Thinking of switching from XP to Linux...should I?

[disturbed1]

Thanks for that fast reply... and the good info.. Due to some system troubles im buying a completley new comp on next pay any hardware recommondations that would work well with linux...
MB --- DVDBurner etc

The very, very, very newest of new hardware may not work 100%, as far as motherboard chipsets go. General hardware is all supported, such as DVD/CD readers/burners, hard drives, ram, NICs ...... For graphics cards, there are basically 2 categories, 3d hardware support, no 3d support. Nvidia and Intel graphics have great hardware 3d support. Nvidia releases their own binary Linux graphics drivers, which are great. Intel supports open source directly, and contributes to Xorg (think of DirectX for Linux ) ATI does also produce Linux binary drivers, but they leave a bit to be desired. To put into prospective, my ATI x1600 ($150*) actually has a lower frame rate than my Nvidia Fx5500 ($39*) in Linux, but in Windows, the ATI chews the Nvidia card up 8) For printers, HP also releases direct linux drivers for there printers, and all in ones. Canon and Lexmark are not so Linux friendly. I have an Epson R200 that works fine, including the print to disc functions, along with my 2 Samsung Laser printers which came with Linux drivers on the CD. My Samsung DVD Burner came with Nero Linux on the CD also. Epson and HP would be the better choices for inkjet printers, HP, Samsung, and Brother would be top choice for laser printers.

Either way, I would choose a Linux distro, and read that sites support forums, wiki, and general FAQs to get a feel for what works well, and what doesn't work so well. Ubuntu has a large and friendly community that is knowledgeable and active, since Mepis is based off of Ubuntu, many of the questions asked and answered on the Ubuntu forums will apply to Mepis. The basic difference between Ubuntu and Mepis is the default Window manager (Desktop Environment) Ubuntu uses GNOME, and Mepis uses KDE. You can install KDE on Ubuntu, and you can install GNOME on Mepis. KDE apps work in GNOME, as GNOME apps working in KDE. GNOME is a bit more basic with most of the hard core configuration hidden (some say too simple), KDE is a bit more flashy with tons of options (some say too many options and control panels) I'm a GNOME Head, but KDE is great also. Linux is all about choice, and that choice is yours

*That's the price I paid for these cards which were bought 2 weeks apart.

@Nelson37, in the SMB market Linux knowledge may not be useful I can agree completely, but once you step up to support for Fortune 100, and Government (not just US, but Germany being 100% Linux, Cuba being 100% Linux, many world wide Telecoms and banks being 100% Linux, Google being 100% Linux, Yahoo using BSD, NASA's air traffic control software being 100% Linux, Idustrial Light and Magic being 100% Linux, Dream Works Entertainment LTD being 100% Linux, just to name few) learning Linux becomes a sink or swim issue. For those in IT making less than $100,000 a year, Linux is not needed, but if you want to step up and make real money for some of the larger companies you NEED to know Linux.

[nonoitall]

"With the same speed as Windows on the same hardware?" Question not asked, but should have been. The answer is "few, if any".

Unlike an emulator, Wine is "only" a reimplementation of the Windows API. This means that, so long as all the (or at least all the necessary) API functions your program uses are implemented, the program itself will run at about the same speed as on Windows. If the Wine implementation is less efficient than the Windows one, there may be a performance decrease, but the opposite is true as well - there have been some instances where a program (or certain parts of a program) will perform slightly better on Wine, due to Wine's implementation of a certain API function being more efficient than its Windows counterpart.

[Nelson37]

Ain't none of them there folks in my neck of the woods, and I like it here.

That might also explain why the only honest-to-God Rocket Scientist I ever worked with just couldn't cut it in the PC profession in this area. Lots of small business, no heavy industry.

OK, he was not an actual rocket scientist but he DID have a NASA ID card, and it makes a good story. He didn't last three months. He did last longer than the dude that got 100's across the board on all the MSCE cert tests. Our in-house super guru didn't do that, he got high 90's but this guy got 100 on ALL of them. Couldn't connect a freaking hard drive or install a memory chip, he was gone in three weeks.

Linux is fine if you like a challenge, I just don't recommend it for most.

[lordsmurf]

Smurf, why is it that you have tried many linux distros and can't get a single one to work, and people are coming in here and making the first or second one they try work just fine? Is it some hardware anomaly in your system?

