Printable View
hey again... I'm pretty ........ed at the moment...
Well, I tried using gparted to get my partition space back to Vista and it succeeded, but when I restarted I'm getting a GRUB error 32... And when I try to boot again from the Ubuntu cd, I get load of I/O block errors and whatnot...
Also, my friend has downloaded the Windows 7 beta and has it on cd, I was thinking about booting from it and maybe installing Windows 7, or maybe it could fix my Vista?
If you're gonna start messing with your partitions, it's probably a good idea to do a full backup before you change anything.
I would have used something like Partition Magic, which is a little more user friendly and would probably warn you before doing anything dangerous. (Although it's not free)
You probably just need to boot from the Windows CD and reinstall the MBR. Grub is throwing up because its configuration was stored on your Linux partition, which has been merged into the Vista one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akkernight
I don't think anything is wrong with your system, you just need to reinstall the Windows boot loader.
Never blame others because you followed their bad advice. 99% of the time, you just screwed up what they told you to do.
When I tried Windows 7 it threw a hissy fit because my hard disk was previously formatted for ext3. Unless they've changed that, Win7 won't fix this for you. I would go with brewbuck - though Vista is also kind of picky about partitioning with something other than Vista. Good luck!
Always do a full backup before you make system-level changes.Quote:
Someone's advice on here broke my PC!
http://cboard.cprogramming.com/tech-...pace-back.html
cyberfish and cpjust's posts were in reference to the problem you're having now.
edit: Before you do anything else, I would run a live CD and transfer everything I can from your partition to a flash drive
I was just ........ed, sorry for that :S
Anyways, I installed Windows7 now, just having some problms getting the damn drivers...
While Windows 7 beta is very good it is not yet complete and I would not use it as my primary OS. I would recommend waiting till release to use Windows 7 as your primary OS. Drivers are currently being created for Windows 7 by many many manufacturers but they won't be ready for primetime b/c they will be timed with the release of W7.
Until then you can use XP which still has drivers readily available for it. If you are extremely desperate you can use the OS who name shall not be spoken but I don't recommend it.
ok, I was lucky, Win7 gave me a windows.old folder, and I havn't lost anything ^^
I have had 0 problems using Win7 as my primary OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
99% of Vista drivers works for Win7, too (and yes, even though many badmouth it, drivers have become readily available for it).
Don't be afraid of it. It may be beta, and some things may not be done, but it's stable enough.
Plus it's faster than the-OS-whose-name-shall-not-be-uttered. And consumes less memory.
Is this where you downloaded Windows 7?
It says it's not available to download anymore. :(
You missed the bandwagon... Any acquiring of Win7 now can only be done via torrent sites and no one has to remind you that it's illegal.
They knowingly put a cap on the number of downloads to make the beta process easier (who has time to sort through 100 million feedback reports?).
I believe the documentation that came with windows7 beta specifically stated that you cant/shouldnt run it on a multiboot system.Quote:
Originally Posted by sean
XP/Win7 dual boot works fine, though.
Yes, and fflush(stdin) also works if you have the right circumstances. It may very well be that 99% of users will have no problem with it - but maybe, just maybe, they are storing metadata in the file-system that XP can not understand and may cause it to hang/crash if you get it wrong in the exact right way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
--
Mats
I'm not saying it doesnt work most of the time, I'm sying the documentation stated it is unsupported.
It mostly likely does because it's still beta - they do not want to give any guarantees.
I am merely stating that you can probably ignore that warning. It will still work. Although, it is still done at your own risk, but isn't it always?
I think it's great that you think Windows 7 beta works perfectly now, but maybe some people just don't want to give naive advice like, go ahead and put it on a machine you depend on everyday. Calm down.
Well, actually, I'm not saying anyone should. I am giving my take on the whole, and relay what I have learned so that people can actually make a choice for themselves.
