Hello. NEW to Linux, and have a question about deployment...
 

Maybe more of an opinion. Ok, here goes.
I just got a brand new 320 G HD. (Winchester Caviar, my fav to date)-not installed yet.

Current system : MSI 965 MB, 2.4 Intel Core2Duo, Windows Vista Ultimate, Nvidia 8600GTS, Logitech G15 keyboard (2nd rev),Dual monitors, 4g RAM, 2 each HDDs running in the Vista Box, 2 DVD writers, Creative X-Fi platinum soundcard, Logitech Quickcam 5000, 750g Notebook (USB ext drive) and a 160g Notebook also.
Plus lots of extra stuff.
Extra (second) box : 2.4 Core2Duo, MSI 955 MB, ATI 1950xt graphics card, G15 kb (1st rev), 1 monitor, mouse, 2g Ram, no peripherals. (plain system, some parts used to build some of the current system, but runnable, no HD.)
Now, I listed my systems above, to ask an opinion: I ISO'd and ran the Ubuntu 8 CD, and it booted up fine on the current system from CD alone. I'm a hard-core gamer (fps), so I forsee keeping Vista in some form for awhile.
I ask my main question here: Would you recommend installing the new HD into the current system, and get Ubuntu on that and configured for dual boot, or just install it onto the extra system, and run it for awhile? I would like to eventually get the HD with ubuntu onto the current system, for the peripheral use and such. Would it be 'safer' (AND, less work later?) to set up on the extra box and migrate the HD later, or just install the new HD into the current box NOW for setup/hardware config purposes? I'm mainly looking at keeping the Vista side safe, however, I want to begin using ubuntu (Kubuntu, I think, as this Beryl stuff I see really get me going:) ) occasionally at first, and see if I would use it more often as time goes on. Thanks for yor advice and opinion in advance. :)

Migrating the HD from one to the other would be a royal pain because of differences in hardware. It is best to install it in the box you intend on using all the time and dual boot. And your Nvidia graphics are better than your ATI (for the eye candy you're dreaming about).
Personally I think it is not optimal to install two OS's on different hard drives, mostly because large partitions tend to retard the OS's performance over time, especially for Windows. Installing Vista in a 20-25GB partition (shrink it down) is optimal as the read/write heads of the hard drive will only be traveling in a small area of the drive instead of all over the platters as files get spread throughout over time when adding software, and de-fragmenting does not necessarily move all system files towards the fastest part of the drive which is the front of the drive/first partition. Then install either Ubuntu or Kubuntu (You can run compiz-fusion on either one, Beryl is 'passe') in the next partition and keep it around 15GB, I install Linux in 10GB partitions but don't load them up with software I "might" use. You can more than likely not create a separate SWAP partition with the amount of RAM you have.
I would use a second drive as a shared data drive accessible by both OS's which are installed on the first drive, this way if you ever need to re-install any OS, you won't have to waste time trying to backup your data for a re-install. You can configure any/most software in either OS to automatically save data in the second drive including e-mail/settings, address books, browser settings etc.
Put the third drive in the second box and install other Linuxes for the halibut, since you're curious, and that old cliche, "curiosity killed the cat", is a crock of sh**t.
Back up all data from the shared data drive onto one of the external USB drives.

The only real challenge would be to configure Ubuntu's boot loader to boot Vista after Ubuntu installation, I don't know if version 8 is like version 7, if it is, it will act like a Windows OS and install it's boot loader in the MBR and not include Windows in the menu. There are lots of tutorials on-line regarding setting up a dual boot with Vista and Ubuntu on the same drive, just Google it.

i would recommend installing on the second box. set up dual-booting is harder than fresh install. install it on the second box, (i'm not sure the G15 keyword would completely work, i'm not sure) and get accostumed to Linux, once you truly learn how everything works, how your computer works, you will be ready to have YOUR computer exactly how YOU want it, because that's what linux is all about.

Thanks for your input, J. I'm older school, and currently use the C disk (one partition, 320g) for about everything at this time, and have almost all data you mentioned saved to the same drive (C). I don't use the second installed disk much, mostly storage from the last system. In that current setup, I've read about using ex3 for linux versus ntfs for windows.. It's my understanding that U8 still doesn't write to ntfs reliably, and is not recommended, generally. If I'm thinking right, I should create a partition then on the current (C) drive for Ubuntu, and I assume make a partition large enough to hold any current/future linux apps, and roll with that? I wanted to try and avoid making any more partitions then necessary, using one drive per letter instead where possible. I have read that U8 is much more friendlier in making a dual boot system, and there IS a way to boot either Vista or Ubuntu from grub.
Can you elaborate more on a SWAP drive, and why I would need one? Aside from the fact that Vista makes its own swap file as large as it wants, as I let it through Vista already. I'd rather not re-install vista.
Also, could you go further with the Linux usage of data/progs already installed on the drive? I'm guessing that any stored/saved data through Linux would write itself to the Linux partition, as it should be formatted in ex3, correct?
I worry that using any programs already currently installed would try to write saves to the progs current location, on the ntfs, versus staying only on the linux partition. That was why I was thinking of installing linux on its own HD, and installing anything I wanted with linux on its own HD as well, with data safety in mind.

Thanks for your response too, Vertigo. :)

Traditionally, Linux was installed on many partitions, mostly for back-up purposes and security, because it used to be very easy to upset your Linux system in the past, especially if you're a Windows migrator, and in server configurations it is preferred to split it up as such.
But most mainstream Linux distributions have evolved to become allot more common in a home computer environment, and like the current most popular home computer operating system, many Linux can be installed all in one partition and function as expected.
Swap is like paging in Windows, and just like Windows, most Linux can use part of the single root partition setup for it's swap space. When you're sitting on 4GB of RAM, chances are you normally would not see the system using any swap space in this day & age in a home desktop environment. So it may be pointless to create a separate swap partition if it can be avoided during installation, if you find you need one in the future, you may be in need of a fresh installation anyway, start from scratch and add one.

Ummm..
Most Linux require installing ntfs-3g to write to an NTFS partition, which is what I do as my shared data partition is NTFS. But software in Linux by default will want to save data in your /home directory which can be part of / (root). You have to direct it to a different partition/directory for it to land up somewhere else.
Having a shared data partition allows you to listen to your entire 30GB music collection from any operating system, view and edit any/all your digital/scanned photos from any system, etc. etc. etc.. If you save files created in Ubuntu in it's own partition, and save whatever you create/download in Window in it's partition, you have a mess on your hands and you'll eventually regret having data spread all over. By keeping all data in the same place, it's easy to back-up, and all of it is accessible any time without re-booting.
Most home computer users do not see what all the hype is about with this back-up thing, till they crash the OS and loose their data.

For me, the shared data partition holds everything, including compressed images of all my operating systems in a fresh installation state, and all kinds of software regularly used/installed.
My computer is in another room, it's nice and quiet at my desktop, I don't need to put too many CD's in the optical drives. From a mouse and keyboard I wipe out a trashed OS, recreate the partition, load an image of it before it got trashed, re-install all my favorite apps in about 20 minutes because everything's on the drive(s).

I have around 10 computers in running condition, I only use two. My high end desktop at one residence, my high end laptop at the other res., the other units are pretty much dust collectors, test beds, guinea pigs. It's a pain losing space to multiple monitors, desks, noisy towers when your latest unit gives you the best "fix" and can do it all.