Installing Ubuntu on a REALLY old computer
in [Chips]
|
Prev: M766LRT MB with PIII600E Slot 1
Next: AWD64GB
From: Rod Speed on 9 Jul 2006 18:21 YKhan <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> YKhan <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> bbbl67 <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>>> I just upgraded my brother's computer from Win XP to >>>>> Ubuntu 5.10. It was an unbelievable success! It surprised >>>>> even me how smoothly it went -- didn't need to go into the >>>>> command-line even once. Linux has arrived, it seems. >>>> Nope, now try accessing NTFS formatted partitions on that. >>>> Or even just FAT32 partitions. >>> Okay, those needed me to go into the command-line. >>> But it's not really a problem, >> I didnt say it was a problem, JUST that it clearly >> hasnt ARRIVED yet when that hasnt been fixed. > Okay, if mounting a non-native filesystem without some command-line > effort is what you'd consider as not having arrived yet, then so be it. Yep, knoppix does that much better. So ubuntu hasnt arrived yet. > This is boring me. Your problem. >>> those filesystems are about to be upgraded >>> to Linux once they've been copied off. >> Sure, but many will want to keep a dual boot config >> instead, because even with ubuntu, there's still quite >> a bit that isnt handled as well as it is with XP. > My point is that we're already at a point in usability here > where you will not have go back to XP for anything. You're just plain wrong on that. There is plenty that ubuntu cant do that XP can do very easily. > That's what I meant by having arrived. Then you are just plain wrong. > A lot of the most popular types of applications (if not > the applications themselves) are now available in Linux. And there are plenty that arent, too. And hardware support is much more limited too. Try doing a 4 channel digital PVR with ubuntu and you will find that your choices are severely limited on what hardware you can use for that. And while very basic ops like getting the photos out of a digital camera are handled very intuitively, you cant do the more fancy stuff with the better digital cameras. And I'm NOT talking about manipulation of the images with stuff like GIMP either. > So far, I've seen IM, email, web browser, digital camera i/o and > editing, video (including Microsoft-proprietary formats) playback Cant handle dvr-ms format. > and editing, printing, all available in Linux. Not necessarily with the best of the apps available tho. > With this little list, I've got an operating system that is fully functional > for at least my brother for everything that he does with his computer, Irrelevant to whether its actually ARRIVED yet. It hasnt. > and I suspect that he's probably pretty > representative of a large portion of PC users. I doubt it on that question of being able to use XP while trying ubuntu alone. > This is a large leap in functionality for Linux from where it was > previously where only somebody like me could get it working, > and I'm on the geek end of computer users, a Unix system > admin -- hardly representative of average PC users. Sure, but the average XP user wont be able to use ubuntu to access what they already have on their NTFS and FAT32 partitions, and that is something that needs to be fixed before it has actually arrived. Its a big ask for that level of user to be able to copy whatever they need to keep from those to the new file systems, even if they have decided that they dont need to use XP anymore. >>> All of those files were backed up onto DVD-ROM prior >>> to the upgrade, which is ISO9660/Rockridge filesystem, >>> not XP, so those ones get mounted without problems. >> Sure, but many would prefer to use them on the hard drive instead. > Most people assume that you're going to need to back > some stuff off to CD/DVD when doing the conversion. Like hell that level of user does. The absolute vast bulk of those want to be able to continue to access whatever they have in the existing partitions on their system. Its not as if its actually hard to do, knoppix manages that fine. > Especially since most people don't have more than one > hard disk in their system, so it's usually a case of completely > converting over their sole hard drive to Linux, not > converting one drive to Linux and leaving others alone. Then the conversion should be automated as part of the install. > The partition resizers aren't going to work if > you've filled up your whole drive to near capacity, Most dont do that now with modern large hard drives. > which is easy to do when you're downloading movies and mp3's. If you've got 2-300G of stuff filling the drive, going the CD/DVD route aint ever gunna fly, you need a decent bulletproof file system converter or allow the user to continue to use the existing format. > If they need to use Windows filesystems, then they can go to the > slightly extra step of the command-line. The reverse option isn't even > available to them from XP's command-line, let alone through a