Linux Which is the best version for linux for desktop

i have the suse linux 10.1 dvd now how install it.My rig config

AMD Athlon 64 3000+

ASUS A8N-E

Memory 512MB Ram

already have winxp on C:

There are 5 drive each with 14GB capacity.

1. File system is FAT32.do i need to convert it NTFS if so how can i do

without deleting the data

2.is it OK to install suse linux in D: i have 6GB free space.
 
escaflowne said:
i have the suse linux 10.1 dvd now how install it.My rig config

AMD Athlon 64 3000+

ASUS A8N-E

Memory 512MB Ram

already have winxp on C:

There are 5 drive each with 14GB capacity.

is it OK to install suse linux in D: i have 6GB free space

So in essence u have an 80 GB HDD. The first thing to do is see how the disk is structured. AFA whatever u've told me till now it seems you have :-

C:\ 8-10 GB primary partition

D: - H:\ 14 GB Extended logical partitions. You can confirm the same by going to Start Menu > Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Computer Management > Storage > Disk Management (snap-in) . Here u'll see the window divided in 2 columns. The first column will have a tree while the second column will be horizontally divided in 2 sections. The first section will give various info. such as volume name, space used, free space etc. The second section is what we want to look at . This alongwith the legends at the bottom will tell us how the drive is structured. The black band denoting primary partition & the green band surrounding the thick blue band outlining the blue partitions will be the secondary logical drives. First confirm that this is the case. If yes then we go ahead.

Another thing don't make the partition NTFS :- Many-a times it makes more problem than solves them. Also have u upgraded to XPSP2?
 
Here's a thumbnail for the same. :-



As described above the labels give the right info. In this screenshot/e.g. as I've 2 hard disk its showing disk 0 & disk 1 whereas in your case it would be only disk 0
 
FAT32 is not better than NTFS but if u are palanning to dual boot with linux fat32 will make life easier. In linux ntfs support is not properly implemented and u may lose data when writing data.
 
archish said:
FAT32 is not better than NTFS but if u are palanning to dual boot with linux fat32 will make life easier. In linux ntfs support is not properly implemented and u may lose data when writing data.

O.k. I don't want to start a quick flame war but quick googling tells this quite succintly
Alex Nichol said:
. INTRODUCTION

Files in Windows XP can be organised on the hard disk in two different ways.

* The old FAT (File Allocation Table) file system was developed originally (when the original IBM PCs came out) for MS-DOS on small machines and floppy disks. There are variants — FAT12 is used on all floppy disks, for example — but hard disk partitions in Windows XP can be assumed to use the FAT32 version, or 32-bit File Allocation Table.

* Later, a more advanced file system was developed for hard disks in Windows NT, called NTFS (the “NT File Systemâ€). This has matured, through several versions, into the latest one that exists alongside FAT in Windows XP.

The file system used goes with an individual partition of the disk. You can mix the two types on the same physical drive. The Windows XP operating system is the same, whichever file system is used for its partition, so it is a mistake (and source of confusion) to speak of “a FAT disk reading an NTFS partition.†It is the operating system, not the disk, that does the reading.

Actual files are unaffected by which file system they are on; that is merely a matter of a method of storage. An analogy would be letters stored in an office. They might be in box-files on shelves (FAT) or in suspended folders in file cabinets (NTFS); but the letters themselves would be unaffected by the choice of which way to store them, and could be moved from one storage place to the other. Similarly, files can be moved between folders on an NTFS partition and folders on a FAT partition, or across a network to another machine that might not even be running Windows.

EXAMPLE: Consider the downloading to your computer of a file through a link on a web page. You click on the link, and the file is copied across the Internet and stored on your hard drive. If you download the file from this present site, the file is stored on a computer running Unix, which uses neither FAT nor NTFS. The file itself is not affected when it is copied from a Windows computer to the Unix-based server, or copied from that server to your Windows-based computer.

However, if a machine has two different operating systems on it, dual booted, they may not both be able to read both types of partition. DOS (including an Emergency Startup boot floppy), Windows 95/98, and Windows ME cannot handle NTFS (without third party assistance). Early versions of Windows NT cannot handle FAT32, only FAT16. So, if you have such a mixed environment, any communal files must be held on a partition of a type that both operating systems can understand — meaning, usually, a FAT32 partition. (See the article Planning Your Partitions on this site, under the section “Multiple Operating Systems,†for a table of which file system each recent version of Windows can use and understand.)

2. WHICH SYSTEM TO USE?

There are three considerations that affect which file system should be chosen for any partition:

1. Do you want to use the additional capabilities that only NTFS supports?
NTFS can provide control of file access by different users, for privacy and security. The Home Edition of Windows XP only supports this to the limited extent of keeping each user’s documents private to him or herself. Full file-access control is provided in Windows XP Professional, as is encryption of individual files and folders. If you use encryption it is essential to back up the encryption certificates used — otherwise, if the partition containing your "Documents and Settings" has to be reformatted, the files will be irretrievably lost.

