Here are some experiences/thoughts from an ordinary 'user' who just wants a laptop on which to use office and other applications rather than any kind of developer work
1. I'd like to support the positive things said about the Sarge installer. My first Linux try was with Woody and it took me months to get X working at all. Although I'd read up in advance and knew all my hardware specs I somehow chose a 2.2 idepci kernel which I think dogged subsequent efforts including my later effort at an online upgrade to Sarge. When I tried a fresh install with a Sarge CD all went far more smoothly and I had a nice looking desktop (KDE) with very little real effort. Certainly more quickly than when I put XP on the same laptop.
2. Aptitude is wonderful. dselect under Woody was really hard to get into. With aptitude installing and managing packages is extremely easy. This gave me the confidence to bypass Tasksel at install time and build up from a fairly bare-bones text only system.
3. As Brett said in this thread already "99% of the battle is knowing where to look" and I agree. Debian is not 'hard' in itself but the documentation available online seems particularly challenging for the non-initiated. The more I learn the more I like the intuitive and accessible way the Debian system itself is laid out: but the more puzzled I get that nobody seems to have produced an entry level guide which would make working it out less of a groping in the dark experience.
4. The rise of Ubuntu has me unsure of which way to leap. On the one hand I am tempted by the idea of more up to date software than I have in Sarge. On the other I want to keep building on what I have learned about Debian. Once my confidence improves my plan was to try the approach of selectively pulling in packages from the testing/unstable repositaries. In particular I'd like the more recent versions of OO.org and Okle. Maybe someone with my low level of technical knowledge and 'user' orientation would be safer going for Ubuntu though?
5. Thanks to all contributors to this thread which is a timely one for me as I've got a new, unformatted 60G HD in my thinkpad now after the last one died. I am on the waiting list for a UEA copy of XP, which I think I need to install first, so have a few days to choose between Sarge and (K)Ubuntu. BTW, just to make the purists cringe, my plan is to put on XP then shrink the NTFS partition down and add ext3 ones for / and /home plus swap using Partition Magic.
Rob
Rob Grant Tutor in Economics School of Development Studies University of East Anglia NR4 7TJ +44(0)1603592324 r.grant@uea.ac.uk
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 11:28:17PM -0000, Robert Grant (DEV) wrote:
died. I am on the waiting list for a UEA copy of XP, which I think I need to install first, so have a few days to choose between Sarge and (K)Ubuntu. BTW, just to make the purists cringe, my plan is to put on XP then shrink the NTFS partition down and add ext3 ones for / and /home plus swap using Partition Magic.
You don't *need* to install XP first, but it is easier that way. Also when installing XP don't make it fill the entire disk, just give it however much of the disk you want. You will save yourself lots of trouble doing it that way than trying to shrink the NTFS partition afterwards. My other suggestion would be to try Ubuntu and if you don't really gel with it after a week pull it off and slap on a copy of sarge. If you have a partition for /home then don't format it when you do the changeover and you won't even need to worry about copying data. (of course with a 60gig disk you could install both Ubuntu and Debian on the same machine and share /home between them...)
Adam
On 06-Nov-05 Robert Grant (DEV) wrote:
Here are some experiences/thoughts from an ordinary 'user' who just wants a laptop on which to use office and other applications rather than any kind of developer work [...]
Thanks for a breath of fresh air, Rob! May it all go well.
Just one comment (which doubles as a query on my own behalf).
I've encountered laptops where the BIOS utilities live on a "hidden" partition on the HDD (these were Compaqs; I don't know how general the practice is).
In shrinking the Windows partition and installing Linux I wiped this partition (or maybe it wasn't there to start with, since I bought them second-hand with Windows re-installed on a drive which has been wiped clean from its previous owner).
Fortunately I was able to locate on the Compaq web-site versions of these utilities which fitted on floppies, so you could boot from the floppy and do the BIOS setup (the Compaq default of pressing F2 during POST no longer working).
So
a) This may be a point to watch out for.
b) Does anyone have informed comments on this kind of situation?
Best wishes to all, Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 07-Nov-05 Time: 00:13:54 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:13 +0000, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
Fortunately I was able to locate on the Compaq web-site versions of these utilities which fitted on floppies, so you could boot from the floppy and do the BIOS setup (the Compaq default of pressing F2 during POST no longer working).
So
a) This may be a point to watch out for.
b) Does anyone have informed comments on this kind of situation?
Yes that used to be a fairly common practise by Compaq and a few others that thankfully seems to have gone away. I can't think of many modern machines that have the bios utility on disk.
What you do find is on machines like Thinkpads there is a hidden restore partition that holds the factory default image (amongst other things). These partitions are almost impossible to recreate without a special disk set that can be ordered from IBM. There are no provided disks to restore this partition from. The partition on mine also has some diagnostics etc which are accessed with the Access IBM blue button. So you are best leaving that alone as even if you never intend to put the laptop back to factory installation the diagnostics etc are handy. *
On older machines you may also find a strange partition that is part of a legacy bios hibernation feature, no modern OS that I can think of needs this and usually there is a downloadable tool to recreate it if you do end up needing it. Older Toshiba's have this.
* This has always amazed me, First we had the situation where almost nothing comes with a real OS installation disk any more, only those factory recovery disks. Now we get machines that come with no disks at all, what is the point I ask in providing a restore image on the same drive whose failure is the most common reason to need said image. Acer's do at least pop up a utility on first boot to burn the image to CD, but why they can't spend the extra 10p and put a restore disk in the box is beyond me.
On 07-Nov-05 Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:13 +0000, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
Fortunately I was able to locate on the Compaq web-site versions of these utilities which fitted on floppies, so you could boot from the floppy and do the BIOS setup (the Compaq default of pressing F2 during POST no longer working).
So
a) This may be a point to watch out for.
b) Does anyone have informed comments on this kind of situation?
Yes that used to be a fairly common practise by Compaq and a few others that thankfully seems to have gone away. I can't think of many modern machines that have the bios utility on disk.
What you do find is on machines like Thinkpads there is a hidden restore partition that holds the factory default image (amongst other things). These partitions are almost impossible to recreate without a special disk set that can be ordered from IBM. There are no provided disks to restore this partition from. The partition on mine also has some diagnostics etc which are accessed with the Access IBM blue button. So you are best leaving that alone as even if you never intend to put the laptop back to factory installation the diagnostics etc are handy. *
On older machines you may also find a strange partition that is part of a legacy bios hibernation feature, no modern OS that I can think of needs this and usually there is a downloadable tool to recreate it if you do end up needing it. Older Toshiba's have this.