GUI. Irrelevant to whether ubuntu has actually ARRIVED. It clearly hasnt yet. >>>> Should work, you can usually move a hard drive >>>> between systems and have it boot fine with linux. >>>> You could also try http://btmgr.sourceforge.net/about.html >>>> to boot the CD >>> No, that bootmanager would involve downloading something into the >>> computer which is already bloated with spyware under Windows 95. >> No it doesnt. You can download it with anything you >> like and install it without even booting that W95. > If you'll recall I've already said that CD-based booting is not working > on this system. Not a Linux boot CD, not even a Windows boot CD. > The only thing that boots is the Windows 95 on the hard disk. THAT BOOT MANAGER ALLOWS YOU TO BOOT ANY CD ON THAT SYSTEM WHICH CANT BOOT THE CD BY ITSELF. > So how do you expect the boot manager is going > to load itself into memory, devine intervention? It loads a special purpose bootstrap into the first physical track on the hard drive and that is what boots the CD. >>> Downloading is likely not going to work right now. >> Corse it will, just do that on a different system. >>>> You should be able to see how to get into the bios on the >>>> Pav on the HP site if you have a proper model number. >>> I already know the proper model number, but it doesn't look >>> like HP is too interested in giving you BIOS information. >> I didnt mean bios info, just how to
From: YKhan on 9 Jul 2006 18:23 The little lost angel wrote: > I was trying out 5.1 so it came with 1.0.5 which I then attempted to > upgrade to 1.5.04. Yeah, I found the same thing, Ubuntu 5.10 only seemed to make upto Ffox/Tbird 1.0.5 available to you. Beyond that the latest versions of Ffox/Tbird were only made available on Ubuntu 6.0 Dapper Drake. I'm not sure why, it may simply have been a decision not to bother to upgrade Ubuntu 5.10 beyond a certain level. I'm sure you can probably find the source code for Ffox/Tbird, and make your own Ubuntu 5.10 packages from it. Otherwise, just upgrade to Ubuntu 6.0. > >Digital cameras also work pretty well. > > Never bothered to try that, not even for Windows. I simply use a card > reader. It's just SO much more convenient and hassle free without > having to worry about any potential issues from the different cameras > each of us have. :P Well, card readers seem to work pretty well too. It's just an USB device, so so far I've not found any USB device that's not working in at least its most generic level. Keyboards, mice, USB hubs, etc. I've even gotten his old Lexmark Z52 printer working right out of the box. This was supposed to be one of those idiotic generations of Winprinters, where the driver was only made available for Windows, because a lot of the printer's functionality resided within that driver. This is of course a totally unexpectedly pleasant surprise. I had previously heard that with these Winprinters that I would have to find a copy of the original Windows device driver and install it under Linux and run it through a special Linux-Windows device driver translator program; the fact that I had to do nothing of the sort was pretty slick. I don't know if that's actually what's still happening in the background, but the fact that I don't have to bother to figure it out is absolutely sweet. :-) So far, the only inconvenience I've seen is what Rod Speed has been talking about, regarding the mounting of the Windows filesystems. And it's not that the GUI utility doesn't have a feature to allow NTFS filesystems to be mounted. The feature exists in the GUI, but it just doesn't seem to work properly -- so it's not that the developers forgot to add the feature, they just haven't gotten it working right. So it's an erratum in a feature, rather than a lack of a feature. The workaround solution is simple enough, I just run the mount command from a terminal window. Yousuf Khan
From: Unruh on 9 Jul 2006 18:43 "YKhan" <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> writes: >Rod Speed wrote: >> > Okay, those needed me to go into the command-line. >> > But it's not really a problem, >> >> I didnt say it was a problem, JUST that it clearly >> hasnt ARRIVED yet when that hasnt been fixed. >Okay, if mounting a non-native filesystem without some command-line >effort is what you'd consider as not having arrived yet, then so be it. >This is boring me. >> Sure, but many will want to keep a dual boot config >> instead, because even with ubuntu, there's still quite >> a bit that isnt handled as well as it is with XP. ??? Reading ntfs is all you have mentioned. Why anyone wants to I do not know. Windows does a terrible job even of reading ext2. >My point is that we're already at a point in usability here where you >will not have go back to XP for anything. That's what I meant by having >arrived. A lot of the most popular types of applications (if not the >applications themselves) are now available in Linux. >So far, I've seen IM, email, web browser, digital camera i/o and >editing, video (including