Post by thread:[OT] Multiple OS on a computer

Hi Guys, I just bought a new PC and as it will come with no OS I can see some opportunity to install Linux from the start. I would like to install Linux, probably OpenSuSe or UBuntu but I must also have Windows XP for now. My question is: should I install Linux first or Windows first? If I install windows first I can use something as partition magic but I seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu which let you choose which OS do you wanted to use. What is, in your opinion, the best way to do this? Best Regards Luis

On Nov 26, 2007 3:21 PM, Luis Moreira <spam_OUTLuis.MoreiraTakeThisOuTjet.uk> wrote: > Hi Guys, > I just bought a new PC and as it will come with no OS I can see some > opportunity to install Linux from the start. > I would like to install Linux, probably OpenSuSe or UBuntu but I must > also have Windows XP for now. My question is: should I install Linux > first or Windows first? If I install windows first I can use something > as partition magic but I seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu > which let you choose which OS do you wanted to use. > What is, in your opinion, the best way to do this? The easiest way is to install Windows first then install linux, because linux will add intalled windows to its boot list. If Linux is installed first, then Windows will mess up the master boot record with its own, so you won't be able to boot to Linux. Although more advanced linux user could easily restore the MBR using Linux boot CD, it is far more easy to install Windows first. -- soliton ------------------------------------ Diskusi di http://phimega.com/forums

On 26/11/2007, Luis Moreira <.....Luis.MoreiraKILLspam@spam@jet.uk> wrote: > Hi Guys, > I just bought a new PC and as it will come with no OS I can see some > opportunity to install Linux from the start. > I would like to install Linux, probably OpenSuSe or UBuntu but I must > also have Windows XP for now. My question is: should I install Linux > first or Windows first? If I install windows first I can use something > as partition magic but I seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu > which let you choose which OS do you wanted to use. > What is, in your opinion, the best way to do this? Install Windows first. Windows doesn't recognise Linux while Linux does recognise Windows, so if you install Linux first and then Windows you won't be able to get to Linux because Windows overwrote the boot sector ignoring Linux. Most distributions automatically add an entry for booting to Windows as it's a very common setup. You might want to email Microsoft about adding OS detection so it doesn't overwrite the boot sector when something else is installed - but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Regards, Peter

> as partition magic but I seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu > which let you choose which OS do you wanted to use. > What is, in your opinion, the best way to do this? Every Linux distro has this, that's called Lilo or Grub - both are known as boot loaders, so you have a list of operating systems and/or settings for those. BTW Windows (NT, 2k, XP etc) has this too, you can add Linux to the boot.ini but I would not go for that anyway. The only exception I would do that is when I have Linux installed first: That case you should put the boot loader to the Partition Boot Record instead of the Master Boot Record, so Windows would not overwrite it - Win still could not recognise Linux but it knows there is a partition on your dis already and if you choose NOT to repartition the whole disk then it should be fine. All you have to do then is to set the Linux partition as active instead of the Windows one, and this needs a bit of hacking. Tamas PS: A virtual machine like Xen, VMware or Qemu would be an alternative solution so both are running at the same time. On Nov 26, 2007 11:59 AM, Peter Bindels <dascandyKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On 26/11/2007, Luis Moreira <.....Luis.MoreiraKILLspam.....jet.uk> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > I just bought a new PC and as it will come with no OS I can see some > > opportunity to install Linux from the start. > > I would like to install Linux, probably OpenSuSe or UBuntu but I must > > also have Windows XP for now. My question is: should I install Linux > > first or Windows first? If I install windows first I can use something > > as partition magic but I seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu > > which let you choose which OS do you wanted to use. > > What is, in your opinion, the best way to do this? > > Install Windows first. Windows doesn't recognise Linux while Linux > does recognise Windows, so if you install Linux first and then Windows > you won't be able to get to Linux because Windows overwrote the boot > sector ignoring Linux. > > Most distributions automatically add an entry for booting to Windows > as it's a very common setup. You might want to email Microsoft about > adding OS detection so it doesn't overwrite the boot sector when > something else is installed - but I wouldn't get my hopes up. > > Regards, > Peter > -

