to tune various things when the inital "splash" screen comes up. For VGA resolution press F4. But be poised: you have 30 seconds! Hoping this helps, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <ted.harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 05-Jun-07 Time: 17:03:06 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On 05-Jun-07 16:03:08, Ted Harding wrote:
On 05-Jun-07 15:33:48, Chris G wrote:
I am trying to install Ubuntu 7.04 on a system for my mother in law.
It boots from the CD OK and works fine as a "Live CD" system.
However, when I start the 'Install' program to actually install on the hard disk the window the Install program opens is too large and can't be resized such that the important buttons at the bottom appear on the screen. Thus I can't progress the install.
Is this a problem that anyone else has seen? Any ideas on how to fix it?
-- Chris Green
The Ubuntu CD (at least both 6.06 and6.10, which I have) gives you a brief opportunity to tune various things when the inital "splash" screen comes up. For VGA resolution press F4.
But be poised: you have 30 seconds!
Hoping this helps, Ted.
I just tried the above on Ubuntu-6.10m and I don't think it would work, since while (set at 640x480) it made a distinct difference to the pre-X VGA screen, once the X screen came up it was (correctly) autodetected at 1024x768. So the VGA setting does not carry through to the X screen. However (and it's not clear from your original query) you may have at the top of the X screen 3 buttons, one of which is "System". If you click on this, then "Preferences", then "Screen Resolution" you can change it. I tried this on my 1024x768 TFT monitor, and it worked (though the result was a bit ugly). Or maybe Ubuntu 7.04 has changed its layout so that those 3 buttons are now at the bottom of (and therefore off) the screen? In which case you won't be able to follow the above, of course. However, I groped around (stabbing blindly) for keyboard shortcuts, and discovered the folllowing: Alt-F1 followed by Right-Arrow twice Equivalent to clicking on "System". Next: Down-Arrow followed by Right-Arrow Equivalent to clicking on "Preferences". Next: Down-Arrow 16 times Takes you toe "Screen Resolution". Press Return and you get the dialogue box to change the resolution. Maybe this will help! (Might be different for 7.10, though; you may need to try the LiveCD on another machine where you can see everything, just to check the details). Hmmm! Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 05-Jun-07 Time: 19:25:23 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:25:49PM +0100, Ted Harding wrote:
However (and it's not clear from your original query) you may have at the top of the X screen 3 buttons, one of which is "System". If you click on this, then "Preferences", then "Screen Resolution" you can change it. I tried this on my 1024x768 TFT monitor, and it worked (though the result was a bit ugly).
The problem is that the install program expects a screen resolution of 1024x768 but the live CD only allows 640x480 or 800x600 with the Matrox card I happen to have on this system.
Or maybe Ubuntu 7.04 has changed its layout so that those 3 buttons are now at the bottom of (and therefore off) the screen? In which case you won't be able to follow the above, of course.
It turns out that ALT-LeftButton allows the installer window to be dragged which allowed me to complete the install. I now need to get a serial mouse working with Ubuntu. -- Chris Green
On 6/5/07, Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
The problem is that the install program expects a screen resolution of 1024x768 but the live CD only allows 640x480 or 800x600 with the Matrox card I happen to have on this system.
It turns out that ALT-LeftButton allows the installer window to be dragged which allowed me to complete the install.
I now need to get a serial mouse working with Ubuntu.
You are a glutton for punishment! How old is this system? Tim.
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:09:10AM +0100, Tim Green wrote:
On 6/5/07, Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
The problem is that the install program expects a screen resolution of 1024x768 but the live CD only allows 640x480 or 800x600 with the Matrox card I happen to have on this system.
It turns out that ALT-LeftButton allows the installer window to be dragged which allowed me to complete the install.
I now need to get a serial mouse working with Ubuntu.
You are a glutton for punishment! How old is this system?
The system isn't all that old, it has a PS/2 mouse connector but I don't have a (decent) PS/2 mouse whereas I do have some very usable Mouse Systems optical mice. It's all up and running now and seems pretty OK running Ubuntu 7.0.4, it has 384Mb of memory, a 40Gb hard disk and an AMD K5 (I *think*) processor. -- Chris Green
Hi Chris On Wednesday 06 June 2007 08:43, Chris G wrote:
Setting Device to point to /dev/ttyS[0|1|2|3] should do it. Protocol "auto" normally senses if it is a two button or scroll mouse.
Thank you! With additions like the above I am now working at 1024x768 and above and I have ye olde Mouse Systems mouse working.
Much of the settings are mentioned in the multitude of xorg man pages. Admittedly, far from easy to find, and a few of them are somewhat cryptic.. But at least we have the source code when head scratching is not enough ;-) On Wednesday 06 June 2007 08:48, Chris G wrote:
The system isn't all that old, it has a PS/2 mouse connector but I don't have a (decent) PS/2 mouse whereas I do have some very usable Mouse Systems optical mice.
