Computing desk
< December 26	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 27

Help with Installing a Dual Boot on an Ancient PC

I am currently sitting in front of an ancient PC. Here are its specs:

AMD Athlon 64*2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ 2.41 GHz, 1.93 GB of RAM, 74.5 GB of C: drive, about 39.3 GB of which is unused, running Windows XP, Home Edition, Version 2002, Service Pack 3.

The machine itself is physically sound, except for a rattly cooling fan. It seems a waste to dispose of it just because it has been replaced by a more up-to-date machine. So, I'd like to use it to learn how to set up a dual boot for a suitable version of Linux, then use the machine to run OpenOffice and a suitable web browser (probably something like Firefox or Pale Moon). Problem is this: I don't know what version of Linux would work best on this hardware set-up. Any help or advice on this would be much appreciated.

If possible, I'd like to be able to read existing files in the existing directory structure from Linux. I've heard that this is possible, but don't know how it can be made to work, so any comments on this would also be useful.

Thanks in advance for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.107.96 (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have a CD drive ? If so, and if it has the option to boot from the CD (which is almost certain, if it has a CD drive), then I suggest the following:

1) Set the boot order to CD first, then hard drive.

2) Place a Linux boot CD in the CD drive and reboot, when you want Linux.

3) Remove the Linux boot CD and reboot to get Windows XP.

It's also possible it has the ability to boot from a flash drive, in which case you could do the same thing using that, but your more ancient PCs may lack this capability. A really ancient PC may also have the ability to boot from floppy disk, but those probably aren't big enough to hold a useful version of Linux, so that would mean you would need to copy most of the Linux files onto the hard drive, and the floppy would just start the boot sequence, using those files on the hard drive. A full boot manager is another option, but that seems more complex, to me, as you need to coordinate between the boot manager and both the Windows XP and Linux boot software, and changing any of the 3 might mess things up. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many machines were booting from a floppy by the time of dual core processors (though anything is possible). According to this and my own experience, most computers will run through a sequence of trying to boot from various devices (floppy first, then optical, then hard drive or whatever), so it's unlikely he'd need a floppy-sized version of Linux (or workaround). Matt Deres (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Installation on External Hard Drive

Hello. I am a bit of a computer noob, currently have a Macbook Pro, and am looking to start working with Ubuntu. I have seen that I can 'boot from a USB'. Am I right in thinking that this is different from partitioning your hard drive? (I have read that I shouldn't do this on on Mac) I have an external hard drive that is 1 TB I think. If I partition this, and format the partition correctly, can I install Ubuntu on this partition and just run it normally through my Mac as long as it is plugged in via USB? Will there be any problems running it this way? Sorry for the noob questions, and thanks for your help! 79.66.101.143 (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful links: Check out [1]. Also, the forum folks at [2] saved my skin a couple of times.

Booting refers to the process by which the heap of electronics in front of you becomes a computer capable of taking input from the user and performing operations. Without getting into the specifics, what 99.9% of owners of electronic devices do is that they buy their device in a physical state that is configured to boot on a specific part of its internal memory, loading the operating system located there.

It is nonetheless possible to boot from another memory location, including from a USB stick or whatnot. This generally entails a performance penalty as external locations are usually harder to access for the hardware, and the computer will need to access those files a lot of the times. While you could configure your bootloader to go the external drive every time, it clearly is an inferior solution compared to a hard-drive install, ceteris paribus, and from my first link above I would venture it is not impossible to do a hard drive install on a MacBook Pro. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linux is really very easy (and in many ways far better) but it is not Windows. So take some baby-steps first. Suggest you instal (say) Linux Mint or Ubuntu (both the same in this context) on a pen drive to get familiar with Linux. Questions about partitioning can come later when it makes more sense to you. Then you can take advantage of the 'free' Linux tools available to partition hard drives. --Aspro (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does Linux not being Windows help a Mac user? Nil Einne (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Windows does an awful lot of stuff automatically. It searches for missing drivers, and then downloads and installs them without being asked. With Linux, you're on your own. I foolishly bought a Raspberry Pi and quickly became frustrated at the steep learning curve that required me to:

know what driver was missing
know what version it should be
manually download it (had to learn how to do that)
try manually installing it (had to learn how to do that)
learn all about modifying file permissions because installation was blocked
try several dozen times to install, using various combinations of file permissions
uninstall mess-ups that I made in the above processes (had to learn how to do that)
uninstall mess-ups that I made in trying to uninstall mess-ups
accept that some mess-ups would never be uninstalled and would forever consume space in the SD card memory
try very hard to remember all the steps that did work for next time
accept that some features would never work because of missing libraries (Linux doesn't tell you which ones)
spend sleepless nights pondering why the writers of Linux would reset file permissions when issuing an update or upgrade

No doubt if you're a dedicated nerd who loves typing commands on a command line interface and playing about for hours and hours, you'll just love Linux. Otherwise, you'll get a real appreciation for just how wonderful Windows is. Akld guy (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Far from a geek. Just found that Linux is easier to use and doesn’t keep throwing up problems which I have to spend time on to fix . Time is money, thus Windows is very much more expensive (note that Microsoft has dropped the claim that windows offers a lower total cost of ownership because it focused IT people to look at the TCO and found it more expensive to maintain). Of course Window has no learning curve at all Ho Ho Ho. Microsoft: The Windows 8 learning curve is 'real and needs to be addressed'. As pointed out above Linux is Not Windows. So of course your going to experience problems if one retains the Model T Ford attitude when trying to fly a jet. One simply has to unlearn an operating system that only allows you to do what Microsoft only allows you to do, in the Microsoft way, on the computer that 'you' own. Its a billion dollar scam. --Aspro (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate started in the year 15, and both sides have only managed to convince themselves that they are correct. But luckily we are all united in our hatred for MacOS.

