Nov 29 2008
XP vs. Ubuntu - Asthetics
My old version of XP was long overdue to be reinstalled. At almost 4 years old it was cludging like mad, and desperately needed cleanup. I’d been considering switching to Ubuntu ever since I’d installed it on the surveillance system DVR, but was concerned some of the more usefull applications residing on my desktop wouldn’t have comparable version in Linux.
Dual-booting seemed to be the perfect solution, use Linux for my surfing and day-to-day stuff (as it’s a little less virus friendly) and keep an operating version of Windows XP accessible for those specific applications.
Visually there is little difference, Ubuntus GUI is almost identical to windows (and comes standard with their own version of MS-Office - for free) and for email and surfing there is no significant difference (in fact I often forget I’m in Ubuntu until I go to move some files around, where the differences become more pronounced).
XP is as easily accessible as rebooting the machine and selecting “XP” from the boot menu. I’m in the process of reinstalling the applications I’d come to rely on, and will no doubt begin filling the HD up with useless clutter almost immediately.
At this stage in the game however, it appears things went almost exactly according to plan (the ONE problem I’v encountered is making the “shared” partition truly shared. Right now XP can read and write to it, and Ubuntu can only read from it. I’ll keep plugging away at that, I’m sure theres an easy solution somewhere).
Yes, before it is commented on there is a bit of a Fallout 3 theme at work here, but it seemed fitting as my desktop for the past 6 years or more has been the same;
Linux can r/w (among others) FAT or NTFS partitions.
h**p://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=D8F&q=ubuntu+mount+ntfs&btnG=Search
I know, that’s the infuriating thing about it. It SHOULD work just fine.
In point of fact I just resorted to the “hail mary” option and updated my version of Ubuntu and lo and behold it can now not only see the shared partition, but it can write to it as well. So problem solved, guess it some some quirk restricted to the version of Ubuntu I have on CD.
A lot of that going around (first the SP1 issue and now this…if this keeps up I’m going to need a faster internet connection).
I apologize that my partisan Conservative comments offended some viewers of this fine website. As Mugwug accurately suggested, comments made were in fact done so with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Truth be known, I’ve got Obama fever, have never taken public transit, and advocate the use of gas guzzling SUVs. I also make a point of running over animals whenever possible while I’m driving. Tax me, I’m Canadian!
“Its own version of Office” … Ubuntu includes a copy of OpenOffice.
But OpenOffice is also available for most other platforms and in many languages … also for free. So one’d have to be nuts to run a bootleg copy of MS Office … let alone pay for for a copy!!
http://download.openoffice.org/other.html#en-US
I use Open Office on the Mac, sometime it even works..:)
My bad, OpenOffice it is. So far I’ve only really used the spreadsheet stuff to copy over our financial stuff. I’ve been suitably impressed, works exactly like the MS stuff, only faster.
-GRIN-
“I use Open Office on the Mac, sometimes it even works…” - Do you mean the Open Office suite or the Mac?
Don’t hesitate to try others distributions like Fedora, OpenSuse or Mandriva.
http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/2009.0_Tour
http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/2009.0_Notes
The thing you wanted was “ntfs3g”, which you doubtless got in your upgrade (what with having writing now).
Me, despite having run linux for years as a server platform, I prefer running Vista and OSX for my desktops.
Thanks for sharing your experience of dual booting Ubuntu and XP. I am surprised that you find it confusing to remember which OS you are in. Ubuntu has its panel at the top and Windows does not. BTW, you can delete the bottom panel in your Ubuntu installation and add the applets on it to the top one. It gives you more screen and you don’t have to look top and bottom. Many distros have done away with the second one altogether. In fact I think that Ubuntu 8.10 has only a top bar.
Unless you use XP for gaming you can dispense with dual booting by installing VirtualBox or similar VM and installing XP in it. You need a fairly fast processor and lots of RAM for it to be satisfactory, but this allows you to run anything on your Ubuntu box since as far as Windows is concerned, you are using Windows. You cna even have a Windows bar at the bottom and an Ubuntu one at the top on the same desktop, using seamless mode. You can share the same desktop and move files from one to the other. If you are a gamer though, stick with dual booting.
What you may find is that you use Windows less and less and Ubuntu more and more. Ubuntu is so much less hassle. No viruses as you mentioned, but no defragging, no re-booting nags and no programs that run in the system tray without your doing it intentionally. There are other advantages, too. You don’t need to worry about security as much as it is built in with separate user and root areas, password protection and more. You don’t have to search for programmes to install. They are in your package manager and it is just a matter of selecting them from a list. Installed programmes don’t add icons to your desktop and mess up your menu by adding groups for each programme.
Anyone who is considering Ubuntu can try it before they install it running Ubuntu from the Live CD and if they are worried about partitioning they can put the CD in while in Windows and install it in Windows using WUBI. It acts just like any Windows programme and it can be de-installed from the control panel. It sets up a directory on your C drive and runs from that once you re-boot.
Ubuntu takes some getting used to but it will grow on you and soon you will wonder why you did not try it sooner.
FACORAT Fabrice: Oh, there will be more Linux experimentation I’m sure. For now Ubuntu is alright.
-GRIN-
Sigivald: I’m certain you’re right, it’s working now so no complaints from me. Well, I guess there’s that whole “how do I encrypt that partition” train of thought left to explore.
LinuxCanuck: Actually when I said telling the difference was difficult I meant that generally speaking things are the same, I’ve never REALLY had any problems telling the difference, there are enough subtle differences unique to the OSs even before we take the differences I’ve introduced.
The reason for the Dual-boot was specifically for some of the more resource intensive games I have that run under XP and some other XP specific apps. I’d like to have XP accessible but for day to day use Ubuntu is just fine.
I’ve actually been a Ubuntu user for over a year, as I installed it on my Surveillance System DVR Computer over a year ago, and was suitably impressed.
I suspect the reason I put off creating a dual-boot for so long was just that there was so much clutter on our existing HD, it took the uber-crash to motivate me to fix things (isn’t that so often the way?).
Thanks!
I’ve been dual booting 32 bit Vista and 64 bit Ubuntu 8.10, it took a while to get Flash applications working properly, but now it’s every bit as functional as Vista.
My wife has been using 64 bit Vista on her desktop with good success for everything but legacy usb device support. Anything older than a year doesn’t have any 64 bit drivers. But it’s hell on wheels for Photoshop.