This is the most likely case. I built my computers specifically for doing high-quality video work, so the hardware inside is not totally generic. One of my other systems is basically cobbled together from crap, so Windows barely works on it. I want to replace that with an Intel Core 2 Duo based system here in the future, eventually.

As far as software choices, we'll just have to disagree. My experience shows Windows has the most distinct software choices of any OS (not just re-write of the same basic source code, ala Linux), from the most professional to the most pitiful. Linux plays catch-up in many areas, and this is one of them. Again, lack of choices ... good distinct choices ... is why Linux has not taken a larger user base. I'm not saying that is good or bad, but just the truth of the situation.

In Linux, Red Hat for example, even small things like the behavior of my mouse seems very rough. I don't get the smooth control needed, as I do in Windows, making it impossible to edit photos with precision in Photoshop (or rather GIMP, which is a watered-down copycat version of Photoshop with a less friendly GUI).

It's just not for me. Others may be the same, hence participation in "should I switch" type questions.

[gll99]

@videotape74
I'm probably not in the best position to answer your question:

Thinking of switching from XP to Linux...should I?

My limited experience:
Over 6 hours of reading and browsing the subject not counting my d/l burning, trials and testing (rough estimate)
Briefly testing 4 different distributions on boot cd's tried over the last 2 days so I have a lot to learn.

2 releases of ubuntu but only one booted to something useful
1 release of SimplyMepis
1 Release of PCLinuxOS

All these distros were found after suggestions by other posters in this thread.

In spite of my problems getting the right screen resolution with my ati card and also my LexMark printer which apparently is not supported with the supplied drivers in these distributions I am still very happy about what I have seen so far. It would be great if all the hardware was supported out of the box but that's the way it is with all OS. I remember when I bought oem hardware and then had to search like crazy to find drivers for win98se or even xp. To this day I have a perfectly good scanner sitting in the basement that works well under win98se but not in xp so I had to buy another one. Many driver sites claimed to have the drivers but none of them worked with XP.
XP has more built-in generic drivers so things work out of the box more frequently but that's not always true.

Windows is mature and in spite of version changes maintains a familiarity about it and for most it is very dependable but with a little bit of work I'm sure I can find everything I need and set up my system to work well under Linux. I'm stuck on some apps I use frequently in XP. I love the Kmedia player options, WINVDRPro for scheduled and timed video capture and Dscaler for video viewing, virtualdub and it's many incarnations just to name a few programs but possibly these have Linux counterparts but there is no way to know without installing Linux and then searching for these or similar tools

My suggestion which I plan to apply myself is this:
Don't switch to Linux and give up on XP instead use both.
I will not totally ditch XP any more than I did with win98se. Why throw away perfectly good licenses.
I still have win98se on my system in dual boot. At first I used xp about 10% and reverted back to win98se for most of my main activities. As I set things up in XP the way I liked I was spending more and more time using XP. The day I converted some of my partitions to NTFS I knew I would rarely go back to win98 although I'm aware that there are are now win98 programs that allow reading and writing to NTFS partitions there is no real advantage to going back. Maybe something similar will happen with Linux. As we get used to those programs there is less and less of a need to switch back to the other OS.

I can see the need for most small businesses to remain mainstream but that's not necessaily the case for the home user unless it would affect their job skills. The cost of retraining is too much to absorb and employers can't afford to restrict the job pool by imposing artificial requirements on applicants. Most job seekers can use windows apps like word and excel so it's already part of their repertoire. Companies using Linux tools are probably highly specialized.

I have no arguments with either OS. I'm not saying everything Linux is or should be free but since trying Linux with many of these distributions costs little to nothing to start it's well worth the attempt while keeping the more comfortable MS Windows close at hand until you see how things work out.

BTW) The last one I tried PCLinuxOS has a built in program to find and d/l updates and other programs. I tried one and it downloaded the drivers and installed them just as easy as the windows installer. I was still working with a bootcd version of the program which uses a memory ram drive so any changes I made were only temporary but that one deserves a second look. I've been wondering which distro to install on my hdd and unless I find something better either PCLinuxOS or SimplyMepis seem like good candidates.

[Nelson37]

A high percentage of the most screwed-up partition tables I have seen have been on dual-boot drives. I avoid these like the plague, unless there is some absolutely essential reason to do this. Once or twice it has been necessary.

You can get some removeable cartridges for standard internal hard drives for $20 - $40, and just physically swap out the drives to change OS's. Much, MUCH safer.