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. I use all three, and all three have advantages and disadvantages.[reply]

I still don't get why there's all this talk of Windows when the question was from a MacOS user without any clear indication they've ever used or want to use, Windows. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the refdesk version of WP:COATRACKING. Just be glad that they didn't decide to coatrack US presidential politics on the poor mac user.

BTW, the correct answer is, as mentioned above, "read https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MacBookPro and do what it says". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:COATRACKING. The OP asked "Will there be any problems running it this way? Sorry for the noob questions,..." which I took to mean that that he/she knew nothing of the pitfalls of Linux/Ubuntu. I pointed out that, unlike with Windows, those OS's require a tremendous amount of familiarity with drivers and libraries that may be missing and how to install them. This is a not insignificant problem. Anyone who thinks they are going to waltz into running and maintaining Linux will get a rude shock. Akld guy (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may have had a bad experience (maybe because you had a Paspberry Pi, not a normal desktop/laptop?) and indeed Linux isn't a good fit for everyone, but stating it requires a tremendous amount of familiarity with drivers and libraries is generally not true. Usually it just works. Most drivers are build into the kernel, just make sure you have a somewhat recent version. If not, open some utility and select the driver you want (usually one of "tested open source", "proprietary" and "experimental") and it will be installed automatically. If you install software the easy way, the required libraries are downloaded and installed automatically. I've used Linux for over 10 years now, never had any problems with drivers or libraries. Not now, not when I started. Furthermore, the reference desk may not be the best place to ask practical questions on Linux. Every major Linux distro has its own forums. Those for Ubuntu can be found at https://ubuntuforums.org/. There you'll find many experienced users who can help with any issues you encounter. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As User:PiusImpavidus said`: Usually it just works were as with Windows, Microsoft always tell us it always works... err... well just. Linux may have a steep learning curve but modern Linux is now easier than the Windows learning curve. Place a live Linux Mint onto a pen drive and play around with it. You may find that you drift over to Linux for the same reasons I did. And it gets worse and worse with 100 common Windows 10 problems and how to solve them. Being self-employed, time is money to me and came to find that Windows is just a waist of time and money and I am not enough of a geek to fix all its continuous problems. Especially, when MS upgrades one's computer (without your permission) and buggers it up leaving one with a useless computer. Microsoft is now apologising -yet again. Typical of them. As Bill Gates was quoted as saying: Do it first and ask for forgiveness after. But 'who' has to pay for Micorsoft's continuous efforts to rule the IT world?--Aspro (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be missing the point. As I've said 3 times now, WTF does Windows have to do with it? There is zero indication that the OP has even ever used Windows or is going to be basing anything on Windows experiences. The only indication we have is that they use a Mac device, which very likely suggests they use OS X so the only relevant comparisons are between OS X and Linux. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment:The point is, that an operating system is an 'operating system' and what goes for the ubiquitous Microsoft also goes for Apple – they both use the same chip sets. How To Install Linux On A MacBook Pro Retina. The OP probably has to use Windoz at work and although he admits to being a bit of a computer noob he can surly be able to read between the lines without it being have to spelt out as if he is a complete and utter idiot. By now, he has probably run this past his IT guys at work and has Linux running on his Mac. Whether he finds the experiences pleasurable or whether he is battling the step learning curve by taking on to much at once, too quickly, is not for us to guess at. But Apple uses BSD, so the Linux file structure etc. may not be too unfamiliar to him.--Aspro (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again there is no evidence that the OP has ever used Windows. "Probably" is not relevant when the OP has already provided info on what they do use. (And if it was really felt necessary, perhaps a link or two, but not the extensive back and forth about the merits and problems of Windows. Yes we all can get distracted from the main point at times, but it's also easy to acknowledge that this has happened rather than suggesting it was relevant to the original question. E.g. it's obvious that pointing out how incredibly off-topic something is like this is itself offtopic although it can help the OP if it refocuses the question, albeit it's clear by now that's a loser.) And as for "operating system is an 'operating system' and what goes for the ubiquitous Microsoft also goes for Apple", that's probably the dumbest thing said in this thread this far. If that were true, then there would be no need to provide any info since what goes for Windows, would not only go for OS X but also go for Linux. (Note that I was not criticising general stuff e.g. Tigraan's explanation but all the stuff specific to Windows like how it's different from Linux or whether Windows or Linux is better.) As for chipsets, that also has no relevance since the issue of concern wasn't what chipsets were used but whether the discussions relating to Windows were helpful. In other words, giving the OP info on why Linux is not Windows is of no use when there is zero actual evidence the OP is expecting Windows, because there is zero actual evidence they've even used Windows. Likewise explaining how Windows handles hardware compability different to Linux is also useless when what the OP needs to know is how OS X is different from Linux in that regard. (Incidentally, while the basic hardware tends to be the same, as the source you provided notes and I knew before reading this thread despite never having ever used a Mac, Macs are intentionally generally incredibly locked down much more so than nearly all Windows computers, often with special Apple firmware for a lot of components. This doesn't generally make a difference for the OS but it can. It does make a difference when you want to add a new SSD or GPU but can't because it has the wrong firmware. Of course this also means the possible hardware is far more restricted so it's far easier to know if you're likely to have compatibility problems. Point being, if you didn't know all this, it again begs the question why Windows was brought up.) So yes, I'm still waiting an explanation of what was the purpose for all that Windows junk. I'm guessing non is forthcoming. Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WIMP (computing) --Aspro (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]