soliton wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007 3:21 PM, Luis Moreira <EraseMELuis.Moreiraspam_OUTTakeThisOuTjet.uk> wrote: >> I just bought a new PC and as it will come with no OS I can see some >> opportunity to install Linux from the start. I would like to install >> Linux, probably OpenSuSe or UBuntu but I must also have Windows XP for >> now. My question is: should I install Linux first or Windows first? If >> I install windows first I can use something as partition magic but I >> seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu which let you choose >> which OS do you wanted to use. What is, in your opinion, the best way >> to do this? > > The easiest way is to install Windows first then install linux, because > linux will add intalled windows to its boot list. If Linux is installed > first, then Windows will mess up the master boot record with its own, so > you won't be able to boot to Linux. Although more advanced linux user > could easily restore the MBR using Linux boot CD, it is far more easy to > install Windows first. The other option is to use a virtual machine and run one of them virtualized, rather than dual-boot. I generally find dual-boot a nuisance and tend to use it only when absolutely necessary, because you usually don't have easy access to your tools and data from the other system (not every application is multiplatform :). Virtual machines have almost no speed penalty; you only need more memory. Gerhard

Hi Gerhard, I thought about the virtual machine before, in fact I even tried virtual PC from Microsoft but the question is how real is it compared with running a true Linux Distro? For learning how to use Linux is probably good enough but what about as a development platform? I intent to go back to using my uCLinux/BlackFin board and I would like to use as the development system a Linux system not a Windows based one. Best Regards Luis {Original Message removed}

Hi Luis, With virtual machines you get almost the same result as the operating system was running on a real hardware. "Almost" as you have couple of hardware devices that are non-matching (or not necessarily matching) with the real one - like the video or the network card. If you are not developing drivers for your hardware than that's fine. I was using VMware for simulating networked environment for a java based web application. You will notice that the virtual hardware is a bit slower than the real one but still very much usable - if you have enough ram and multi core host machine. For me there was a server os (linux+apache+tomcat+loads of stuff that I did not even needed) and two clients (linux+windows) for testing what i've messed up :-). With VirtualPC: in my opinion you should forget it. Use a linux based one, such us VMware or Xen or even KVM/Qemu. I still use VMware every day (15 hosts and around 40 virtual machines at the same time, tried out loads of VMs but VirtualPC is only useful when your boss forces you to use that one :-) ). Xen and Qemu with KVM probably the fastest while I found VMware as the most managable one. If you just want to learn Linux you could have VMpayer (VMware run-only version) or VMware Server for free and you can download pre-installed VM machines. For development I'd suggest the VMware workstation and you can make snapshots for different stage of your OS so it's pretty easy to go back to a stable stage if you mess up something. Also I would not store anything on VM disks as you could loose it very easily - you can use a network or shared folder storage to overcome on this problem, so you need a VM machine that supports these. Tamas On Nov 26, 2007 1:31 PM, Luis Moreira <Luis.Moreiraspam_OUTjet.uk> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi Gerhard, > I thought about the virtual machine before, in fact I even tried virtual > PC from Microsoft but the question is how real is it compared with > running a true Linux Distro? For learning how to use Linux is probably > good enough but what about as a development platform? I intent to go > back to using my uCLinux/BlackFin board and I would like to use as the > development system a Linux system not a Windows based one. > Best Regards > Luis > > > {Original Message removed}

On Nov 26, 2007 9:31 PM, Luis Moreira <@spam@Luis.MoreiraKILLspamjet.uk> wrote: > Hi Gerhard, > I thought about the virtual machine before, in fact I even tried virtual > PC from Microsoft but the question is how real is it compared with > running a true Linux Distro? For learning how to use Linux is probably > good enough but what about as a development platform? I intent to go > back to using my uCLinux/BlackFin board and I would like to use as the > development system a Linux system not a Windows based one. > Best Regards I think it is quite real. I tried to use the free VMWare player and then the simple vmx builder from http://www.easyvmx.com/. My machine is not that fast (AMD64 3000+ and 1GB DDR) so the VM is a bit slow. So I still prefer to use multi-boot (Linux+Windows+FreeBSD). Xiaofan