Microsoft-proprietary formats) playback and >editing, printing, all available in Linux. With this little list, I've >got an operating system that is fully functional for at least my >brother for everything that he does with his computer, and I suspect >that he's probably pretty representative of a large portion of PC >users. This is a large leap in functionality for Linux from where it >was previously where only somebody like me could get it working, and >I'm on the geek end of computer users, a Unix system admin -- hardly >representative of average PC users. >> > All of those files were backed up onto DVD-ROM prior >> > to the upgrade, which is ISO9660/Rockridge filesystem, >> > not XP, so those ones get mounted without problems. >> >> Sure, but many would prefer to use them on the hard drive instead. Why? >Most people assume that you're going to need to back some stuff off to >CD/DVD when doing the conversion. Especially since most people don't >have more than one hard disk in their system, so it's usually a case of >completely converting over their sole hard drive to Linux, not >converting one drive to Linux and leaving others alone. The partition >resizers aren't going to work if you've filled up your whole drive to >near capacity, which is easy to do when you're downloading movies and >mp3's. >If they need to use Windows filesystems, then they can go to the >slightly extra step of the command-line. The reverse option isn't even >available to them from XP's command-line, let alone through a GUI. >> >> Should work, you can usually move a hard drive >> >> between systems and have it boot fine with linux. >> >> >> You could also try http://btmgr.sourceforge.net/about.html >> >> to boot the CD >> >> > No, that bootmanager would involve downloading something into the >> > computer which is already bloated with spyware under Windows 95. >> >> No it doesnt. You can download it with anything you >> like and install it without even booting that W95. >If you'll recall I've already said that CD-based booting is not working >on this system. Not a Linux boot CD, not even a Windows boot CD. The >only thing that boots is the Windows 95 on the hard disk. So how do you >expect the boot manager is going to load itself into memory, devine >intervention? Does the machine have a floppy drive? You can boot from floppy in order to install Linux. >> > Downloading is likely not going to work right now. >> >> Corse it will, just do that on a different system. >> >> >> You should be able to see how to get into the bios on the >> >> Pav on the HP site if you have a proper model number. >> >> > I already know the proper model number, but it doesn't look >> > like HP is too interested in giving you BIOS information. >> >> I didnt mean bios info, just how to set it to boot >> off a CD. Bet it does tell you how to do that. >No, it doesn't, all it says is "put a CD in the drive and boot from >it", and that's extent of all of the detail it's got, but quite >obviously that's not working. But you're welcome to look for yourself. >HP Pavillion 5040.
From: Ed H. on 9 Jul 2006 19:23 On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:04:36 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> I just upgraded my brother's computer from Win XP to >>>>>> Ubuntu 5.10. It was an unbelievable success! It surprised >>>>>> even me how smoothly it went -- didn't need to go into the >>>>>> command-line even once. Linux has arrived, it seems. > >>>>> Nope, now try accessing NTFS formatted partitions on that. > >>>>> Or even just FAT32 partitions. > >>>> Yes, and you will find that it makes a terrible cup of espresso as well. > >>> Have fun explaining how come knoppix handles the same drive fine. > >> Ubuntu doesn't have any problem with it either. > > Fraid it does with the effortlessness and intuitiveness that was being discussed. No one was discussing that until you interjected it into the discussion. > Knoppix does it much more intuitively. Then, by all means, if you like Knoppix better, use it. Of course, that would mean you'd have to actually start using Linux. >>>>>> So he's got his Firefox and Thunderbird just like in Windows. >>>>>> He's found himself a bittorrent client that he likes, IM's with >>>>>> Gaim. I've even found the solutions to allow him to play >>>>>> Windows *.WMV and *.WMA video and audio files. He's happy. :-) > >>>>> Until he trys to access XP partitions. > >>>> And he wants to do that why? > >>> Irrelevant to whether it really has arrived. It hasnt even now. > >> The OP didn't say he set it up for dual boot. > > The OP is irrelevant. You have got to be joking. Or trolling. >> He said he upgraded from XP *TO* Ubuntu 5.10. If all he has on the system is Ubuntu >> (or any other distro of Linux), why would there be a need to access XP partitions? > > Irrelevant to whether its time has come for those who dont use ubuntu exclusively. I have no problems using Ubuntu, or any Linux distro for that matter, either stand alone or dual boot. >> My experience has been that XP is the OS that has trouble accessing >> Linux part. and not the other way around. > > Not with FAT32 and NTFS partitions it doesnt. Who cares how well XP works with FAT32 or NTFS? I know for a certainty that XP can't see my Linux partition. Apparently Windows hasn't arrived. Now run along and troll somewhere else. Ed -- Registered Linux User #416016 Registered Linux Machine #323569