Do it or not, it's their choice. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
I'm sharing my experiences, not urging people, okay? :)
Based on information on some who are working on the kernel at Microsoft I would not recommend using it as a primary OS just yet. I'm not saying the beta kicks the crap out of XP and the other horrible flop of an OS but it is not yet ready to be a primary OS. Wait till it goes gold and then have at it. It is not rocket science to understand that using a beta OS as your primary OS is probably not the smartest choice in the universe.
Be patient. I, for one, am planning on going out and getting Windows 7 the day it releases. Vista (there I said it) sits on my shelf never to be opened again even if they patch it a billion times.
Don't be fooled. Windows 7 is not just Windows Vista 2.0. It may look like Vista but it is not Vista by a long shot.
I agree, I'm switching to 7 as soon as it releases, although I will continue to use XP on my older machiens
I wasn't trying to multiboot. The disk had no partitions - the whole thing was ext3, but the Win7 beta wouldn't recognize it. I had to use Ubuntu to reformat the disk to NTFS before the install would work.Quote:
I believe the documentation that came with windows7 beta specifically stated that you cant/shouldnt run it on a multiboot system.
It definitely is a better kernel than before, I like it - but Vista gave me the motivation to learn to use Linux as my primary OS, and I don't think I'll go back.
I never had problems with Vista, I ain't having any problems with Win7, Ubuntu was a bit problematic... Windows rules? xP
Ubuntu is only problematic because of your lack of experience.
You are comparing Windows + your years of experience against Linux + your hours of experience.
Not exactly fair.
I have used both OSes extensively for at least 5 years, and I find Linux more customizable/programmable, reliable, secure, and generally more "fun" to use. Windows "just works" most of the time, and is more compatible with Windows apps (duh... on the other hand, many good Linux/UNIX programs have Windows ports), but it's a lot more restrictive (and then there's the virus issue...).
Nowadays I dualboot Windows for games, and Linux for all serious and not-so-serious work. Each for their strengths.
I probably won't be buying Windows 7 for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
Vista works just fine on my system. So why change if it's not broken (on my system)?
I'd like to try out Windows 7 though.
Well, I'd switch to linux if it didn't carry such a huge development cost. I cant just ditch the last 20 years of code because some anti-MS geeks refuse to support any MS API's , GUI and user friendly installation.
Contrarily to popular belief, they actually try to support WinAPI (the wine project), much more than how well Microsoft supports POSIX.
MS API is not an open standard last time I checked.
Have you tried Linux within the last 5 years?Quote:
GUI and user friendly installation
I try it every 6 months. Everyone always assumes its because I just havent tried it lately. The fact remains its a pita to install any meaningful distro.
The Ubuntu Live-CD installer? How much simpler can it get?
Sure, it's not one-click like Vista installer, but I'm sure all of us can handle being exposed to more choices.
Well, come July when my next scheduled linux trial arrives, ill give it a shot, until then its not worth the waste of my time. However, I expect it to run out of the box, no special downloads, no foreknowledge whatsoever, just as if I were installing any version of Windows. I'm sorry if that is a bit of a strict requirement, but unless linux can meet that challenge, it has no right to claim to be better. If ti doesnt provide an easier nstallation, and ti doesnt provide a better development environment, then what exactly makes people think it is better?
You don't even need to have a serial number.Quote:
I expect it to run out of the box, no special downloads, no foreknowledge whatsoever, just as if I were installing any version of Windows
User friendliness is a good thing, but Linux is NOT claiming to be "easier" than Windows. It's for people who know what they are doing, and need finer control.
Ubuntu is trying to cover the middle-ground, and I think it's doing a fine job. With more "easiness" there goes less control. It's a trade-off. How much control do you get with the Windows installer? I guess you get to enter the serial number...
For a (almost) computer-illiterate person, Windows is easier to use than Linux. No one is trying to deny that.
Development environment is a matter of personal preference. GCC, for example, lists Linux as a primary target, and Windows (MinGW) as a secondary target (bugs not fixed as quickly, etc). As a result, it's more robust on Linux, and have things like multilib (32-bit/64-bit with a compiler switch). The GCC build system (for compiling the compiler) also heavily rely on POSIX features, and follows UNIX conventions (configure and make).