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 10:39 -0200, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: {Quote hidden}> soliton wrote: > > > On Nov 26, 2007 3:21 PM, Luis Moreira <KILLspamLuis.MoreiraKILLspamjet.uk> wrote: > >> I just bought a new PC and as it will come with no OS I can see some > >> opportunity to install Linux from the start. I would like to install > >> Linux, probably OpenSuSe or UBuntu but I must also have Windows XP for > >> now. My question is: should I install Linux first or Windows first? If > >> I install windows first I can use something as partition magic but I > >> seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu which let you choose > >> which OS do you wanted to use. What is, in your opinion, the best way > >> to do this? > > > > The easiest way is to install Windows first then install linux, because > > linux will add intalled windows to its boot list. If Linux is installed > > first, then Windows will mess up the master boot record with its own, so > > you won't be able to boot to Linux. Although more advanced linux user > > could easily restore the MBR using Linux boot CD, it is far more easy to > > install Windows first. > > The other option is to use a virtual machine and run one of them > virtualized, rather than dual-boot. I generally find dual-boot a nuisance > and tend to use it only when absolutely necessary, because you usually > don't have easy access to your tools and data from the other system (not > every application is multiplatform :). For tools wine covers some, but you are correct, many tools, especially in the MCU world are windows only. As for data, that's a non issue. My laptop has three partitions. 1 is NTFS and holds windows. The second is EXT3, which holds Linux. And the third is FAT32, which is shared by both, and that's where all my data goes. Linux has NTFS-3G so I can access the NTFS volume when I need to, and I've heard there is a windows EXT3 driver, never tried it though, so rarely in windows anyways... TTYL

Den 2007-11-26 13:39:53 skrev Gerhard Fiedler <RemoveMElistsTakeThisOuTconnectionbrazil.com>: > The other option is to use a virtual machine and run one of them > virtualized, rather than dual-boot. I generally find dual-boot a nuisance > and tend to use it only when absolutely necessary, because you usually > don't have easy access to your tools and data from the other system I believe most modern virtual PC systems provides sharing of filesystems. When I first used Parallels virtual PC, it could not direclty share files, but it worked to use network shares just as with any othe rcomputer on LAN. In current version of Parallels you can select what folder trees you like to share to the virtual PC, and if runing Windows in it, you install parallels tools there and you can acess the files more directly. You can also set permissions. I *believe* the same funcitonality also exist in VMware and other full-blown emulators What i have not figured out yet is how have the system correctly translate the modern utf-8 filename encoding I use in Linux so my language specific characters shows up correctly in MSWindows. I do not think a letter to Redmond begging them to update their ancient encoding will help either :/ So I am thinking about reversing the whole system back to iso8859-15 just because of Microsoft :( -- Morgan Olsson

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 12:59 +0100, Peter Bindels wrote: > On 26/11/2007, Luis Moreira <spamBeGoneLuis.MoreiraspamBeGonejet.uk> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > I just bought a new PC and as it will come with no OS I can see some > > opportunity to install Linux from the start. > > I would like to install Linux, probably OpenSuSe or UBuntu but I must > > also have Windows XP for now. My question is: should I install Linux > > first or Windows first? If I install windows first I can use something > > as partition magic but I seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu > > which let you choose which OS do you wanted to use. > > What is, in your opinion, the best way to do this? > > Install Windows first. Windows doesn't recognise Linux while Linux > does recognise Windows, True. > so if you install Linux first and then Windows > you won't be able to get to Linux because Windows overwrote the boot > sector ignoring Linux. True that Windows overwrites the MBR, put you make it sound like you've lost your linux partition forever, which isn't true. Restoring GRUB/LILO is very simple. GRUB is more common, so as an example: http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/grubrestore/ I use knoppix to get to the point where I can run grub. TTYL

