Installing Ubuntu on a REALLY old computer

[Rod Speed]

Scott Alfter wrote

You're right. Reading NTFS or FAT partitions is hardly the
killer app that's going to springboard Linux into the limelight.

Lack of it may well be what stops quite a few trying it on their
personal desktop system to see if it does what they need tho.

Thats clearly what ubuntu particularly is attempting
to do, provide a viable alternative to Win.

 

[Dan N]

Lack of it may well be what stops quite a few trying it on their personal
desktop system to see if it does what they need tho.

Thats clearly what ubuntu particularly is attempting to do, provide a
viable alternative to Win.

Ubuntu is moving so fast that I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the next
release.

One feature that ubuntu has that I really like is its ability to easily
connect to a variety of servers, including ssh (like windows PuTTY),
webdav (a feature found in IE), ftp and windows shares. Go to
Places->Connect-To-Server. It leaves you a permanent icon for easy gui
browsing. Makes it easy to access to other computers, via a variety of
connection modes.

Only problem is there are still some bugs in it, the biggest one being
that you can't change the connection settings afterwards. It's also a
pain that it insists on leaving the icon on your desktop.

Dan

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Ubuntu is moving so fast that I wouldn't
be surprised if it's in the next release.

Yeah, and it looks rather more like a wart rather
than a deliberate implementation choice.

One feature that ubuntu has that I really like is its ability to
easily connect to a variety of servers, including ssh (like windows
PuTTY), webdav (a feature found in IE), ftp and windows shares.
Go to Places->Connect-To-Server. It leaves you a permanent
icon for easy gui browsing. Makes it easy to access to other
computers, via a variety of connection modes.

Yep, quite a bit better done than with knoppix for example.

Only problem is there are still some bugs in it, the biggest one
being that you can't change the connection settings afterwards.
It's also a pain that it insists on leaving the icon on your desktop.

Yeah, dont use desktops anymore myself. The
Win quicklaunch toolbar leaves them for dead.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

THAT BOOT MANAGER ALLOWS YOU TO BOOT ANY CD
ON THAT SYSTEM WHICH CANT BOOT THE CD BY ITSELF.


It loads a special purpose bootstrap into the first physical
track on the hard drive and that is what boots the CD.

Interesting, but the system is stated to have CD booting capabilities,
but it still doesn't work. For whatever reason, it's not able to
completely read the boot sector of a CD. In fact, whenever there's a
bootable CD in that drive, it gets stuck, it won't even skip past the CD
and start booting from hard disk. You have to completely remove the CD
from the CD drawer and then reboot to get it to boot off of its own hard
disk. The system is just old, it doesn't surprise me that it doesn't
work as advertised anymore, it's like an arthritic old senior citizen.
There were cobwebs growing inside this system -- literally.

As I thought
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/...dlc=en&product=60440&lang=en&docname=bph07110
tells you how to setup the boot options in the bios.

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/...dlc=en&product=60440&lang=en&docname=bph07146
tells you how to get into the bios and check the setup for the CD etc.

Well great, that was a good find, but it didn't help any. The boot
options were set up properly, and we tried a few more combinations after
that, and nothing worked. It's just a broken feature now.

We've now been able to install its hard disk from another system and
then continue its configuration locally. Definitely Ubuntu is not the
right distro for this machine, so I've started trying figure out Elive now.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Interesting, but the system is stated to have CD booting capabilities, but it still
doesn't work. For whatever reason, it's not able to completely read the boot sector of a
CD. In fact, whenever there's a bootable CD in that drive, it gets stuck, it won't even
skip past the CD and start booting from hard disk. You have to completely remove the CD
from the CD drawer and then reboot to get it to boot off of its own hard disk.

OK, you didnt include that vital info till now.

I'd still try that boot manager because it may be able to
boot the CD even if the bios cant for whatever reason.

The system is just old, it doesn't surprise me that it doesn't work as advertised
anymore, it's like an arthritic old senior citizen.

Nope, nothing like. While the cdrom drive may have
failed, you can check that possibility by seeing if it can
read CDs properly after having booted the hard drive.

There were cobwebs growing inside this system -- literally.

There's some one some of my discards and they work fine anyway.

Well great, that was a good find, but it didn't help any.

It was the obvious thing to check before deciding it cant boot the CD.

The boot options were set up properly, and we tried a few more combinations after that,
and nothing worked. It's just a broken feature now.

Doesnt mean that its not fixable or that that boot manager cant boot a CD either.

We've now been able to install its hard disk from another system and then continue its
configuration locally. Definitely Ubuntu is not the right distro for this machine,

Yeah, even knoppix has problems with those minimal machines.

So do some of the True Image rescue CDs which are another linux variant.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Doesnt mean that its not fixable or that that boot manager cant boot a CD either.