2. Considerations of Stability and Resilience
NTFS has stronger means of recovering from troubles than does FAT. All changes to files are “journalized,†which allows the system to roll back the state of a file after a crash of the program using it or a crash of the system. Also, the structure of the file system is less likely to suffer damage in a crash, and is therefore more easily reinstated by CheckDisk (CHKDSK.EXE). But in practical terms, the stability of FAT is adequate for many users, and it has the benefit that a FAT partition is accessible for repair after booting from a DOS mode startup floppy, such as one from Windows 98. If an NTFS partition is so damaged that it is not possible to boot Windows, then repair can be very difficult.

3. Considerations of economy and performance
In a virtual memory system like Windows XP, the ideal size of disk clusters matches the internal “page size†used by the Intel processors — 4 kilobytes. An NTFS partition of almost any size you are likely to meet will use this, but it is only used in FAT32 up to an 8 GB partition. Above that, the cluster size for FAT increases, and the wastefulness of the “cluster overhang†grows. (For a table of the varying default cluster sizes used by FAT16, FAT32, and Win XP’s version of NTFS, for partitions of varying sizes, click here.)

On the other hand NTFS takes much more space for holding descriptive information on every file in that file’s own block in the Master File Table (MFT). This can use quite a large proportion of the disk, though this is offset by a possibility that the data of a very small file may be stored entirely in its MFT block. Because NTFS holds significant amounts of these structures in memory, it places larger demands on memory than does FAT.

Searching directories in NTFS uses a more efficient stucture for its access to files, so searching a FAT partition is a slower process in big directories. Scanning the FAT for the pieces of a fragmented file is also slower. On the other hand, NTFS carries the overhead of maintaining the “journalized†recovery.

Also, of course, in a dual boot system, there may be the overriding need to use FAT on a partition so that it can also be read from, say, Windows 98.

3. ON BALANCE

Leaving matters of access control and dual use aside, as partition sizes grow, the case for NTFS gets stronger. Microsoft definitely recommends NTFS for partitions larger than 32 GB — to the extent that Windows XP will not format a FAT partition above that size. However, with smaller sizes, FAT is likely to be more efficient — certainly below 4 GB, and probably below 8 GB. I suggest that NTFS should be used for partitions of 16 GB or above, where the FAT 32 cluster size goes up to 16 KB, the intermediate region (that is, partitions between 8 and 16 GB in size) being largely a matter of taste.

4. CAN I CONVERT ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?

Ideally, a disk is initially formatted in the file system which is to be used permanently — NTFS, for example, can then put the Master File Table in its optimal location in the middle of the partition.

However, on an upgrade of an existing system, the file system is left as it is. For example, an upgraded Windows 98 system will be on FAT32. Also, some computer makers ship new computers with all partitions formatted as FAT32. These can be converted to NTFS if that seems more suitable to your needs. If you use the method described here, the result will be nearly as satisfactory as if a fresh format to NTFS had been done.

But this conversion is a one-way process. Windows XP provides a native tool for converting FAT to NTFS, but no tool for converting NTFS to FAT. It may be possible to convert NTFS to FAT using Partition Magic 7.01, but the result is uncertain. It you attempt it, it is essential that you first decrypt all encrypted files, or they will be forever inaccessible. (For this reason, Partition Magic will stop if it finds one.) If it is a new machine, too, be sure that your warranty will not be compromised by doing a file system conversion.

A further aspect that needs caution is that the conversion may result in the NTFS permissions on the partition and its folders being not the simple general access that might be expected. It is certainly important that the conversion be done when logged in as an Administrator.

5. BACKUP & DISK IMAGING

Will a backup or image made from NTFS remain NTFS if I restore to a newly formatted partition?

This depends on the approach of the particular backup program you use. It may make an exact image of the partition, including the file system’s structures, in which case the restored partition will be exactly as the original. (Indeed, any format of the drive before restoring the drive image not only is unnecessary, but all that it accomplishes will be overwritten when you restore the image.) Or, the software may work on a file-by-file basis, in which case the files themselves will be restored — to whatever file system has been used in formatting the partition to which you restore them. But, again, note that a file-by-file restore from a backup of NTFS to a FAT partition will result in encrypted files being unreadable, because there is no way to decrypt them on FAT!
Visit Microsoft.com
Link here

AFA NTFS support is concerned yes I do agree in parts. NTFS read support has been in for quite a long time. It's NTFS write support which has been seeing some action right from around 6-8 months. The best NTFS driver I know yet is this. The only downside is it isn't in a GUI drag-n-drop manner which many windows users are prone to.

escaflowne read the above & make u'r own mind as to what u think is better.
 
After reading all that take a glass of water listen to rock or whatever ur poison is :). After getting relaxed copy the contents of the last partition to the other partitions. The last partition needs to be empty or major contents moved to D: & other logical partitions. After you have moved something like 6-7 GB of space which is more than enough (unless you want to set up any kind of mail or webserver or something like that where the space requirements & configuration complexity make a steep jump. As we're not going in that direction I'll simply guide to the most simply user thing.) defrag the last partition.