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 08:21 +0000, Luis Moreira wrote: > Hi Guys, > I just bought a new PC and as it will come with no OS I can see some > opportunity to install Linux from the start. > I would like to install Linux, probably OpenSuSe or UBuntu but I must > also have Windows XP for now. My question is: should I install Linux > first or Windows first? If I install windows first I can use something > as partition magic but I seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu > which let you choose which OS do you wanted to use. > What is, in your opinion, the best way to do this? Windows gets VERY cranky if anything else is on the drive. I've had alot of problems getting windows to install on drives that had "other" partitions. So, install windows first. When installing just have windows create a partition smaller then the drive, no need for partition magic. Then install whatever other OS you want. Almost every Linux distro will include either LILO or GRUB. Both are boot managers that allow you to select at boot time what OS you want to boot. Usually the config is done during install time and rarely do you have to do anything more then specifying whether you want the default boot to be windows or Linux. TTYL

Herbert Graf wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 12:59 +0100, Peter Bindels wrote: > >> On 26/11/2007, Luis Moreira <TakeThisOuTLuis.MoreiraEraseMEspam_OUTjet.uk> wrote: >> >>> Hi Guys, >>> I just bought a new PC and as it will come with no OS I can see some >>> opportunity to install Linux from the start. >>> I would like to install Linux, probably OpenSuSe or UBuntu but I must >>> also have Windows XP for now. My question is: should I install Linux >>> first or Windows first? If I install windows first I can use something >>> as partition magic but I seem to remember that SuSe had a startup menu >>> which let you choose which OS do you wanted to use. >>> What is, in your opinion, the best way to do this? >>> >> Install Windows first. Windows doesn't recognise Linux while Linux >> does recognise Windows, >> > > True. > > >> so if you install Linux first and then Windows >> you won't be able to get to Linux because Windows overwrote the boot >> sector ignoring Linux. >> > > True that Windows overwrites the MBR, put you make it sound like you've > lost your linux partition forever, which isn't true. > > Restoring GRUB/LILO is very simple. GRUB is more common, so as an > example: > > http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/grubrestore/ > > I use knoppix to get to the point where I can run grub. > > TTYL > > Yes it can be done either way, but it's always been the norm to install Windows first because it's usually already installed. It's also much easier to let the preconfigured grub do the work for you than typing in things like root (hd0,5), kernel /boot/vmlinuz, (then guessing if you need an initrd image...) especially if you're new. -- Martin

Herbert Graf wrote: >> The other option is to use a virtual machine and run one of them >> virtualized, rather than dual-boot. I generally find dual-boot a nuisance >> and tend to use it only when absolutely necessary, because you usually >> don't have easy access to your tools and data from the other system (not >> every application is multiplatform :). > > For tools wine covers some, but you are correct, many tools, especially > in the MCU world are windows only. > > As for data, that's a non issue. Not always. I didn't mean access to the raw data (which is of course possible), but to the content. Sometimes data is stored in an application-specific way, and the access to the file doesn't help you much. (E.g. you may have your banking data in a Palm application that runs on Palm and Windows, but not on Linux and that stores the data in a proprietary encrypted form.) Usually you can find some kind of workaround or even solution, but then the question is as always how much time you want to spend on this -- or whether it's not easier to simply run one of the two systems in a virtual environment and not have to spend any time on workarounds and solutions. Gerhard

Luis Moreira wrote: > I thought about the virtual machine before, in fact I even tried virtual > PC from Microsoft but the question is how real is it compared with > running a true Linux Distro? I don't know what you mean with "real". Those virtualizers like VMware are no toys; you get the real deal. The system runs as if it ran on a real hardware -- not necessarily your hardware though; some drivers like video are virtualized. > For learning how to use Linux is probably good enough but what about as a > development platform? Not only development, but production. VMware targets its products mainly at production servers, and also to professional developers who prefer to have a 3-tier server setup running in virtual machines on one system rather than working on 3 different PCs. Have a look at the VMware site; this should give you an idea. (You can even get from them complete virtual disk drives that already contain an installation of a Linux distro.) Gerhard