- This has always amazed me, First we had the situation where almost
nothing comes with a real OS installation disk any more, only those factory recovery disks. Now we get machines that come with no disks at all, what is the point I ask in providing a restore image on the same drive whose failure is the most common reason to need said image. Acer's do at least pop up a utility on first boot to burn the image to CD, but why they can't spend the extra 10p and put a restore disk in the box is beyond me.
Thanks for these comments, Wayne. Useful; and it indicates that some sort of hidden partition (or even two) is a possibiity to watch out for, whether for BIOS, Restore, or a system-state swap for hibernation.
(I've wondered shat Windows, with APM set up, does about the hibernation partition if it's been over-run by a Linux installation?)
Anyway, a possible suggestion and another question.
I've become a great fan of "Linux on a Floppy", aka "Tom's RTBT". See
This packs an amzing collection of useful Linux stuff onto a single bootable floppy, and it's great for diagnostic and testing purposes.
Suggestion: make a Tomsrtbt floppy and have it by you. It may come in handy.
Question: In this case, you have a laptop with Windows on it, you're about to install Linux, and you're now wondering whether there are any of these "stealth" partitions on there. I don't know how, on the hard drive, such partitions are defined, but presumably they should be standard partition-table compatible.
In that case, if before foing anything else, you booted up from Linux on a Floppy (which won't touch the hard drive unless you ask it to), then by running fdisk (carefully ... ) you should see any such partitions when you do 'p'.
So: Is this the case? Otherwise put: is there anything special about such partitions which would make them invisible to fdisk?
I can imagine, for instance, that when someone puts Windows on a machine for the first time, with APM set up, the Windows installation simply makes sure that the end of its formatted partition space stops short of the physucal end of the disk so that there's a kind of anonymous Limbo into which Windows simply squirts a binary image of the system state on hibernation (sort of 'dd' equivalent).
In that case, you wouldn't know it was there without doing arithmetic on the partition sizes, since it souldn't be registered in the partition table. (And if you think that's a weird idea, well I wouldn't put anything past Windows especially given its implicit mindset that it's the only OS in the world, so you couldn't pssibly have anything else on the machine, could you?)
Best wishes, Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 07-Nov-05 Time: 08:35:46 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 08:35 +0000, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
I can imagine, for instance, that when someone puts Windows on a machine for the first time, with APM set up, the Windows installation simply makes sure that the end of its formatted partition space stops short of the physucal end of the disk so that there's a kind of anonymous Limbo into which Windows simply squirts a binary image of the system state on hibernation (sort of 'dd' equivalent).
It depends on the version of Windows we are talking about, Windows XP creates a file c:\hiberfil.sys which is where the memory contents are written to, therefore no special partitions are needed. I think Windows 2000 is the same.
Windows ME (if anyone out there is daft enough to run it) had some hibernation support but needs extra help from all the drivers, Usually unless you used only Microsoft certified drivers the hibernation feature will be silently disabled and a file (nohiber.txt) will be written into c:\windows telling you which driver is the cause.
Windows 98 as far as I can remember had some built in hibernation support but it didn't work very well so often manufacturers fell back to the BIOS and special partition and then had a special hibernation driver/utility.
Windows 95 and before had no direct hibernation support and needed the special partition and BIOS support you sometimes see on older laptops.
Linux (I presume) just writes to the swap partition ? I wonder how this works if swap is heavily utilised at the point of hibernation and there is not enough free to write the memory contents ?
The message 1131354828.3072.330.camel@localhost.localdomain from Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com contains these words:
Linux (I presume) just writes to the swap partition ? I wonder how this works if swap is heavily utilised at the point of hibernation and there is not enough free to write the memory contents ?
I believe Windows of the later flavours makes a temporary swap partition if it's needed.
The message XFMail.051107083550.Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk from (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk contains these words:
/snip/
I've become a great fan of "Linux on a Floppy", aka "Tom's RTBT". See
This packs an amzing collection of useful Linux stuff onto a single bootable floppy, and it's great for diagnostic and testing purposes.
Suggestion: make a Tomsrtbt floppy and have it by you. It may come in handy.
/snip/
Well, I went there, but which one do I need? And going to a download site, I was even more lost.
On 08-Nov-05 Anthony Anson wrote:
The message XFMail.051107083550.Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk from (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk contains these words:
/snip/
I've become a great fan of "Linux on a Floppy", aka "Tom's RTBT". See
This packs an amzing collection of useful Linux stuff onto a single bootable floppy, and it's great for diagnostic and testing purposes.
Suggestion: make a Tomsrtbt floppy and have it by you. It may come in handy.
/snip/
Well, I went there, but which one do I need? And going to a download site, I was even more lost.
You'll need to do this using an already working Linux system, of course, and you'll need a blank floppy (in good shape) and a floppy drive capable of supporting the higher-density formats (1722MB in this case) -- but modern floppy drives do support this.
--> Download tomsrtbt here = list of mirrors, choose e.g.
--> Tux.org and scroll down to tomsrtbt-2.0.103.tar.gz
and click on this -- what precisely happens next depends on your browser, but the end result should be that you save this file to disk.
So save it in a convenient place (convenient for root, that is). Then, as root
tar xzvf tomsrtbt-2.0.103.tar.gz
and you will find a sub-directory tomsrtbt-2.0.103
cd to this. First read tomsrtbt.FAQ especially Section (4), have a blank floppy ready, and then execute
./install.s
and do what it says. The rest is automatic. If the formatting or the verification fails, you may need a better class of floppy diskette or maybe your floppy drive isn't up to it (though I've had no problems on the latter front).
Finally test it: take any old PC/laptop and boot it from the floppy you just made. There are a couple of choices to be made as the boot-up proceeds, one of which is about the screen which you can probably ignore, the other is to choose your keyboard layout (e.g. English UK) which does matter a bit.
Then finally you get to log in as root with password "xxxx", and you're away.
Hoping it works out, Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 08-Nov-05 Time: 10:19:23 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
The message XFMail.051108102257.Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk from (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk contains these words:
You'll need to do this using an already working Linux system, of course, and you'll need a blank floppy (in good shape) and a floppy drive capable of supporting the higher-density formats (1722MB in this case) -- but modern floppy drives do support this.
