[SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

gosa · 2010-07-19 17:30:12

Hi All!

I've been following Crunchback and the Statler Development on and off for a while now - did my first Crunchbang install around last christmas - and I'm beginning to feel it's time to dive in and put Statler on my netbook. There is however one or two things I haven't really figured out yet (and please pardon me for starting a new subject of something that might be here already - I just don't talk the language of "the free world" well enough to be able to make the right type of searches)

Anyway - at the moment I have my 1000HE dual booting Windows XP Home (that came with the netbook) and Crunchbang 9.0.4 spread over several partitions (the hidden recovery partition, one WinXP, one "storage" partition and then the Linux stuff after that (Swap & OS).

Say that I don't care about whats on the Crunchbang "side" of things but I still want to keep my Win XP setup intact. Can I just go through the whole Unetbootin dance, boot from my memory stick and install Statler to the partitions that used to hold Crunchbang 9.0.4 (of course after formatting them properly in the process)?

Will everything come out ok on the other end, or are there any considerations to be done in the process? I have no idea about where I placed grub in my previous install for example - will I get a long list of options that are no longer valid, and mixed into that a bit of Win XP and Statler? (I already have a list of previously installed kernels, fail safes, memtests and all that).

- All the questions above might be a bit "stupid", but I really haven't gotten a good grip on the workings of these things yet...

Is there anyone with enough time on their hands to put the "spoon to my mouth"?

Thanks in advance...

Last edited by gosa (2010-07-25 11:53:20)

Sector11 · 2010-07-19 18:01:30

Hi gosa

When you boot does it automatically show you that you have Windows XP and #! 9.04, then without touching anything after a few seconds your computer boots to #! 9.04?

That would indicate you put 9.04 in after XP and used the master boot area.

If you install Statler OVER #!9.04 Using the same partitions 9.04 had GRUB should see XP and ask if you want it listed in the menu.

That means if you have a separate /home partition use that for the new partition and put swap and OS where they were.

Also I see you have a separate "storage" partition if it is a Linux partition you can keep the stuff there and use something like:

/media/storage to mount that partition.

More questions just ask.

Last edited by Sector11 (2010-07-19 18:02:12)

gosa · 2010-07-20 11:36:26

Sector11 wrote:

Hi gosa
When you boot does it automatically show you that you have Windows XP and #! 9.04, then without touching anything after a few seconds your computer boots to #! 9.04?
That would indicate you put 9.04 in after XP and used the master boot area.

- Check!

Sector11 wrote:

If you install Statler OVER #!9.04 Using the same partitions 9.04 had GRUB should see XP and ask if you want it listed in the menu.
That means if you have a separate /home partition use that for the new partition and put swap and OS where they were.

- That sure sounds like the kind of answer I was hoping for...

Sector11 wrote:

Also I see you have a separate "storage" partition if it is a Linux partition you can keep the stuff there and use something like:
/media/storage to mount that partition.
More questions just ask.

- Well, it's a NTFS partition that I use mostly for Windows related stuff, so I'm good anyway. Right now I'm using a 16GB SDHC-card for "shared content (Win/CB) which is more than enough, and hopefully it'll be easy accessing that NTFS partition from Statler as well...

- Thanks for your help, I'll see if I get a few moments on my own one of these nights to do the actual install. Going on vacation in two weeks, and I hope to have a good Setup up and running by then...

Last edited by gosa (2010-07-20 11:38:02)

Sector11 · 2010-07-20 11:51:49

gosa wrote:

- Thanks for your help, I'll see if I get a few moments on my own one of these nights to do the actual install. Going on vacation in two weeks, and I hope to have a good Setup up and running by then...

There is a program tou can get that will allow you to mount NTFS partitions so you'd beable to mount both your data partition and the Windows partition as well. Search for "ntfs" in Synaptice and you'll see. But ask someone first to get the right one. I don't have Windows, been a few years now that I've been Windows free.

Have a great vacation.

benj1 · 2010-07-20 14:05:22

gosa wrote:

Say that I don't care about whats on the Crunchbang "side" of things but I still want to keep my Win XP setup intact. Can I just go through the whole Unetbootin dance, boot from my memory stick and install Statler to the partitions that used to hold Crunchbang 9.0.4 (of course after formatting them properly in the process)?
Will everything come out ok on the other end, or are there any considerations to be done in the process? I have no idea about where I placed grub in my previous install for example - will I get a long list of options that are no longer valid, and mixed into that a bit of Win XP and Statler?

everything /should/ be ok, of course there is the risk of data being corrupted when you're installing an os and fiddling around with partitions, so i would always recommend you backup your data first.
grub will probably be on its own partition (at the start of the hard drive), you shouldn't have to worry too much about it, all your ext* swap and boot partitions should be picked up automatically on installation, and a grub entry for windows should be added automatically.

Sector11 wrote:

When you boot does it automatically show you that you have Windows XP and #! 9.04, then without touching anything after a few seconds your computer boots to #! 9.04?
That would indicate you put 9.04 in after XP and used the master boot area.

