Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Advice on distro to replace Windows XP, please.


  • Please log in to reply

#16
Channeal

Channeal

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts

Thank you for your message and the additional links.

 

i seem to remember you saying something similar about changing your dvd drives, but of course it wasn't in the end.

 

 

Lol! Yes, I tend not to be particularly confident about this stuff! I am a teeny bit more confident than I used to be, but my first reaction tends to be something along the lines of 'An old lady like me can't possibly can't do something as complicated as that!' :lol:  

 

 

 

 

that's probably because nearly all the distro's you've mentioned/tried are based off ubuntu in the first place. probably the biggest differences in the different distro's are not really noticeable by the user anyway in my opinion things like what display server it uses.

 

I had a few problems with Ubuntu yesterday, but tried Lubuntu (edit: this should have read Kubuntu) today and it just wouldn't work at all! It was doing all kinds of strange things! I know you said that I could/should use the 64-bit version.... but rather interestingly, these 2 distros are the only 2 that aren't 32-bit. Very strange!

 

 

 

 

ever thought about installing linux but then running xp in the virtual machine? that way you can have the security of linux and also have the familiarity of using xp. (first i dual booted, then i just installed linux and run windows in a vm and now i never need/use a windows os at all, running windows in a vm though is also a good way to run some windows programs you may use now that don't have a linux version, like itunes that you've mentioned you use somewhere.)

 

No, not something that would ever have occurred to me! Can't quite get my head around it! How would I transfer XP from its current home onto a virtual machine? Would I need to install again from the original XP DVD? (Am not clear whether XP could still be updated with to SP3 now support has been withdrawn). Or would I need to install from an image created with a program such as Macrium?

 

 

 

Not sure if you have seen, but in the XP forum I have started to explore whether or not it would be possible to upgrade to Windows 7. Amazingly, it is a possibility that I have never even considered before now. Back in 2014, I think it was Phill who advised me to run the Windows 8 Upgrade Advisor - but I don't remember Windows 7 being discussed at all, so I just haven't considered it. If it is possible, I think my husband would probably find it much easier than trying to get used to Linux.

 

Am not ditching the idea of Linux altogether though. If I was able to get Windows 7, I think I would then still like to try to install Linux in a virtual machine, so that I can play with it in my own time and without any more worries about the security issues of XP.

 

This is all just such amazingly interesting stuff! When I do feel that I am not capable of doing any of it, I just have to try to remind myself how many things I have done in the past couple of years that I would never, ever have imagined myself doing before! :)

 

Thank you.


Edited by Channeal, 23 January 2017 - 04:50 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#17
terry1966

terry1966

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

you can install xp into a vm using both the methods mentioned, either from an iso image of your current pc or using the install cd.

 

in fact you could install xp now in a vm and then you'd be running xp on xp. :D

you could probably run windows 10 on your pc in a vm if you wanted to, of course that wouldn't have any security benefits because the main or host os needs to be the secure one. running it on a linux host though would be lots more secure than your current xp.

 

thing i suggest is install virtualbox and then you will get a better understanding of how things work, make it full screen instead of window mode and you'd never know your running and using a virtual pc on top of your installed os.

 

interesting about you having issues when running 64bit linux, how much memory does your machine have? thought it was a dual core cpu with 4GB of memory in it.

what sort of problems do you actually get? been a while (years) since i run 64bit os on such an old machine but far as i remember i never had any issues running 64bit os on my old single core amd64 4000+ cpu with 2 gb of memory which is about as old or maybe even older than your pc.

 

using 64bit instead of 32bit won't really make any noticeable difference to the user anyway when things work correctly but seeing how you're having trouble with 64bit then yes use the 32bit versions, it's just i always try to use and recommend people use 64bit software nowadays.

 

:popcorn:


  • 0

#18
Channeal

Channeal

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts

Yes, very strange about the 64-bit DVDs not working. I do indeed have 4gb memory (though it showed up as 3.5 for some reason recently). I think I will burn a 32-bit version of Lubuntu (edit: this should have read Kubuntu), just to confirm that it is the 64-bit thing that is causing the issue. It could just be a coincidence.

When I loaded the Lubuntu (edit: this should have read Kubuntu) DVD, the screen was flashing intermittently and I was just unable to click on anything. I couldn't seem to even get to a way to turn it off and ended up having to press the power switch on the tower. Will maybe give it a second try later.

