#302249 - 15/09/2007 15:39
Ubuntu installation problem
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12320
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Yes, I'm giving it a try. I recently picked up a Dell GX270 for $50, and I decided to use it to give Ubuntu a try. I downloaded Ubuntu Studio so it would have a bunch of audio/video programs already installed.
The whole installation went fine, but failed right at the very end when installing the GRUB boot loader. The problem is that it didn't really give any helpful errors to tell me what was wrong, it just said that it failed. I just got one screen that said "Unable to install GRUB in (hd0)", then another that said something like "failed when executing 'grub-install (hd0)' This is a fatal error."
So now the whole thing is installed but I can't boot the OS. Any ideas (expressed in words that complete Linux noob would understand)?
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302250 - 15/09/2007 18:02
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14486
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
Yes, I'm giving it a try. I recently picked up a Dell GX270 for $50, and I decided to use it to give Ubuntu a try. I downloaded Ubuntu Studio so it would have a bunch of audio/video programs already installed.
The whole installation went fine, but failed right at the very end when installing the GRUB boot loader. The problem is that it didn't really give any helpful errors to tell me what was wrong, it just said that it failed. I just got one screen that said "Unable to install GRUB in (hd0)", then another that said something like "failed when executing 'grub-install (hd0)' This is a fatal error."
So now the whole thing is installed but I can't boot the OS. Any ideas (expressed in words that complete Linux noob would understand)?
I got something similar when I first attempted to install a modified WinXP distro to a USB drive. Very obscure and non-helpful lack of messages.
The obvious suggestion is to try the non-modified Ubuntu image, rather than an unsupported outside hack of Ubuntu. So, pull down the real Ubuntu-7.04 live disc and install from that. Afterward, you can point and click to add on any apps you need, including A/V stuff.
If the standard Ubuntu installer also fails (unlikely), then the Ubuntu support forums can help, as can more people here. But I don't have (or want) a copy of the hacked version.
Oh, and my WinXP issue? I eventually fixed it.
Cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302251 - 15/09/2007 19:45
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12320
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Okay, will do.
My other main concern is whether it'll be able to support my monitor at 2560x1600, but that probably relies more on the capabilities of the video card in this machine (I have no idea what it is).
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302252 - 16/09/2007 04:05
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Quote:
My other main concern is whether it'll be able to support my monitor at 2560x1600, but that probably relies more on the capabilities of the video card in this machine (I have no idea what it is).
As you properly pointed out, it will be the job of the video card to support it, and a quick search shows your machine has this Intel integrated card with the following specs:
350 MHz DAC for 1800x1440 @ 85Hz max CRT resolution or 2048x1536 @ 60Hz max FP resolution
So, it looks like it will not drive the 30 inch LCD at full resolution, as it is not a dual link DVI capable card.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302253 - 16/09/2007 18:58
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: drakino]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12320
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Actually, I'm not sure why a business did this, but the machine has an AGP video card. Unfortunately, it doesn't support that high a resolution. I did get the standard Ubuntu distro loaded. I'm liking it quite a bit. I'll play around with it some more and see if I like it. Some questions, though: 1 - I know this card can't support 2560x1600, but when I looked up the specs, it said it at least supported something over 2xxx by 1xxx (my memory is fuzzy on the numbers). But the OS is limiting me to 1280x800. Is this purely due to my monitor, or is there something I can do to make it try higher resolutions? 1b - If I can't get any higher resolution than this (without a new vid card), is there a way to adjust the vertical size of the toolbars and other items? I know where to find it in XP, but not here. 2 - Does anyone here use Beryl? Or is that going to be one of these "don't waste your time with that nonsense" applications?  Anyway, so far I'm digging the general interface, and I love the system they've added to Ubuntu to simplify the un/installation of programs. Hell, it's much simpler than Windows. If I ever have to install something outside of that, though, I think I'll be in trouble. 3 - Does anyone have a link to a good site to get me adjusted to the move from Windows to Linux?
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302255 - 16/09/2007 21:46
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Quote:
1 - I know this card can't support 2560x1600, but when I looked up the specs, it said it at least supported something over 2xxx by 1xxx (my memory is fuzzy on the numbers). But the OS is limiting me to 1280x800. Is this purely due to my monitor, or is there something I can do to make it try higher resolutions?
1280x800 and 2560x1600 are the resolutions the 30 inch monitors support that I have seen. Beyond that, there may be some smaller resolutions, but it's one of the big factors that has been holding me off from getting one.
If you have a video card that does 2560x1600, the video card will then always push that many pixels to the display, even when running say at 1920x1200, but it then scales it down on the video card side. This is what I have seen on both the Dell and Apple panels at least.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302257 - 17/09/2007 10:07
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Dignan]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/08/2000
Posts: 2091
Loc: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
I use it on one of my demo laptops, and I quite like the look...however it is more more for show than anything else...eye candy:-)
_________________________
Rory
MkIIa, blue lit buttons, memory upgrade, 1Tb in Subaru Forester STi
MkII, 240Gb in Mark Lord dock
MkII, 80Gb SSD in dock
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302258 - 17/09/2007 17:57
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: mlord]
|
addict
Registered: 23/01/2002
Posts: 506
Loc: The Great Pacific NorthWest
|
FYI, We have had major problems with motherboard failures on the GX270 tower. I think we have replaced all of them now.
