LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Ubuntu (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/)
-   -   Why the possibility of installation was removed from ubuntu 10.4? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/why-the-possibility-of-installation-was-removed-from-ubuntu-10-4-a-806699/)

lockesilver 05-08-2010 04:11 PM

Why the possibility of installation was removed from ubuntu 10.4?
 
Sorry for the sarcasm but I've been trying to get past the installation of ubuntu 10.4 for 14 hours now and I'm just about to go crazy.

I have never ever have a single installation issue with ubuntu (been using it for years and years, and before I used other distributions for years).

Now I want to install Ubuntu 10.4 alongside Windows 7. I don't have any other demands or wishes, just for it to install. Unfortunately, there is no way to do that. The installer is always stopping at a "no root file system is defined". When I go to gparted in the liveCD version it shows my entire drive as free, unallocated space (although there are at least 3 partitions, one of them with working windows 7).

The LiveCD sees the partitions all righ, I can access the windows partitions without any problem. Fdisk -l also shows my partitions properly. Gparted, however, for some reason doesn't recognize them.

I have only two options:

1) use whole drive (which would erase my windows 7 - no, no)
2) set up manually (which says all my 250gb drive is unallocated space). No other choices.

And generally the installer of ubuntu says "This computer has no operating systems on it."

Bummer. How annoying...

Installing through wubi doesn't work as well. After restart it wants to install but reaches sth like 257% on "getting time from server" and says there's no root filesystem. So it's all basically about ubuntu not wanting to acknowledge the simple fact that there are already partitions and OS's on my drive...

Please. Help.

paulsm4 05-08-2010 04:21 PM

Hi -

Don't blame Ubuntu - it's Windows Vista (and it's successor, Windows 7) who changed the rules.

Anyway, you should easily be able to achieve Dual-Boot Nirvana. Try any of these links:

http://lifehacker.com/5403100/dual+b...erfect-harmony

http://macpablodesigns.wordpress.com...s-ubuntu-9-10/

http://neosmart.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4856

SUGGESTIONS:
I'd get a copy of EasyBCD (for the Windows part of the equation).

I'd also make sure I had a good backup (and the original boot CD) for Windows 7, too.

Good luck .. PSM

Kenny_Strawn 05-08-2010 04:23 PM

"No root file system is defined" when you are partitioning means you did not specify a mount point for the FS you want as root. When you are partitioning and you want to specify the root partition, in the "Mount Point" box, type a slash (/).

lockesilver 05-08-2010 04:36 PM

Thank You for your (quick) answers. I still have the problem though. I think I haven't made myself clear enough (sorry, I'm not a native speaker)

All you said (links included) is based on the assumption that there's something to be done in the partitioning section of the installation. My problem, however, is that there is no partitioning section of the installation. I mean it doesn't work.

I can't specify a "/" point for a partition or create/remove anything because the ubuntu installer doesn't show me my partitions.

You know, that colourful bar where every existing partition is represented by a different colour? So there are no colours. It's entirely gray and there is nothing but unallocated space.

Consequently, Ubuntu thinks the disk is clean and it wants to take the whole 250 gb.

Kenny_Strawn 05-08-2010 04:39 PM

Try installing to another HDD if you have one. If not, get an inexpensive external one. It will still work.

lockesilver 05-08-2010 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn (Post 3961659)
Try installing to another HDD if you have one. If not, get an inexpensive external one. It will still work.

Yeah, that's a solution. But... shouldn't it work the normal way? I mean I can get another hdd or another computer but, in truth, that's not the point.

I think if it turns out to be impossible to resolve I will have to say farewell to ubuntu, which is a pity...

syg00 05-08-2010 06:58 PM

My Win7 came with a "standard" (MS-DOS) partition table, so installation of F12 was simple (I don't have Ubuntu on that kit). If you have a gpt disk or a partition table that starts at other than sector 63 you might have a problem. Try the following from a Linux terminal/console (liveCD or install disk maybe) - might need root or sudo depending on environment
Code:

parted -l
fdisk -l


paulsm4 05-08-2010 09:29 PM

Hi -

No, this is NOT what I said:
Quote:

All you said (links included) is based on the assumption that there's something to be done in the partitioning section of the installation. My problem, however, is that there is no partitioning section of the installation. I mean it doesn't work.
Quote:

My Win7 came with a "standard" (MS-DOS) partition table, so installation of F12 was simple
And that's precisely the issue you're facing, lockesilver. If Win7 *had* installed with a "standard" (MS-DOS) boot partition table, you wouldn't be having these issues. Every version of Windows: from Win3.0 through WinNT and Win/XP, all bootstrapped in a similar way. Windows Vista broke the trend, and introduced a new boot partition format. Win7 carries it forward.

I could give you more links, but please re-read the ones I gave you. Please get "EasyBCD", and re-read the parts of the links I gave you where they talk about EasyBCD.

That should fix the problem.

IMHO .. PSM

syg00 05-08-2010 09:44 PM

You'll (probably) need the beta for EasyBCD 2.0 to get Win7 to boot properly and find grub. The normal release didn't work for me.

adilms 05-09-2010 12:30 PM

I was setting up a dual boot with Win7 and Ubuntu 10.4 yesterday. The installer detected the partitions correctly. I was installing on an Acer desktop, it even showed the recovery partition.

I also downloaded the 10.4 ISO yesterday. I read there were issues with Grub in the very first official release of 10.4, so I waited a little. Maybe you are using the that version.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 AM.