I was really getting fixed on the idea of switching to Windows 7..... but I think I was getting excited too soon as I suddenly remembered last night reading on here previously that there is an issue with Dell and having to load lots of drivers. They have to be loaded in a certain order don't they? Loading Windows 10 onto my laptop was so incredibly easy that I guess I was thinking that I could do it here, but it seems it would be a different ball game! :(

Returning to the topic of virtual machines though, I guess I would have the same issue with the Dell drivers were I to install XP there using the CD. I forgot to mention that there might be a third option though, as I also have an old (2014) clone of my OS on my second hard drive.

Still can't get the Windows 7 idea out of my head though.....


Edited by Channeal, 23 January 2017 - 04:51 AM.

  • 0

#19
Channeal

Channeal

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts

2nd Message

 

Sorry, sorry....... just realised that I have got all these 'Untu's muddled up. It was Kubuntu that I had all the problems with. Will go back and edit the previous posts to make it clear what I meant!

 

Think I need a strong, black cup of coffee to clear my head! :help:  


Edited by Channeal, 23 January 2017 - 04:47 AM.

  • 0

#20
terry1966

terry1966

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

when you install an os to a pc then yes you need to install certain drivers for all the hardware to work correctly with the os, but when you install an os in a vm you don't need to install any extra drivers because it does not actually communicate directly with any hardware, and that's why you might be able to run windows 10 in a vm on your xp machine even though you may not be able to install windows 10 directly onto the pc hardware itself.

 

vm's work something like this, the host os (xp in your case at the moment.) communicates with the screen via the correct drivers it has installed, but the guest os(whatever it is) running in the vm thinks it's communicating directly with the screen when in fact what's really happening is it's talking to the vm software, the vm software is telling the xp os what it needs to display on the screen, then the xp os communicates with the screen directly and finally displays what's needed by the vm os. (hope that made sense.)

 

now all host os need drivers to communicate with the hardware in a pc, the problem is the older the hardware then the driver writers might not write a driver for it that works with the newer os because they want people to upgrade and that's why sometimes it's hard if not impossible to find windows 10 drivers for older hardware but if someone wrote the driver then windows 10 would work just fine on the older hardware.

 

i'd think you'd have no problems finding win 7 drivers for all your hardware in that pc, but with any newer windows os then you might have issues. as to the order then doesn't really make a difference in my opinion unless it's a driver needed to be installed before you can install the os for something like a raid setup. (which your not running.) once the os is installed i usually install any motherboard/chipset drivers and then the latest graphics drivers and let windows install the rest unless there's an issue and i need to manually find and install a driver for something.

this is the order suggested though even though i don't ever remember having problems by not installing drivers in this order :- http://www.dell.com/...bsdt1/SLN148687

 

the flashing screen sounds like a graphics driver issue where it's trying to use a wrong driver or setting and might not mean it can't run a 64bit os.

 

as to vm's then the only real way to get a better understanding is to actually install the software and create one, then you will get a better understanding that when you install an os your not really installing an os as you think of it that runs directly on the hardware but in a virtual or software environment that runs on top of your current xp os. same way your web browser runs on top of the xp os.

 

:popcorn:


  • 0

#21
Channeal

Channeal

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts

I think you are right about the problem with Kubuntu not being connected to the 64-bit thing. I tried the 32-bit version and had much the same problem. I also tried another issue of Kubuntu (16.4 instead of 16.10) and although that was quite a little better, there were still a few problems.

 

For the time being, I am just concentrating on trying to get Windows 7 (and getting myself thoroughly confused in the process!  :() If and when I manage to sort that out, I will then hopefully be able to install a virtual machine so that I can amuse myself by testing different Linux versions there.  :lol:

 

Thanks very much for all your help; I will come back to this thread at a later date.  :thumbsup:


  • 0

#22
Channeal

Channeal

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts

Hello Terry,

 

I hope you are keeping well.

 

I downloaded the virtual machine as suggested..... but have really not got on at all well with it! :(

 

I tried openSUSE, but in spite of downloading and deleting two or three times I never really got it to work properly. I then tried Zorin which eventually seemed okay, although the internet was just so slow. Now I have Mint 17.1 xfce but that also is painfully slow.

 

When setting up each OS, I just used the suggested settings without changing anything. Should I have altered anything, e.g. allocated more drive space?

 

Some details provided below.

 

Chris.

 

mintxfce.jpg

 


  • 0

#23
terry1966

terry1966

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

remember how well things work in a vm depends on how fast your pc/laptop is to start with, i have quite a fast pc to start with (even though old now.) so for me things run well in a vm, also things running in a vm will run better/faster if you finally decide to install to the hard drive.