Nah, I was saying Ubuntu was problematic 'cause I was able to delete the OS through the package manager when I tried deleting GCC xP well, I ain't saying Ubuntu is bad, just that I think they should not allow you to delete the system just like that xP
For newbies and others who want just an application in linux Portable Ubuntu could be an option.
It's not fast as live CD. But could be less hassle than setting up a multi-boot partition.
I like ubuntu in general except the default Totem movie player that comes with it which sucks in my opinion.
It should warn you loudly about removing important system packages...Quote:
Nah, I was saying Ubuntu was problematic 'cause I was able to delete the OS through the package manager when I tried deleting GCC xP well, I ain't saying Ubuntu is bad, just that I think they should not allow you to delete the system just like that xP
I guess you could've just clicked "OK" all the way like on Windows.
That unfortunately won't get you far on Linux :).
Well I hate to burst your bubble, but I can't require all my customers to be cyber-geeks. When I try a new OS I have to have their level of expertise in mind, not my own. If I want an OS that gives finer control than Windows, Ill write it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Of course not. That's what cross-platform APIs are for.
which of course require the customer to install that package, while WinAPI requires no additional packages be installed. I mean i hate to keep playing the devils advocate here, but we are talking about a product (windows) that costs $150 a copy and holds significant market share against a product (linux) that is basically free. Obviously MS is doing something right. The fact is the general population, and by general I mean joe public and most of my customer base, really see linux as little more than an overcomplicated hobby OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Not sure about other toolkits, but Qt for example, would just require a dll to be shipped with the app.
Yeah, MS is certainly doing something right. Almost as simple as OS X and not as expensive.
IMHO, a large part of it is snowball effect (inverse of chicken and egg?!), though. For a very long time, Windows was the only choice. Linux was not ready for desktop usage until just a few years ago. At that time, Windows already had a lot of apps and such, so people use it, so developers write for it...
That's why people say Linux will skyrocket once it hits about 15% market share. How long will it take to reach that, though, no one knows.
That's just like firefox. Once it reached a significant marketshare, web devs will take it seriously and test their websites in it, and that makes firefox more attractive for users (since websites actually work)... and now firefox is almost if not already taking over IE.
Not in a worldQuote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
But in Europe Firefox is most popular browser (about 35%) and beats by 1 or 2 percent next browser - IE7
PS. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10...=2547-1_3-0-20
Here is - I found the link where I read it
Considering the fact that Windows comes with IE, and >80% of computer users use Windows, and >50(?)% don't know what a browser is, I think that's quite impressive.
I doubt it will go any higher without Microsoft bundling Firefox with Windows.
I just use IE since it comes with Windows. Why bother installing another browser when I already have one?
Plus a lot of websites just don't look right in FireFox.
As for Linux vs. Windows... I'm with abachler here; Linux may be more customizable, but Windows just works. There's also the problem of finding Linux drivers for hardware... If it's old, it's not to hard to find a driver, but if it's brand new, it usually only has a Windows driver.
I also find the quality of Open Source software in general to be pretty bad; maybe not in the number of bugs, but in the ease of use, the aesthetic appeal, number and type of features, and most of all the documentation.
Even now? ALL the sites I visit look right in Firefox.Quote:
Plus a lot of websites just don't look right in FireFox.
As for hardware, MOST do work. Especially those from major brands. NVIDIA for example, has good Linux driver (only in binary). I agree Windows has better hardware support, but that's not really Linux's problem. Linux needs to supply its own drivers most of the time, while Windows gets them from hardware manufacturers. Linux does limit the selection of hardware, but the available selection is still pretty good. For example, I have never considered ATI video cards for this reason... Just need to do research before purchasing hardware.
