D
DefecTalisman
Whats the possibility, would put each on its own +-20gig drive, any order
they should be set via IDE cables?
they should be set via IDE cables?
A
Alias
DefecTalisman said:
Install Vista first (it insists) and then install Ubuntu on the other
drive. When you're done, when you boot up you will be given the choice
of Vista or Ubuntu.
Alias
M
Malke
DefecTalisman said:
Install Vista first and then Ubuntu. Use the Grub bootloader. For ease
of installation, install Vista on the master drive (Drive 0) and Ubuntu
on the slave drive (Drive 1). Note: 20GB is too small for Vista; don't
install on anything less than 40GB and that's pushing it.
Malke
D
DefecTalisman
Sorry maybe the question wasn't clear.
I would like to put Vista, Windows XP and Ubuntu on each drive and be able
to boot from each without having to unplug power cable.
I would like to put Vista, Windows XP and Ubuntu on each drive and be able
to boot from each without having to unplug power cable.
F
Frank
Uhhh...that simply not true.Malke said:
I have Vista Ultimate X64, with all updates downloaded and installed on
a 29.4GB partition with 18.5GB of free space.
You do the math.
Frank
F
Frank
You would have around 10.9GB's of free space left if using a 20GB HDD.GO said:Man, Vista is bloated (never really though about it until I saw your post)!
Win2k was about 1GB, XP was about 2GB, Vista.....12GB!
20GB could be sufficient though couldn't it? Provided he's installing apps
and data on another partition. But I guess with a 20GB *drive* it would
eliminate any extra space for paritions
Frank
G
GO
Malke said:
Man, Vista is bloated (never really though about it until I saw your post)!
Win2k was about 1GB, XP was about 2GB, Vista.....12GB!
20GB could be sufficient though couldn't it? Provided he's installing apps
and data on another partition. But I guess with a 20GB *drive* it would
eliminate any extra space for paritions
T
Terry R.
Uhhh...that simply not true.
I have Vista Ultimate X64, with all updates downloaded and installed on
a 29.4GB partition with 18.5GB of free space.
You do the math.
Frank[/QUOTE]
Yes, but do you have all apps installed to the same drive? I have my XP
partition at 6 gig, but have all my apps on a separate drive and data on
another drive.
It all depends on how a user sets up his system. If you're installing
all apps to the same OS partition, 40 gig isn't unreasonable.
--
Terry R.
***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
F
Frank
Terry said:
Yes, but do you have all apps installed to the same drive? I have my XP
partition at 6 gig, but have all my apps on a separate drive and data on
another drive.
It all depends on how a user sets up his system. If you're installing
all apps to the same OS partition, 40 gig isn't unreasonable.
[/QUOTE]
No apps. Just Vista X64. This is a test mule. I'll install and remove apps.
All data is on the server.
Frank
T
Terry R.
No apps. Just Vista X64. This is a test mule. I'll install and remove apps.
All data is on the server.
Frank[/QUOTE]
Then I agree with you. For the OS only, 40 gig would be overkill. 15
to 20 would be plenty if apps are installed to another partition, and
data to another partition (or server).
--
Terry R.
***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
M
Malke
DefecTalisman said:
The question was completely clear. From what you have written, you want
to triple-boot. Why ever would you "unplug power cable"? We may have a
language problem if English is not your first language.
If you want to multiple-boot operating systems (doesn't matter which
ones), then putting each one on its own drive is ideal. For the three
you mentioned, install in this order: XP, Vista, Ubuntu. Use Grub as the
bootloader.
To address the drive size, I assumed that you would be putting the
operating system, programs, and data for each operating system on its
respective hard drive and that you would have only one hard drive for
each OS. You didn't mention partitioning so with such small hard drives
(you said "20+GB"), that's what I based my assumption on. If this is
correct, then I stand by what I said about needing at least 40GB of
space for Vista and its programs and its data.
To use a multi-boot system you start the computer and boot into the
desired operating system by selecting your choice from the boot loader
menu (Grub). Then when you want to leave that operating system, you must
restart the computer and choose another operating system from the boot
loader menu.
Perhaps "unplug power cable" could be construed as meaning you don't
want to reboot the machine. In that case, use virtualization software
such as Virtual PC or VMWare and create virtual machines running other
operating systems. In that case, you don't have a multi-boot - you have
the host operating system running and then you start VMWare (or VPC) and
choose your virtual machine.
There is a vast amount of information on the Internet about
multi-booting and about using virtualization. Start Googling if you want
more details.
Malke
S
Stephan Rose
Maybe he is running Vista and found that unplugging the power cable to be
simpler than to deal with it's shutdown menu? =)
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
D
Dave
I think he means unplugging power to 2 of the drives, so it will boot off
the one that is still powered.
Only having one drive available at a time.
the one that is still powered.
