I wanted to ask a question specifically on the operating system for my new build. I want to install both windows 7 and something linux based like Ubuntu. I know I can install windows and install ubuntu also and choose the OS on the start up. Still looking around for a good SSD deal. If I end up getting the ssd, would it be better to install windows on the ssd and Ubuntu on the HDD (or could be visa versa). Perhaps it doesn't really matter and I can install them both on the ssd?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Windows and Linux OS
- Thread starter Opusbuild
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
Partition SSD and install both Windows and Linux on SSD (different partitions).
Be sure to disconnect every other hard drive from the system when installing Windows and Linux because Linux can be a nightmare to uninstall because it changes master boot records of every hard drive connected to the system, without warning.
Use this to switch b/w Linux and Windows:
Download Page [Scroll Down and use any Name & Email to Download]:
http://neosmart.net/download.php?id=1
http://neosmart.net/forums/showthread.php?t=642
For others reading this, again beware: when doing an actual Linux install anywhere, even on USB Flash drive, Linux will change the Master Boot Record on your Windows hard drive, making it unbootable after you take the USB stick out, even if your Windows hard drive wasn't selected anywhere during the Linux installation (!) Linux does this without any warning. Most newcomers find this out the hard way - after which they cannot boot into Windows and have to spend time fixing their system drive's master boot record.
Be sure to disconnect every other hard drive from the system when installing Windows and Linux because Linux can be a nightmare to uninstall because it changes master boot records of every hard drive connected to the system, without warning.
Use this to switch b/w Linux and Windows:
Download Page [Scroll Down and use any Name & Email to Download]:
http://neosmart.net/download.php?id=1
http://neosmart.net/forums/showthread.php?t=642
For others reading this, again beware: when doing an actual Linux install anywhere, even on USB Flash drive, Linux will change the Master Boot Record on your Windows hard drive, making it unbootable after you take the USB stick out, even if your Windows hard drive wasn't selected anywhere during the Linux installation (!) Linux does this without any warning. Most newcomers find this out the hard way - after which they cannot boot into Windows and have to spend time fixing their system drive's master boot record.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
It really depends on what you primarily use your machine for and your primary reason for installing linux. If you primarily use your machine for video games or other Windows-specific applications, and you just want to learn/play with Linux then installing Ubuntu in a Virtual Machine within Windows is a reasonable approach.
If most of what you do with your machine can be done in Ubuntu I recommend installing Ubuntu on the SSD. I say this because Ubuntu is heavily optimized for SSD boot times. Ubuntu 12.04 can boot to the login screen in several seconds. This is my preference, since most tasks web-browsing, media consumption (movies, music), light gaming, etc. can be done in Ubuntu.
Do you have a reference for this? Only the MBR on the drive designated as the boot drive should ever be modified. If more than one MBR is being modified during installation then there is a SERIOUS bug in the installer.
I have heard of/experienced the bootloader install issue related to installation on a USB drive. This is generally a bug/user-interface issue where the installer assumes the wrong location to install the bootloader and doesn't prompt the user for more information. Generally the installer does have a menu asking you where you want the Grub bootloader installed (I know Ubuntu does this), but I have seen this get ignored.
It is important to remember that there is no generic "Linux" installer and that every distribution has it's own installer with its own idiosyncrasies. You can't really make generalizations about what "Linux" does to the MBR. I'm going to assume you're talking about Ubuntu since that is the most popular choice, and as mentioned I have seen the Ubuntu installer put GRUB on the wrong drive.
That said assuming you want to maintain a dual-boot system in the long-term I think its better to install Windows first, then install Linux (without disconnecting any drives) and let the GRUB bootloader handle switching between the two. In my experience most linux installers are really good about detecting windows partitions and allowing you to boot them. It's pretty easy to rescue a grub install with any Linux LiveCD media as well.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
The original poster mentioned Ubuntu.
I chose to install Ubuntu onto a USB drive to test it. It then completely messed up my hard drive master boot record so that after disconnecting the USB drive, Windows could no longer boot.
Of course there are ways to do this correctly, but you can't just "play with Linux" and then just go back to Windows. It can be "dangerous" because even after I reimaged C Drive, Windows would not boot until I cleaned up the MBR. Not fun, and I did not even tell Ubuntu to install on hard drive or to "touch" my Windows hard drive. I then heard others had the same experience.
From then on, I just use startup USB to enter Linux, but do not have it installed anywhere.
I chose to install Ubuntu onto a USB drive to test it. It then completely messed up my hard drive master boot record so that after disconnecting the USB drive, Windows could no longer boot.