As for "quality" of software, I guess the problem is they are not "user oriented". They don't need to sell their programs, so they tend to not focus on user-friendliness as much. They write the programs for their own use. On the bright side, the programmers create them because they enjoy doing it. As a result, feature requests are more likely to be fulfilled, bugs tend to be fixed faster (you can always fix it yourself, too, if it's something simple, or if you have a lot of time). I have personally contacted a few developers of open source programs, and got them to implement features for me, or answer my questions. This kind of direct user-developer interaction is not usually seen in commercial software. That's why I think open source is just "friendlier".
That said, there are quite a few large-scale commercial "quality" programs, though. For example, ones I use - Linux (>80% of supercomputers run Linux, and at least 70% of servers run Linux or BSD, has large market share in embedded stuff, too), GCC, OpenOffice, Firefox/Thunderbird, GIMP, GNU Octave (open source clone of MATLAB).
Speed? Sometimes I'm ready to go to sleep for several minutes while IE is loading the site. But only sometimes...Quote:
Originally Posted by cpjust
If you have insider information, then you should know that Win7 is just an evolution of Vista. Nothing fancy, whatever they call it. It's a minor upgrade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
The truth is that the have made a few improvements, such as built-in Bluetooth and upgraded Sound system, but otherwise, they just took Vista and optimized the code.
Whatever anyone says, it IS Vista 2.0. And to otherwise contrary belief, while Vista was/is a failure, it has become a solid operating system today. It's biggest failure is its resource hunger and (which Win7 also shares) its UAC "security" feature. Which is rather broken, even today in Win7 (in fact, even more so today).
Be that way if you want, but saying that Win7 isn't Vista is just pure bias.
Everyone will have another chance to try Vista once the RC comes out. Until then, I'm going to stick with Win7 as my primary operating system.
That sounds more like server issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by vart
And why this "server issue" is not issue for Google Chrome?Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Have you done an actual statistical analysis, or are you just goign off 'well IE locked up so i fired up another browser and it loaded right away'. Because many times these situations can be fixed by simply hitting reload. Google chrome is also written to handle non-standard code, while IE is written to handle standard compliant code. Don't blame the browser because it choked on a broken website.Quote:
Originally Posted by vart
No, I haven't made a statisitical analysis. And I havent sit with a timer while waiting for some stites to load in IE and Chrome.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
I just have seen to many times "Loading..." message in IE (too many for my liking) and started to look for another browser. And Chrme is my current alternative... I'm still evaluating it...
About
I fill just the opposite. Chrome so far is a lot less "real web"-compliant when IE. There are too many sites - that it cannot load while IE can.Quote:
Google chrome is also written to handle non-standard code, while IE is written to handle standard compliant code. Don't blame the browser because it choked on a broken website
What kind of websites are you going to?
I've never seen a speed problem with IE. Although Apple's crappy browser (can't remember the name right now) does seem to load pages at lightning speed, they look like crap. But waiting 1 second vs 2-3 seconds, isn't really that important to me.
LOL. That line is usually written the other way.Quote:
Google chrome is also written to handle non-standard code, while IE is written to handle standard compliant code. Don't blame the browser because it choked on a broken website.
IE CSS bugs - Google Search
I believe you are referring to Safari.Quote:
Although Apple's crappy browser (can't remember the name right now) does seem to load pages at lightning speed
The real debate is over who's standards you want to adopt. There's open standards, found more in the open-source world, but as abachler points out - if all your clients already support one standard, you might as well cater to them. If you do have a virtual monopoly, what you do pretty much IS the standard.
As much as I don't like a lot of Microsoft's recent products, people know them, and you have to deal with that. I use Linux and Firefox because they are closer to my own personal preferences, and from my perspective I believe them to be superior. I even convinced by wife to start using alternative browsers for security reasons. After the switch, she had fewer reliability and virus issues (which were very common on her PC before). On the other hand, she still has to use IE for her homework because she's required to use certain tools that only work on IE.