Ah. Got neither - or at least, I don't think I've got a 'modern' drive - this one was supplied in 1999, I think.
Still, I'll save the info for when confidence and bank balance grows.
Thanks.
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:44:38 +0000 Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com wrote:
- This has always amazed me, First we had the situation where almost
nothing comes with a real OS installation disk any more, only those factory recovery disks. Now we get machines that come with no disks at all, what is the point I ask in providing a restore image on the same drive whose failure is the most common reason to need said image.
Is it? Maybe hard disk failure is the most common reason to re-install Linux but for Windows I'm sure restoring Windows to its initial configuration is normally done because various pieces of software, some installed deliberately and some not, have finally got it to a completly unusable state.
I think the manufactuers figure that if the hard disk fails the machine will be returned to a repair shop who will also have the install disks but, as you say, it is a pity they don't spend the 10p and have an install disk that would mean a technically capable owner can just order a new disk and restore his own machine.
Steve.
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:55:05PM +0000, Steve Fosdick wrote:
I think the manufactuers figure that if the hard disk fails the machine will be returned to a repair shop who will also have the install disks but, as you say, it is a pity they don't spend the 10p and have an install disk that would mean a technically capable owner can just order a new disk and restore his own machine.
A freind of mine was recently asking about recovery CDs or install CDs for his HP desktop of about 2 years vintage (he had installed some "system recovery" software off a magazine coverdisc that had managed to unrecover his copy of Windows XP home). Anyhow, after some phone calls etc. etc. it turns out that HP don't (well, didn't then) ship recovery CDs for Windows and that it would cost 45 quid to get a set of them.
Thanks Adam
The message 20051108094321.GB11826@thebowery.co.uk from Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk contains these words:
A freind of mine was recently asking about recovery CDs or install CDs for his HP desktop of about 2 years vintage (he had installed some "system recovery" software off a magazine coverdisc that had managed to unrecover his copy of Windows XP home). Anyhow, after some phone calls etc. etc. it turns out that HP don't (well, didn't then) ship recovery CDs for Windows and that it would cost 45 quid to get a set of them.
Isn't it illegal for a first supplier to sell a computer that has a system on it without the installation CD now?
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 10:50 +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
Isn't it illegal for a first supplier to sell a computer that has a system on it without the installation CD now?
Not at all, within the terms of the EULA the OEM only has to attach the licence sticker and provide a copy of the EULA (either paper or to be shown during the end user setup phase). Other requirements are that the machine in question actually qualifies for OEM software as opposed to boxed product.
Actually Microsoft actually discouraged provision of the installation media in the first place. There are no laws outside the (legally unproven in many cases) EULA terms that enforce provision of the installation media, you are paying for a license to use the operating system as installed.
One possible workaround is the Sale of Goods act if an installation fails and you are unable to recover from any "on HDD" recovery image...of course that will only count within a period from original sale.
Of course if you can source a loan copy of the Windows OEM installation media then you are free to use that (in conjunction with your own licence key) to reinstall. But of course you then lose access to some of the other bundled software that may have been included in the original OEM installation (I am thinking of DVD player and CD burning software here)
Yup, it's a mess
The message 1131485587.3072.385.camel@localhost.localdomain from Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com contains these words:
Of course if you can source a loan copy of the Windows OEM installation media then you are free to use that (in conjunction with your own licence key) to reinstall. But of course you then lose access to some of the other bundled software that may have been included in the original OEM installation (I am thinking of DVD player and CD burning software here)
When you say 'your own licence key', do you mean the five groups of five letters/numbers you type in during loading?
I ask, because I built a PIII box for a friend (to replace his dying PI-90) and he supplied a Win 95 CD and Win 98 update, and the Win 95 CD won't work. If I borrow a good Win 98 CD to install with, it will accept that number, will it?
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 21:50 +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
When you say 'your own licence key', do you mean the five groups of five letters/numbers you type in during loading?
I ask, because I built a PIII box for a friend (to replace his dying PI-90) and he supplied a Win 95 CD and Win 98 update, and the Win 95 CD won't work. If I borrow a good Win 98 CD to install with, it will accept that number, will it?
Ooooh that's a tricky one, it's been so long since I have dealt with a Win 98 update disk I can't remember if the keys are the same as the full Win98 installation ones.....My memory says they could possibly be the same...but you'd think they would be different. If the update keys are compatible with the full version ones then yes you can use that key with any installation media.
if not the installer for the Win98 update disk is easily confused into thinking that the machine already has win95 installed (it involves creating a couple of folders/files...can't remember the details you will have to google for it)
I am also assuming that the win98 update isn't the same as newer update disks in that if there is no OS installed it will simply ask for a previous versions installation disk to be inserted to "validate" you have a product to upgrade from.
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I am also assuming that the win98 update isn't the same as newer update disks in that if there is no OS installed it will simply ask for a previous versions installation disk to be inserted to "validate" you have a product to upgrade from.
I remember discovering that when the Office 2000 update disk asked for the previous version's installation disk you could just point it at itself and it'd work! :-)
JD
The message 4371A73E.9050104@pecorous.co.uk from Jon Dye jon@pecorous.co.uk contains these words:
I remember discovering that when the Office 2000 update disk asked for the previous version's installation disk you could just point it at itself and it'd work! :-)
Tht's Billware for you.
The message 1131500410.3072.415.camel@localhost.localdomain from Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com contains these words:
/snip/
I am also assuming that the win98 update isn't the same as newer update disks in that if there is no OS installed it will simply ask for a previous versions installation disk to be inserted to "validate" you have a product to upgrade from.
I couldn't have made myself clear - the Win 95 disc wouldn't install for the update to work on.
Can I borrow a Win 98 CD and use the key for the duff '95 CD? (Thinking that all keys might be an algorithm.)
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:10:11AM +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
I couldn't have made myself clear - the Win 95 disc wouldn't install for the update to work on.
Can I borrow a Win 98 CD and use the key for the duff '95 CD? (Thinking that all keys might be an algorithm.)
<more offtopic>
Install off the Win 98 update CD and it will ask you for the CD of a qualifying product during the install, at which point you use the Win 95 CD (or as Wayne said you work out how to fake a Win 95 install so the Win 98 CD installs without asking).
Thanks Adam
The message 20051109104333.GE11826@thebowery.co.uk from Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk contains these words:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:10:11AM +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
I couldn't have made myself clear - the Win 95 disc wouldn't install for the update to work on.
