my choice wud be fedora 7 or ubuntu....

Hello again everyone.

Woo my new computer is on its way lol.

Just got one question at the moment. Im getting a 500gb HDD, how much space would you guys reckonmend for madrivia 2008? Like how big should I make the Linux partion so that it never fulls up?

Side note, would any of you guys know how space hungry Windows Vista is lol?

500 gb :P
why do you need windows vista?
I woul give them both half the drive

I found a distro compare program on "polishlinux.org"
I know its only as good as it's input.
You can compare all the popular distros with each other; 1 on 1:
....have others tried this tool?

For Mandriva: about 15GB for the operating system, all the software, drivers , swap and temporary files. Then add as much as you'd like for storage.

Vista: appears to take up about 9GB; provide extra space for software, drivers, temporary files and storage.

I would install Vista (25-30GB), then Mandriva (15GB), and then create one or more partitions for storage. Mandriva can read/write from/to NTFS so you the systems can share a data partition. Plan ahead. If you intend to install more operating systems later, create the required partitions now. If you don't, you'll end up having to resize partitions and move files.

A lot of people start out with your intentions. I did it several times over. The hard fact is that Linux is not user-friendly, nor developed enough to be a feasible substitute to Windows. Stress FEASIBLE. Yeah, you can ditch Windows, but you'll give up a lot in terms of software, hardware compatibility (feasible!), usability and just plain old practicality. You will eventually either leave Linux entirely or accept if for what it is - an experimental OS for people that have a curiosity and craving to learn, unless you're a super-linux whiz then after a lot of work and tweaking to hell and back, you'll have your "near" Windows replacement. In my opinion any effort to make Linux imitate Windows in any aspect is just plain silly.

After trying the distros that were supposedly more developed, more user-friendly, etc than the rest, I am now running Slackware. I took the opposite approach - start with the most basic and LEARN. Don't waste my time on trying to replace Windows; that's nieve at best.

With this perspective and distro, I'm very happy and learning. Slack seems to just "work" if you take the approach that "it's Linux!" and don't expect anything to be given to you.

I have Win2k for the "important" stuff and Win98SE for the old games my old PIII 500 is capable of running. I spend most my time on Linux just trying to get things to work. That's what it's for. It's a challenge. It's not a replacement for anything but time spent doing nothing.

Bottom line, Linux is great, but it's like an old musclecar. It's not practical to drive to work, but it sure is fun on the weekends.

WOW! I sure am glad to hear that. I guess this means that I am on the wrong path, having a strictly Linux workstation. I must admit that I do boot Win2K in that workstation using VMWare to do some things in Windows, but mostly that is development for my Windows-based product, and some things in Wordperfect 8 that I have been too lazy to port to Open Office.

I'll have to remember how impractical Linux is for work, the next time I am working on a website hosted on a Linux server.

I'll be sure to remember how impractical Linux is as I complete this single board computer to digital signal processor integration I am working on. The Linux kernel driver I wrote for the single board computer must be as impractical as Linux is; maybe we should stop this integration and switch to Windows before we get too far into it.

user-friendly is relative, if you started using linux before windows, then windows would not be user-friendly. I don't see how it isn't practical, perhaps you could enlighten us a bit?

Most general purpose operating systems, regardless of the name, brand, or type, commercial, free, open, or closed, can perform most general purpose tasks. Running the exact same applications or using them in the exact same manner is another question and an issue in itself.

Linux as a server operating system is completely mature. A Linux server can do most anything a server of any other type can do. But even there, it may do it in a different way. Integration between one system and another may not be exactly the way you envision it to be. Devices supported may not equal precisely what you use at all times.

This is even more true in the desktop environment. I have been using Linux systems for years, mostly in the desktop environment. For me, I am comfortable with them, they do what I want them to do, and I prefer their use to that of other systems. But if your expectation is that it will do things exactly the way some other system does it, that is where you could be either surprised or disappointed. Some things have been ported to Linux, other things can be emulated from software created for other systems, especially Windows, and some software either does not work or it does not work exactly the same way.

If we discuss whether or not Linux can do comparable things, I would claim that it can, just not always the same software or in the same way. Linux gaming has been a very weak area in the past, but a lot of progress has been made in that area. Linux has plenty of games available; the question is whether or not YOUR favorite game is available.

I would recommend multi booting, that is, make room for multiple operating systems. As others have suggested, install Windows first, and partition your huge disk. With a 500 GB disk, you can choose to reserve 100 GB if you want for a single partition, or you can carve it up in smaller slices. Up until recently I have been carving up my disk into 5 GB slices or partitions, but on my newest system, I made that 10 GB partitions. You may want to make that 50 or 100 GB each, depending on how many systems you want to try out and how much you want to divide up the stuff you store.

As far as desktop recommendations, many of them are good. These are likely to do the job for at least a decent percentage of your requirements: Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, and Mandriva. As far as the distributions that I personally like, I use SimplyMEPIS, plain old Debian, Kubuntu, Mandriva, and PCLinuxOS the most. If you carve up your disk into enough partitions and if you have that kind of interest, give all of them a try. Otherwise one of the first three is most likely to be the closest to your needs.

Someone did recommend Slackware. I started out with Slackware myself. If your aim is to really learn how the stuff works, then Slackware is a good choice. If you just want to slam something in and go, it may be less of an option for you. It is very stable and has always had an active community, so that may be a factor. Only you can decide that.

Hope this and all the other responses are helpful to you and to others who may read this thread.

For what it's worth, Stildawn has already taken a decision and ordered both Vista and the Mandriva dvd. Distros like Mandriva really aren't all that hard to operate providing that one learn a few basic concepts/skills, such as root vs. regular user and enabling and using repositories. I dropped windows entirely within a few weeks after I started using Linux. That would make me a genius??

Um cool. I didnt mean to start an arguement lol. Yeah im keen to learn, always have been, Killed my fair share of hardware learning how to build a computer all by myself lol.

On my current computer, I gave my xp partion 50gb and it seems Im always having to clean it out, so Im thinking something along the lines of:

200gb - Vista
200gb - Random storage (for everything)
100gb - Linux

Sounds good?

I wouldn't do that, Stildawn. Keep you operating systems in the fastest part of the disk = the first gigabytes. Make a partition just for the windows OS files, then one for Mandriva and then partitions for storing your data. Something like:
Vista 25GB
Mandriva 15GB
data partition1
(data partition2 , 3, etc.)

You can use one of those data partitions as the home directory for Mandriva; or you can use only ntfs partitions for storage, in which case you only make a root directory.

By the way, you won't have 500GB, only 465.

Hmmm will 25gb and 15gb be enough for vista n mandrivia? Like I said Xp used up 50gbs in no time with all the software.

Yeah i know about the 465, you always feel ripped lol.

And yeah ok do the system partions first, good idea.

Well, the 25GB for Vista was just a rough estimate. It depends on the amount of software you add, of course. Personally, I have never needed more than 20GB for a windows OS + software (including quite a few biggies such as macromedia studio, Sun Studio and MS Office). I wonder whether the 50GB you mention was software alone or user files too. The layout that I propose keeps software and data apart but I suppose you already figured that out. Anyway, if you feel that 25GB isn't enough, you can always assign more. Still, you'd have to install an insane amount of software to fill 50GB. I know, windows tends to place "My Documents", "My Pictures" etc on the same partition as the OS but it's quite easy to tell it to place those on a different partition so that C is only OS + software and nothing else.

15GB for Mandriva should be enough, yes. Again, this is just for the OS + software, not for storage. I strongly recommend keeping your software and your own files on separate partitions. If you ever want to try a different distro, you can simply wipe out or overwrite the OS + software and your own files will still be safe on their own partition. Obviously, if all your stuff is in one partition, you'll have to do quite a bit of moving/copying first.

As I already pointed out, Mandriva can use ntfs too (but not for the OS partition!) so you could use one big shared data partition for Vista and Mandriva or you could give each its own. There are a few benefits to having at least a minimal Mandriva data partition so it may be a good idea to take the to-each-its-own approach. Just bear in mind that Vista does not understand Linux file systems and that you'll need to get an extra driver in order to solve that issue. Plus: ext2 and ext3 are, afaik, the only Linux file systems for which a reliable windows driver is currently available. No reiser, no xfs, no jfs, ...

The guys running Linux proficiently for everyday uses are those "super-linux whizes" I was referring to. Proof is in jiml8's tone - just goes to show you he's a PC geek with no personality

Someone made the comment that it depends on what you started with. Well, most of us started with Window. Case in point, the, um, original poster, that, um, is deciding what to run along with, um, Windows. If he was as proficient as you guys doing your data signal processing and all that other stuff most of us have no idea about, then he would probably be like you - Windowless. Ahh, that sounds good - but for me, will never happen, as for what, I'm just throwing out a number here... I'd say 95% of all Windows users that decide to try Linux

Ok, now back to my Slack OS which hangs on boot at an IRQ sharing message, has a broken version of XFCE that lost all titlebars and windowframes, lost the cursor and left me with an X for one, has the most hideous fonts I've ever seen and gives me all kinds of error messages when I shutdown the X server from one of several DE's, WM's I'm running. But hey, it's all good and being a Windows guy by origin, I've got a lot to learn!