Yeah, even knoppix has problems with those minimal machines.

So do some of the True Image rescue CDs which are another linux variant.

The CD-ROM works fine for non-boot purposes. Once the OS is running, it
acts just fine.

Found out something strange about it. The only boot CD it seems to
recognize is its own original Windows 95 rescue CD, and nothing else.
There's two possibilities here: (1) it doesn't like booting from burned
CD's, just stamped ones, or (2) it is requiring a proprietary boot
format. In the days of Windows 95, very few systems could boot from CD,
you always needed at least a boot floppy which would then go to CD to
install Windows. So the fact that this is probably one of the earliest
systems with a bootable CD would indicate that maybe it's a proprietary
boot format.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

The CD-ROM works fine for non-boot purposes. Once the OS is running, it acts just fine.

OK, then its very likely a bios problem.

I'd try a later bios flash if one is available.

Found out something strange about it. The only boot CD it seems to
recognize is its own original Windows 95 rescue CD, and nothing else.

Yeah, that's likely significant.

There's two possibilities here: (1) it doesn't like booting from burned CD's, just
stamped ones,

Should be easy to test that possibility by trying to boot a Win distribution CD.

or (2) it is requiring a proprietary boot format.

Dont recall any did that. It might be a side effect of
the recovery system tho, it will ony boot recovery CDs.

In the days of Windows 95, very few systems could boot from CD,

Thats overstating it, quite a few could.

you always needed at least a boot floppy which would then go to CD to install Windows.

Nope, nothing like always. But that is why that boot manager was
developed, for those earlier systems that didnt have any provision
for booting CDs in the bios. That Pav isnt one of those tho.

So the fact that this is probably one of the earliest systems with a bootable CD would
indicate that maybe it's a proprietary boot format.

Like I said, I dont recall that any of them did it like that.

I bet its just that it can boot a recovery CD and isnt happy with anything else
for some reason. The HP web site would have said if it wont boot normal CDs.

 

[Richard Steiner]

Here in alt.os.linux,

Thats overstating it, quite a few could.

In 1995-1996, bootable CD support in the BIOS was quite rare. I don't
think I started seeing that kind of support in mainstream x86 machines
until 1997 or so.

 

[Rod Speed]

In 1995-1996, bootable CD support in the BIOS was quite rare.

That particular Pavillion can tho and THATS what matters.

 

[magnate]

All Linux distros can read NTFS out of the box ...

Its currently dropped the ball on completely transparent
support for FAT32 and NTFS partitions.

FAT32 support is completely transparent ...

Its not as if its actually difficult to do either, knoppix does that
fine, tho its support for write access to NTFS partitions is pathetic.

.... but NTFS *write* access has never been implemented, because M$ will
not release the structural details. It all had to be
reverse-engineered, and writing to NTFS is still unsafe.

Thats essential when so many XP systems have nothing but NTFS.

That's fine, you can read all your NTFS data, and write your new stuff
to your new Linux partition. That's why you're testing Linux, right?

BUT thats useless for many who need a decent dual
boot at least, because linux will never be able to be
all things to everyone with personal desktop systems.

It is no less likely to become "all things to everyone" than Windows.
Rather more likely, in fact, because it embraces what people actually
want rather than what M$ tells them they want.

Unless of course you were referring to M$'s monopolistic practices of,
what's it called, embrace extend extinguish - undermining open
standards and locking users into proprietary ones instead. That may
well succeed in preventing Linux becoming "all things to everyone" -
it's the only way they'll win.

And even when a particular user has decided that linux has
arrived and has decided that they wont be wanting to use
XP again, it still hasnt arrived until its got a decent bulletproof
system for converting the file system if it doesnt have completely
bulletproof NTFS support. Hardly any of the level of user that
ubuntu is aimed at will be able to or even want to do that
file system conversion manually via DVDs.

Reading files across from an NTFS partition to a Linux one is not too
hard. Once copied, you just nuke the NTFS and lo, you've switched to
Linux.

CC

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

All Linux distros can read NTFS out of the box ...

Separate matter entirely to his comment about not needing to use the command line.

FAT32 support is completely transparent ...

Not with ubuntu 6.06 it aint.

... but NTFS *write* access has never been implemented,
Wrong.

because M$ will not release the structural details. It all had
to be reverse-engineered, and writing to NTFS is still unsafe.

But has been implemented.

That's fine, you can read all your NTFS data, and
write your new stuff to your new Linux partition.

Not that easy for that level of user.

That's why you're testing Linux, right?

Yes, but it would be much more convenient if it could write NTFS too.

Until that happens, its hard to say its actually arrived.

It is no less likely to become "all things to everyone" than Windows.

