Thinkpads Forum

I've never used Linux before, but I am very experienced with Windows (the crashes, the unexplained errors, the total lockups, etc), and I want to try Linux, both out of curiosity (with a view to perhaps moving over to it full time), and also with the ulterior motive of trying to get the Linux version of Unreal Tournament to run, as I would really like to play UT on my XBox via the XBox's native Linux, but I don't know how to use Linux.

Anyway, I've heard it's possible to boot a version of Linux from a CD or a memory stick, instead of installing it onto the hard drive, and I'd like to do that, at least initially, so I have two questions:

Which Linux version is best for me? I have a T20 laptop, running Win98SE, and the hard drive contains several Drive-Spaced virtual drives (for emulator files mainly, as the cluster wastage eats up space - using DS is an old Windows habit I picked up years ago), and I want Linux to be able to read these drives.

Also, how can I get Linux to boot from the (1 GB)memory stick, and use the stick instead of the hard drive where necessary?

Thanks for any answers.

Linux is no more stable than Windows. If windows is crashing on you, it is improperly set up.

That said, I learned how to use Linux and networking in Linux by running it as a virtual machine in VMware (RedHat 6, 7, 8, 9, SuSE 9 and Unbuntu 5 and 6). You can also set it up as dual boot (others can provide expertise there).

... JDH

JD Hurst has some great advice, I would also suggest that you install the OS into a Virtual Machine and see if you like it.

Should you like it, I would look into installing it into a secondary partition or another hard drive on your machine.

If you really don't want to do either of those, you can get a CD-based distribution, but they do run slower and don't really save anything statically. I only use these for quick debugging and recovery of systems.

I would not recommend with loading up Linux on a memory stick. Not that it can be done, but its more suited for specific purposes in my opinion (ease of use not being one.)

In terms of which version of Linux is best, if you are talking about distributions that really depends on your personal preference. I prefer Ubuntu then Fedora Core, but lots of others will choose their favorite distro too.

I know that Ubuntu and Knoppix are distros that will allow you to boot Linux off of a CD.

Good Luck,

Clockface wrote:I would really like to play UT on my XBox via the XBox's native Linux, but I don't know how to use Linux.

I am no gamer so I can't advise anything on this.

Anyway, I've heard it's possible to boot a version of Linux from a CD or a memory stick, instead of installing it onto the hard drive, and I'd like to do that, at least initially, so I have two questions:

These are called Live CD's of Linux and I also suggest against loading or even installing it on a memory stick. If these cards don't get adequate power or somehow gets overpowered, they usually get corrupted very easily and since your system relies on it to boot the OS, there is every possible chance of experiencing that.

Which Linux version is best for me? I have a T20 laptop, running Win98SE, and the hard drive contains several Drive-Spaced virtual drives (for emulator files mainly, as the cluster wastage eats up space - using DS is an old Windows habit I picked up years ago), and I want Linux to be able to read these drives.

Every Linux distro has its own system requirements and since you did not quote any of your system specs so I'm unable to answer that question too. Also you have to decide between KDE and Gnome environments.

In general, Ubuntu 7.04 requires: (Gnome)

Ubuntu is available for PC, 64-Bit and Mac architectures. CDs require at least 256 MB of RAM. Install requires at least 2 GB of disk space.

And OpenSuse 10.2: (Option of either KDE or Gnome)

Processor: Intel: Pentium 1-4 or Xeon; AMD: Duron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Athlon 64, Sempron or Opteron
Main memory: At least 256 MB; 512 MB recommended
Hard disk: At least 500 MB for minimal system; 3 GB recommended for standard system
Sound and graphics cards: Supports most modern sound and graphics cards.

Also, how can I get Linux to boot from the (1 GB)memory stick, and use the stick instead of the hard drive where necessary?

Thanks for any answers.

While installation, it gives you options to choose between these kind of things.

[quote="jdhurst"]Linux is no more stable than Windows. If windows is crashing on you, it is improperly set up. [/quote]

I wasn't refering to my laptop - Windows rarely crashes on my laptop, as I only run one thing at a time, and when it does crash I don't lose data, as I save every so often, and to different files (another trick I've learnet from years of Windows use).