[lordsmurf]

They make hard drive switches, for those that want to truly multi-boot. I would do this, if I ever decided to boot into multi OS on the same system. I find it easier to just use multiple computers and KVM.

[tekkieman]

A high percentage of the most screwed-up partition tables I have seen have been on dual-boot drives. I avoid these like the plague, unless there is some absolutely essential reason to do this. Once or twice it has been necessary.

Logically, I would think this is true. Since systems that support multiple Oses have to store the configuration somewhere, the MBR is the logical place. However, this is not a requirement. Linux bootloaders are also capable of storing the config in the root of it's own drive.

On the other hand, Windows only supports Windows in it's bootloader (you can hack it to work with linux, but most Windows users wouldn't even consider it), and I know of dozens of cases of the infamous NTLOADER MISSING

Of course, there are many options. As you and smurf have said, there are swappable drives, multi system with KVM, external bootloader on floppy, etc. Because I have XP on a SATA drive, and linux on a PATA drive, the bootloader is having trouble locating Windows ( I need to swap the drive numbers). I will get around to fixing GRUB later, but for now, I just change the drive boot order in bios as I'm booting.

I have been reliably dual booting with GRUB in the MBR for three years. There's absolutely no reason to avoid it (if you understand drive partitions).

[Trident5]

Anyone tried LinSpire or FreeSpire any comments on these..

[GMaq]

They make hard drive switches, for those that want to truly multi-boot. I would do this, if I ever decided to boot into multi OS on the same system. I find it easier to just use multiple computers and KVM.

On that note, being a laptop user, would it be possible to have a Linux install on an external USB 2.0 Hard drive? Or would there be speed issues, My BIOS allow booting from a USB device but I didn't know if anyone has tried this. It'd be a lot easier to give it (Linux) a try than a separate computer or risky Dual Boot setup, I've seen that movie before! Not a happy ending!!

[lordsmurf]

I find USB2 to be quite fast, and I use one regularly to store video files, long-term projects. The speed of data transfer is the same as my internal PATA drives. I imagine it would work fine as a Linux boot.

If you just want to screw around with Linux, go get a virtualization layer. VirtualPC 2004 is free and pretty easy to use. You can boot into a liveCD ISO from it too, if you want.

It's a tad slower, but you can at least look around.

Better yet, grab a USB2 thumb drive of sizeable proportions. Now THAT is an interesting way to run an OS.

[tekkieman]

Better yet, grab a USB2 thumb drive of sizeable proportions. Now THAT is an interesting way to run an OS.

Some even sell it that way (I believe Puppy and Knoppix). You buy the USB stick with linux already loaded and configured. Just boot off it and store files as well.

As well as VirtualPC, you could try VirtualBox. It is also free, a little less resource hungry, and a little more "linux-friendly" in that they have a specific setting for linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, as well as the client add-on tools for linux, as opposed to VPC where the linux OS gets listed as "other".

[GMaq]

OK,
But in a virtual machine configuration I can't access external hardware correct? If I'm gonna give Linux "the old college try" then I want to do some capturing and see if my iPod works right etc, otherwise to me personally it's not worth the mental exercise and time to try. I already know that "Myth TV" supports my Plextor M402U. Also will a Linux install perform the drive utilities or will the drive need to be NTFS formatted already, (not that it's any big deal) but I may want to set up partitions etc on the external drive during the install.

[gll99]

This is what I have done so far.
On a larger drive, I had an 80 gig NTFS partition with a bit extra space so I removed a few large files to free about 50 gig.
I then rebooted to win98se so I could use Partition Magic. The reason I did this is because my XP load uses some files on that partition so I can't modify it without a reboot. Win98se doesn't even see or access that partition so I can apply the changes right away.
In Partition Magic. I resized the drive from 80gig to about 43 gig leaving 37 gig unassigned. Then I created a Linux EXT3 partition of 35gig with the free space leaving about 2.4 gig free. I then created a Linux swap of about 2 gig. About 300 mb shows as unused but I couldn't change that without impacting on another NTFS partition which I didn't want to touch so I left it unused.
So now I have 2 Linux partitions ready to install an OS. I need to read a bit more because I need to clear up something about the new partition.
I found a comment that says this:

IMPORTANT! I repeat, do not set up partitions with Linux FDISK or Disk Druid; they may render partition tables unreadable to other operating systems. You can use them to change partition types and set partition mount points, but that is all.