Can I borrow a Win 98 CD and use the key for the duff '95 CD? (Thinking that all keys might be an algorithm.)
<more offtopic>
Install off the Win 98 update CD and it will ask you for the CD of a qualifying product during the install, at which point you use the Win 95 CD (or as Wayne said you work out how to fake a Win 95 install so the Win 98 CD installs without asking).
No-no-no-no-no-no-no!
The Win 95 CD doesn't work!
I have two 98 updates, but you can't update an non-existent OS.
I mean a clean install of Win 98...
(To return to topic shortly, I've just reinstalled Woody, and been congratulated, but I can't make it work. I can't make Python even recognise the Linux partitions already on the HD.. Questions to follow, you may - or probably may not - be pleased to hear.)
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:07:22PM +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
No-no-no-no-no-no-no!
The Win 95 CD doesn't work!
I have two 98 updates, but you can't update an non-existent OS.
I mean a clean install of Win 98...
*sigh* you missed the point. You can install off of a Windows 98 Upgrade CD but it will ask for a qualifying product. If the Windows 95 CD is totally dead then it won't work... *but* you can fool the installer that a qualifying product is already installed which is what Wayne mentioned.
Thanks Adam
The message 20051109153049.GH11826@thebowery.co.uk from Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk contains these words:
I mean a clean install of Win 98...
*sigh* you missed the point. You can install off of a Windows 98 Upgrade CD but it will ask for a qualifying product. If the Windows 95 CD is totally dead then it won't work... *but* you can fool the installer that a qualifying product is already installed which is what Wayne mentioned.
I'll try it and see.
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 16:41 +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
I'll try it and see.
It's been a long day so I may be miss-understanding you :-)
Are you saying that you only have a Win95 key and not a Win98 one (upgrade or otherwise) the 95 key will absolutely not work with the 98 installation.
The message 1131568713.3072.420.camel@localhost.localdomain from Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com contains these words:
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 16:41 +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
I'll try it and see.
It's been a long day so I may be miss-understanding you :-)
Are you saying that you only have a Win95 key and not a Win98 one (upgrade or otherwise) the 95 key will absolutely not work with the 98 installation.
Yes, but I do have a number for the upgrade too.
On 11/9/05, Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 16:41 +0000, Anthony Anson wrote: Are you saying that you only have a Win95 key and not a Win98 one (upgrade or otherwise) the 95 key will absolutely not work with the 98 installation.
Don't let anyone else know I've told you this, and this is not an encouragement to install more copies of Win98 than you think you're allowed. Win98 keys are readily available (on the Internet and to MSDN subscribers) and don't need to be registered with Microsoft.
I have already forgotten the reason why someone above in this email chain would want to install Win98 now. Are they sure they want to install an OS with a known lack of security features, and no hope of ever being patched?
Tim.
The message 54874100511091513o5640aab8ud57b1348bd3d5aef@mail.gmail.com from Tim Green timothy.j.green@gmail.com contains these words:
/snip/
I have already forgotten the reason why someone above in this email chain would want to install Win98 now.
The person for whom it is being installed can't afford to acquire a more up-to-date M$ product, and he works all hours (He's a gamekeeper) so has little time, and he's just not even slightly IT clued. His old box (PI-90) is dying, and took over 20 mns to boot when I tried it. Because it was slow (but a lot faster than then) he downloaded a couple of 'iffy' spyware scanners, and they were both fired-up on booting, along with AVG, and the catfight can only be imagined.
I'm going to update his AVG, install the latest Zetnet software (yes, he does subscribe!), SpyWareBlaster (checks incoming), Spybot S&D, and AdAware. (I wish there were one which did the lot - if there is, I've never met it.)
Are they sure they want to install an OS with a known lack of security features, and no hope of ever being patched?
Most scumware doesn't work on Win 9* these days. I can't see him even trying to wrestle with any flavour of Linux until there is a really pointy-clicky distro.
Quoting Anthony Anson tony.anson@zetnet.co.uk:
I can't see him even trying to wrestle with any flavour of Linux until there is a really pointy-clicky distro.
You know the chap better than I, obviously, but for the true technophobe, surely using linux that has been installed and set up by someone else is just as easy as using any other operating system?
I would have thought that all of the mainstream distros these days are just as pointy clicky in operation as Win98, if the hard bits like installation have already been done?
The message 1131630587.43734ffbee051@82.195.128.192 from Dave Briggs linux@davebriggs.net contains these words:
Quoting Anthony Anson tony.anson@zetnet.co.uk:
I can't see him even trying to wrestle with any flavour of Linux until there is a really pointy-clicky distro.
You know the chap better than I, obviously, but for the true technophobe, surely using linux that has been installed and set up by someone else is just as easy as using any other operating system?
I would have thought that all of the mainstream distros these days are just as pointy clicky in operation as Win98, if the hard bits like installation have already been done?
He'd have to learn how to use all the new software too - and change drastically the way he connected to his ISP. This last is one reason why I am not even thinking of completely dumping the Evil Umpire.
Update: - Paul's Anacondarated Sarge now installed. I found the partitioning and formatting (auto and Druid) more confusing than cfdisk, but installing the software was a dream.
Now I shall be learning to drive it a bit better.
Watch this space...
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 13:49 +0000, Dave Briggs wrote:
I would have thought that all of the mainstream distros these days are just as pointy clicky in operation as Win98, if the hard bits like installation have already been done?
You'd think this would be the case. However too many people confuse Familiarity with Intuitive.
Windows is NOT intuitive, but it gets described as being easy to use because lots of people have learnt to use it and are now used to that way....The industry calls these people apologists because they know you have to jump though hoops sometimes with Windows..but it's still "easy to use" because they know those hoops.
I suspect if you did a clean room experiment (i.e. with someone that had never used a computer before) Then most mainstream systems (Mac, Windows, Linux) would come out about equal....for every instance where you can describe Linux as being counter intuitive there is an example of Windows being equally difficult and so on.
However Windows in general wins the ease of use battle because it is familiar to a good percentage of the Computing population.
I have seen Windows users become completely lost on an OSX machine despite the fact that it is (to a point) one of the more intuitive systems available.
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 23:55 +0000, Steve Fosdick wrote:
Is it? Maybe hard disk failure is the most common reason to re-install Linux but for Windows I'm sure restoring Windows to its initial configuration is normally done because various pieces of software, some installed deliberately and some not, have finally got it to a completly unusable state.