Now desktops, that's another matter. Given the continual presence of a virus checker (as my desktop is on-line, my laptop isn't so I only run a virus checker there when I have new files), spam filter, firewall and a load of other stuff, the system is a lot more likely to go down. Granted, often this is down to rogue program action, but XP (which I have on my desktop) is supposed to trap all illegal program actions (which is Microsoft's excuse for Windows' extravagent need for resources). And it's not just my PC, it's every other PC that gets used for something non-trivial. Windows isn't nearly as bad as it was in the Win95 days, and perhaps was never as bad as some people painted it crash-wise, but it's never been reliably stable, as anyone who's used if for a while for non-trivial tasks will agree.

To be fair, of course, perfection is impossible, and it's nice to be able to have open several browser windows (Firefox, not IE ), a word processor, WinAMP, several explorer windows and maybe a file conversion program. But multi-tasking takes it's toll on Windows' reliabilty, especially given Window's flawed handling of memory.


[quote]

That said, I learned how to use Linux and networking in Linux by running it as a virtual machine in VMware (RedHat 6, 7, 8, 9, SuSE 9 and Unbuntu 5 and 6). You can also set it up as dual boot (others can provide expertise there).

... JDH[/quote]

I don't really want to dual boot, as I can't easily spare the hard drive space, although I will if I have to (and may well chose to do so anyway). Thanks for the advice, though.


Jedacite and ryengineer, you make a good argument against using the memory stick. I could Ghost the boot partition (make an exact copy of it as an image) and save that image to disc, then format it and install Linux, and when I wanted Windows back, I could un-Chost the image back onto the boot partition, and it would be exactly how it was pre-Linux. I might give that a go.

My laptop is an IBM Thinkpad T20, P3-700, 384MB RAM, Win98SE, one USB port (v1.1, I think), 1024x768 screen, with DVD but no floppy drive. I realise that the distribution I should choose is dependant both on my system and on my potential usage (I won't be using the laptop for video-editing or 'net usage, for example, but I would be interested in word processing, games, and viewing HTML files of-line (saved from my desktop Windows PC).

I do, however, want to try WINE (or any alternatives?) so I can get the Linux version of Unreal Tournament running. UT has a software mode (at least the Windows version has, I don't know about the Linux version), so it might not matter if the Linux I use doesn't have a 3D card driver, although I'd prefer it to have one in case of other games needing it.

Thanks for any answers.

Clockface wrote:<snip>To be fair, of course, perfection is impossible, and it's nice to be able to have open several browser windows (Firefox, not IE ), a word processor, WinAMP, several explorer windows and maybe a file conversion program. But multi-tasking takes it's toll on Windows' reliabilty, especially given Window's flawed handling of memory.

I can run multiple browser windows, multiple explorer windows, two office programs, a virtual machine with stuff going on there, Quickbooks and other programs all simultaneously. Windows does not crash and manages the memory effectively, although that much stuff will bog down in 768Mb of RAM (I need more RAM).

Now, when I run multiple browser windows in Lunux (Firefox), the Ubuntu updater and Open Office (much more of a pig than Microsoft Office), the Ubuntu machine drags significantly but does not crash.

This is the same behaviour on my Desktop (which runs 24x7x365) and on my Laptop (turned off nightly).

I am just saying go in with your eyes open. Linux questions in any forum run two to one to the Windows questions for technical support because it just is harder. Ubuntu is the easiest of the lot for me, but still has its challenges.
... JDH

In my experience, Windows XP Pro is the most stable OS that I've ever run. My XP desktop runs 24/7 and only needs to be booted after the monthly Windows updates. If not for that it would probably stay up for a year or more. It has never blue-screened or locked up either.

My Linux box is also pretty reliable and usually achieves 30 - 60 days of uptime before something locks it up hard. Never a warning, no info in the logs, just scrambled video on-screen and completely unresponsive.

Like J.D. Hurst said, if your XP machine is unreliable, something is wrong.