Xp sees the 2 new partition and says they are healthy but says they are "unknown partitions". Is Xp so stupid that it refuses to recognise Linux partitions or is this deliberate by MS. When I run Partition Magic under XP it knows exactly what those partitions are?

I didn't know if I should make the Linux one an ext3 or an ext2 but I figured that could be changed easily before I load the Linux OS.

Before I continue, I need to know, should XP see the 2 partitions I created as Linux partitions instead of "Unknown" and after I load the OS in there will XP be able to read the data that is there? For example if I store an avi on the Linux partition will xp be able to read it and move it to a fat32 or NTFS partition. Linux can read all types so what about the MS OS?

I know the Linux bootcd has an installer but I wanted to prepare the space before I try to install the OS. If my preparation would cause problems then I could delete the 2 partitions I made and leave the space unused and then let the Mepis or PCLinuxOS Linux installer look after things.

Another comment I read in the same article which may explain the cause of some issues with dual boot systems:

When installing Linux, its best that LiLo (the boot loader) is installed to the root superblock (boot sector equivalent) of the Linux partition, not the Master Boot Record (MBR). You can let the setup modify the MBR, but if you reinstall Windows, Linux will be rendered inaccessible. Don't forget to create a boot diskette!

[GMaq]

gll99,
Good info, thanks, I've got a 160Gb external that I have some video on that can be moved elsewhere. I think I'll try a Ubuntu 6.10 install on it and see how it goes. Looks like you and I are at about the same point but you are leaning to MEPIS, In searching out Linux applications I saw a few applications with Ubuntu specific builds (i.e. VLC and Audacity) which may not mean anything but I thought it may increase the chances of success for a GUI addict like myself. AviSynth is one thing but I don't relish the thought of being baptised by fire into the Linux Command Line console!! I'll have to read up on compiling because some of these download packages (i.e. Cinelerra) seem to have given up on specific binaries. Please share your findings with MEPIS and PM me if you like.

[gll99]

I decided to see what the installer would do. I tried Mepis and also PCLinuxOS. I wasn't planning on going through with it but just to see what options are available.

The new partitions I created are not even offered as choices for the install. I have 3 hdd on my system. A total of 8 windows partitions plus the 2 Linux I made but it is hard to tell which drive and partition either distros want to choose. PClinuxOS even says that a 3rd partition is needed for personal data. It almost looks like the installers want me to choose the drive but it will take care of creating the space etc. I'm not comfortable with that because I would prefer to create the free space so it doesn't mess my other data. I prefer making the decision. I wish it had just found the linux partitions and just asked if I wanted to use that.
Those drive/partition id's are hard to compare to the drive letters used in windows so I don't want to accidentally choose the wrong one. I'll have to go back to Linux, mount each drive and look at the content so I know which drive/partition the id is referring to. Maybe I can find a manual installer.

[tekkieman]

@gll99 -

In the Mepis installer where it asks for the disc to install to, you have a few choices. One says to use the entire drive (that you selected above), and the other says custom install using existing partitions. If you select that option, it will allow you to select the partitions you already created. Unless you specifically created the 2G partition as a type "swap", then where it asks for swap partition, select none or existing.

As for as the difference between partitions and drive letters, yes, it is very different. On the other hand, why would I have a "C" drive, and don't have an "A" or "B" drive? Whereas with the partitions, they really are more logical. Drive one in the system is hda (or sda if SATA) with the first partition being zero (counting starts at zero, not one. This is a fact, not a linux thing). So, the first partition of the first drive is hda0. Windows usually resides here. If you have more than four physical partitions, then there is also the extended area, then the extended partitions.

Since you mention you have 98 and XP, and mentioned creating two other partitions, plus a FAT partiton, I would guess your system shows hda0-6 or so. That is why I prefer to just add an additional drive for linux. It keeps it real simple. Linux would install to hdb. Simple.

To answer a couple of your other concerns, no, XP really has no clue what an ext3 partition is. If it isn't a Windows type format, it's lost. Don't worry about it. On the other side, Mepis has the new ntfs-3g driver, which means it will now read and write to NTFS, as well as FAT. There is also an extfs driver for the Windows side to read linux partitions, but I don't really know much about it. Since I generally don't share large files across the two systems, usually I leave a 20-30G FAT partition for the two systems to share.

