Answers to: Ubuntu or XP Pro?

Answer by daves dad

daves dad — Wed, 04 May 2011 11:40:37 -0400

Up until feburary this year [2011], I also was running XP pro sp3 at work. I was running ms-windows ports of what ever I could.

Then starting about 2 years ago, I started using ubuntu in virtual box in XP. I started this as I had just had my machine reinstalled, and wanted to keep it clean and also put on the software that was not available on ms-windows. [I used cygwin-Xfree86 to make it seemless, it is more reliable that virtual box seemless( for me).]

After a short time I noticed that apps in ubuntu/virtual-box, and the apps seemed faster than when run under ms-windows [ or equivelent apps]. I also noticed that if I had had lots of apps running in ubuntu/virtual-box, it would always use less memory that outlook, and often use little cpu compared to other ms-windows apps.

I see you don't have much memory so virtual box may not work properly, I allocated 512M to ubuntu, but if you use an efficent distro [I have used vector in the past, but there are other distros now], and shutdown outlook, it may work.

Answer by Anthony Stanton

Anthony Stanton — Mon, 24 May 2010 21:30:33 -0400

When you fdisk windows it is gone. you use windows. why not keep it?

try different linux distros until you like one. maybe ubuntu or not. run linux in virtual machine like virtual box.

you can keep as long as you want or delete that virtual machine anytime you want real easy with a click or two.

you can also share with read/write all you data that already is there.

when ready, if ever, you can start from scratch but this way you can run windows linux and anything else all at same time simultanesouly.

you can also run new windows 7 (all three xp linux windows 7 at the same time) to see if you like that too or you need to use it.

Answer by Kurtosis

Kurtosis — Sat, 15 May 2010 00:50:39 -0400

I was in the same position a few months ago. Over the years I've kept trying to migrate to Linux, but there was always something that forced me back to Windows.

Since last fall I had been using MS's free Windows 7 Ultimate Edition Evaluation copy that was due to expire at the end of February. Well when it came time, I really didn't want to pay $400 for the license, so I tried Linux again.

And finally, everything just worked. Ubuntu 9.10 installed perfectly, ran stable, never needs restarting, and has everything I need and more. 10.04 is even better. I've been on Ubuntu since February and don't expect to ever go back.

Answer by tallship

tallship — Fri, 14 May 2010 22:19:02 -0400

Here's you're answer, if you ask me. Install a Linux distro, and then download and install the PUEL version of VirtualBox here: http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads

Next, copy an iso image of your WinXP to your hard drive (You'll thank me for doing it this way later), and set that iso as your CDROM device.

Boot the guest (Your VirtualBox virtual machine that is going to be WindowsXP) and the install will occur normally, although quite a bit more quickly than if you were installing from the real CDROM drive.

Once you get to the first iteration of your mACROsFOT O/S, save a snapshot of that iteration and move on. Saving snapshots of appropriately named images of your OS is both important and convenient, for rollbacks, forking the installations, and disaster recovery.

Naming conventions like "clean install - pre SP3", etc., will help to remind you when you want to run your OS in that version or fork the evolutionary tree with other software, etc...

When you're done running your Windows Guest for the day, don't shut down the machine, but just stop it, and then when you want to run it again later it will boot instantly, with all of the running apps you had running and everything!

Hope that helps!

Kindest regards,

Bradley

Answer by Ron

Ron — Tue, 11 May 2010 15:00:35 -0400

Lucid may not be the best bet in this case. I would install Ubuntu 8.04.4LTS, run all updates for it (but do not get the distribution upgrade), set it to never upgrade to the next version (LTS or Non-LTS) and run with it as is. 8.04x is supported until April 2011.

Answer by Jimmyfd

Jimmyfd — Sun, 09 May 2010 23:07:45 -0400

I'd say that you could make a dual-boot, but the size of your hard drive make me advice against that. 80 GB is not much these days, even with only XP Pro installed.

Your hardware seem to be okay for a clean install of Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, but don't expect the graphical effects to blast of at lightning speed, (depends on the size of your graphics card).

If you deactivate Compiz Fusion your experience with Ubuntu, and the GNOME desktop would be great. After all Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is optimized for the very small Net-book computers so your hardware is sufficient to run most programs even better than they would run on Win XP Pro.