Of course there are ways to do this correctly, but you can't just "play with Linux" and then just go back to Windows. It can be "dangerous" because even after I reimaged C Drive, Windows would not boot until I cleaned up the MBR. Not fun, and I did not even tell Ubuntu to install on hard drive or to "touch" my Windows hard drive. I then heard others had the same experience.
From then on, I just use startup USB to enter Linux, but do not have it installed anywhere.
- Thread Starter
- #7
Oh, thanks for the warning. So I guess it is just safer to disconnect the drive I am not installing Ubuntu on. Also thanks everyone for the indepth and helpful posts, I hope others will benefit from this too.
OR
Would it help to install Ubuntu first and then Windows? Also I am thinking of installing in the following configuration:
- 1TB HDD - Ubuntu (used 5% of the time for "playing" around and learning Linux, using apps, doing some programming)
- 120GB SSD - Windows 7 (used 95% of the time for programmes, software, gaming, work, with some apps obviously running of the HDD due to space constraints)
OR
Would it help to install Ubuntu first and then Windows? Also I am thinking of installing in the following configuration:
- 1TB HDD - Ubuntu (used 5% of the time for "playing" around and learning Linux, using apps, doing some programming)
- 120GB SSD - Windows 7 (used 95% of the time for programmes, software, gaming, work, with some apps obviously running of the HDD due to space constraints)
- Thread Starter
- #9
Thanks for your advice and suggestions. It does seem to the be "safer" option for me at the moment. If I find my usage for Ubuntu increases dramatically in the future, I can always then looking into a separate boot installation of it later on.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
You can boot into Linux using an Ubuntu Linux bootable CD iso: http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/download
or preferably by using the iso + the following program to make a bootable Linux USB flash drive: http://www.pendrivelinux.com/
Creating the Bootable Linux flash drive as described here is recommended because doing an actual install anywhere, even on another USB Flash drive, Linux will change the Master Boot Record on your Windows hard drive, making it unbootable after you take the USB stick out, even if your Windows hard drive wasn't selected anywhere during the Linux installation (!) Linux does this without any warning. Most newcomers find this out the hard way - after which they cannot boot into Windows and have to spend time fixing their system drive's master boot record. So skip the Linux installation for this, just create a bootable Linux USB flash drive.
IMPORTANT: Move the slider away from zero to set the Universal USB installer Persistent file size for storing changes so that the downloaded Depositories stay on your USB drive for use in the future.
Boot with the newly created USB drive and click on 'Run Ubuntu from this USB' when prompted.
or preferably by using the iso + the following program to make a bootable Linux USB flash drive: http://www.pendrivelinux.com/
Creating the Bootable Linux flash drive as described here is recommended because doing an actual install anywhere, even on another USB Flash drive, Linux will change the Master Boot Record on your Windows hard drive, making it unbootable after you take the USB stick out, even if your Windows hard drive wasn't selected anywhere during the Linux installation (!) Linux does this without any warning. Most newcomers find this out the hard way - after which they cannot boot into Windows and have to spend time fixing their system drive's master boot record. So skip the Linux installation for this, just create a bootable Linux USB flash drive.
IMPORTANT: Move the slider away from zero to set the Universal USB installer Persistent file size for storing changes so that the downloaded Depositories stay on your USB drive for use in the future.
Boot with the newly created USB drive and click on 'Run Ubuntu from this USB' when prompted.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
Ah, I have encountered something similar to this, but it is a far cry from what you stated in your first post that " it changes master boot records of every hard drive connected to the system".
Here is what actually happened, there are two parts to the bootloader. The first part is the GRUB loader that gets written to the MBR. The second part consists of the binary modules, configuration, etc. needed to boot your operating systems. The second portion usually is stored in the /boot folder of the partition you install to. Now the GRUB loader is told where to look for this GRUB folder, and if it can't find it (USB drive is removed), you won't be able to boot. These two components can and often are written to different drives.
The real issue is what I consider a user-interface bug in the Ubuntu installer. Instead of explicitly prompting the user regarding where the boot loader should be installed, it usually assumes /dev/sda (first bios drive) and gives you the option on a drop-down menu that is easy to skip through. So you do have the ability to tell Ubuntu where to put the boot loader, it's just easy to miss it. Also there was a bug with previous versions where even if you told it where to install the bootloader, it would still install on /dev/sda. Perhaps this is what you encountered.
No, if you did this, Windows7 installer would wipe out the Ubuntu boot loader. Unless you unplugged the Ubuntu drive before installing Windows.