On the issue of the bootloader, you are reading old information. First, lilo is rarely used now. The new bootloader is grub, and it is perfectly happy being installed to the MBR. In fact, some installers will not give you a choice. IF anything bad happened, and you need to recover, it is as simple as popping in a CD. To recover the Windows bootloader, load the XP CD and go to the recovery console. Type "fixmbr". Finished. To recover the GRUB bootloader, load the Mepeis CD, and in the Mepis tools, select reinstall GRUB.

@Gmaq -

Choice of distro is a very personal thing. Some work better for some hardware than others. Ubuntu is a very popular distro, and I won't try to sway your decision, but I wanted to set you straight on the "ubuntu specific" build packages. Since Mepis uses the Ubuntu repositories, all those "Ubuntu specific" packages will work in Mepis. If the Mepis creator has done anything to make them specific to Mepis, they are in the Mepis repositories, and will be available on a higher order than the Ubuntu version. On the other hand, Ubuntu can use some Mepis packages, but it is not a good idea for Ubuntu to use the Mepis repositories.

Other than that, the difference between the two is in the distro specific configuration and management utilities. They each use their own, and they are specific to the distro. Oh, and one uses GNOME and one uses KDE. However, you can install gnome in Mepis and kde in Ubuntu so there's nothing special there.

[GMaq]

tekkieman,
Thanks for the clarification on the packages, It's way too early in the game for me to have any preference distro-wise but just for the record I have MEPIS 6.5 on a disc as well so I'll run it on the CD and have a look as well. My actual profession has nothing at all to do with computers (perhaps thankfully) and a busy week ahead and a desk full of computer repairs at nights so I'll be lucky to get to my Linux experiments by next weekend. By that time gll99 will have everything all figured out for me(:-b). But seriously Tekkieman thanks for your time and answers to our questions in in the face of the sceptics.

[tekkieman]

I ride lordsmurf a lot when he pops into the linux threads (and when he rags on Paintshop Pro and GIMP), but he is absolutely correct. The OS is just another part of a tool that is your computer, and everyone is best advised to use the best tool for their job.

smurf feels that linux does not have sufficient (or sufficient selection) of tools for a video professional. I would argue that since there are many examples of linux render farms in use in the world of video and that the statement is not accurate. Further, at least two or three people in this thread have said that linux has software fully capable of meeting their needs (including video). However, none of that negates that it may not have what smurf needs to do his job. Simple as that.

By profession, I am a Microsoft whore. I accept copious amounts of money to write Windows software. What is the best tool to do this job? Well, for me, it is Windows XP and Visual Studio and Visual Studio .NET (as well as SlickEdit for the JAVA stuff). I could use SharpDevelop, but it really doesn't completely meet my needs. I could use MONO in linux, but it is just not ready to replace Visual Studio yet. I do use both when I'm in a tinkering mood, but when I need cash, I use the proper tool for the job.

On the other hand, I am a geek, and I enjoy helping others. So, I use linux as my overall OS, and I spend time in forums helping others who also want to try it. When I'm making money, I use Windows XP (with Mepis open in a VM) because it's the right tool for the job I'm doing.

Finally, just to make sure I'm seen as a complete hypocrite, I have several Macs as well, as we also develop some Mac products.

[GMaq]

I too give LordSmurf his props, he can't be beat at what he knows best, He has been a great source of info to me here and on his own forum, I was referring to some of the more abrasively opinionated posters with clear bias toward Microsoft (no matter what). I believe LS would come around if he had a positive Linux experience on one of his better systems, but that's his call.

[tekkieman]

You know how many linux users it takes for linux to survive?





One.

[lordsmurf]

linux render farms in use in the world of video

I consider those to be CG. But in a world of blurring definitions, some now consider Ice Age and Hoodwinked and the lot to be "video". Others call it "animation".

I discern between rendered graphics and shot video.
I discern between animations (cartoons) and CG.

So I'm not wrong by my definition of video. I am by yours. 8)

[lordsmurf]

I believe LS would come around if he had a positive Linux experience on one of his better systems, but that's his call.

I might try a Linux distro on a box here soon. It mostly depends on the duplication software that can be run, and its ability to see my ATI card in it.

TEKKIEMAN: Is there anything similar to RECORDNOW (pxengine) on Linux?

[tekkieman]

TEKKIEMAN: Is there anything similar to RECORDNOW (pxengine) on Linux?

Well, I tried to do some quick research to see if I could find an answer for you, but I could not. I also have not used RecordNow for several years, so I don't really remember what specific features might be of interest to you.