How are you guys keeping your XP machines running so cleanly? I find that both of my systems are susceptible to a whole slew of problems that intermittently result in freezes, crashes, etc. And I find myself spending a fair amount of time doing "maintenance" now and then -- using disk cleanup, JV Power Tools Reg Cleaner, etc.

Any tips for those of us who are having difficulties with XP?

Dan

dc_slim wrote:How are you guys keeping your XP machines running so cleanly? I find that both of my systems are susceptible to a whole slew of problems that intermittently result in freezes, crashes, etc. And I find myself spending a fair amount of time doing "maintenance" now and then -- using disk cleanup, JV Power Tools Reg Cleaner, etc.

Any tips for those of us who are having difficulties with XP?

Dan

1. Use your computer with a great deal of common sense.
2. Use your computer with a great deal of common sense.
Rules 1 and 2 are the most important (location, location, location)

3. I use a competent Firewall, Anti-Virus suite (Symantec Corporate Client Security 3.1) that works well. It runs daily and silently for updates and runs real time for any incoming viruses. I get exceedingly few viruses (and they are trapped) because of rules 1 and 2.

4. I use Ad-Aware Pro for detecting and deleting spyware. It runs daily and silently to remove cookies and such like that have accumulated over the last 24 hours.

5. I use Perfect Disk 8 and defrag the hard drive daily.

6. I use Cache Sentry Pro to keep I.E. temporary files at or below 20Mb on a real time basise

7. Twice a month, I do the following:
(a) clear recent documents
(b) remove dead links with Check Links (W2K resource kit)
(c) run disk cleanup to remove temporary files.
(d) run Registry First Aid to remove superfluous registry keys.

The tools above are cheap but not free, and the payoff is that both my XP machines have been running for years with any rebuild and without any crashes.
... JDH

Thanks, I appreciate the advice. It's good to know what has worked for you. Time for me to do a little work on both of my machines.

Dan

To add to JD Hurst's advice:

1. Avoid third-party device drivers like the plague. If your device is supported by Windows natively, use the Windows driver. This is an area that a lot of vendors screw up. Even the big guys like IBM/Lenovo release buggy and crashy drivers on occasion.

2. Stick to well-known and highly-rated software products.

3. Install and use only what you need. Avoid the tendency to load your machine up with every program under the sun.

A machine with an up-to-date installation of Windows XP and MS Office is like a tank; it'll run completely trouble-free for years.

jdhurst wrote: 1. Use your computer with a great deal of common sense.
2. Use your computer with a great deal of common sense.
Rules 1 and 2 are the most important (location, location, location)

3. I use a competent Firewall, Anti-Virus suite (Symantec Corporate Client Security 3.1) that works well. It runs daily and silently for updates and runs real time for any incoming viruses. I get exceedingly few viruses (and they are trapped) because of rules 1 and 2.

4. I use Ad-Aware Pro for detecting and deleting spyware. It runs daily and silently to remove cookies and such like that have accumulated over the last 24 hours.

5. I use Perfect Disk 8 and defrag the hard drive daily.

6. I use Cache Sentry Pro to keep I.E. temporary files at or below 20Mb on a real time basise

7. Twice a month, I do the following:
(a) clear recent documents
(b) remove dead links with Check Links (W2K resource kit)
(c) run disk cleanup to remove temporary files.
(d) run Registry First Aid to remove superfluous registry keys.

The tools above are cheap but not free, and the payoff is that both my XP machines have been running for years with any rebuild and without any crashes.
... JDH

I would argue that this is not "windows properly set up" (as per your first post) but "windows properly beefed up". Just about every facet of daily computing in your post--firewall, spyware, defrag, cache maintenance (temp. internet and other temp files), and registry maintenance--is handled by a non-native (i.e., non-Microsoft) application. Windows, on its own, has not been stable in my experience (and I like to think I "compute sensibly" ). But with a bit of help, it hums along nicely! To say that you just need to 'set windows up properly' might lead some to think that if only they could find, buried in some obscure control panel application, the right check-box to click (or clear) or some setting to tweak ["virtual memory" is often the flavour of the month!], they'd never see another bsod. Don't go looking--the magic setting is not there! Like JDH ably demonstrated, windows needs 'help' to be 'properly set up'.