Even PS/2 is regarded as "legacy" by some...
It's all up and running now and seems pretty OK running Ubuntu 7.0.4, it has 384Mb of memory, a 40Gb hard disk and an AMD K5 (I *think*) processor.
Ooooo... Kinda makes my collection of Pentium 133 & 166 boxen look old. Regards, Paul.
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:57:18AM +0100, Paul wrote:
Hi Chris
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 08:43, Chris G wrote:
Setting Device to point to /dev/ttyS[0|1|2|3] should do it. Protocol "auto" normally senses if it is a two button or scroll mouse.
Thank you! With additions like the above I am now working at 1024x768 and above and I have ye olde Mouse Systems mouse working.
Much of the settings are mentioned in the multitude of xorg man pages. Admittedly, far from easy to find, and a few of them are somewhat cryptic.. But at least we have the source code when head scratching is not enough ;-)
Yes, that's the problem. The xorg.conf man page describes the format of the xorg.conf file but doesn't give any of the actual values (e.g. it doesn't tell you that MouseSystems is a valid driver name). I knew what I needed to change but didn't know the actual values I needed to enter.
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 08:48, Chris G wrote:
The system isn't all that old, it has a PS/2 mouse connector but I don't have a (decent) PS/2 mouse whereas I do have some very usable Mouse Systems optical mice.
Even PS/2 is regarded as "legacy" by some...
It has USB as well! :-)
It's all up and running now and seems pretty OK running Ubuntu 7.0.4, it has 384Mb of memory, a 40Gb hard disk and an AMD K5 (I *think*) processor.
Ooooo... Kinda makes my collection of Pentium 133 & 166 boxen look old.
The oldest I'm currently running is the box I just set up to put in the garage running Slackware. That's actually an AT (as opposed to ATX) format box with a AMD Duron 800Mhz processor I think. It runs Slackware 11 with fvwm2 quite happily. I wanted it there so I could access PDF manuals and update my maintenance records while I actually do things in the garage. -- Chris Green
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:12 +0100, Chris G wrote:
That's actually an AT (as opposed to ATX) format box with a AMD Duron 800Mhz processor I think.
Erm are you sure about that ? ATX was introduced some time around 1995 and pretty much instantly took over from AT as I recall. The first Duron's didn't appear until circa 2000 and used a socket that wasn't available on mainboards until the release of the K7 in 1999 Therefore I would be very surprised to see an AT format Mainboard than can support a Duron, let alone an AT format PSU that has the capacity to run one.
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:36:22AM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:12 +0100, Chris G wrote:
That's actually an AT (as opposed to ATX) format box with a AMD Duron 800Mhz processor I think.
Erm are you sure about that ?
ATX was introduced some time around 1995 and pretty much instantly took over from AT as I recall.
The first Duron's didn't appear until circa 2000 and used a socket that wasn't available on mainboards until the release of the K7 in 1999
Therefore I would be very surprised to see an AT format Mainboard than can support a Duron, let alone an AT format PSU that has the capacity to run one.
It's an AMD K6 processor (pre Duron I suspect), definitely an AT box with the power outlet for a monitor. -- Chris Green
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 11:44, Chris G wrote:
That's actually an AT (as opposed to ATX) format box with a AMD Duron 800Mhz processor I think.
Erm are you sure about that ?
ATX was introduced some time around 1995 and pretty much instantly took over from AT as I recall.
The first Duron's didn't appear until circa 2000 and used a socket that wasn't available on mainboards until the release of the K7 in 1999
Therefore I would be very surprised to see an AT format Mainboard than can support a Duron, let alone an AT format PSU that has the capacity to run one.
It's an AMD K6 processor (pre Duron I suspect), definitely an AT box with the power outlet for a monitor.
There are several "types" of power supplies.. * Old style two piece P8 P9 single row connectors. * 20 pin double row connector * 20+4 double row. The old style had a solid mechanical on/off switch whilst the newer ones use a "soft button" - It is quite possible that either style will have a secondary output for a monitor. In my collection of "odds'n'sods", I have a PSU with a 20 pin connector with a mechanical on/off switch (about 200W as I recall).. Also have a couple of MoBos that will accept either P8/9 or 20 pin connectors so Chris' combination is quite possible.. If you want real oddball, also have a PSU with just floppy/HD connectors plus a single 2x2 block (just +5V & +12V rails). Regards, Paul.
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 12:27 +0100, Paul wrote:
In my collection of "odds'n'sods", I have a PSU with a 20 pin connector with a mechanical on/off switch (about 200W as I recall).. Also have a couple of MoBos that will accept either P8/9 or 20 pin connectors so Chris' combination is quite possible..