 

can't remember what your system specifications are but think you had 8GB of memory, so i'd increase the memory allowance to at least 2GB (upto a max of 4GB) and i'd also increase the video card memory from the 16MB to it's max which i think is 250MB if memory serves.

depending on your cpu, if it has 4 cores i'd give the vm 2 also everything else i usually leave at default.

 

you won't need to reinstall the vm's to make those changes just highlight the vm you want to change then click on the settings at the top and make any changes you want in the popup box and click ok when finished.

 

no idea why you have issues with suse it always installed first time without any problems for me.

 

:popcorn:

here's an example of the settings for a windows 7 vm and a suse vm i didn't remember having.

Screenshot_20170313_144111.png Screenshot_20170313_145436.png

 

i'm fine thanks, and hope everything's the same for you. :spoton:

 

just for fun am going to download mint xfce 64bit, zorin 12.1 core 64bit and suse leap 42.2 64bit and create a multi boot system with the win 7 vm that's on my machine at the moment and see what if any problems i have. :D


Edited by terry1966, 13 March 2017 - 09:21 AM.

  • 0

#24
Channeal

Channeal

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts

Thanks Terry.

 

 

remember how well things work in a vm depends on how fast your pc/laptop is to start with, i have quite a fast pc to start with (even though old now.) so for me things run well in a vm, also things running in a vm will run better/faster if you finally decide to install to the hard drive.

 

Accepted. My main computer is soooh much faster than what was happening in the VM though. Every letter I typed was taking several seconds to appear.

 

 

 

can't remember what your system specifications are but think you had 8GB of memory, so i'd increase the memory allowance to at least 2GB (upto a max of 4GB) and i'd also increase the video card memory from the 16MB to it's max which i think is 250MB if memory serves.

depending on your cpu, if it has 4 cores i'd give the vm 2 also everything else i usually leave at default.

 

you won't need to reinstall the vm's to make those changes just highlight the vm you want to change then click on the settings at the top and make any changes you want in the popup box and click ok when finished.

 

Only just seen your second paragraph, which I think was an edit. Will play around with changing things when I get some spare time (not a lot of that around right now unfortunately! :( ) Was going to ask you about that, but you answered my question before I asked it! :)

 

 

 

no idea why you have issues with suse it always installed first time without any problems for me.

 

The first time I installed Suse it seemed okay at first, but then I kept on getting lots of error messages. It seems to be not too bad until I install all the updates, but then it starts misbehaving. The last time I tried it I never even installed the updates and it seemed okay, apart from the speed problem.

 

 

 

just for fun am going to download mint xfce 64bit, zorin 12.1 core 64bit and suse leap 42.2 64bit and create a multi boot system with the win 7 vm that's on my machine at the moment and see what if any problems i have.

 

Only just seen this edit too! If you do this, please let me know how you get on! :)

 

 

 

I am very happy with my Windows 7 at the moment. Was toying with the idea of possibly replacing the clone on my second drive with Linux (nobody but me seems to like my clone!) but am not at all sure whether or not that would be a good idea. :)

 

Chris.


  • 0

#25
terry1966

terry1966

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

sorry about the edit's, i have a very bad habit of writing a reply and posting it then reading and thinking more and then editing and adding things to it.

yes making those changes to memory especially the graphics should make things run a lot better for you.

 

as to my testing the multiboot, i got on just fine took about an hour to install all 4 os, win 7, leap42, mint and zorin in a single multiboot vm, all seem to work ok but haven't spent a lot of time testing them after seeing if they booted and worked.

 

as to your cloned partition personally i also wouldn't have it in my system but as you've said it gives you peace of mind and you can use it to boot from if the other drive fails, so see no reason for you to change the way you do things.

as you already know as a backup it's useless except for that one case scenario of instantly having a bootable os ready to use.

 

for the same peace of mind in having 2 copies of the os on your pc that can be booted if 1 drive failed, i'd use a raid 1 setup and not the cloned partition you currently use.

the advantage of raid 1 over the clone is both os will always be in sync so you won't need to clone the partition every so often just to keep them the same but this also is not a backup solution except in case of drive failure.

 

as to installing linux to your pc then personally i'd leave everything as they are with the clone and i'd just shrink your c drive in windows from it's current 149GB to say 100GB leaving you 49GB of empty space to install and run whatever linux os you've decide to install and use.