I think it's only worsening the situation when people develop in such a way that students are required to pay for a Windows license in order to complete the class, but unfortunately that's how a true market economy works, and so businesses are just going to keep working that way. For what I do at work, I thought BSD would be a much better choice - but the fact is, if I used BSD, most of the people working to support my department wouldn't have a clue what was going on, and so we have to account for that.
edit: @ akkerknight
The problem with your computer has nothing to do with Linux's lack of features. When you boot up, a computer has to start somewhere. It starts in a location call the boot record. Windows used to have a boot loader at that location. When you installed Linux, it overwrote that with GRUB, allowing you to choose between two other places to start: Windows, or Linux. Once you remove the files GRUB needs to work, do you really think Linux (which was no longer on your machine) should be written to put your Windows boot loader back at that location? Not only is that a tricky thing to do, I don't think Microsoft would want Linux getting shipped with a very crucial part of their operating system.
Linux may be great and all but I really think most of its users live in a fantasy world where money doesn't win. Microsoft is not going to be de-throned any time soon as the king of OS's. Linux has a long way to go to ever hope of coming close.
If you look at the console market you can plainly see that anyone that is poised to beat Microsoft eventually gets squashed. It is rumored that Microsoft did not make one penny of profit on the first XBox and yet they continued to produce it just to compete. How can a company compete with a giant like that who can afford to put a great product out without making a single dime?
So you really think Linux is going to win over Windows just because it has a bigger fanboy base? C'mon now.
..and my how we have strayed off the topic. My apologies to the OP.
I think that this article titled Linux is Not Windows still makes good points in response to your questions, although some Linux distributions really are working towards becoming "Windows replacements".Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
The problem with the "windows replacement" is that it's exceptionally hard, if not impossible, to get the best of both worlds. Take abachler's issue with the Ubuntu installation, for instance.
I think Ubuntu is the closest thing yet to a drop-in replacement of Windows, but I think it does it without sacrificing a lot of the power. Partitions for instance. In the installer, you can manipulate, create, and remove partitions, install to a particular partition without affecting the others, and then set it up to boot to any of the existing operating systems.
On the other hand, Windows won't let you do any of that. It gives you a one-click installation.
You could make it a one-click installation, with another button to open up a customization menu, but I'm sure that would draw criticism from some groups too - it'll be impossible to please everyone. My only objection is when companies do things to intentionally hide the possibilities from their users.
But it will. Ever since Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by sean
It asks you right during the installation on what partition you want to install it on.
I like that approach actually. The ability to choose Standard or Advanced, plus the option that the installer can choose for you, if you are unsure.Quote:
Originally Posted by sean
The Ubuntu installer, if I remember correctly, is more of the spirit of advanced users:
It provides options for everything to customize, though you can skip over them if you want. It's different than Windows hide it approach, though.
I don't think Linux would need to come with a Windows boot loader. All they'd need to do is make a backup copy of the existing boot loader before installing Grub. Then when you uninstall, it restores the old boot loader.Quote:
Originally Posted by sean
I believe you are referring to the Debian/early Ubuntu text mode installer. It divides options into "sections", and you can choose to skip them. Not too pretty, but very functional, easy to use, and runs with 32MB RAM.Quote:
The Ubuntu installer, if I remember correctly, is more of the spirit of advanced users:
It provides options for everything to customize, though you can skip over them if you want. It's different than Windows hide it approach, though.
I believe Ubuntu has had the "dumber" GUI installer since at least 6.04 (released April 2006). IIRC, the steps are (may not be in this order) -
license agreement
timezone
username/password
partitions
confirmation (and whether you want to install GRUB)
That's why I don't get why people say it's hard to install Linux...
Problem is uninstalling is not usually done by Linux code.Quote:
All they'd need to do is make a backup copy of the existing boot loader before installing Grub. Then when you uninstall, it restores the old boot loader.
Do you uninstall Windows first before you install Linux?
Installing linux is even easier with WUBI. It just creates a partition within a file from windows and then you get the option to boot into linux. You can even uninstall the operating system through addremove programs.