From: Rod Speed on 9 Jul 2006 19:45
Unruh <unruh-spam(a)physics.ubc.ca> wrote > YKhan <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> writes >> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Okay, those needed me to go into the command-line. >>>> But it's not really a problem, >>> I didnt say it was a problem, JUST that it clearly >>> hasnt ARRIVED yet when that hasnt been fixed. >> Okay, if mounting a non-native filesystem without >> some command-line effort is what you'd consider as >> not having arrived yet, then so be it. This is boring me. >>> Sure, but many will want to keep a dual boot config >>> instead, because even with ubuntu, there's still quite >>> a bit that isnt handled as well as it is with XP. > ??? Reading ntfs is all you have mentioned. Wrong. > Why anyone wants to I do not know. Your problem. > Windows does a terrible job even of reading ext2. Irrelevant to what was being discussed, WHETHER UBUNTO HAS ARRIVED. It goes out of its way to be easy for a Win user to try, and needs to do that better before it has ARRIVED. >> My point is that we're already at a point in usability here where you >> will not have go back to XP for anything. That's what I meant by >> having arrived. A lot of the most popular types of applications (if >> not the applications themselves) are now available in Linux. >> So far, I've seen IM, email, web browser, digital camera i/o and >> editing, video (including Microsoft-proprietary formats) playback and >> editing, printing, all available in Linux. With this little list, >> I've got an operating system that is fully functional for at least my >> brother for everything that he does with his computer, and I suspect >> that he's probably pretty representative of a large portion of PC >> users. This is a large leap in functionality for Linux from where it >> was previously where only somebody like me could get it working, and >> I'm on the geek end of computer users, a Unix system admin -- hardly >> representative of average PC users. >>>> All of those files were backed up onto DVD-ROM prior >>>> to the upgrade, which is ISO9660/Rockridge filesystem, >>>> not XP, so those ones get mounted without problems. >>> Sure, but many would prefer to use them on the hard drive instead. > Why? Have you actually tried backing up 300G hard drives to DVD ? >> Most people assume that you're going to need to back some stuff off >> to CD/DVD when doing the conversion. Especially since most people >> don't have more than one hard disk in their system, so it's usually >> a case of completely converting over their sole hard drive to Linux, >> not converting one drive to Linux and leaving others alone. The >> partition resizers aren't going to work if you've filled up your >> whole drive to near capacity, which is easy to do when you're >> downloading movies and mp3's. >> If they need to use Windows filesystems, then they can go to the >> slightly extra step of the command-line. The reverse option isn't >> even available to them from XP's command-line, let alone through a >> GUI. >>>>> Should work, you can usually move a hard drive >>>>> between systems and have it boot fine with linux. >>>>> You could also try http://btmgr.sourceforge.net/about.html >>>>> to boot the CD >>>> No, that bootmanager would involve downloading something into the >>>> computer which is already bloated with spyware under Windows 95. >>> No it doesnt. You can download it with anything you >>> like and install it without even booting that W95. >> If you'll recall I've already said that CD-based booting is not >> working on this system. Not a Linux boot CD, not even a Windows boot >> CD. The only thing that boots is the Windows 95 on the hard disk. So >> how do you expect the boot manager is going to load itself into >> memory, devine intervention? > Does the machine have a floppy drive? You > can boot from floppy in order to install Linux. Makes more sense to fix the CD boot. >>>> Downloading is likely not going to work right now. >>> Corse it will, just do that on a different system. >>>>> You should be able to see how to get into the bios on the >>>>> Pav on the HP site if you have a proper model number. >>>> I already know the proper model number, but it doesn't look >>>> like HP is too interested in giving you BIOS information. >>> I didnt mean bios info, just how to set it to boot >>> off a CD. Bet it does tell you how to do that. >> No, it doesn't, all it says is "put a CD in the drive and boot from >> it", and that's extent of all of the detail it's got, but quite >> obviously that's not working. But you're welcome to look for >> yourself. HP Pavillion 5040. |