Actually in my business I actually try and avoid doing that as much as possible. The trouble with Windows is that (even in 2000/XP since the Documents and Settings thing) it is just too difficult to track down every bit of user data if the machine has been badly managed. There are still for example programs that insist on storing user data in stupid places (Nikon camera software holds it's photo library in program files by default). When we do have to resort to that we tend to image the machine, run the restore operation (or re-install manually) and then liaise with the user to pick bits out of the image they want to keep.
With skill and patience it is possible to repair even very poorly machines and I have yet to encounter spyware that I am unable to remove (although it is getting more difficult with all the shell execution hooks and other dirty tricks). So for home users and expect for cases where it is by specific request or we suspect that the machine has been heavily compromised we tend to try and repair rather than replace the OS as our first course of action.
The trouble with rebuilding for home users is that usually the machine will have to be returned via a home visit In order to get their Printer, Scanner, Digital Camera, ADSL USB Modem etc all working again. Because they have probably lost the original driver installation media and won't know where to download replacements etc....If we don't take the machines back it usually ends up in another support call when they can't get something working. However if you repair a machine carefully then everything should work when they take it back.
The message E1EYtvq-00032f-00@terry.blackcatnetworks.co.uk from "Robert Grant (DEV)" R.Grant@uea.ac.uk contains these words:
- Thanks to all contributors to this thread which is a timely one for me as
I've got a new, unformatted 60G HD in my thinkpad now after the last one died. I am on the waiting list for a UEA copy of XP, which I think I need to install first, so have a few days to choose between Sarge and (K)Ubuntu. BTW, just to make the purists cringe, my plan is to put on XP then shrink the NTFS partition down and add ext3 ones for / and /home plus swap using Partition Magic.
Why not define the NTFS partition with the Debian installer? The one with Woody (once sussed) allowed for a screenful and a half of different formats.
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:42 +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
Why not define the NTFS partition with the Debian installer? The one with Woody (once sussed) allowed for a screenful and a half of different formats.
Within which I am guessing NTFS is most likely to be missing. NTFS write support was (maybe still is) very experimental and I wasn't even sure if it was possible to create a NTFS partition in Linux.
Certainly my Ubuntu machine doesn't seem to have the necessary mkfs.ntfs although Google says it does exist. I would be astounded if it came in the Debian installer.
The message 1131326584.3072.314.camel@localhost.localdomain from Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com contains these words:
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:42 +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
Why not define the NTFS partition with the Debian installer? The one with Woody (once sussed) allowed for a screenful and a half of different formats.
Within which I am guessing NTFS is most likely to be missing.
I'm pretty sure I saw it there.
NTFS write support was (maybe still is) very experimental and I wasn't even sure if it was possible to create a NTFS partition in Linux.
Certainly my Ubuntu machine doesn't seem to have the necessary mkfs.ntfs although Google says it does exist. I would be astounded if it came in the Debian installer.
If it was with Woody, it's sure to be in Sarge. I'll report back in due course.
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 01:34:16AM +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
NTFS write support was (maybe still is) very experimental and I wasn't even sure if it was possible to create a NTFS partition in Linux.
Certainly my Ubuntu machine doesn't seem to have the necessary mkfs.ntfs although Google says it does exist. I would be astounded if it came in the Debian installer.
If it was with Woody, it's sure to be in Sarge. I'll report back in due course.
I'm 99% certain that cfdisk can create partitions of *type* NTFS (along with the other types it can "create" and knows about, iirc the partition type identifier is a Hex value written to the partition table), but you won't actually be able to format them.
Thanks Adam
The message 20051107101454.GC983@thebowery.co.uk from Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk contains these words:
If it was with Woody, it's sure to be in Sarge. I'll report back in due course.
I'm 99% certain that cfdisk can create partitions of *type* NTFS (along with the other types it can "create" and knows about, iirc the partition type identifier is a Hex value written to the partition table), but you won't actually be able to format them.
Ah, it's just a label so other OSs know where home is?
I've just cleared a 24 gig partition on hda (E:).
Win 2000 Pro on C: - some progs and saved stuff on F:. For some reason, Windows allocated D: to the zip drive... I might re-allocate drive numbers sometime to coincide with the Linux list. How will Debian do it? I might also fit a SCSI CD ROM so I can copy CDs at least. I haven't got a SCSI CD/DVD drive.
Q: when cfdisking it for Sarge, how will I know (for *CERTAIN*) which one to write to?
Just in case anyone has any good ideas no-one's mentioned, ATM the box has:
on IDE1 61 GB HDO/hda in three partitions CD/DVD-RW
on IDE2 HD1/hdb Zip100
on UW SCSI drive 3 drive 4
on Ultra SCSI drive 5 drive 6
USB storage stick
On 11/7/05, Anthony Anson tony.anson@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
I've just cleared a 24 gig partition on hda (E:). Win 2000 Pro on C: - some progs and saved stuff on F:. For some reason, Windows allocated D: to the zip drive... I might re-allocate drive numbers sometime to coincide with the Linux list. How will Debian do it? I might also fit a SCSI CD ROM so I can copy CDs at least. I haven't got a SCSI CD/DVD drive. Q: when cfdisking it for Sarge, how will I know (for *CERTAIN*) which one to write to?
Linux doesn't know the drive letter assignments because Windows NT4 and beyond actually store this information in the registry.
Sarge will write to the partitions assigned to it because you tell it which partition is boot, which is root, which is swap, and then optionally which will be home, var, etc.
Tim.
The message 54874100511070258u5ab67f31oc05ef67f9f817b4@mail.gmail.com from Tim Green timothy.j.green@gmail.com contains these words:
On 11/7/05, Anthony Anson tony.anson@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
I've just cleared a 24 gig partition on hda (E:). Win 2000 Pro on C: - some progs and saved stuff on F:. For some reason, Windows allocated D: to the zip drive... I might re-allocate drive numbers sometime to coincide with the Linux list. How will Debian do it? I might also fit a SCSI CD ROM so I can copy CDs at least. I haven't got a SCSI CD/DVD drive. Q: when cfdisking it for Sarge, how will I know (for *CERTAIN*) which one to write to?
Linux doesn't know the drive letter assignments because Windows NT4 and beyond actually store this information in the registry.
Yes, I know this.
Sarge will write to the partitions assigned to it because you tell it which partition is boot, which is root, which is swap, and then optionally which will be home, var, etc.