 

to shrink your c drive just right click on the c drive in disk management and click on shrink volume, this will open up a popup letting you know exactly how much you can shrink the drive by in MB's 1024MB's is 1GB so just multiply 1024 by the number of GB's you want for the linux os, so 49x1024=50176 then enter that number in the highlighted box and click shrink, now you should have about a 100GB c drive and 49GB of free space on there where you can easily install the linux os onto.

 

if it was my pc and i really wanted both drives to have a bootable os on then i'd start from scratch, deleting the partitions on both drives, then create a 150GB partition on the 500GB drive so it's about the same size as your c drive, i'd then install both the windows and linux os in a raid 1 setup using the 150GB drive and 150GB partition, and use the remaining space on the 500GB drive for data.

 

like i said earlier though that's just what i'd do and see no real need for you to change anything from the way you have it setup at the moment.

 

always remember when it comes to computers there is usually always more than 1 way of accomplishing the same thing. both the way you have it setup now and my way would give you a bootable os if 1 drive failed, my way would keep both os on the drives the same always with a slight cost in speed, your way keeps both drives bootable but means you have to keep cloning the first drive every so often if you want to keep them in sync but also has no slight speed cost because the data doesn't need to be written to both drives when you make changes to the booted drive.

 

what did you think of leap before you ran into the errors? if you liked it and want to spend more time with it before deciding on your linux os then we can spend a bit of time trying to fix whatever errors you ran into so you can thoroughly test it, must admit with the limited testing i did i never ran into any errors with my vm install but then again it is the os i use so i know what needs to be added before it can be called fully usable. eg. adding repos so you can install things like libdvdcss2 needed to play dvd's etc.

 

:popcorn:


Edited by terry1966, 15 March 2017 - 05:58 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#26
Channeal

Channeal

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts

Hello Terry,

 

 

sorry about the edit's, i have a very bad habit of writing a reply and posting it then reading and thinking more and then editing and adding things to it.
yes making those changes to memory especially the graphics should make things run a lot better for you.

 

No problem. I tend to use the edit function a lot myself - although with me, it is mostly to correct spelling mistakes! However many times I read over what I have written, there always seems to be at least one misspelt word that I haven't noticed! :(

 

 

 

 

as to my testing the multiboot, i got on just fine took about an hour to install all 4 os, win 7, leap42, mint and zorin in a single multiboot vm, all seem to work ok but haven't spent a lot of time testing them after seeing if they booted and worked.

 

I was amazed to learn that it took you just over an hour to install all 4 OS It took me way, way longer than that. Cannot imagine why that would be, but guess something must have gone awry somewhere! :(

 

 

 

 

 

as to your cloned partition personally i also wouldn't have it in my system but as you've said it gives you peace of mind and you can use it to boot from if the other drive fails, so see no reason for you to change the way you do things.

as you already know as a backup it's useless except for that one case scenario of instantly having a bootable os ready to use.

 

Oh no! Not another person who doesn't like my clone!  :rofl:

I think what people miss is that unless you are a real Geek like you guys all are and know a lot about computers, a clone can actually be a lot more simpler to use. When our main disk failed a few years ago now, I actually had an image (as opposed to a clone) on my external drive. The image was made on the advice of the IT guys where my husband used to work, but I didn't have the faintest idea of what to do with it. (As it happened, I had a clone on the second disk then too, but didn't even know it!). So the computer went in to the repair shop and came back with a new drive and OS - but the image was not used, apart from me using it to restore various data files. I tried to use it to restore my husband's email to Outlook Express, but didn't manage to do it and am not sure it would have been possible to do so from the image, as I think you have to back emails up separately. Back then, I had expected the image would get everything back for me! :(

If one of my drives went now and I wanted to replace it, it would take a while to get it sorted out. (Even you Geeks who can easily install a new hard drive would have to buy it first.) In the meantime, I could hopefully boot from the remaining drive and not be without the use of a computer (not so important now admittedly, as I also have the use of my daughter's old laptop too). We all rely on using the internet to do so much these days and being without it can cause lots of problems! :(

 

What is really important to me is backing up my data, which a program on my external drive does every time a change is made. I don't really get the panic everyone is in to restore every old program they had before. I have reinstalled everything many times since we got our first computer way back in 1999 (lost a lot of data too in the early days - but we won't talk about that!). I had to reinstall all my programs etc recently after installing Windows 7. To me though, that is part and parcel of having a computer and I quite like to have a completely fresh start without any of the junk you accumulate. Just me though....

 

I do also have an image on my external drive too - just in case I do ever need it - but that probably won't be updated too often as I hate all those incremental backups and have never made too much sense of them!