AFAIK you can't actually set up a boot manager with windows, and if you can its not automatic or easy.

I don't have Windows, been a few years now that I've been Windows free.

lol you sound like an ex addict, remember, one day at a time tongue .

Sector11 · 2010-07-20 18:11:34

benj1 wrote:

Sector11 wrote:
When you boot does it automatically show you that you have Windows XP and #! 9.04, then without touching anything after a few seconds your computer boots to #! 9.04?
That would indicate you put 9.04 in after XP and used the master boot area.
AFAIK you can't actually set up a boot manager with windows, and if you can its not automatic or easy.

Bad choice of words on my part, I should have said "and are using GRUB!" big_smile

benj1 wrote:

I don't have Windows, been a few years now that I've been Windows free.
lol you sound like an ex addict, remember, one day at a time .

8952 days of ODAT's - if I was really counting lol

I hated Windows from the first day I installed it. Windows 95 had just come out and I installed Win 3.11 for Workgroups. I only installed it because DOS was loosing ground fast and was either not supported or was not going to be supported much longer so I really didn't have that much of an option.

I had been running MS-DOS 6.22 with QEMM and DESQview which allowed me to run a multi-node BBS on my old 386 (3x USR Couriers 9600/14400's) After installing Win3.11 I had to open a "DOS window" to run my BBS software. sad

benj1 · 2010-07-20 18:53:43

Sector11 wrote:

benj1 wrote:
Sector11 wrote:
When you boot does it automatically show you that you have Windows XP and #! 9.04, then without touching anything after a few seconds your computer boots to #! 9.04?
That would indicate you put 9.04 in after XP and used the master boot area.
AFAIK you can't actually set up a boot manager with windows, and if you can its not automatic or easy.
Bad choice of words on my part, I should have said "and are using GRUB!"
benj1 wrote:
I don't have Windows, been a few years now that I've been Windows free.
lol you sound like an ex addict, remember, one day at a time .
8952 days of ODAT's - if I was really counting
I hated Windows from the first day I installed it. Windows 95 had just come out and I installed Win 3.11 for Workgroups. I only installed it because DOS was loosing ground fast and was either not supported or was not going to be supported much longer so I really didn't have that much of an option.
I had been running MS-DOS 6.22 with QEMM and DESQview which allowed me to run a multi-node BBS on my old 386 (3x USR Couriers 9600/14400's) After installing Win3.11 I had to open a "DOS window" to run my BBS software.

8952 days? windows 95? ....so you stopped using windows 95 in 1985???

from what i remember of 3.1 you had to run everything through dos, oh except ms works (4 floppies ftw)
although windows <95 was built on top of dos (pretty much like linux and X) so support would have been there for /a/ version, and support for win 3.11 only stopped last year i believe (it was quite popular in airlines and aircraft i think) so you could still be running that 386 now tongue

Sector11 · 2010-07-20 20:30:42

benj1 wrote:

8952 days? windows 95? ....so you stopped using windows 95 in 1985???
from what i remember of 3.1 you had to run everything through dos, oh except ms works (4 floppies ftw)
although windows <95 was built on top of dos (pretty much like linux and X) so support would have been there for /a/ version, and support for win 3.11 only stopped last year i believe (it was quite popular in airlines and aircraft i think) so you could still be running that 386 now

lol No not quite.
8952 bottles of beer on the wall, 8952 bottles of beer
if one of those bottles should happen to fall, 8951 bottles of beer
8951 bottles of beer on the wall, 8951 bottles of beer
... ad nausium .... Jan 15 86

I stayed with (good thing this is solved, cuz we are off topic) 3.11 until mid 98 when I broke down and installed 98. GRRRRRR!!!!!
In 2000 I bought a P-III and it came with Win2K installed. Used that until one day it reported my 80GB WD drive was dead. Ubuntu used that drive for 2 years before I switched to a SATA drive with this AMD64. I still have it here, it probably has Xubu 8.10 still on it. smile

benj1 · 2010-07-20 23:44:46

Sector11 wrote:

benj1 wrote:
8952 days? windows 95? ....so you stopped using windows 95 in 1985???
from what i remember of 3.1 you had to run everything through dos, oh except ms works (4 floppies ftw)
although windows <95 was built on top of dos (pretty much like linux and X) so support would have been there for /a/ version, and support for win 3.11 only stopped last year i believe (it was quite popular in airlines and aircraft i think) so you could still be running that 386 now
No not quite.
8952 bottles of beer on the wall, 8952 bottles of beer
if one of those bottles should happen to fall, 8951 bottles of beer
8951 bottles of beer on the wall, 8951 bottles of beer
... ad nausium .... Jan 15 86

It was just a quick calculation in my head, the difference was my non windows adled brain[1] was 9 years more accurate than yours.... mr pedantic tongue

[1] even though i was using windows until 2008, but what the hey.

ps did you take into acount leap years?