What I need to know is how I can be certain that I'm writing to the partition I think I am. There are things I don't want to overwrite.
On 07-Nov-05 Anthony Anson wrote:
The message 54874100511070258u5ab67f31oc05ef67f9f817b4@mail.gmail.com from Tim Green timothy.j.green@gmail.com contains these words:
On 11/7/05, Anthony Anson tony.anson@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
I've just cleared a 24 gig partition on hda (E:). Win 2000 Pro on C: - some progs and saved stuff on F:. For some reason, Windows allocated D: to the zip drive... I might re-allocate drive numbers sometime to coincide with the Linux list. How will Debian do it? I might also fit a SCSI CD ROM so I can copy CDs at least. I haven't got a SCSI CD/DVD drive.
If you have an IDE one, then you can get the kernel to "fake" a SCSI interface for software (like xcdroast) which expects SCSI.
There is a module ide-scsi which does this. You need to modify /etc/lilo.conf (if using a LILO booter; get someone else to tell you how to do it for GRUB!) like the following (excerpted from one of my machines):
#Original LILO options image = /boot/vmlinuz label = linux root = /dev/hda3 initrd = /boot/initrd #IDE-SCSI LILO options image = /boot/vmlinuz label = linux-CDRW append = "hdc=ide-scsi" root = /dev/hda3 initrd = /boot/initrd
and then run 'lilo' as root. This has the effect when I boot into "linux-CDRW" that the IDE CD-RW reader/writer (which I have as 2nd IDE [IDE1 according to the gurus!] Master and hence /dev/hdc normally) is "translated" by the kernel to appear as a SCSI device. When I boot into this I run (as root) a script "CDRW_init" which contains
#! /bin/bash modprobe ide-scsi rm /dev/cdrom ln -s /dev/scd0 /dev/cdrom
This ensures (via modprobe) that the ide-scsi module is loaded, removes the symbolic link /dev/cdrom -> /dev/hdc, and re-instates it as /dev/cdrom -> /dev/scd0.
Then, if I want to revert to IDE (i.e. after booting into "linux" or running rmmod ide-scsi), I run another script "CDRW-close" which contains
#! /bin/bash rm /dev/cdrom ln -s /dev/hdc /dev/cdrom
which restores the status quo.
(The reason I need to use IDE as well is that I run an old version of VMWare which does not have SCSI support, so if I need to use the CDROM in Windows I have to have the drive on IDE).
Q: when cfdisking it for Sarge, how will I know (for *CERTAIN*) which one to write to?
Linux doesn't know the drive letter assignments because Windows NT4 and beyond actually store this information in the registry.
Yes, I know this.
Sarge will write to the partitions assigned to it because you tell it which partition is boot, which is root, which is swap, and then optionally which will be home, var, etc.
What I need to know is how I can be certain that I'm writing to the partition I think I am. There are things I don't want to overwrite.
Here can I remond you of my suggestion of tomsrtvt (Linux on a floppy)? This is the sort of situation where it comes into its own, because it lets you run a Linux "without strings" -- you can inspect a machine from the Linux point of view, but before you have installed linux on it, and without making any changes to the hard drive.
If you have your partitions set up but not written to (or even if you don't have them set up), let's assume that you are able to recognise which Windows partition is which by virtue of knowing some files which should be visisble in each.
If the Linux partitions are set up but not written to, boot the machine from the floppy. You have (I think) only 1 hard drive (/dev/hda) but it doesn't matter if you have more -- just do the same for each.
Then. once booted into Linux on a Floppy, run
fdisk /dev/hdc
and then enter "p". This will give you a list of the partitions, their sizes, their beginning and ending cylinders, and their types. The Windows partitions will be recognisable as such from their types, whether or not you have set types for the future Linux partitions.
It will look something like the following:
[root@compo root]# fdisk /dev/hda
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/hda: 6495 MB, 6495068160 bytes 240 heads, 63 sectors/track, 839 cylinders Units = cylinders of 15120 * 512 = 7741440 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hda1 1 276 2086528+ b Win95 FAT32 /dev/hda2 * 277 839 4256280 f Win95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/hda5 344 839 3749728+ 83 Linux /dev/hda6 277 290 105777 83 Linux /dev/hda7 291 343 400648+ 82 Linux swap
Partition table entries are not in disk order
Command (m for help): q
[root@compo root]#
Now you know which partitions you can write to for Linux, since you will know which to avoid because they're Windows.
If you've only designated the extent of the Linux area (by shrinking the Windows partitions), then you'll only see detail on the Windows lines. Now you could use the "Linux on a Floppy" fdisk to make the Linux partitions and assign their types if you want to; but the Linux installer should do this OK anyway (just make sure it avoids /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 or whatever has the Windows stuff on).
Good luck! Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 07-Nov-05 Time: 17:45:24 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
The message XFMail.051107174527.Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk from (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk contains these words:
On 07-Nov-05 Anthony Anson wrote:
The message 54874100511070258u5ab67f31oc05ef67f9f817b4@mail.gmail.com from Tim Green timothy.j.green@gmail.com contains these words:
On 11/7/05, Anthony Anson tony.anson@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
I've just cleared a 24 gig partition on hda (E:). Win 2000 Pro on C: - some progs and saved stuff on F:. For some reason, Windows allocated D: to the zip drive... I might re-allocate drive numbers sometime to coincide with the Linux list. How will Debian do it? I might also fit a SCSI CD ROM so I can copy CDs at least. I haven't got a SCSI CD/DVD drive.
If you have an IDE one, then you can get the kernel to "fake" a SCSI interface for software (like xcdroast) which expects SCSI.
Uh-huh...
There is a module ide-scsi which does this. You need to modify /etc/lilo.conf (if using a LILO booter; get someone else to tell you how to do it for GRUB!) like the following (excerpted from one of my machines):
(Saved for deep contemplation.)
Q: when cfdisking it for Sarge, how will I know (for *CERTAIN*) which one to write to?
Linux doesn't know the drive letter assignments because Windows NT4 and beyond actually store this information in the registry.
Yes, I know this.
Sarge will write to the partitions assigned to it because you tell it which partition is boot, which is root, which is swap, and then optionally which will be home, var, etc.
What I need to know is how I can be certain that I'm writing to the partition I think I am. There are things I don't want to overwrite.