If you want to dual-boot the best thing to do imho is to install Windows and then Install Ubuntu (without unplugging any drives). While the Ubuntu installer will overwrite the MBR, it will install a boot-loader that handles switching between Windows and Linux with aplomb. The problem c627627 had only occurred because he was installing to a removable USB drive. Unless you plan on formatting the Linux partition to free up space in the future you shouldn't have any such issues with the boot loader.
That said for your use case it might make sense to user VirtualBox and install Ubuntu in a virtual machine. It will be safe and easy, just a bit slower.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Location
- Pacific NW USA
^------- This. That problem is most often associated with user error during install because the distro dev's don't often make that selection very clear in the install menu. If you don't know it's there it will automatically select the MBR of the first drive in the list (/sda) as FP pointed out. By unplugging all of the other drives all you're doing is removing the other "choices" in the drop down box so it installs to the target drive you want. Works but is unneccessary. They really should take more time to highlight that choice in the install menu so that people new to linux don't make that mistake.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Location
- Oregon
Use a linux bootable disc and gparted (on it) and partition it first. With a dual-boot setup, windows itself should always be the very first partition. My C drive is: 30GB ntfs, 30GB ext4 linux root, 2GB swap, & the remainder ext4 linux home.
You may use up to 4 'primary' partitions at once. After that you must use extended partitions if you want more than that. Swap is not counted so I have only 3atm.
My suggestion is to dual boot & install windows first (if you don't, it will overwrite grub-easy fix but an unnecessary step tbs). Then; install linux and use it's grub menu feature so that you can choose which OS to play with. VirtualBox is nice but has it's place. If you use it for browsing the net and checking email or simply in a specific manner, that will be an option for sure. I like having the full capacity of each os available without it being shared by another or being limited by the vm itself.
And by all means back it up with terabyte or acronis afterwards for a little piece of mind.
You may use up to 4 'primary' partitions at once. After that you must use extended partitions if you want more than that. Swap is not counted so I have only 3atm.
My suggestion is to dual boot & install windows first (if you don't, it will overwrite grub-easy fix but an unnecessary step tbs). Then; install linux and use it's grub menu feature so that you can choose which OS to play with. VirtualBox is nice but has it's place. If you use it for browsing the net and checking email or simply in a specific manner, that will be an option for sure. I like having the full capacity of each os available without it being shared by another or being limited by the vm itself.
And by all means back it up with terabyte or acronis afterwards for a little piece of mind.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #15
Has anyone had any experience with VirtualBox to run Ubuntu in? Seems like a safer and sensible solution for me personally at this stage.
www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads
Thanks
www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads
Thanks
I have used it before and it's pretty good, although quite basic. I prefer VMWare though. I have used VMWare Player in the past, but now I stick with Workstation 8 since I got my free copy of it.
- Joined
- May 13, 2006
That's the set up I used when I was playing around with it. Worked well and was simple enought for me to set up with no prior experience with a vm a little with linux. I found it to be a great way to try it out as it doesn't mess with your install and I was much more likely to fire up the vm than to reboot into linux to play with it.
- Thread Starter
- #18
Thanks everyone, having played around with VirtualBox and VMWare, I feel that VMWare is the better option for me with Ubuntu. VMWare seems more "up to the job" than VirtualBox. It's just my feeling on it.
Anyways, Likewise, now I can have Linux and Windows at the same time, as I would like to do seperate tasks on each so this is a good solution for me.
The only issue is it is a little slow on my laptop, currently I have allocated 1GB RAM to Linux. This should not be a problem once I get my PC rig up and running.
Anyways, Likewise, now I can have Linux and Windows at the same time, as I would like to do seperate tasks on each so this is a good solution for me.
The only issue is it is a little slow on my laptop, currently I have allocated 1GB RAM to Linux. This should not be a problem once I get my PC rig up and running.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Location
- Lorain, ohio
even with 1 gig not so much limited as you are with the processer.
make sure, make sure, MAKE SURE you install the vm tools/addons
IMO i think VMware workstation for linux is far more polished than the windows counterpart, however, i've since on moved to Parallels and have been quite happy.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
I bought parallels for my Mac and have been very happy with its functionality both for Windows and Linux VMs. I am
at them right now though because of their forced upgrade payment on OS X 10.8.0; I am using Virtual Box right now on my Mac until I get around to paying them AGAIN. Parallels has outperformed VMWare for a long time and has been at the top of the market for a while.Similar threads