It was more the combination of 2000 era CPU in a 1995 era form factor that bothered me The secondary monitor feed is inconsequential as they were still commonplace well into the ATX form factor..in fact some aftermarket ATX PSU's some come equipped with this. On the subject of power supply types there is an additional (short lived) configuration that I had long since forgotten about that caught me out when fixing a box the other day. That is 20Pin ATX header plus one half of the P8/P9 pair for the CPU power (this predates the 4 pin 12V CPU power connector you see now)
If you want real oddball, also have a PSU with just floppy/HD connectors plus a single 2x2 block (just +5V & +12V rails).
Actually I don't think we are that far from this sort of configuration becoming commonplace. Some of the ATX suppy rails are already technically redundant since the demise of the ISA bus, Modern machines already tend to source CPU core from the 12V rail and use switching regulators to bring it down to the correct voltage on board so the +3.3 is becoming less and less relevant. Already the -5V is technically optional even to the point that it is not actually included in the latest revision to the ATX spec, the -12 could soon well follow. The only problem being that the seemingly duplicated rails coming out of the ATX header are actually provided by separate secondary circuits in the PSU to avoid power fluctuations on the drive and accessory rails causing problems on the supplies to the chipset. But if you are going to derive the critical stuff from on board DC-DC conversion this problem mostly goes away. Actually the subtle revision changes in ATX spec between 1995 and now mean that Modern PSU's are not necessarily fully backward compatible. As well as the above mentioned now optional supplies the ratio of capacities have changed. Specifically the capacity of the +5 rail has dropped relative to the PSU's maximum output rating. Crumbs I will stop writing now, I am starting to sound like a geek :-)
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 21:42, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On the subject of power supply types there is an additional (short lived) configuration that I had long since forgotten about that caught me out when fixing a box the other day. That is 20Pin ATX header plus one half of the P8/P9 pair for the CPU power (this predates the 4 pin 12V CPU power connector you see now)
Surely not that unusal - I have two boxes here with a PSU with both P9 the 20 pin ATX and a 12V 4 pin jobbie..
If you want real oddball, also have a PSU with just floppy/HD connectors plus a single 2x2 block (just +5V & +12V rails). Actually I don't think we are that far from this sort of configuration becoming commonplace.
My mistake - It is actually a 2x3 block. Only 5V is hooked up.
Crumbs I will stop writing now, I am starting to sound like a geek :-)
Why should we stop you. The history lesson is starting to get interesting <ducks> Regards, Paul.
On 6/6/07, Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
The system isn't all that old, it has a PS/2 mouse connector but I don't have a (decent) PS/2 mouse whereas I do have some very usable Mouse Systems optical mice.
It is nice that optical mice don't need cleaning as often as ball mice.
It's all up and running now and seems pretty OK running Ubuntu 7.0.4, it has 384Mb of memory, a 40Gb hard disk and an AMD K5 (I *think*) processor.
cat /proc/cpuinfo It's funny how some people like to boast about their high speed PC, while others instead boast about how small/slow it is and still be usable! My K6-266 died in Novmeber 2005 and my K5-75 was re-homed in August 2004 to someone wanting to run DOS applications. Tim.
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:43:17AM +0100, Tim Green wrote:
On 6/6/07, Chris G <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
The system isn't all that old, it has a PS/2 mouse connector but I don't have a (decent) PS/2 mouse whereas I do have some very usable Mouse Systems optical mice.
It is nice that optical mice don't need cleaning as often as ball mice.
Yes, before the modern generation of "run on anything" optical mice arrived the old serial Mouse Systems mice were my favourite for this very reason.
It's all up and running now and seems pretty OK running Ubuntu 7.0.4, it has 384Mb of memory, a 40Gb hard disk and an AMD K5 (I *think*) processor.
cat /proc/cpuinfo
Of course.... Its an AMD-K6 in fact. -- Chris Green
Is this a CRT monitor on a desktop system ? If so it may well be that finding an auto set up option (or if it doesn't have one manually adjusting the screen position on the menu/with the controls will fix this) It could be that that last machine to run the monitor at whatever resolution ubuntu starts X with had it at a different refresh and now when ubuntu starts part of the screen is now not visible. If you have an auto set up option (most screens made in the last 10 years) then wait until you get to the point where the buttons are off screen before pressing it. TFT's on a analogue VGA connection can also potentially suffer this, but usually they autoadjust by themselves as it is far easier for a TFT to determine that not all pixels are getting fired than it is for a CRT to determine that a scan fills the screen.
participants (6)
-
Chris G -
Paul -
samwise -
ted.harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Tim Green -
Wayne Stallwood