If you're fairly new on Linux I'd also advice against installing Debian 5.0 Lenny. Things are a tad to hard for newbies to grasp quickly. Instead I'd suggest you try out: Fedora, based on Red Hat, Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, Simply Mepis (newest version), Easy Peachy and distros like that. Don't jump onto the rocket science just yet. Some distros are unforgiving in case you make an error. If you enter a command, either by mouse or keyboard, things WILL be done with out asking further questions. Can get quite irritating if you delete the wrong file or directory.

Answer by carleeto

carleeto — Sun, 09 May 2010 21:30:36 -0400

If you really want to try Ubuntu as opposed to any other Linux distribution, I'd suggest you install Wubi. The reason is, you don't need to partition your drive - the whole linux install lives in a file on your Windows partition. It allows you to test drive Ubuntu at faster than VM speed without messing with anything, because Wubi installs and uninstalls just like any other Windows application.

However, you said you're a Windows user. Now, if that means that you're planning on using KDE as your desktop of choice, here's some advice that will save you heaps of time and effort tweaking things to behave right in Ubuntu - use OpenSuse 11.2 instead. Its a KDE desktop and even Firefox has been themed to look like it just fits in. You can access any of the system config options from within KDE. If you're going the GNOME route, Ubuntu is what you want.

Answer by Randy 1

Randy 1 — Thu, 06 May 2010 09:32:26 -0400

Thanks Pierre for your excellent answer. You make a lot of sense. I was tring 10.04 on my Mac using Vmware Fusion. Works fine. I had a problem when I pressed comnand - f2 or something close to this. I ended up with a black screen that prompted me to log in. Where was I and how do I get back to my desktop?

Answer by MTK358

MTK358 — Wed, 05 May 2010 22:20:52 -0400

I think a good way to get a feel of a distro is in a Virtual Machine.

If you like it, either install it or do a dual boot.

You can have Windows under a Virtual Machine in Linux if you need it.

Answer by Pierre 2

Pierre 2 — Wed, 05 May 2010 01:27:03 -0400

Sorry for this noise message. It deletes a message accidentally posted twice despite the absence of a delete button.

Answer by Pierre 2

Pierre 2 — Wed, 05 May 2010 01:07:49 -0400

One more point.

You mentioned you don't like needing to use the command line.

I found that you can do most things without resorting to the command line.

However, it is much easier to give advice to someone by copying the commands he needs to use at the command line than by telling what buttons to click on and when.

The command line is a real plus when you need advice.

The person who knows the answer does not need to give you a lot of contextual descriptive information, telling you what to click and when, they can give you a quick definitive answer, in the form of one or more command lines.

Because of that, you get the answer. They have the time.

You may need to type a few things in, but your problem is solved quickly because the steps are clear and hard to misinterpret. The command line is usually the best way to give and get advice.

Answer by christa99

christa99 — Tue, 04 May 2010 03:44:19 -0400

Another way to have the best of both worlds is to run Windows as a Virtual Machine in Virtual Box or VMWare Player, both absolutely free and superb. It uses less resources than running two operating systems side by side. I started off running Linux distros as VM"s in a Windows 7 host, and before too long realised that I had it completely the wrong way around and now I run Windows xp and 7 as VM guests in my Linux machine. Once you come over, you rarely go back! Pretty much everything works fine in a VM- network connections, peripherals like printers and scanners, CD and DVD's and anything else you want to use. If you do run into any strife: the community support, knowledge base documentation and plain, useful help available covers pretty much every known situation and then some.

Answer by michael

michael — Tue, 04 May 2010 01:46:46 -0400

I have been running Fedora for some time. I used to be an XP Pro bigot. I got fed up with crashes, blue screens, and finally MS asking me to register my computer and bend over to let them know everything I was doing with my computer. Enough!

I downloaded Fedora 8 a couple years ago. I'm now on Fedora12. I can't say enough about it. I haven't had any crashes, no viruses, no problems whatsoever ... well, except for when I did something stupid when I was playing around with a configuration file. With OpenOffice.org3, I can do anything I need.

As for dual boot, I ask: Why? Everyone has there favourite windoz based system they can't find an open source for (mine are Punch! Home Design, Corell Draw, and a few others).

So, instead of running WindozXP and Fedora on the same box, I installed wine (~>yum install wine) in the Fedora environment, which shows up under 'Applications' after installation. Then, open the wine foldout menu, and open Wine File, which looks/acts exactly like Windows Explorer. Then put your windowz application CD in the drive, find it in the wine directory folder (under /media/...), double click on the setup or install file on the windows-based installation CD, and it will install on the c:-drive (even though linux doesn't know what a c:-drive is) under whatever windows directory you want (usually Program Files, which wine creates for you during wine setup).