Only having one drive available at a time.
T
Tim Judd
Malke said:
Another option the OP has, which I use repeatedly at home and work,
which works WELL, is to use removable drive bays and caddies.
I bought one at CompUSA, the first bay plus caddy was $25. Each caddy
(which I can't find anymore in the store) was $20 and I have 5 removable
caddies on one bay. One is Windows (which doesn't run 24/7, one is
Fedora, one is FreeBSD, and a couple of "test drives" to erase and
reinstall 'til my heart's content. Trouble is, if you have a mix of
(E)IDE and SATA drives, you need a total of three 5.25" bays, one for
the CD-ROM/DVD, one for the (E)IDE bay, and one for the SATA bay.
Really a well done system and I would recommend this setup for any and
all "test boxes." Just make sure you set the BIOS to autodetect,
instead of fixed values (default on any relatively modern setup).
K
Kerry Brown
Terry R. said:
Then I agree with you. For the OS only, 40 gig would be overkill. 15 to
20 would be plenty if apps are installed to another partition, and data to
another partition (or server).
[/QUOTE]
Given the original question I don't think the OP would be up to installing
apps on another partition and then moving the user profiles to yet another.
For any OS 40 GB is reasonable recommendation today. It's hard to even find
an 80 GB let alone a 40 GB drive. I can't count how many times I've had to
repartition systems where someone had given the OS a reasonable amount of
space when it was installed. A couple of years later it's no where near
enough.
T
Terry R.
On 6/22/2007 1:17 PM On a whim, Kerry Brown pounded out on the keyboard
Well, he was talking about separate drives, and if he's going to use
other OS's (I have 5 on mine), a shared data drive is always a good idea.
Regarding repartitioning, that's where it takes planning, correct? I
leave unallocated space next to partitions and if they need more, I'll
expand it. Since I use a 3 hard drive setup, I keep backup partitions
on each drive of the other drives. That way when a drive fails (and
I've had each one of them do so), I can install another drive and
quickly copy the needed partitions over to it.
I don't really see any advantage to partitioning one hard drive. If you
lose it, everything goes anyway.
--
Terry R.
***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Well, he was talking about separate drives, and if he's going to use
other OS's (I have 5 on mine), a shared data drive is always a good idea.
Regarding repartitioning, that's where it takes planning, correct? I
leave unallocated space next to partitions and if they need more, I'll
expand it. Since I use a 3 hard drive setup, I keep backup partitions
on each drive of the other drives. That way when a drive fails (and
I've had each one of them do so), I can install another drive and
quickly copy the needed partitions over to it.
I don't really see any advantage to partitioning one hard drive. If you
lose it, everything goes anyway.
--
Terry R.
***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
S
Stephan Rose
My drive is split into 3 partitions not for backup reasons, but for
technical reasons.
30gig partition for /
5 gig partition for Swap Memory
Remainder of drive for /home
The swap memory partition has the advantage that the system does not need
to go through the file system layer when swapping memory to disk. Not that
I really need to worry about it much. I think my peak swap memory usage is
somewhere around a few hundred kb.
And having my root and home partitions split allows me to completely
reinstall the OS without even in the slightest way affecting my data or
application settings. Everything, down to every last setting in every
single application will be back to where it was after a reinstall.
Try that with Vista
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
F
Frank
Stephan Rose wrote:
Frank
Can you say "clone the image"?Try that with Vista
Frank
S
Stephan Rose
That's not the same thing.
Cloning an image has nothing to do with the operating system. It's just
reading the raw sectors of the hard disk, writing them to another type of
media, and later on restoring the raw sectors. What is actually stored on
the hard disk, be it data, operating system, etc. is irrelevant.
Also, there are a few disadvantages:
If I created the clone 10 weeks ago, it is 10 weeks out of date.
That means 10 weeks of lost data, 10 weeks of lost e-mail, and so on.
I also need some type of media with sufficient space to actually store the
clone.
Contrary to my case, where OS and and User partitions are entirely
separated, I don't need to rely on a out of date clone to restore my
system. All my data, application settings, etc. will be up to date to the
very last second as reinstalling the OS does not affect them the slightest.
Clones are fine for periodic backups, and probably the best way for Vista
to restore the OS. But....luckily I have better means available that don't
result in data loss if needing to reinstall the OS. =)
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
F
Frank
Stephan said:
Oh I agree. The registry is the Achilles heel of the windows os. But
what can ms do about it? Dump it in an all new os? Great, but what about
all those apps designed over the decades that need a registry to run.
It’s like a chicken and egg situation.
It nice that with nix based os’s you can reinstall the os and nothave
to do the apps.
The real problem with linux is the 300+ distros out there. It’s like
they’re trying to bring down an elephant (representing the pc market)
with a shot gun.
Ain't gonna happen!
Frank