View Full Version : OK so I am not doing something right..
AgonxOC
01-02-2006, 09:11 PM
I tried to install LINUX in an OLD PC and I did XP first in a 20GB partition. Today I tried to install LINUX (UBUNTU 5.04) and I get errors. Now the system wont even get to XP.. What should I do? I dont need to partition really I was doing it to try LINUX and XP on the same HDD. Also for XP whats better FAT 32 or NTFS?
Alex
mrapples
01-03-2006, 10:05 AM
as to what you should do, get on the ubuntu forums and figure out what the errors are, fix them, and reinstall
ntfs is a better overall filesystem, but you might consider making an extra partition of shared data in fat32, because linux has a lot of trouble with ntfs, but can read and write fat natively
lastly, get 5.10, its great
AgonxOC
01-04-2006, 02:57 AM
Well, the UBUNTU I have is an actual DISK from them. I did download the 5.10picture install CD (maybe DVD). Now I dont need to partition the HDD as I have XP on another machine. I was just trying to figure it out. Either way would it be better to burn the CD or DVD with 5.10 and call it a day?
Alex
mrapples
01-04-2006, 09:00 AM
i would say so
AgonxOC
01-04-2006, 02:09 PM
Ok so I did burnt the CD, but I didnt make it a bootable disk thinking it was included in the CD image. Is that right or should I try making a bootable disk...
Alex
AgonxOC
01-04-2006, 08:20 PM
I got Linux working as it should now.....:woot:
Alex
As long as you don't tell us what the error message said there's no way to help.
FAT is usually better because it is easier to read from other OSes, faster in Windows and nobody uses the security features in Windows anyway. The worst drawback is a 2 GB file size limit.
AgonxOC
01-05-2006, 07:09 PM
Actually NTSF is better for windows. I had some issues with FAT. Cant even overclock the RAM and keep it tight or it will crash on FAT. I have not had that issue with NTSF. I know Linux and NTSF is a NO NO, but I am not planing on doing much with both together until I master Linux. I have gotten my Linux working and it seem to have been the damn CD-RW....
Alex
Actually NTSF is better for windows. I had some issues with FAT. Cant even overclock the RAM and keep it tight or it will crash on FAT. I have not had that issue with NTSF. I know Linux and NTSF is a NO NO, but I am not planing on doing much with both together until I master Linux. I have gotten my Linux working and it seem to have been the damn CD-RW....
Alex
The filesystem limits your overclock. Right.
Many Linux distributions do NTFS by now but FAT is still easier to deal with, and faster in Windows for most common uses.
mrapples
01-06-2006, 10:12 AM
just as an interesting bit of news, there are now much better ntfs write capabilities as of 2.6.15, now, a file can be overwritten with a file of any size, but still not created
Entity_Razer
01-08-2006, 10:11 AM
FAT is still easier to deal with, and faster in Windows for most common uses.
yhea right....
FAT is NOT a good filesystem. for windows NTFS completly owns FAT. Why? if you load a file on FAT the comp goes to the FAT, reads what sector it needs, picks that up and at the end of that sector is the direction to the following sector. This is all good if you have a verry neatly partitioned and defragged drive but not so if you do a lot of swapping work and you use your disk a lot with a lot of reading/writing.
NTFS say's:
First segment:
Cluster xxxxxx to xxxxxx
cluster yyyyyyy to yyyyyy
with FAT it's:
get
x ----->"end of X" now get y, and so on. so NTFS is a LOT better and faster then FAT.
There is a reason they are using a new filesystem you know :)
[XC] moddolicous
01-08-2006, 05:35 PM
Best filesystems (most reliable)
Linux= ext3
windows= NTFS
Some will argue that reiserfs is the best for linux, others ext3. I'll stick with the tried and true ext3.
AgonxOC
01-08-2006, 07:23 PM
I am using NTSF for XP and EXT3 for Linux....
Alex
yhea right....
FAT is NOT a good filesystem. for windows NTFS completly owns FAT. Why? if you load a file on FAT the comp goes to the FAT, reads what sector it needs, picks that up and at the end of that sector is the direction to the following sector. This is all good if you have a verry neatly partitioned and defragged drive but not so if you do a lot of swapping work and you use your disk a lot with a lot of reading/writing.
NTFS say's:
First segment:
Cluster xxxxxx to xxxxxx
cluster yyyyyyy to yyyyyy
with FAT it's:
get
x ----->"end of X" now get y, and so on. so NTFS is a LOT better and faster then FAT.
There is a reason they are using a new filesystem you know :)
I didn't say better.
However, it is still faster for basic opterions like creating many files or for contiguous writes.
NTFS is more complicated and has many great features to be faster and more secure long-term. But very flat basic performance for simple things was faster on FAT last time I measured. NTFS' directory entries alone are much more complex and expensive to create.