_________________________
No matter where you might be, there you are.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302259 - 17/09/2007 18:06
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Neutrino]
|
old hand
Registered: 16/02/2002
Posts: 867
Loc: Oxford, UK
|
Quote:
We have had major problems with motherboard failures on the GX270 tower. I think we have replaced all of them now.
That's most likely down to bad caps - I've seen quite a few of those Dell systems suffer from it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302260 - 18/09/2007 05:08
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: AndrewT]
|
addict
Registered: 23/01/2002
Posts: 506
Loc: The Great Pacific NorthWest
|
Caps, that is exactly right. That was the cause of failure.
_________________________
No matter where you might be, there you are.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302261 - 18/09/2007 16:29
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Neutrino]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/05/2001
Posts: 2616
Loc: Bruges, Belgium
|
Just a little thread hijack, sorry.
I also want to give Linux a try, but I'm still in doubt whether I should try OpenSuse or (k)Ubuntu. On the one hand I'm leaning towards ubuntu, because it's currently so popular, hence more supported?
On the other hand I want to try out Suse because I've already bought a few books on Suse (last year, before Ubuntu became the next best thing), and this way I could still use those books. There's a 32 and a 64 bit version of Suse available for download. Would somebody recommend the 64 bit version? Or does that bring an equal amount of extra difficulties with it (drivers etc), like this is the case with Windows, and so is not recommended for a normal user?
Thanks all!
(and sorry for the hijack Dignan!)
_________________________
Riocar 80gig S/N : 010101580 red
Riocar 80gig (010102106) - backup
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302262 - 18/09/2007 16:38
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: BartDG]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
You should be fine with the 64-bit version. I've not seen any problems with x64 support under Linux yet.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302263 - 18/09/2007 16:44
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/05/2001
Posts: 2616
Loc: Bruges, Belgium
|
Thanks Bitt! I've also noticed Ubuntu does not make a distinction between a 32 and 64 bit version (only a desktop and server version). Does that mean Ubuntu chooses which installation to use based on what your CPU is capable of? (eg. a PC with a Core2 CPU would result in a 64 bit version installation). Just curious.
_________________________
Riocar 80gig S/N : 010101580 red
Riocar 80gig (010102106) - backup
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302264 - 18/09/2007 18:03
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: BartDG]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I've also noticed Ubuntu does not make a distinction between a 32 and 64 bit version
Yeah it does. If you get to the download screen, it'll ask you; it's under "What type of computer do you have?".
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302265 - 18/09/2007 18:05
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: BartDG]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
On the download page, it will ask about the 64 bit version. http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/downloadThe only OS thus far that I have seen properly blend 32 and 64 bit fully for install (and 2 different CPU architectures) is the upcoming Leopard version of OS X. Being that they ship the OS out on a physical disc means they can do this easier, without worrying about wasting bandwidth on a " fat binary" installer.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302266 - 18/09/2007 18:28
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12320
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
I guess nobody has a solution to that beryl problem I was having? I know it's just eye candy, but it's pretty damn cool.
Does anyone have recommendations for video editing applications in Linux?
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302267 - 18/09/2007 18:56
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Quote:
I guess nobody has a solution to that beryl problem I was having? I know it's just eye candy, but it's pretty damn cool.
I don't have any experience with it, but a possible explanation is that the video card or driver isn't supporting a necessary feature. This is assuming that beryl uses GPU acceleration like OS X and Windows do for effects, and that it is not detecting the capabilities of the video card to determine if it will work or not.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302268 - 18/09/2007 19:20
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: drakino]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12320
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I guess nobody has a solution to that beryl problem I was having? I know it's just eye candy, but it's pretty damn cool.
I don't have any experience with it, but a possible explanation is that the video card or driver isn't supporting a necessary feature. This is assuming that beryl uses GPU acceleration like OS X and Windows do for effects, and that it is not detecting the capabilities of the video card to determine if it will work or not.
Sounds logical. I was planning on picking up a cheap AGP card tonight that could support the proper resolution, so I'll see if the better technology improves things at all.
Along those lines, it looks like the card I'm going to pick up at my local store is going to be a Radeon X1300. Can anyone tell me if that's better or worse than a 9600 Pro? ATI's naming convention always puzzles me. Both cards support 2560x1600, but if the X1300 is a better card, I'll probably put it in my Windows machine so I can try play Overlord at anything higher than 800x600.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302269 - 18/09/2007 19:22
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: drakino]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12320
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Important question: is it at all possible to share files that are on an XP machine with Ubuntu? I wasn't sure if the different file systems made that impossible or just really difficult.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302270 - 18/09/2007 19:40
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Do you mean over the network, via an external hard drive, via an internal hard drive (for a computer with both OSes installed), or via a flash drive?