Here can I remond you of my suggestion of tomsrtvt (Linux on a floppy)? This is the sort of situation where it comes into its own, because it lets you run a Linux "without strings" -- you can inspect a machine from the Linux point of view, but before you have installed linux on it, and without making any changes to the hard drive.
I've noted the URL for a session sometime tonight.
--------======== <OT> ========--------
(I've been busy today, went out for an amble with the bag, and came back with what you might be interested enough to look at (or not) at:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/fungi/dinner4.jpg
There are only a few I shall not be eating: 3, 9 & 10: 3 & 9 because I can't identify them, and 10 because it is easily confused with poisonous species and I'm not 100% certain of my identification.
The rest will be cooked, and a lot of them frozen.)
--------======== </OT> ========--------
If you have your partitions set up but not written to (or even if you don't have them set up), let's assume that you are able to recognise which Windows partition is which by virtue of knowing some files which should be visisble in each.
If the Linux partitions are set up but not written to, boot the machine from the floppy. You have (I think) only 1 hard drive (/dev/hda) but it doesn't matter if you have more -- just do the same for each.
In fact, I have six.
Then. once booted into Linux on a Floppy, run
fdisk /dev/hdc
and then enter "p". This will give you a list of the partitions, their sizes, their beginning and ending cylinders, and their types. The Windows partitions will be recognisable as such from their types, whether or not you have set types for the future Linux partitions.
Right. The partition I have set for Linux will either be on the existing 61 gig drive, shared with Win 2000 (but in another partition of course!) or on a 3·5 gig drive, in which case the Windows HD will come out on its tray and the Linux one will go in.
This would make things a lot easier, but 3·5 gig isn't very large (nowadays).
It will look something like the following:
(Saved for even more contemplation)
Now you know which partitions you can write to for Linux, since you will know which to avoid because they're Windows.
If you've only designated the extent of the Linux area (by shrinking the Windows partitions), then you'll only see detail on the Windows lines. Now you could use the "Linux on a Floppy" fdisk to make the Linux partitions and assign their types if you want to; but the Linux installer should do this OK anyway (just make sure it avoids /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 or whatever has the Windows stuff on).
Good luck!
Thanks - it might make up for lack of know-how...
On 07-Nov-05 Anthony Anson wrote:
--------======== <OT> ========--------(I've been busy today, went out for an amble with the bag, and came back with what you might be interested enough to look at (or not) at:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/fungi/dinner4.jpg
There are only a few I shall not be eating: 3, 9 & 10: 3 & 9 because I can't identify them, and 10 because it is easily confused with poisonous species and I'm not 100% certain of my identification.
The rest will be cooked, and a lot of them frozen.)
--------======== </OT> ========--------
Wow! Envy! Surprised you cam find all of those at this time of year, though. Where have you been hunting?
Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 07-Nov-05 Time: 21:38:06 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
The message XFMail.051107213808.Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk from (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk contains these words:
Wow! Envy! Surprised you cam find all of those at this time of year, though. Where have you been hunting?
All within a mile of the house.
I've sampled the funnel caps (which I haven't tried before), and molished a stew with some of the others in, and for the doubters, I'm still here .
And I've sussed what No 3 is - something's eaten the cap off a couple of large No. 7s (Helvella crispa).
As long as the weather stays mild and damp they'll keep coming, especially the blewits.
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:09:23PM +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
I've sampled the funnel caps (which I haven't tried before), and molished a stew with some of the others in, and for the doubters, I'm still here .
But have all the pixies and fairies gone home yet? or are they still passed out on the sofa?
Thanks Adam
The message 20051108094019.GA11826@thebowery.co.uk from Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk contains these words:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:09:23PM +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
I've sampled the funnel caps (which I haven't tried before), and molished a stew with some of the others in, and for the doubters, I'm still here .
But have all the pixies and fairies gone home yet? or are they still passed out on the sofa?
Last I saw of them they were searching for their perches.
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 17:45 +0000, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
If you have an IDE one, then you can get the kernel to "fake" a SCSI interface for software (like xcdroast) which expects SCSI.
There is a module ide-scsi which does this. You need to modify /etc/lilo.conf (if using a LILO booter; get someone else to tell you how to do it for GRUB!) like the following (excerpted from one of my machines):
Oh my !!
Now I know why I am not running Debian, are you guys still having to battle with IDE-SCSI emulation to get stuff like disk burning to work ?
Quite honestly I am shocked
Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com
Now I know why I am not running Debian, are you guys still having to battle with IDE-SCSI emulation to get stuff like disk burning to work ?
No. I'm using the atapi stuff. I'm looking forward to getting rid of cdrecord from my other systems. People who have emulation working generally keep on until it breaks, though (and why not?).
Quite honestly I am shocked
The willingness of many people to make wild claims is shocking.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com
Now I know why I am not running Debian, are you guys still having to battle with IDE-SCSI emulation to get stuff like disk burning to work ?
No. I'm using the atapi stuff. I'm looking forward to getting rid of cdrecord from my other systems. People who have emulation working generally keep on until it breaks, though (and why not?).
Me too! It's been, erm, err... crikey... *scratches head* - OK - when did the ATAPI stuff come in? kernel 2.4.something? Been using it since then :) Now we're just waiting on a decent cdrecord replacement without a tit as it's 'lead developer' and we'll be all the way there :)
Quite honestly I am shocked
The willingness of many people to make wild claims is shocking.
Indeedily doodily. </ned>
- -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk
On 07-Nov-05 Anthony Anson wrote:
I've just cleared a 24 gig partition on hda (E:).
Is that a "smiley" indicating "I'm basicall happy but also frowning heavily"?
Win 2000 Pro on C: - some progs and saved stuff on F:. For some reason, Windows allocated D: to the zip drive... I might re-allocate drive numbers sometime to coincide with the Linux list. How will Debian do it?
There is a strict hardware correspondence, on the IDE channels, between drives and Linux names.
IDE1 Master -> /dev/hda IDE1 Slave -> /dev/hdb
IDE2 Master -> /dev/hdc IDE2 Slave -> /dev/hdd
Then, within each /dev/gd[abcd], there are partitions /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2, etc., which are established when fdisk is run.
So, unless you physically change the hardware configuration, the Linux names will remain unchanged.
A very similar correspondence obtains on SCSI channels, only the correpondence (while similarly unique) depends on channel number and SCSI device number ("LUN").
In Windows, on the other hand, it's all schizophrenia.