I can give you names and links for some of the more popular burning utilities and applications if you want tot see if there's anything that meets your needs.

Starting with my favorite:

K3b
gnomebaker
X-CD-Roast


Commercial:

NeroLinux
Gear Pro

[lordsmurf]

Nero's buffer is a piece of crap. It's basically impossible to duplicate media on it, with any degree of consistent success. That's why I've been using pxengine-based programs for so many years (Prassi, then RecordNow). I'm open to others, but I know the pxengine works cleanly.

[gll99]

I decided to bite the bullet and install a distro.

Well sort of......

I took my older pc off the shelf it's an AMD Athlon 1.1 with a 15 and a 8 gig hdd's on it. Not much but it already has XP on it. I used Partition Magic to free about 9 gig and made 3 Linux partitions. Then I booted up SimplyMepis and went though the install to the 3 drives I made (thanks to tekkieman for explaining how to choose them). Everything went fine and it installed the os and software.

Now the problem:
When it came time to install the boot loader I wanted to choose the linux boot partition instead of the root drive's mbr because I don't want to change the windows NT loader.
I tried 2 ways. The first time I chose to load the Grub to the boot and the second time I ticked off the box that said to load a special loader file with special drivers but neither of these options worked. I still only get the xp boot.
Another question I have is if I have limited space which of these partitions should be larger. Boot or Home. I know about the swap size so that's ok but let's say I add updates or new programs where are the drivers normally stored. In windows you can store programs anywhere on any of your drives but everyone quickly realises that many files get stored in windows own directories usually on the same partition as the the os so you have to make it larger than just the os. Is it the same with Linux.
Thanks
I'm practicing on my older system which is not connected to the net so I can duplicate my steps on my main system and maybe save some headaches.

[tekkieman]

Now the problem:
When it came time to install the boot loader I wanted to choose the linux boot partition instead of the root drive's mbr because I don't want to change the windows NT loader.
I tried 2 ways. The first time I chose to load the Grub to the boot and the second time I ticked off the box that said to load a special loader file with special drivers but neither of these options worked. I still only get the xp boot.

That's because by not putting grub in the MBR, it is the Windows bootloader that is still there. I know people start to panic when you talk about changing the MBR, but you'll just have to trust us. As I said earlier, restoring it is simply a matter of using the XP repair console (or bootable disc) and typing "fixmbr" to restore it completely. So, if this is how you want it installed, you'll need a bootlaoder to point to the root in order to boot Mepis. If your machine has a floppy, you could install lilo to it. Others may have better suggestions (or you could reinstall grub to the MBR )

Another question I have is if I have limited space which of these partitions should be larger. Boot or Home. I know about the swap size so that's ok but let's say I add updates or new programs where are the drivers normally stored. In windows you can store programs anywhere on any of your drives but everyone quickly realises that many files get stored in windows own directories usually on the same partition as the the os so you have to make it larger than just the os. Is it the same with Linux.

It might help you to think of the home partition as a data drive and the / partition as the system drive. When dealing with small drives, it is recommended to not use separate partitions, but install everything to one so they will just use what they need. With larger drives, keeping them separate allows for easier backing up of your personal files.

[gll99]

@tekkieman
Thanks for all the help. I didn't start this thread so I hope the original poster is ok with these questions. I would have started a different thread but the topic line would have essentially been the same.

I understand what you say about the mbr but right now I want to avoid that option. My normal system has a few issues because I switched some drives around. Trust me too , I know a fixmbr wouldn't be so simple for me with my current set up. I don't want to face the possibility of a complete reinstall.

I would like more info on booting from a floppy while everything else is on the hdd. That sounds like a good option for me. Use a floppy to get Linux and don't use one to get windows.

Any help you can provide with that would be great. I did find some instructions which said I could put the grub files from the hdd on a floppy but I tried it it failed to boot. The system didn't complain of a non-system disk, it just checked it and proceeded to execute the normal xp boot.ini.

[NICEBUD]

Linux is good if you no alot about cmd codes and you understand how to install programs(no easy installers no double click and it does it all for you.)
I personely didnt have a very good time with Linux.Being newish to linux.I posted many questions.But never got any proper answers.This due to some people running it are mostly code writers or what ever.Dont want to answer bescause im only a new user or he`s only windows user he doesnt no anything . What makes worse I gave these people money £28. For aload of nothing Mandriva.