Now Suse uses reiserfs partitions. You can either make changes in the BIOS & give preference to the DVD & let it make the partition or do the following (slightly safer/more decent/better) :-

1. Download Gparted preferably download from the Taiwan or chinese mirror generally a tad faster.

2. It's an .iso image file so using any CD burner from like CDBurnerXP Pro - free burning solution | Home / News or Alcohol 120% burn a CD it takes about 30 mb. Make sure that u finalize & don't burn anything else on the CD otherwise the bootable CD won't work.
 
great explanation for NTFS vs FAT32.repped u.thanks a lot.
Fow now i will go for FAT32,but as soon i get a new HDD i will go for NTFS.
Now i have 6-7 GB free space in D: is it fine to install suse linux in it.Also how to uninstall suse linux and revert back to win xp.pls give me any tips during installation.
 
escaflowme,

As I told before you can't install in a logical drive partition. Linux needs a primary partition. So the best way is to make way on G: drive de-frag & either use XP's own disk management tool to make the 14 GB space to 7 GB or use Gparted. If you use XP's disk mgmt. tool the possibility of losing data on G: becomes next to nil. Even through Gparted the data loss happens in very rare exceptional cases hence it always is better to use the native tool.
 
As u can see I have 2 primary partitions one is where the / will lie & the other where the swap partition would be. Now the swap partition should be twice u'r RAM hence it's about 1 GB something.

At the end use GRUB as bootloader it's better than the other one. It gives u access to a shell atleast so in case things go wrong u can do something about it.
 
Now when everything is done u'll have to reboot couple of times. After that is done u'll have a plain GRUB boot-loader which have a counter showing the particular distribution (in u'r case Suse) & Windows XP or some similar name to that effect. Clicking on either will take u to that distro/OS.

Now if u want to revert back pop in u'r winxp bootable cd, pop into recovery console, map the device & use fixmbr to fix the master boot record. This should get back u to XP. One of the other ways mentioned is to go with the XP installation method till the point where u have to write stuff to the hard disk & then exit. I've tried the former method & it works.
 
Last thing in Suse yast2 as well as CLI (the Command Line interface) is u'r friend. In case u run into issues with some command give man & name of command to have some documentation about that.

Also never be root, make sure to have atleast 1 user while installing Suse & boot through that user.

One of the ongoing rumors is that Vista or atleast the betas which have come up till now have used the same/similar to man command for doing power user stuff. I haven't used Vista so can't deny or otherwise.

Happy exploring :) I might write few detailed articles with screenshots in upcoming days if more people want it.
 
Awesome contribution there shirish...extremely helpful for linux n00bs like me.

Reps to you :).

Edit: Shirish, Cud u write a small tutorial for linux install for a particular release??That'd be great :).
 
There is probability of doing an FC5 install in the coming week as well as Ubuntu but that's about couple of weeks ahead when I get my CD's but fear not would write up something for sure.
 
Can some one tell me how is Damn Small Linux. Fc...ing lappie at office does not allow me to have anything more than one OS thanks to a sh..y policy of office. Wanted to try that, but seems like no luck. :(
 
DSL is a pretty neat package in the small form (50 MB only). Actually u don't need to install on a laptop to use it. Just put it up on a USB stick, make sure u'r BIOS supports booting off USB stick & enjoy. It has lots of knoppix kind of features. The best is it has some beautiful wireless s**t built into it so the possibility of having that on a lappie connecting to an access point & doing all that u want is a reality. I've played with it & it has impressed me with the tons of features it has in the small footprint it occupies. Make no mistake it's a whole distro. in itself & would be looking forward to the next one as & when it happens. Here's a list of the Wireless cards that work. The wiki in itself has lots of stuff if u're interested to know. BTW the current ver. is 2.4 Enjoy :)
 
Nice tutorial Shirish....
shirish said:
As I told before you can't install in a logical drive partition. Linux needs a primary partition.

Not necessary.. Linux can be installed on a Logical partition also. I does not necessarily need Primary. I have installed linux on 5 logical drives inside my extended partition.
For newbies dont install linux on primary partition coz in case if you want to remove linux u will have to reformat the primary partition or delete it. So it is going to cause lots of problems with windows as windows will shift all partitions one place to cover the deleted partition and hence lots of issues.

Newbies install linux at the last logical drive of ur extended partition. Very safe. Even to be more safe, delete the last partition on which u want to install linux, so that it will show as free space in FDisk when u partition. Still to be more safe create only 2 parition.
1: Swap = 2 x Ram
2: mount point = /
Size > 4GB for full installation.
 
Josh then perhaps you can give a tute on how to install linux on logical extended partition. I for one 'm intrigued as have heard but don't know how. Another thing the boot-loader is GRUB or something else altogether.
 
Back
Top