 

(It was actually Phill who advised me to make the clone in the first place anyway, so clones can't be all that bad!) :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

for the same peace of mind in having 2 copies of the os on your pc that can be booted if 1 drive failed, i'd use a raid 1 setup and not the cloned partition you currently use.

the advantage of raid 1 over the clone is both os will always be in sync so you won't need to clone the partition every so often just to keep them the same but this also is not a backup solution except in case of drive failure.



if it was my pc and i really wanted both drives to have a bootable os on then i'd start from scratch, deleting the partitions on both drives, then create a 150GB partition on the 500GB drive so it's about the same size as your c drive, i'd then install both the windows and linux os in a raid 1 setup using the 150GB drive and 150GB partition, and use the remaining space on the 500GB drive for data.

 

What on earth is 'raid 1'? Whatever it is, I know absolutely zilch about it!

 

 

 

 

as to installing linux to your pc then personally i'd leave everything as they are with the clone and i'd just shrink your c drive in windows from it's current 149GB to say 100GB leaving you 49GB of empty space to install and run whatever linux os you've decide to install and use.

 

to shrink your c drive just right click on the c drive in disk management and click on shrink volume, this will open up a popup letting you know exactly how much you can shrink the drive by in MB's 1024MB's is 1GB so just multiply 1024 by the number of GB's you want for the linux os, so 49x1024=50176 then enter that number in the highlighted box and click shrink, now you should have about a 100GB c drive and 49GB of free space on there where you can easily install the linux os onto.
 

 

This kicks me right back to  my post http://www.geekstogo...e-2-partitions/ And actually, my question there was never fully answered. The person who responded initially told me that I could not shrink a parition with an OS on. Is that not the case? :confused:

 

 

 

 

 

like i said earlier though that's just what i'd do and see no real need for you to change anything from the way you have it setup at the moment.

 

Yes, think I am probably going to leave it all as is, at least for now.

 

 

 

 

 

always remember when it comes to computers there is usually always more than 1 way of accomplishing the same thing. both the way you have it setup now and my way would give you a bootable os if 1 drive failed, my way would keep both os on the drives the same always with a slight cost in speed, your way keeps both drives bootable but means you have to keep cloning the first drive every so often if you want to keep them in sync but also has no slight speed cost because the data doesn't need to be written to both drives when you make changes to the booted drive.

 

what did you think of leap before you ran into the errors? if you liked it and want to spend more time with it before deciding on your linux os then we can spend a bit of time trying to fix whatever errors you ran into so you can thoroughly test it, must admit with the limited testing i did i never ran into any errors with my vm install but then again it is the os i use so i know what needs to be added before it can be called fully usable. eg. adding repos so you can install things like libdvdcss2 needed to play dvd's etc.

 

I really didn't get much of a chance to try Suse out properly. You talking about leap though has made me realise something..... leap is 42.1, is it not? I just checked and the issue I have got on CD is open suse 13.1-DVD-i586 which -I was surprised to learn - was from 2013. Would that cause the problems I have been experiencing, do you think? Not exactly sure, but I think I probably got that version because I was trying to find one that I could try without actually installing. Could be why it installed so many updates, perhaps?

 

I haven't changed the settings on the one remaining Mint OS yet. It wouldn't let me change them at first, but I have just a minute ago discovered that it seems to have been because I had saved it when exiting, rather than opted to 'power off'. I think I will be able to alter the settings now.

 

Thanks for all your help.

 

Chris
 


Edited by Channeal, 19 March 2017 - 06:25 AM.

  • 0

#27
terry1966

terry1966

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

 

I was amazed to learn that it took you just over an hour to install all 4 OS It took me way, way longer than that. Cannot imagine why that would be, but guess something must have gone awry somewhere!

 

there are a couple of reasons i can think of why it may have taken you longer. first is i installed the os directly from the image on the drive to the vm without the need to create a cd/dvd. second is my drive is a ssd so is faster than a hd. third is when i install the os i do it without the vm being connected to the internet so nothing slows down the initial install like it downloading and installing updates during the install.

 

 

This kicks me right back to  my post http://www.geekstogo...e-2-partitions/ And actually, my question there was never fully answered. The person who responded initially told me that I could not shrink a parition with an OS on. Is that not the case?

 

that's the topic where i got the info used in previous post (screenshot of drives.), so my answer to you is yes it is totally possible to shrink the partition with the os on, lots of people do it to create a separate data partition when they only have a single drive in their pc's.

from my understanding sleepydudes main concern was the amount you wanted to shrink the c drive, ie. to the same size as the cloned partition and not that you couldn't shrink it if you wanted to.

