Linux doesn't seem practical

[Sporkk]

I registered for ubuntu forums and so far not getting a response. I will repost what I put there

"I have vista loaded first onto my ide drive which is hd1 on my system. I then install ubuntu to my secondary sata hard drive. I make a new partition on it and install ubuntu at hd0,4. Vista loaded and no sign of grub. So I use super grub disc so I can boot my new ubuntu install. Then after I'm in the ubuntu terminal I attempt to reinstall grub. I follow these steps

sudo grub
find /boot/grub/stage1
root (hd?,?)
setup (hd?)
quit

I've tried to setup on both hd0 and hd1. Grub loads but I get bootmgr missing when I try to load vista. The only way I could fix is to use bootrec on my vista install disc. After some reading I discover another program called easybcd. I configured it so ubuntu shows up in the windows boot manager which in turns loads grub so I can load ubuntu.

This seems to be working for now but what was I doing wrong? What can I do to get grub working the proper way? I don't understand why I'm having this issue and others aren't? Does it have anything to do with me using the eide drive as my primary windows install? My reason for that is because the sata drive is only 5400 rpm and originally intended as a backup.

thanks for any suggestions you can give"


Getting amarok going was another headache but it works now. Installing the standard package for mp3 support will work for everything else except for amarok. I had to google and came up with a guide for going in the synaptic package manager and installing Libxine1-ffmpeg. This wasn't so bad but seriously why can't the program prompt you that this is required to play mp3's? I've also noticed that you can't select the ntfs drive to use on most programs, ie amarok for the location of the music library. My only other issue is that embedded video playback can be a bit quirky on sites like youtube.

I appreciate the link for the ipod touch but the pages it links to are broken. Either way itunes is still required to use the features that give you the only reason to use a ipod touch, apps, video, net browsing. I don't like how it shoves quicktime and I think safari onto your computer.

I'm interested now and passed the give up easily stage. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

[Recursacro]

Perhaps you could install Windows on a virtual drive, and install iTunes onto that. As for your booting problems, I honestly don't know. I've never tun into such problems. The only problem I had was when it boot right into Windows. I just used a live CD and reinstalled grub. That was because I put Windows on second though.

I don't like the .mp3 thing either, but it'snot hard to get if you search synaptic. Also, I recommend opening Add Remove Programs and checking out all of the cool programs you can get. Make sure that you set it to view all of them, not just the community maintained ones.

I hope that you can get things sorted out with Amarok, and it sounds like you're booting just fine. If you have any other questions, I might be able to help. Just stay confident and stubborn in the forums. Once someone replies, many others do too. (usually)

Best wishes

[orb]

A long time ago I tried several linux distros but was never able to get it working properly with my isp, network card, or who knows what the problem was. So I ignored linux until now. I decided to give ubuntu a try after hearing about how secure it was from spyware and viruses. Also just wanted to try something different. After install I excitedly wait for the reboot and tada my win7 desktop loads. I google about why the grub screen isn't showing up. Apparently windows 7 does not like anything changing the mbr. I find many suggestions most taking me into the command line and typing a bunch of stuff that I have no idea what it means. Then further down I read most people talking about how there is still no proper fix yet.

So I downloaded the super grub cd and was able to get into the ubuntu desktop finally.The main screen of grub cd didn't make any sense to me but your suppose to click pick language and help for the real screen. Why couldn't they just title it start here or something like that? So I figure that my options are to use a cd every time I want to boot, or buy another hard drive for which I can build a switch or change the boot order in the bios.
After sleeping on it I realize I won't be spending much time in linux simply because the programs I need aren't supported for it. My whole pile of dvd rebuilding tools is a good reason. I don't want to worry if wine may or may not work with every new version of a windows program comes out that I need.

So why keep switching over to linux just so I can browse the internet? The practicality of linux sucks. The only reason I would consider using it is for relatives or friends computer that is only for internet and they keep mucking everything up with spyware.

So...

This is your point:

The practicality of linux sucks.

...and this is your argument:

A long time ago I tried several linux distros but was never able to get it working properly with my isp, network card, or who knows what the problem was. So I ignored linux until now. I decided to give ubuntu a try after hearing about how secure it was from spyware and viruses. Also just wanted to try something different. After install I excitedly wait for the reboot and tada my win7 desktop loads. I google about why the grub screen isn't showing up. Apparently windows 7 does not like anything changing the mbr. I find many suggestions most taking me into the command line and typing a bunch of stuff that I have no idea what it means. Then further down I read most people talking about how there is still no proper fix yet.

So I downloaded the super grub cd and was able to get into the ubuntu desktop finally.The main screen of grub cd didn't make any sense to me but your suppose to click pick language and help for the real screen. Why couldn't they just title it start here or something like that? So I figure that my options are to use a cd every time I want to boot, or buy another hard drive for which I can build a switch or change the boot order in the bios.
After sleeping on it I realize I won't be spending much time in linux simply because the programs I need aren't supported for it. My whole pile of dvd rebuilding tools is a good reason. I don't want to worry if wine may or may not work with every new version of a windows program comes out that I need.

So why keep switching over to linux just so I can browse the internet? ... The only reason I would consider using it is for relatives or friends computer that is only for internet and they keep mucking everything up with spyware.

I agree with you on one thing. You should stick with Windows.

[topicaltapioca]

"LoL"

Linux is certainly a learning experience, everyone started as a wee-newb and either got frustrated and either stopped or kept going.

I use both now myself, I keep 100% linux servers, but generally my desktop/laptops are dual boot, netbooks are XP.

VS .NET

[rdtphd]

my penis didnt seem practical till i learned how to use it

[Expeto]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think its good idea to dual boot, I think dual boot should be only a tool of migration. For example when I dual boot Fedora and WinXP I feel like installing bulletproof windows and steel doors to the half of my house and leaving the doors of windows of other half open. In one half there is the windows which simply gives the root access to anything or anybody, and in the other hand the Fedora who uses a dozen mechanisms, like DAC and MAC to regulate access.