Once installed, go back to the Fedora Applications foldout menu, and like magic, there will be your newly installed windows application under the Wine/Programs menu item, ready for you to coddle, cuddle or otherwise make you feel at home (away from home). I even installed Windows Office Professional under Wine for those cases I get some files from friends/associates who haven't caught on yet that Linux/Fedora is a faster, finer, friendlier operating system (BY FAR!) This allows me to view their files, modify them or do anything else I could ordinarily do in WindozXP.

A Fedora Fanatic

Answer by Prabal

Prabal — Tue, 04 May 2010 00:56:01 -0400

Ubuntu 10.04 is way ahead of xp sp3....buddy,plz try ubuntu as it wil run fine on ur pc....i am having a similar config..

Ubuntu 10.04 rockzz

Answer by Rev Derek

Rev Derek — Tue, 04 May 2010 00:54:33 -0400

HI,

I'll add my contribution and encourage you to move toward the switch.

I agree with several of the points others have raised and I would say, first, get used to the software by running it on your Windows platform. When you're happy that you can use ALL the software you require and that the software is ALL available to run on a Linux platform then prepare for the move.

I think the hardware is a little old for new distributions but xubuntu8.04 should run well and continues to be supported. With newer hardware I have had no problems with 10.04, which runs better than 9.10 for me, but I enjoy DSL and very small footprint distributions on my older kit.

I use 8.04 extensively in the work's server installations, some of which are the same sort of spec as your hardware though, of course, I'm not running the desktop environments.

Good luck! Derek

Answer by Linuxforall

Linuxforall — Tue, 04 May 2010 00:36:21 -0400

Stick to XP, Linux or Ubuntu is not for you yet.

Answer by Gonzalo

Gonzalo — Tue, 04 May 2010 00:29:43 -0400

Ubuntu uses less than 350 MB of RAM, and no Windows can do that ;-)

You should ask yourself what software you need to day-by-day work, fun, etc., and if you are up to experience something that it's NOT a "free windows", it's a whole different system!!, with a lot of pros (freedom, hundreds of open-source and free packages for everything you may want, no spyware, no checking every corner of your system for "un-legitimate" versions of the OS or the office package, etc.) and maybe some cons (you may not find the "very exactly" substitute for some very specific program you were using in windows; maybe some professional software or games you have already purchased won't run as good as in windows inside Linux... even though Wine is quite good!; some sites are optimized for other explorer :-( etc.).

My suggestion based on my experience: go to GNU/Linux! Choose your distribution based on your taste (experience it! there are free boot-CDs for almost every Linux distro and you can download a few, 2 or 3, try them and choose freely and for-free :-D !). Then, for the things you really do not have an optimal choice, or one that make you comfortable, install a (non-pirate!) version of Windows inside a Virtual Machine (using VirtualBox, VMWare, etc.) and use it for the exceptional software you may need. I think for the rest of the day (work AND fun), you can live comfortably in Linux.

I have been using M$Windows since the 80's (Win 3.1) until now (Win7 64 bits), and for the past 5 years I have been playing in the shore of GNU/Linux, using it partially, getting to know it's logic, etc. Now my machine has a full 500 GB HD with only Poseidon Linux 64 bits (based on Ubuntu LTS) and I am perfectly fine. From OpenOffice to Gimp, from Firefox to Amarok and Media Player, I use it all day and are enjoying a SO that uses less RAM, updates everything (not only the SO and the office!) when needed, do not crash and I don't have to pay it.

Good luck!

Answer by Zyprexa

Zyprexa — Mon, 03 May 2010 23:20:32 -0400

If every game had worked flawlessly on Ubuntu, or any other Linux for that matter, i would have chosen Linux as my main OS in a heartbeat. But since i play games quite often, it would be a pain having to switch over to Windows every time i felt like playing.

If you don't have alot of childish tendencies, choose Linux! :)

Answer by Pierre 1

Pierre 1 — Mon, 03 May 2010 22:59:36 -0400

Making a transition from Windows to Ubuntu is more an issue of what application packages you are using than the OS itself.

My advice to anyone using windows is to make a transition to multi-platform (free is generally better) application software first. Get used to the software you will be using under linux while you are still under windows.

For example switch from using IE to Firefox, outlook to thunderbird, ms office to open office and so on, and use them under windows. Once you are accustomed to them under windows, the transition to ubuntu is pretty transparent.