You get your new machine with one nice hard drive as IDE1 Master, partition the drive into 3, say, and install Windows. You then get "drives" C:, D:, and E:. Then, later, you expand and install a second hard drive as IDE1 Slave. Windows now assigns this to Drive D:, pushing up your previous partitions to be E: and F:, and the 2nd partition you've made on your new drive is called G:. So you have
IDE1 Master: C: E: F: IDE1 Slave: D: G:
Is that quite clear ... ???
I might also fit a SCSI CD ROM so I can copy CDs at least. I haven't got a SCSI CD/DVD drive.
Q: when cfdisking it for Sarge, how will I know (for *CERTAIN*) which one to write to?
It's hardware-configuration dependent as above. No nonsense with volatile names.
I have a practice, with my DOS/Win partitions, of establishing mount points for them by 'mkdir /C:" and similar for /D: etc.; (and /A: for DOS floppies) then with suitable fstab entries it's easy to
mount /C:
and then access it on the lines of
ls /C:/Wundows/"Program Files"
which keeps the brain cells in line with WinThink.
Cheers, Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 07-Nov-05 Time: 13:58:45 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On 07/11/05, Ted Harding Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
IDE1 Master -> /dev/hda IDE1 Slave -> /dev/hdb
I would prefer to use IDE0 for the first and IDE1 for the second, but that's just me :D
(and most motherboard manufacturer) ;)
In Windows, on the other hand, it's all schizophrenia.
Um, not quite. It's not clear to the beginner, but it's not quite as bad as you make out.
You get your new machine with one nice hard drive as IDE1 Master, partition the drive into 3, say, and install Windows. You then get "drives" C:, D:, and E:. Then, later, you expand and install a second hard drive as IDE1 Slave. Windows now assigns this to Drive D:, pushing up your previous partitions to be E: and F:, and the 2nd partition you've made on your new drive is called G:. So you have
That entirely depends on how you partition your disks. At boot Windows looks for the first bootable primary partition on the first disk. It labels that C:, then moves on to other disks and does the same. So D: will only be on the second disk (in your scenario) if you make it a primary partition. If you created it as an extended partition on the second disk you'd get C:, D:, E: on your first disk as you'd expect, and F: on the second (new) disk.
Cheers, Al.
On 07-Nov-05 Alan Pope wrote:
On 07/11/05, Ted Harding Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
IDE1 Master -> /dev/hda IDE1 Slave -> /dev/hdb
I would prefer to use IDE0 for the first and IDE1 for the second, but that's just me :D
(and most motherboard manufacturer) ;)
In Windows, on the other hand, it's all schizophrenia.
Um, not quite. It's not clear to the beginner, but it's not quite as bad as you make out.
Thanks! Ah well, better ignore what I wrote! Just goes to show, though ...
Ted.
You get your new machine with one nice hard drive as IDE1 Master, partition the drive into 3, say, and install Windows. You then get "drives" C:, D:, and E:. Then, later, you expand and install a second hard drive as IDE1 Slave. Windows now assigns this to Drive D:, pushing up your previous partitions to be E: and F:, and the 2nd partition you've made on your new drive is called G:. So you have
That entirely depends on how you partition your disks. At boot Windows looks for the first bootable primary partition on the first disk. It labels that C:, then moves on to other disks and does the same. So D: will only be on the second disk (in your scenario) if you make it a primary partition. If you created it as an extended partition on the second disk you'd get C:, D:, E: on your first disk as you'd expect, and F: on the second (new) disk.
Cheers, Al.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 07-Nov-05 Time: 14:32:46 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
** Alan Pope alan.pope@gmail.com [2005-11-07 14:13]:
On 07/11/05, Ted Harding Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
You get your new machine with one nice hard drive as IDE1 Master, partition the drive into 3, say, and install Windows. You then get "drives" C:, D:, and E:. Then, later, you expand and install a second hard drive as IDE1 Slave. Windows now assigns this to Drive D:, pushing up your previous partitions to be E: and F:, and the 2nd partition you've made on your new drive is called G:. So you have
That entirely depends on how you partition your disks. At boot Windows looks for the first bootable primary partition on the first disk. It labels that C:, then moves on to other disks and does the same. So D: will only be on the second disk (in your scenario) if you make it a primary partition. If you created it as an extended partition on the second disk you'd get C:, D:, E: on your first disk as you'd expect, and F: on the second (new) disk.
** end quote [Alan Pope]
Hi Alan, enjoying the virtual weather in this part of the country :)
OK, I'll contradict you a bit here. I think you're a bit locked in the old ways of DOS/Win3.1/Win9x rather than NT/2000/XP. The original concept was to pick out the primary partition from each drive starting with IDE0 master, slave, IDE1 master, slave (or through the SCSI IDs in order) and then go back and pick off any other partitions floating around. This was a real pain when you wanted to add another hard disk, particularly if it was already formatted with data in a primary partition as it shifted all your drive letters, CDROM, etc. that were (in 9x) stored in the registry for applications, CDROM installs, etc. Drive letters are a big mistake imho!
NT/2000/XP work differently in that you will generally get the first primary as C:, but then things can change, and C: isn't always guaranteed (although it is usual). I've generally had the CDROM as D: unless I've had other partitions installed at install, and anything added arrives on later letters. That said, I have had the following examples:
Under NT4:
C: CDROM D: Molite optical E: - sorry I forget what this one was :( I think it may have been another HD partition F: NT4 install/boot partition on first primary partition
Under XP Pro:
D: first primary partition on IDE0 master C: first primary partition on IDE1 slave
This last one caused me some real hassle. The install was done with a single partition on IDE0 master with a CDROM as D: as you would expect. It was then cloned to another drive for backup. Sadly I forgot to unplug the second drive before booting the system again and although everything was already configured for it to boot as C: with the new drive on D: it didn't (the new drive was on the CDROM's connector). What it did to was make the primary master on IDE0 both D: and the system partition and make the secondary slave on IDE1 both C: and the partition used for SWAP. From this point on I could not boot without both drives connected and couldn't change the drive letter on either drive because one was the system partition and the other had swap. The quickest fix was a re-clone!
Now why was it I don't like Windows again? Inconsistent, buggy, virus', poor user interface, etc., etc..
-
Adam Bower -
Alan Pope -
Anthony Anson -
Brett Parker -
Dave Briggs -
Jon Dye -
MJ Ray -
Paul Tansom -
Robert Grant (DEV) -
Steve Fosdick -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Tim Green -
Wayne Stallwood