Sector11 · 2010-07-21 01:02:12

benj1 wrote:

Sector11 wrote:
No not quite.
8952 bottles of beer on the wall, 8952 bottles of beer
if one of those bottles should happen to fall, 8951 bottles of beer
8951 bottles of beer on the wall, 8951 bottles of beer
... ad nausium .... Jan 15 86
It was just a quick calculation in my head, the difference was my non windows adled brain[1] was 9 years more accurate than yours.... mr pedantic
[1] even though i was using windows until 2008, but what the hey.
ps did you take into acount leap years?

9 years more accurate?

Soooooo you are telling me that the difference between today and 8951 days into the past is 9 years different than the date Jan 15 1986?

8951 / 365.25 = 24.506502 - 24 years

.506502 * 12 = 6.0780287 or 6 months

.0780287 * 24 = 1.8 or 2 days.

And that taking in to consideration that a year is 365.25 days long, we know it isn't really.

http://www.jimloy.com/astro/year.htm

Conky tells me 24 years 6 months 5 days, for me that's close enough. big_smile

benj1 · 2010-07-21 16:00:54

Sector11 wrote:

9 years more accurate?
Soooooo you are telling me that the difference between today and 8951 days into the past is 9 years different than the date Jan 15 1986?

roll
No, you first mentioned 8952 days ago, in relation to windows 95 recently coming out (15 years ago), i quickly calculated that was wrong, and suggested a more accurate date for 8952 days ago would be 1985 (25 years ago).
you then came back and gave the exact date, 15th jan 1986.
my date 1985 is <0.5 years away from the actual date (1986) (assuming exact years ago, not rounding to the start of a year)
your date, 1995 is 9.5 years away from the actual date.

9.5 years - 0.5 years = 9 years, i was 9 years closer in my estimation, ergo i am 9 years more accurate. tongue

Sector11 · 2010-07-21 18:53:20

benj1 wrote:

Sector11 wrote:
9 years more accurate?
Soooooo you are telling me that the difference between today and 8951 days into the past is 9 years different than the date Jan 15 1986?

No, you first mentioned 8952 days ago, in relation to windows 95 recently coming out (15 years ago), i quickly calculated that was wrong, and suggested a more accurate date for 8952 days ago would be 1985 (25 years ago).
you then came back and gave the exact date, 15th jan 1986.
my date 1985 is <0.5 years away from the actual date (1986) (assuming exact years ago, not rounding to the start of a year)
your date, 1995 is 9.5 years away from the actual date.
9.5 years - 0.5 years = 9 years, i was 9 years closer in my estimation, ergo i am 9 years more accurate.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

We seriously got our wires crossed:

Sector11 wrote:

I don't have Windows, been a few years now that I've been Windows free.

behj1 wrote:

lol you sound like an ex addict, remember, one day at a time

I was responding to the: ex addict, remember, one day at a time nothing to do with Windows. roll

8952 days of ODAT's not 8952 days of WindowsFree

I have been Windows Free (WF=W2K) OR I've been a Linux User (LU) for - 2 years 11 months 3 weeks and 1 day - if I was counting - take your pick. big_smile

vNTAzaQ

I really should change that to LU for Linux User. smile
EDIT: Changed to LU big_smile

Last edited by Sector11 (2010-07-21 18:56:16)

benj1 · 2010-07-21 23:38:58

ah ok, it only took 8952 posts but we got there in the end lol.

Sector11 · 2010-07-22 13:32:17

benj1 wrote:

ah ok, it only took 8952 posts but we got there in the end lol.

But it was a fun walk.

gosa · 2010-07-25 11:33:25

Edit:

RTFM, I said to myself and ran

sudo update-grub

from the terminal...

Sorry for pulling you guys away from whatever you were doing...
tongue

Last edited by gosa (2010-07-25 11:55:11)

Sector11 · 2010-07-25 15:29:55

gosa wrote:

Edit:
RTFM, I said to myself and ran
sudo update-grub
from the terminal...
Sorry for pulling you guys away from whatever you were doing...

You didn't I was gong to point you to: http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/post/78978/#p78978

Enjoy

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2010-07-19 17:30:12

[SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#2 2010-07-19 18:01:30

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#3 2010-07-20 11:36:26

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#4 2010-07-20 11:51:49

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#5 2010-07-20 14:05:22

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#6 2010-07-20 18:11:34

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#7 2010-07-20 18:53:43

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#8 2010-07-20 20:30:42

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#9 2010-07-20 23:44:46

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#10 2010-07-21 01:02:12

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#11 2010-07-21 16:00:54

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#12 2010-07-21 18:53:20

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#13 2010-07-21 23:38:58

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#14 2010-07-22 13:32:17

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#15 2010-07-25 11:33:25

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

#16 2010-07-25 15:29:55

Re: [SOLVED] Noobie question about previous setup before taking the dive.

Board footer