But any way if you must try Linux.Try a distro on which A: you dont have to pay any money and make sure you only use a Live version that runs from the cd rom.Just incase it fu**s up
your windows installation.

If Linux wants to be a success then it needs to be a lot easyer than it is now .

The only good thing I can say about Linux is Its Now Very Easy To Install.(well anything after 2002)

[tekkieman]

I'm going to change the order of your post a little, so bear with me for a moment...

But any way if you must try Linux.

The entire prupose of this thread.

Try a distro on which A: you dont have to pay any money

What makes worse I gave these people money £28. For aload of nothing Mandriva.

Where did you buy it from? The P.T. Barnum store? The vast majority of linux distros cost nothing! Unless, you either a) pay for pre-burned media, or b) pay for media and support. If you bought the commercial Mandriva, then installation support (at a minimum) should have been available to you.

make sure you only use a Live version that runs from the cd rom.Just incase it fu*s up your windows installation.

The only way for that to possibly happen is if you have no clue what your drive partitioning is, and end up reformatting a drive which had info you wanted to keep. This can only happen if you are installing specifically to dual boot, or there would be nothing for the install to mess up. If it is only the MBR that was destroyed, it is easily fixable. In all fairness, Windows is almost completely incapable of co-existing with any other (non-Windows) OS, so if you tried to install Windows on your precious linux box, it is highly likely that it would fsk up your linux install even easier. Remember, you are trying to give two operating systems control over your hardware, as well as the other OS. Not an easy task, but in actual use, linux does it far better than Windows.

Being newish to linux.I posted many questions.But never got any proper answers.This due to some people running it are mostly code writers or what ever.Dont want to answer bescause im only a new user or he`s only windows user he doesnt no anything .

Most of this statement is incorrect. The number of people in this very thread offering support being proof of that, and this isn't even a primarily linux based forum. I don't know about Mandriva specific fora, but I know thare are a couple hundred thousand linux users (new, old, and in between) at LinuxQuestions.org, and they are helpful and friendly. In contrast, I have also visited many Windows forums, and found a large number of unanswered questions and extremely rude people. Then again, Windows is so easy its users should never need help and should be expected to know the answer to everything, right? So, I believe it is true that you were newish to linux, but if that was true, how would you know if the answers were proper? Most linux users are not "code writers". My 4 year old uses it, and I can assure you, she is not a code writer....yet. Finally, new users are our favorite. The spirit of linux is sharing and giving back. It doesn't matter if it's code, or documentation, or help.

Linux is good if you no alot about cmd codes and you understand how to install programs(no easy installers no double click and it does it all for you.) The only good thing I can say about Linux is Its Now Very Easy To Install.(well anything after 2002)

This makes it seem like the last time you tried it was 2002 (or earlier) I don't know what could be easier about installing a program than finding it in a place specifically designated for programs for your distro, selecting it from a list, and clicking apply. Just how much easier do you need it? There's even no "next", "next", "next", "finish". No, select, apply. Period! Even if you have to go outside the repositories and get a .deb, the procedure is to download, single-click, and it installs. Is a single click install harder than a double click install? I won't even ask what command codes you think are so mandatory in linux, because the only time I use them is when I want things to be even easier. As an example, in your point-n-click world, how easy is it to rename a directory full of mp3 files that are mixed with other files in the directory? Or add a number to the filename? The command line method would have the job done before you finished the first couple in the point-n-click world. If the command line is so bad (I wouldn't know, I don't need it often enough), why did Microsoft revamp and enhance it in Vista?

If Linux wants to be a success then it needs to be a lot easyer than it is now .

Believe it or not, you are not the only person to say that. In fact, everyone who "tries" linux and fails says exactly that. First, linux was written to solve one users problem - Linus Torvalds. It turns out that it really solved many peoples problems, including Richard Stallmans. From there, it solved thousands, and now millions of peoples problems. No matter how you slice it, that makes it a success. No, the statement you made (and everyone else who says the same thing), really means "If linux wants to be a success, it needs to be more like the Windows I'm used to". Sorry Charlie! That is the last thing most linux users want. If you want something like Windows, use Windows. We want something not like Windows, so we use linux. There are some who halfway agree with you, and they give you pretty little desktop environments with icons, and apps with GUIs and pretty things to click, but that doesn't make linux easier.

I personely didnt have a very good time with Linux.

We're sorry to hear that. Hopefully, you found something that you have fun with. If you ever come back, and need help, we'll still be here...