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:29 -0200, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: {Quote hidden}> Herbert Graf wrote: > > >> The other option is to use a virtual machine and run one of them > >> virtualized, rather than dual-boot. I generally find dual-boot a nuisance > >> and tend to use it only when absolutely necessary, because you usually > >> don't have easy access to your tools and data from the other system (not > >> every application is multiplatform :). > > > > For tools wine covers some, but you are correct, many tools, especially > > in the MCU world are windows only. > > > > As for data, that's a non issue. > > Not always. I didn't mean access to the raw data (which is of course > possible), but to the content. Sometimes data is stored in an > application-specific way, and the access to the file doesn't help you much. > (E.g. you may have your banking data in a Palm application that runs on > Palm and Windows, but not on Linux and that stores the data in a > proprietary encrypted form.) > > Usually you can find some kind of workaround or even solution, but then the > question is as always how much time you want to spend on this -- or whether > it's not easier to simply run one of the two systems in a virtual > environment and not have to spend any time on workarounds and solutions. My solution is simple: I just don't use apps that do that. All my day to day apps either are multiplatform, or store their data as plain text, meaning a "conversion" for a new app is as simple as perhaps a few commands in vile, or a quick perl script at worst. Yes, at first the transition will hurt time wise, but once you make it the freedom in no longer being at the mercy of some software vendor when it comes to access to your data is very liberating. TTYL

On 11/27/07, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist3TakeThisOuTfarcite.net> wrote: > My solution is simple: I just don't use apps that do that. > > All my day to day apps either are multiplatform, or store their data as > plain text, meaning a "conversion" for a new app is as simple as perhaps > a few commands in vile, or a quick perl script at worst. > > Yes, at first the transition will hurt time wise, but once you make it > the freedom in no longer being at the mercy of some software vendor when > it comes to access to your data is very liberating. > The problem is that this is simply not possible in the real word. Freedom in that sense is desirable but not really possible. MPLAB is not multiplatform, ICD2 debugging protocol is not open. You end up limiting yourself. Let's face it, Windows is still the most productive environment for PIC (and most other MCUs) developement as well as electronics design (other than some higher end IC design where Solaris and Linux may have an edge). Xiaofan

On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:46 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On 11/27/07, Herbert Graf <mailinglist3EraseME.....farcite.net> wrote: > > My solution is simple: I just don't use apps that do that. > > > > All my day to day apps either are multiplatform, or store their data as > > plain text, meaning a "conversion" for a new app is as simple as perhaps > > a few commands in vile, or a quick perl script at worst. > > > > Yes, at first the transition will hurt time wise, but once you make it > > the freedom in no longer being at the mercy of some software vendor when > > it comes to access to your data is very liberating. > > > > The problem is that this is simply not possible in the real word. Of course it is. For example, for my FPGA work I never have to touch windows since all the tools are available for Linux. For my PCB work I never touch windows either. > Freedom in that sense is desirable but not really possible. It depends what you do. > MPLAB > is not multiplatform, ICD2 debugging protocol is not open. You end > up limiting yourself. You will ALWAYS limit yourself somehow. MChip isn't the only option out there, it isn't even the best option in many cases. > Let's face it, Windows is still the most productive environment > for PIC (and most other MCUs) developement True, but not everybody does MCU devel, and this thread wasn't restricted to MCU devel. > as well as electronics > design (other than some higher end IC design where Solaris and > Linux may have an edge). Sorry, but IMHO you are wrong there. Electronics design in general, beyond the simpler levels, is mostly *nix, without question. Yes, there are some ports to Windows, but the real tools are *nix. At least, of the tools I've used. TTYL