 

 

What on earth is 'raid 1'? Whatever it is, I know absolutely zilch about it!

 

:rofl:  i should have expected that reply.

 

"raid" is a way the pc can use multiple drives together for either redundancy or/and speed. there are different raid levels, 0,1,5, etc. etc. i won't go into details here but here's some links explaining raid. :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

http://www.pcworld.c...-made-easy.html

 

 

(It was actually Phill who advised me to make the clone in the first place anyway, so clones can't be all that bad!)

to be brutally honest, not one of his better solutions to a problem in my opinion but then again it was years ago he gave the advice and maybe he imagined a different scenario than what you seem to be in now.

 

what the clone does offer you is a type of "redundancy" same as raid 1 would offer but in a less seamless way.

 

 

When our main disk failed a few years ago now, I actually had an image (as opposed to a clone) on my external drive. The image was made on the advice of the IT guys where my husband used to work, but I didn't have the faintest idea of what to do with it.

the way you use a backup image is first you install a new hard drive, second you boot the pc from a rescue disk (live os similar to the live linux disks you've been testing.) for whatever program you used to make the image. third you copy the image to the new hard drive so the drive is in exactly the same condition the old one was in when you made the image. same partitions, same os, same programs, same data. and that's it. you now have a working bootable pc again.

 

 

Yes, think I am probably going to leave it all as is, at least for now.

nothing wrong with that. :spoton:

 

ok lets get back to linux and suse. yes 13.1 is old and i don't think it's supported now, no idea where you got it from but i definitely don't recommend installing and using it.

 

you have downloaded a lot of linux iso's to try and with luck you've kept them all in your downloads folder, if so you should have a leap42.2 dvd iso in there. i'd use that to install suse to a vm. if not then i'd suggest downloading it again from here :- https://software.opensuse.org/422/en

 

don't forget you don't need to create cd/dvd's with any of the iso's you download you can just install them to the vm by pointing the vm's optical drive to them. will provide more info on this process if you require it.

 

think that covers everything. :D

 

:popcorn:


Edited by terry1966, 19 March 2017 - 03:32 PM.

  • 0

#28
Channeal

Channeal

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts

Hello Terry,

 

 

that's the topic where i got the info used in previous post (screenshot of drives.), so my answer to you is yes it is totally possible to shrink the partition with the os on, lots of people do it to create a separate data partition when they only have a single drive in their pc's.

from my understanding sleepydudes main concern was the amount you wanted to shrink the c drive, ie. to the same size as the cloned partition and not that you couldn't shrink it if you wanted to.

 

Yes, he said it would not be a good idea to do it because of the size. He never commented on whether or not it is possible to shrink a drive which has the OS on though - so I was still a bit unsure, especially as I was almost certain that I have read before that it could cause problems.

 

 

 

"raid" is a way the pc can use multiple drives together for either redundancy or/and speed. there are different raid levels, 0,1,5, etc. etc. i won't go into details here but here's some links explaining raid. :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

http://www.pcworld.c...-made-easy.html

 

Thank you for the links. Will read them if/when I get some quiet time to myself.

 

 

 

the way you use a backup image is first you install a new hard drive, second you boot the pc from a rescue disk (live os similar to the live linux disks you've been testing.) for whatever program you used to make the image. third you copy the image to the new hard drive so the drive is in exactly the same condition the old one was in when you made the image. same partitions, same os, same programs, same data. and that's it. you now have a working bootable pc again.

 

I spend quite a bit of time on Monday trying to suss out why I was suddenly getting BSODs every few minutes. In the end, I discovered that an Avast update had created problems for Windows 7 users and a new update from them later on sorted the problem. In the meantime though, I booted up from the clone and was able to continue my Greek homework from there! :) No idea why I did not get the problem on the clone: maybe Avast had withdrawn the offending update by then but took a while to develop a new one to fix the earlier problems. I found it extremely amusing though that I had to use the clone, coming as it did so soon after my conversation with both you and SleepyDude about it. It was the same last summer when my CMOS battery caused problems and I was still able to boot from the clone. So, nobody can convinve me that the clone has no use; it has been invaluable!

An image is no use in situations such as I found myself on Monday, only for when a new hard drive is being installed. Even then, you need to be able to install the hard drive yourself though! When our hard drive failed a few years ago now, we had no idea what was wrong so took it into a computer repair shop. We were eventually told that the drive had failed and the shop then installed a new one. Meanwhile, back here I had my external drive with my image of the OS on it, but no idea what to do with it. :( I think Phill told me many moons later that we should perhaps have taken the external drive into the shop too, but I never thought of that at the time, though obviously I would know different now! I have learned a fair bit since 2014...... but very slowly and often very painfully! :( It is however not always a lot of use telling people who know very little about computers that they should make an image of their OS, unless they really know how to use it!