The first time I used Ubuntu there was a lot more research and tracking things down. Things like 'why won't youtube work' missing codecs for music and video files and so on. This time, I install ubuntu, point the music player at my collection of music files, when it doesnt have a decoder for a file, it asks if you want to install it, when you press yes, it does the rest.

Installing Ubuntu is far easier and smoother now than installing XP. In fact, it's easier to switch from XP to Ubuntu, than from XP on one machine to XP on another.

One could argue that what I'm saying is subjective, so I will quantify a bit. I helped someone buy a computer system for her new business. It took me 2 days to get her system set up and running smoothly, with application software, virus checking, firewall etc. Right after that I set up almost the identical collection of applications with Ubuntu 9.1 on similar hardware.
That took me 1.5 hours. A 10 to 1 ratio in man hours.

Next time someone asks me for help, I will only help if they are open to trying Ubuntu so that i can save a day and a half of of my own time and have happier end user right away. Then an ecstatic end user when she discovers she needs an extra piece of software and finds that synaptic will install it for her at the push of a button, and for free.

Answer by Ollie

Ollie — Mon, 03 May 2010 22:26:37 -0400

I've had Ubuntu installed for over a year now. Although I like it much more than XP, I still needed XP for software\hardware that isn't compatible with Ubuntu. My option was to either dual boot or get a separate machine. I decided to get a separate machine. I have my Ubuntu on my souped up machine and I got a cheaper refurbished machine for my XP (about $230). This was doable as I had a non-oem XP disk. Otherwise, if I didn't I'd had to use the cheaper one as my Ubuntu machine. I also bought a Belkin switch so that I can switch PC's if I have them on at the same time.

I use Ubuntu for 95% of my task including connecting to work from home. The one hardware that I couldn't use Ubuntu for was a Canon Scanner. Most software I can use Wine under Ubuntu such as Adobe photoshop and Quicken 2008. Games I haven't had too much luck with so I needed windows for that.

I'm currently running Ubuntu 9.10 but i've been hearing good word on 10.4. I had originally started on 9.04 and upgrading was a breeze to 9.10.

Answer by Graham

Graham — Mon, 03 May 2010 21:42:55 -0400

Perhaps give the light-weight spin-off "Lubuntu" a go (http://lubuntu.net/). It's based around the relatively new LXDE Desktop Environment. I've not tried it yet, but it's supposed to run well on slightly older hardware, and you'll still be running the latest *buntu release.

Hope that helps.

Graham

Answer by Jon Jenkins

Jon Jenkins — Mon, 03 May 2010 21:19:28 -0400

I've got Ubuntu on a dual-core Sony laptop with 1GB RAM, and it's fine. On the other hand, my old Pentium3 laptop wouldn't install the same Ubuntu edition - something about the disk format I think, so I've got it running Linux Mint Fluxbox (Flux is just another desktop manager), and it seems happy. I've also looked at Puppy and Damn Small Linux - very impressive what they squeeze into about 100MB!

cheers, Jon.

Answer by juan

juan — Mon, 03 May 2010 20:34:01 -0400

Try Debian stable, should run fine on it. Gnome can run on those 512 (Im doing that right now), but you could go for a lighter Desktop like xfce or lxde

Answer by 3vix_6

3vix_6 — Mon, 03 May 2010 20:33:21 -0400

Depends on the CPU

Answer by Scott

Scott — Mon, 03 May 2010 19:57:16 -0400

Others will have to address whether your computer will handle Ubuntu 10.04, but if you enjoy using linux you can also try PuppyLinux or Damn Small Linux, both of which should work. I use ubuntu as my regular system now after having used XP for years. Ubuntu is great, though not without its own issues. Puppy is lightning quick and just fine for surfing the internet, creating word processing documents, and running spreadsheets. Best wishes.

Answer by 54Rigger

54Rigger — Mon, 03 May 2010 19:54:02 -0400

I don't think the latest version of Ubuntu 10.04 will run very effectively on a computer circa 2002, the latest Ubuntu release is targeted at competing with the most current operating system releases. Perhaps a previous release would be a better choice

You might be able to turn some of the Graphical features off and then 10.04 would run fine, posting the CPU / memory/front side bus/ back side bus / motherboard chip-set / video card specifications might garnish responses from people running similar platforms .

my bigger question is .... what made you revert to XP Pro sp3 last time ? Ubuntu may not be headed in a direction that will ever allow you to switch, for example I run 1 Microsoft OS simply because I need to run several programs that are only available on that platform, and there aren't any plans for Open source equivalents.