Re: WinXP--->Linux
From: ac (aecnews_at_candt.demon.co.uk)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Robert Newson: "Re: Console and Terminal"
- Previous message: William J Giddings: "Re: Why can't I write to my Hard disk as a user?"
- Maybe in reply to: Jon: "WinXP--->Linux"
- Next in thread: Dave: "Re: WinXP--->Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:42:24 +0000
MikeyD wrote:
> Jon wrote in <rIbUd.177094$K7.172363@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
>
>
>>Hi people,
>>
>>I'm rather new to this all, but I am looking to put a Linux distribution
>>onto my computer. Currently my computer has WinXP Home SP2 and I would
>>like
>>to keep that if possible. I have had a little experimenting with Red Hat
>>so
>>am going to try put Red Hat 9.0 on (any comments?).
>
>
> That's old. You'd be better off with Fedora Core if you want redhat.
>
>
>>I've heard about
>>being
>>able to dual-boot with WinXP but am not so sure about going about it.
>
>
> Any modern distribution will set that up automatically so you get a menu on
> startup
>
>
>>My
>>current HDD has been partitioned into 2 with WinXP installed on the one
>>and
>>nothing on the other, both are formatted as NTFS.
>
>
> Great. Just delete the empty one and let the installer do its stuff in the
> empty space.
>
>
>>People have told me
>>that
>>Red Hat requires a FAT32 whilst XP has NTFS.
>
>
> Nope. Red hat partitions normally have to be ext2 or (possibly?) ext3.
>
>
>>Does this mean that the
>>whole drive must be converted to FAT32 or just the partition that I want
>>linux to be installed on?
>
>
> No. Just delete the partition where you want linux installed, the installer
> will make new ones formatted with ext2 or whatever you're using.
> However, if you want reliable read/write to your windows partition, it would
> be best to convert it to fat32. If you don't mind only having read-only
> access to it, leaving it as ntfs will be fine.
If you want a separate independant fat32 partition, leaving the xpee
alone, and leaving the linux as ext2 (reiser type I think) which would
be a usual approach for linux, then do a little work on the spare
partition initially.
Your aim might be to put linux into at least 6 Gb say (more preferably),
and have a spare smaller fat32 for sharing stuff. So before you install
linux you will have not one spare partition but two. One will be
formatted fat32 by you initially. The third maybe larger one will have
the linux put into it.
If the fat32 is small and the intended linux partiton is large, it is
likely that the installer will take the obvious route and suggest going
into the intended target, but pay attention at that stage.
fwiw I use a small network with a mix at present of linux and 'doze
boxes, some dual boot. I use the usual samba to talk to/from the doze
boxes and linux, and I find that samba does the job well, so I have no
'translation' problems. When something gets written to a ntfs drive, it
is 'doze smb that does it, not linux. As a newbie myself, I was very
happily surprised at how well things could work. In this situation I
never have the intention of going *directly* from linux on say, box1, to
'doze partition on box1.
-- AlanC
- Next message: Robert Newson: "Re: Console and Terminal"
- Previous message: William J Giddings: "Re: Why can't I write to my Hard disk as a user?"
- Maybe in reply to: Jon: "WinXP--->Linux"
- Next in thread: Dave: "Re: WinXP--->Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