 

 

 

to be brutally honest, not one of his better solutions to a problem in my opinion but then again it was years ago he gave the advice and maybe he imagined a different scenario than what you seem to be in now.

 

Seems like only yesterday to me! :)

In view of the fact that it seems generally accepted by you Geeky people that a clone is not a great idea, looking back now I am a bit surprised that Phill ever suggested the clone. What we were trying to do was a bit complicated though, especially to somebody like me who knew virtually nothing about all this stuff back in 2014. (I read back through the topic not that long ago and was amazed at just how long it took me to get my head around what we were trying to achieve! :( ). The waters were further muddied by the fact that Phill was at first of the opinion that I might be able to install the clone on my external drive and boot up from that. No matter for what reason he suggested it, I am very glad that he did! :)

Just out of interest, here is a screenshot to show exactly what I did back in 2014: -

 

CLONING STEPS.jpg

 

'Clone the clone' always almost reminds me of a song, but I never manage to work out what song it is! :lol:

 

 

 

ok lets get back to linux and suse. yes 13.1 is old and i don't think it's supported now, no idea where you got it from but i definitely don't recommend installing and using it.

 you have downloaded a lot of linux iso's to try and with luck you've kept them all in your downloads folder, if so you should have a leap42.2 dvd iso in there. i'd use that to install suse to a vm. if not then i'd suggest downloading it again from here :- https://software.opensuse.org/422/en

don't forget you don't need to create cd/dvd's with any of the iso's you download you can just install them to the vm by pointing the vm's optical drive to them. will provide more info on this process if you require it.

 

No, for some reason I never downloaded leap at all. Have done so now though.......

 

 

 

Going back to an earlier message, you said: -

 

 

can't remember what your system specifications are but think you had 8GB of memory, so i'd increase the memory allowance to at least 2GB (upto a max of 4GB) and i'd also increase the video card memory from the 16MB to it's max which i think is 250MB if memory serves.
depending on your cpu, if it has 4 cores i'd give the vm 2 also everything else i usually leave at default.

 

I checked - and I only have 4 MB of memory. (I upgraded the memory myself - many moons ago now - and I believe that 4 MB is the maximum I can have on my computer. :(

The CPU though is 'Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.20GHz'.
 

 

 

 

think that covers everything. :D

 

Thank you very much for your help. :thumbsup:


  • 0

#29
terry1966

terry1966

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

 

Yes, he said it would not be a good idea to do it because of the size. He never commented on whether or not it is possible to shrink a drive which has the OS on though - so I was still a bit unsure, especially as I was almost certain that I have read before that it could cause problems.

no idea what problems you may have read about, but personally i've never run into any caused by shrinking the os partition ever and i have shrunk os partitions on numerous pc's with different hardware, mainly to install linux on them but also sometimes just to give the user a dedicated data partition to store their data.
 

In view of the fact that it seems generally accepted by you Geeky people that a clone is not a great idea, looking back now I am a bit surprised that Phill ever suggested the clone.

i wouldn't say that, cloning is very useful, it's just i wouldn't use cloning in the way you do. (not meant as a criticism of phil because we each have our own ways of doing things but i can only think phil meant for the smaller drive to be disconnected and there only as a secure backup. must admit don't see why you needed to format the drive then create 2 new partitions on it before cloning the clone back to it either when you could have simply shrunk the os partition too. personally after cloning the os to the smaller drive i'd have used all the original drive for data.)
 
with me cloning is only be used to transfer a working os to a faster/bigger/different drive or maybe even to a backup internal drive (waste of drive space to me though and don't think i've ever done this.) that is never connected to the running pc unless required (disconnecting the power lead is simplest way to do that.), same way an external backup drive should never be connected to a running pc unless you were making/needing the backups on it.
they are not connected for security and no other reason.
 