Wrong. Virtually everyone develops for Win, because
its by far the dominant personal desktop OS.

Rather more likely, in fact, because it embraces what people
actually want rather than what M$ tells them they want.

There's a lot more than what MS tells anyone they want.

Unless of course you were referring to M$'s monopolistic practices
of, what's it called, embrace extend extinguish - undermining open
standards and locking users into proprietary ones instead.

Nope, wasnt making any comment about that conspiracy theory.

That may well succeed in preventing Linux becoming
"all things to everyone" - it's the only way they'll win.

Nope, they won the personal desktop LONG ago.

Reading files across from an NTFS partition to a Linux one is not too hard.

Yes, but few of those users will have any free space for a linux partition
so that process needs to be bulletproof before its actually arrived.

Once copied, you just nuke the NTFS and lo, you've switched to Linux.

You still need a completely bulletproof expansion of the linux partition
to use that new free space if you go that route for that level of user.

And since few will be installing it on a half full system, your
approach really isnt that viable, so a decent completely bulletproof
file system conversion is the only approach that is that viable.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Should be easy to test that possibility by trying to boot a Win distribution CD.

Well, we did try to boot from a burned Win XP CD for kicks, and it
didn't boot off of that either. Don't have any other copies of Win 95 or
Win 98 lying around here anymore to try out.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

That particular Pavillion can tho and THATS what matters.

But how specifically did that particular Pavillion do it? That also
matters. Was there a boot-CD standard available at that time, or were
they some kind of proprietary boot loaders, only recognized by one
particular manufacturer or model?

Yousuf Khan

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

But how specifically did that particular Pavillion do it?

Just the usual way that became universal.

That also matters. Was there a boot-CD standard available at that time,
Yes.

or were they some kind of proprietary boot loaders, only recognized by one particular
manufacturer or model?

Nope, if that was what was done, the HP site would have said that.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Well, we did try to boot from a burned Win XP CD for kicks, and it didn't boot off of
that either. Don't have any other copies of Win 95 or Win 98 lying around here anymore
to try out.

Quite a few of the cdrom drives of that era didnt like burnt CDs.

Easy to try that possibility by replacing it with a modern drive.

 

[Unruh]

Just the usual way that became universal.

Yes.

As far as I know the boot standard was simply the floppy boot standard.
Ie, the cdrom was/is just treated as if it were a floppy drive and the
first sectors of the disk read off and jumped to. All this required was
that the bios be able to read raw sectors from the device.

Nope, if that was what was done, the HP site would have said that.

Why would they have said that? Noone else who has a proprietary way of
doing things makes a big deal of the fact that they are incompatible with
everyone else.

 

[John B]

Nope, now try accessing NTFS formatted partitions on that.

Hmm, ntfs read is easy as. Not sure if its out of the box but I think it is.

I even managed to delete files from an ntfs partition then resize the
partition down to a smaller size so I could make a new linux partition.
That was using ntfsprogs however, not so easy as just mounting a ntfs
partition in RO mode.

And this was on ubuntu 5.10

Or even just FAT32 partitions.

Read/write at will

<...>

JB

 

[Rod Speed]

As far as I know the boot standard was simply the floppy boot
standard. Ie, the cdrom was/is just treated as if it were a floppy
drive and the first sectors of the disk read off and jumped to.

Its a little more complicated than that, most obviously with the
driver thats needed to boot a CD, but thats the general idea.

All this required was that the bios be able
to read raw sectors from the device.

Its more complicated than that with what it
does with the raw sector it first reads tho.

Why would they have said that?

Because there would have been plenty of questions
about why you couldnt boot a distribution CD.

Noone else who has a proprietary way of doing things makes a
big deal of the fact that they are incompatible with everyone else.

The HP FAQ system is a bit more than most bother with.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Hmm, ntfs read is easy as. Not sure if its out of the box but I think it is.

Fraid not with ubuntu 6.06

I even managed to delete files from an ntfs partition then resize the partition down to
a smaller size so I could make a new linux partition. That was using ntfsprogs however,
not so easy as just mounting a ntfs partition in RO mode.

And not without the use of the command line that he was clearly claiming.

And this was on ubuntu 5.10

Read/write at will

Not without the use of the command line with ubuntu 6.06

That was ALL I meant, I was JUST commenting on that command line use.

Like I said, its obviously trivial, even knoppix manages
to do it without any need to use the command line.

 

[John B]

Fraid not with ubuntu 6.06

Yeah, when I think about it that would make sense with
canonical/ubuntu's stance on proprietary/edge case legal stuff such as
reverse engineered ntfs drivers.

And not without the use of the command line that he was clearly claiming.

Correct, command line is a must.

<...>

JB