All are possible, but all require different solutions. (Well, not so much for external/internal hard drive.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302271 - 18/09/2007 20:02
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3583
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Sure. Just use smbmount
Example usage:
smbmount -o username=<valid NT Login>,password=<Valid NT Account Passwd> //windowsservername/sharename /mnt/share
you can probably leave out the username and password stuff if you have the guest user enabled.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302272 - 18/09/2007 21:11
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: BartDG]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14486
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
Just a little thread hijack, sorry.
I also want to give Linux a try, but I'm still in doubt whether I should try OpenSuse or (k)Ubuntu. On the one hand I'm leaning towards ubuntu, because it's currently so popular, hence more supported?
On the other hand I want to try out Suse because I've already bought a few books on Suse (last year, before Ubuntu became the next best thing), and this way I could still use those books. There's a 32 and a 64 bit version of Suse available for download. Would somebody recommend the 64 bit version? Or does that bring an equal amount of extra difficulties with it (drivers etc), like this is the case with Windows, and so is not recommended for a normal user?
Thanks all!
(and sorry for the hijack Dignan!)
32-bit Ubuntu. That's what you should try.
The 64-bit version will have trouble with third-party binary apps
and some browser plugins, all of which are generally okay only on 32-bit.
-ml
Edited by mlord (18/09/2007 21:13)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302273 - 18/09/2007 22:34
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12320
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Quote:
Do you mean over the network, via an external hard drive, via an internal hard drive (for a computer with both OSes installed), or via a flash drive?
Oops! Sorry, I meant a networked drive, though I may occasionally need to attach an external drive formatted with NTFS.
*edit*
I have successfully installed my 9600 Pro in the Linux box, and I'm proud of myself, having successfully installed the unofficial ATI Linux driver.
*edit*
Don't worry about the hijack, Archeon! It was an interesting question!
Edited by Dignan (19/09/2007 05:53)
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302274 - 19/09/2007 07:21
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/05/2001
Posts: 2616
Loc: Bruges, Belgium
|
Thanks Bitt and Tom for your answers. Quote:
32-bit Ubuntu. That's what you should try.
The 64-bit version will have trouble with third-party binary apps
and some browser plugins, all of which are generally okay only on 32-bit.
-ml
Thanks Mark, that's what I expected. I'll pass on 64 bit for the moment, until I really need more internal RAM than 4 GB. This will probably be a while yet, and when that day comes, I'm sure the change to 64 bit will be completely seamless...
_________________________
Riocar 80gig S/N : 010101580 red
Riocar 80gig (010102106) - backup
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302275 - 19/09/2007 07:28
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/05/2001
Posts: 2616
Loc: Bruges, Belgium
|
Quote:
Along those lines, it looks like the card I'm going to pick up at my local store is going to be a Radeon X1300. Can anyone tell me if that's better or worse than a 9600 Pro? ATI's naming convention always puzzles me.
If I'm not mistaken, the X1300 is the more recent generation card. The 'X' in the naming stands for '10', so the name of the card is actually 10-1300, making it more clear to see that it's more recent than the 9600. I agree the naming is terrible though.
But you have also take into account that the X1300 is an entry level model card, while the 9600 is a midrange level card. The X1300 is probably still a bit faster though, since it's a card from a more recent generation video card chipset. Just don't expect miracles from it.
_________________________
Riocar 80gig S/N : 010101580 red
Riocar 80gig (010102106) - backup
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302276 - 19/09/2007 09:14
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: BartDG]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12320
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to. I made the right choice, though. And no miracles here, but I was able to launch Overlord, which I was previously playing at 640x480, and this time I could bump it up all the way to 1024x768! Wow!  I gave up on the Beryl packages because it looks like that's old news. I'm now working to get Compiz installed (they combined with Beryl) using these very good instructions.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302277 - 19/09/2007 11:46
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
32-bit Ubuntu. That's what you should try.
The 64-bit version will have trouble with third-party binary apps
and some browser plugins, all of which are generally okay only on 32-bit.
Based on what? x86-64 Linux runs x86-32 just fine, and the vast majority of applications are 32-bit applications. I'm sure that you can get a 64-bit Firefox, which would have trouble with binary extensions, but why would you?
I can tell you that I'm running proprietary, closed-source, binary-distribution, 32-bit apps on 64-bit Linux all the time with no problems.
Of course, that begs the question of why you would bother with the 64-bit Linux at all, which is a valid question. The only thing it gains you is the transparent ability to have individual applications use more than 4GB of memory (including swap space) at once, which is probably not going to be a concern for you. But you did ask about video editing, which is probably one of the consumer applications where this would be relevant.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#302278 - 19/09/2007 17:22
Re: Ubuntu installation problem
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12320
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Okay, I'm looking for some suggestions.
Currently, I have two computers and a Dell 30" monitor. Unfortunately, the monitor only has one input (I really wish they'd put at least one more in there). Up until now, I've been moving the cable between the computers, but this is getting really old really fast.
Without thinking it through, I ordered an inexpensive HDMI switch from Monoprice, along with three DVI-HDMI cables. This would have worked great, but the switch can only handle resolutions up to 1080p.
Does anyone have any creative ideas for how I could control both machines without having to a) keep moving that cable back and forth, or b) spending hundreds of dollars on a 2560x1600-capable switch?
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index