On 11/27/07, Herbert Graf <EraseMEmailinglist3farcite.net> wrote: > > Let's face it, Windows is still the most productive environment > > for PIC (and most other MCUs) developement > > True, but not everybody does MCU devel, and this thread wasn't > restricted to MCU devel. > > > as well as electronics > > design (other than some higher end IC design where Solaris and > > Linux may have an edge). > > Sorry, but IMHO you are wrong there. Electronics design in general, > beyond the simpler levels, is mostly *nix, without question. Yes, there > are some ports to Windows, but the real tools are *nix. At least, of the > tools I've used. > As you said, it depends on what you do. What I have seen is the move to Windows from Unix (Solaris especially). Here we use Mentor Graphics tools for PCB design. It used to be hosted on Unix but now we can use Windows (and our US colleagues used to have a Sun Ray, now very few are still using it). I used to use Synoposis Saber from a SUN Workstation, now I use my Windows PC. Many EDA/CAD tools used to be Unix only, but now more and more are available under Windows. For FPGA design, the same thing happens. The tools are used to be Unix exclusively, now Windows will do most of the jobs. Xiaofan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:26:23PM -0500, Herbert Graf wrote: > > The problem is that this is simply not possible in the real word. > > Of course it is. For example, for my FPGA work I never have to touch > windows since all the tools are available for Linux. > > For my PCB work I never touch windows either. Out of curiosity, what tools do you use for your FPGA work and PCB work? > > Freedom in that sense is desirable but not really possible. > > It depends what you do. Especially if your job is Linux kernel development... :) - -- http://petertodd.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHS5kw3bMhDbI9xWQRAvQPAKCEhb3sxSz37yga6HNgSO8AYJ/QFwCeJNUw qAKEIdaOAfUM3QgLoM/xXjY= =cE1U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 11/27/07, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist3EraseMEEraseMEfarcite.net> wrote: > > The problem is that this is simply not possible in the real word. > > Of course it is. For example, for my FPGA work I never have to touch > windows since all the tools are available for Linux. > > For my PCB work I never touch windows either. > Most likely you are using expensive tools like those from big EDA complanies (Mentor Graphics, Cadence, Synposis, etc). And even that they are also providing Windows based tools as well now. Xiaofan

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 23:12 -0500, Peter Todd wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:26:23PM -0500, Herbert Graf wrote: > > > The problem is that this is simply not possible in the real word. > > > > Of course it is. For example, for my FPGA work I never have to touch > > windows since all the tools are available for Linux. > > > > For my PCB work I never touch windows either. > > Out of curiosity, what tools do you use for your FPGA work and PCB work? My FPGA work it depends on what I'm doing. Usually I stick with just Xilinx's ISE using XST for synthesis. Sometimes I use Certify or Synplify, but that's getting rarer (XST has improved many times over in the past few years, the latest version so far hasn't presented one problem to me). All are available for Windows, but I find the Linux versions faster (or at least less of an impact on the machine it's running on). For PCB work it's all hobby type stuff, so it doesn't count, that said my last board was done with Geda, and my next board will probably be with Kicad. TTYL

Just a side note: Kicad is availale on Windows too - but AFAIK Geda is not, is it? Thanks Tamas On Nov 27, 2007 7:28 PM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEmailinglist3spam_OUTKILLspamfarcite.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 23:12 -0500, Peter Todd wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:26:23PM -0500, Herbert Graf wrote: > > > > The problem is that this is simply not possible in the real word. > > > > > > Of course it is. For example, for my FPGA work I never have to touch > > > windows since all the tools are available for Linux. > > > > > > For my PCB work I never touch windows either. > > > > Out of curiosity, what tools do you use for your FPGA work and PCB work? > > My FPGA work it depends on what I'm doing. Usually I stick with just > Xilinx's ISE using XST for synthesis. Sometimes I use Certify or > Synplify, but that's getting rarer (XST has improved many times over in > the past few years, the latest version so far hasn't presented one > problem to me). > > All are available for Windows, but I find the Linux versions faster (or > at least less of an impact on the machine it's running on). > > For PCB work it's all hobby type stuff, so it doesn't count, that said > my last board was done with Geda, and my next board will probably be > with Kicad. > > TTYL > -