An image is no use in situations such as I found myself on Monday, only for when a new hard drive is being installed.

not at all, an image is used to quickly put a pc back to the same working state it was in when the image was made. period.
can be to the same drive or in case of drive failure a new drive.
they are used whenever the os needs reinstalling for whatever reason.
we use images because they are faster than reinstalling the os then the drivers and updates then the programs then the data to get things where you want them. plus they take up less space than cloning.
 
as i said earlier there are usually always more than 1 way to achieve the same results when it comes to pc's,
you're happy with having a clone as your redundancy solution so that's the end of the story as far as i'm concerned even if i'd use raid 1 as my redundancy solution.
 
just don't think because you have a clone, having a secure backup image elsewhere would also not be a good idea even though you backup your data.
malware can infect both your running os and the clone because they are both connected and accessible to it, so after an infection you would not be able to trust the clone and that's where the image would come into play and save you a lot of time reinstalling everything.
 
as to the vm, when you go into the settings and click on system  you'll see how much memory it recommends to use as max (green line and is half the installed memory.), i'd give it 2GB out of your 4GB, then click on the processor tab and there you'll see how many processors are available to you, mine says 8 (only 4 are real) so i give it 2, depending on your cpu if it says 4 give it 2 otherwise leave it at 1. (think an Intel Pentium 4 was a single core cpu anyway so don't think you'll need to worry about changing anything in the cpu settings, didn't think your pc was that old either to be honest..)

then click on the display and max out the graphics memory (might be 256MB or 128MB) and check the 2 acceleration boxes so they turn blue (might give you an error message about one of the boxes but don't worry about it.) now click ok to save the changes.
 
after you've done that start the vm and see how things are running for you when testing things, you should find they are a lot faster to use now.
 
:popcorn:


Edited by terry1966, 22 March 2017 - 05:30 PM.

  • 0

#30
Channeal

Channeal

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts

Hello Terry,

 

I altered the system settings as avised: the maximum suggested for the base memory was 1812 MB so I changed it to that. The processor tab had to stay as it was. You alarmed me a bit by saying you didn't think my computer was that old, as I thought perhaps I had omitted to tell you - but looking back, I did mention that it was 10-and-a-half years old in my very first message (it will in fact be 11 years old in April/May).

 

Changing the memory allocation did improve things a little bit: it no longer takes hours for the letters to appear when I type. It is still very unresponsive when attempting to scroll down a webpage though. Not sure why that would be......

 

I am beginning to wonder if perhaps this computer really is a bit too old for all this - just like its owner! :laughing:

 

#######

 

I apologise if I have annoyed you at all by going on too much about the clone issue. It is actually quite a sensitive subject for me though....

Back in 2004 when I made the clone, I did it because Phill advised me to and I naturally believed that it was a good thing to do. The whole operation took me a really long time and, although it was fun too, it really was not easy for me as I was totally unaccustomed to doing any of this stuff. There were lots of unexpected problems along the way, but I still remember the amazing feeling of euphoria when I at last completed the task. I was really proud of myself for what I had done!

For the past two years my computer has been running so much better than before I made the changes and I have continued to believe that my clone was an excellent addition to my computer..... so, it has come as quite a shock to me to discover, almost three years later, that every time I even mention my clone on GTG everyone is so very eager to tell me that I should not even have it! Even though what I am being told may well be correct, for me it is the same as telling me that all the time (about 3 months in all) I spent on this project back in 2014 was wasted..... and that is very upsetting! :(

Just to clear up one point.... although I don't entirely know why Phill got me to achieve the new set-up using a clone, I am completely certain that he did not intend the smaller drive to be disconnected, as you suggested. The intention was always to copy the OS alone to it and use it as the main drive, so that it would boot up quicker (the larger drive was previously taking forever to boot up), then use the second (larger) drive for data only. The back-up clone was initially meant to be on the external drive. However, when we learned that the clone on the external drive was not bootable, Phill then told me to make a partition on the 2nd (larger) drive instead and put the clone on there. He could (and you will no doubt think should) at that point have told me to put an image on the external drive instead, but he didn't (he had actually previously got me to delete the image I already had on there because it was not bootable). I have read through the original topic again and all these facts are completely correct.

Whatever Phill's reasons, I am 100% certain that he put forward what he believed to be the best options for my computer at the time. And of course, nobody knows everything or gets it all right all the time. Even if having the clone on my 2nd hard drive was not the ideal thing to recommend, the work I did on my computer back in 2014 gave me confidence that I could deal with this computer stuff, which has indirectly led me to go on and learn even more, so I am still very grateful to Phill for everything he did back then and for all his patience when I was very slow to understand things. I may have learned now that some things could perhaps have been done differently, but I still don't regret doing any of it one bit.

Okay, that really is the end of me going on about my clone! From now on, the 'c word' will be a forbidden topic and I won't ever again mention to a single person that I have this guilty secret lurking on my second hard drive! :) :) :)

Chris


  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP