LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Newbie (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/)
-   -   Dual Boot file for Windows and Linux (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/dual-boot-file-for-windows-and-linux-4175422044/)

Oldnewguy 08-14-2012 12:56 PM

Dual Boot file for Windows and Linux
 
Im an old guy new to Linux. Want to give it a try using the dual boot between Windows XP and a Linux Distro. please don't shoot me.

frankbell 08-14-2012 10:07 PM

Welcome to LQ.

I doubt anyone will shoot you. Lots of Linux users started by dual-booting.

brainout 08-15-2012 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldnewguy (Post 4754014)
Im an old guy new to Linux. Want to give it a try using the dual boot between Windows XP and a Linux Distro. please don't shoot me.

Finally found your post! I'm a old gal who remembers old Unix from the 1990's, inveterate DOS junkie who was forced to go to Windows in 2000. Now that I've seen Win8, I'm determined to stick with XP and go to dual-boot Linux, which is why I just registered at this forum.

There's a lot to learn. What I wish Linux would do, is convert many of the long arcane commands into MACROS (like batch files) and then top them with an icon users can click on. That's more transparent, too: because you can edit a macro.

Would beat both MS and Apple hands-down, if they properly designed enough macros. Businesses would love it. So then Linux could charge for all that work, and wouldn't have to worry about it being open architecture, since we business owners gladly PAY for the work done, since that saves us time having to learn it all.

Computer code can only be complex, at the bottom level. Fine. But a business owner like me, even when understanding the code, doesn't want to spend time programming, would rather hire someone.

But here, I have to LEARN it first, to see where it belongs in my business. It's more sophisticated than DOS, because it addresses the later hardware, etc.

TobiSGD 08-15-2012 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brainout (Post 4754398)
What I wish Linux would do, is convert many of the long arcane commands into MACROS (like batch files) and then top them with an icon users can click on. That's more transparent, too: because you can edit a macro.

Would beat both MS and Apple hands-down, if they properly designed enough macros. Businesses would love it. So then Linux could charge for all that work, and wouldn't have to worry about it being open architecture, since we business owners gladly PAY for the work done, since that saves us time having to learn it all.

There seem to be some misunderstandings:
1. Linux has a bunch of good desktop environments and window managers. If you choose one of the distributions that is more aimed at the beginner you won't have to do much work on the command-line at all (if you don't want to).
2. Setting up scripts (I think that is what you mean with MACROS?) may be convenient if you have tasks the re-occur often with the same settings. Otherwise it is not. Since nobody in the Linux community can know the workflow of your business it is impossible to make pre-built scripts for you.
3. There is no central Linux authority, so "Linux could charge" is simply not possible. Also, being an open architecture is nothing to worry about, it is one of the main advantages of Linux.

It is rather simple: If you don't want to learn something and rather pay someone for the work you need to be done then simply hire someone. There are a whole lot of Linux freelancers out there.

brainout 08-15-2012 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 4754550)
There seem to be some misunderstandings:
1. Linux has a bunch of good desktop environments and window managers. If you choose one of the distributions that is more aimed at the beginner you won't have to do much work on the command-line at all (if you don't want to).
2. Setting up scripts (I think that is what you mean with MACROS?) may be convenient if you have tasks the re-occur often with the same settings. Otherwise it is not. Since nobody in the Linux community can know the workflow of your business it is impossible to make pre-built scripts for you.
3. There is no central Linux authority, so "Linux could charge" is simply not possible. Also, being an open architecture is nothing to worry about, it is one of the main advantages of Linux.

It is rather simple: If you don't want to learn something and rather pay someone for the work you need to be done then simply hire someone. There are a whole lot of Linux freelancers out there.

Thank you. Re #1, the only Linux provider I could find which had anything resembling a 'package' like you'd get with Windows, was maybe Ubuntu.

Re #2, I mean common administrator tasks that in Windows just involve clicking a menu item, like 'add remove programs' and other computer-housekeeping generics which apply irrespective of the specific user or business. And yeah, 'script'='macro'. Sorry I don't know the Linux lingo, I'm newly here thinking out how to leave Windows, knowing only DOS.

Re #3, hiring someone to program it for you, when you're just one person owning a business, isn't feasible. I have computer people I hire for ad hoc tasks. I write my own code, but when it comes to making software and hardware talk to each other -- stuff I just specify via menu item in Windows -- it's not but rarely worth hiring someone. Hence query #2. So #3, means that there are services which can be bundled and issued as part of Linux, which can be offered at a price, if desired, to keep the 'free' part of Linux going. So when I say 'Linux could charge', it was shorthand for all the various Linux providers.

Thank you again!

TobiSGD 08-15-2012 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brainout (Post 4754600)
Re #1, the only Linux provider I could find which had anything resembling a 'package' like you'd get with Windows, was maybe Ubuntu.

Then you haven't looked good enough. Most distros provide a "package" (that almost anytime is far more than what is deliverd in Windows). Have a look at at the Major Distributions page at Distrowatch. Except Arch and FreeBSD any of those distributions will give you a complete desktop out of the box.

Quote:

Re #2, I mean common administrator tasks that in Windows just involve clicking a menu item, like 'add remove programs' and other computer-housekeeping generics which apply irrespective of the specific user or business.
Any of the major distributions on the above mentioned page, except Arch, Slackware and FreeBSD, have graphical settings tools similar to Windows. No need to write scripts.

Quote:

Re #3, hiring someone to program it for you, when you're just one person owning a business, isn't feasible. I have computer people I hire for ad hoc tasks. I write my own code, but when it comes to making software and hardware talk to each other -- stuff I just specify via menu item in Windows -- it's not but rarely worth hiring someone. Hence query #2. So #3, means that there are services which can be bundled and issued as part of Linux, which can be offered at a price, if desired, to keep the 'free' part of Linux going. So when I say 'Linux could charge', it was shorthand for all the various Linux providers.
There are various distributions aimed at the Enterprise/Business market, like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the Enterprise versions of Suse Linux, Oracle Linux and Ubuntu that offer paid support for cases like that.

frankbell 08-15-2012 10:05 PM

To build on what TobiSGC said, in Linux, a program is commonly referred to as a "package" and the program used to install or remove it is a "package manager." Most package managers have GUI frontends that can be started with a single mouse click or menu selection, much like Windows's add/remove programs, except that they add, they don't just remove.

The GoingLinux website has a nice article about this: http://goinglinux.com/articles/Insta...lications.html

You might try browsing around the GoingLinux site and perhaps listen to some of the podcasts; it's designed for persons considering or new to Linux. You will likely find a lot of answers to your questions there.

Linux is different, but it's not difficult, and there is a learning curve. I came to Linux with an extensive background in DOS, Windows, and NT and NT server; after several years, I have concluded that Linux is ultimately easier to use and a darn sight more logical.

But it is different.

brainout 08-16-2012 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 4754621)
Then you haven't looked good enough. Most distros provide a "package" (that almost anytime is far more than what is deliverd in Windows). Have a look at at the Major Distributions page at Distrowatch. Except Arch and FreeBSD any of those distributions will give you a complete desktop out of the box.

Any of the major distributions on the above mentioned page, except Arch, Slackware and FreeBSD, have graphical settings tools similar to Windows. No need to write scripts.

There are various distributions aimed at the Enterprise/Business market, like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the Enterprise versions of Suse Linux, Oracle Linux and Ubuntu that offer paid support for cases like that.

It could be that I haven't looked well enough. I only discovered the problem of Win8, last weekend. Was trying to search through the posts here to find out what 'packages' there were. Didn't find any, except Ubuntu.

I'm trying to make a decision whether to port over to Linux.

brainout 08-16-2012 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankbell (Post 4755144)
To build on what TobiSGC said, in Linux, a program is commonly referred to as a "package" and the program used to install or remove it is a "package manager." Most package managers have GUI frontends that can be started with a single mouse click or menu selection, much like Windows's add/remove programs, except that they add, they don't just remove.

The GoingLinux website has a nice article about this: http://goinglinux.com/articles/Insta...lications.html

You might try browsing around the GoingLinux site and perhaps listen to some of the podcasts; it's designed for persons considering or new to Linux. You will likely find a lot of answers to your questions there.

Linux is different, but it's not difficult, and there is a learning curve. I came to Linux with an extensive background in DOS, Windows, and NT and NT server; after several years, I have concluded that Linux is ultimately easier to use and a darn sight more logical.

But it is different.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. I go back to birth of DOS, and didn't shift to Windows until 2000 (though superficially familiar with it since its birth). I wondered, when Unix came out, whether I should have learned that instead, but didn't. So now I'm stuck. Will give your suggestions a try. Thank you for your time in typing them!

Mara 08-17-2012 04:32 PM

Moderator note: this thread is technical, so it fits better into a technical forum. Moved.

TroN-0074 08-17-2012 05:20 PM

brainout I highly suggest you to try Ubuntu, OpenSuse or LinuxMint. any of them will be a good choice for home use or small business. if you find any difficulties you can post here more questions

Good luck to you

jefro 08-17-2012 08:23 PM

Kind of a mixed post.

Oldnewguy, you are free to attempt a dual boot if you wish. Backup your important data first.

Also you might consider trying live linux cd/dvd/usb's. Consider virtual machines to run both windows and linux at the same time.

frankbell 08-17-2012 09:25 PM

I'm going to second the Live CD idea. It will give you a chance to sample some distros and pick one that feels right for you for starts.

Regarding the transition to Linux, the command line is the command line, except that the slash leans the other way. Many *nix commands are very similar to their DOS step-children. The others that you might use frequently you will pick up quickly.

I can remember back seven years to sitting in front of my first Slackware install. It was sometimes puzzling, but it was never baffling, because there were always persons willing to help.

sKaar 08-18-2012 02:50 AM

if you can access ntldr, you can put a kernel image on a windows drive and use it to boot linux on a separate disk/partition(s), i found it way easier to do that than using *nix boot loaders to load windows, though some would find ntldr rather unsuitable.
for understanding the command line, you may find windows 9x a better comparison, a pretty graphical interface on top of DOS, with linux there are maaaany GUI's, but still over top a dos like command line. i do have to differ with toby on the graphical configuration utilities being non-existent/lacking on slackware, many are customised generics that work on the others, even package management(add/remove programs) is relatively easy with kpackage. however, learning to do it in the configuration files really makes things much easier to understand when things go wrong for auto config utilities.

piyush.sharma 08-18-2012 03:04 AM

Make some free space on your hard drive first, and put a DVD of ubuntu while running windows XP. it will install ubuntu in few steps. Later you are ready for the dual boot.
Note : backup your important data first. and select free space of your hard drive to install ubuntu, you may loss data if you select wrong option.

Look at this, it will help you
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/wubi


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 PM.