Replace Windows 7 with Ubuntu

[Impavidus]

I figured windows programs wouldn't work within Linux my main concern was if any programs that intergrate with the C drive for using Libs etc would affect any of the runnings of Linux, what with them being installed on the same disk.

Even with Ubuntu and Windows on the same disk, they won't be on the same partition. Windows uses confusing terminology when talking about disks and partitions, but C is a partition, not a disk, so Ubuntu won't be on C. It can share a disk with C though.

You mentioned Skype in your first post. It seems it's quite functional in Linux (don't use it myself anymore), but I don't think it's already functional, but still functional. With Microsoft in control of Skype they can drop support on a non-Windows OS whenever they want.

[JKyleOKC]

Against advice though, I won't be shelling out the defrag program, as good a job I'm sure it does, I just can't justify spending that much money for a person computer that I'm probably not even going to use more than 2 - 3 times. If I was dealing with multiple machines, then fair enough But thanks for the suggestion any ways!

Auslogics does have a free version, and I've used it successfully. Google for Auslogics to find their site. The main reason I went for the Pro version was that it can defrag the free space, bringing it all together at the end of the drive; I got used to that back in the days of Win98, but most NTFS defrag programs don't try to merge the free space into bigger chunks, so you may wind up with a bigger Windows partition than you need and consequently a smaller one for Ubuntu.

I've never yet seen a version release appear on time. Seems like there's always some last-moment tweaking required. The last LTS didn't appear until the last day of April, and even then it had a couple of bugs that required immediate updating.

Since you plan to do a full reformat and reinstall, I'd go ahead while you have free time, and install 12.04.4 to start getting used to it on this machine. When 14.04 does appear, you can do a "clean install" of it without having to reformat the Windows partition -- there's lots of instructions for doing this, here in the forums. Basically, you choose "Something else" on the installer dialogs when it comes time to format, and then specify just the partitions you want to format.

Hope this helps!

[monkeybrain20122]

If you have a spare external drive install ubuntu there and try it out, experiment with it and it can be used like an internal install. I don't get this 'ubuntu 14.04 is around the corner so just wait' thing. Speaking from experience I would never install a new Ubuntu release the day it comes out, wait for about 2 months to get all the post release bug fixes. So realistically you are looking for june if you want 14.04. Meanwhile 13.10 is supported til mid or late July so there is 5 months, it is plenty of time.

[fluctuatinganomaly]

Even with Ubuntu and Windows on the same disk, they won't be on the same partition. Windows uses confusing terminology when talking about disks and partitions, but C is a partition, not a disk, so Ubuntu won't be on C. It can share a disk with C though.

Honestly, I didn't think of it that way at all :/ thats rather special of me

You mentioned Skype in your first post. It seems it's quite functional in Linux (don't use it myself anymore), but I don't think it's already functional, but still functional. With Microsoft in control of Skype they can drop support on a non-Windows OS whenever they want.

As I said, I've got 12.04 on my laptop and its alright, but last time I used skype, I'm sure I read that group video calling isn't supported on Linux? As for it being windows, I get what you mean about dropping support

Since you plan to do a full reformat and reinstall, I'd go ahead while you have free time, and install 12.04.4 to start getting used to it on this machine. When 14.04 does appear, you can do a "clean install" of it without having to reformat the Windows partition -- there's lots of instructions for doing this, here in the forums. Basically, you choose "Something else" on the installer dialogs when it comes time to format, and then specify just the partitions you want to format.

Speaking from experience I would never install a new Ubuntu release the day it comes out, wait for about 2 months to get all the post release bug fixes. So realistically you are looking for june if you want 14.04. Meanwhile 13.10 is supported til mid or late July so there is 5 months, it is plenty of time.

Well, now we have contradictions whats the big different between 12.04.4 and 13.10 ? Surely, if I'm more than anything just waiting around for the new release it wouldn't particularly matter which version I isntall now, as I'll only have it for how ever long it takes for me to up date? I'm assuming (which is likely going to make an ass out of me) that 12.04.4 has better support, what with it being around longer, where as 13.10 has better and newer features, that are less supported due to not being around as long?

~Matt

[JKyleOKC]

Well, now we have contradictions whats the big different between 12.04.4 and 13.10 ? Surely, if I'm more than anything just waiting around for the new release it wouldn't particularly matter which version I isntall now, as I'll only have it for how ever long it takes for me to up date? I'm assuming (which is likely going to make an ass out of me) that 12.04.4 has better support, what with it being around longer, where as 13.10 has better and newer features, that are less supported due to not being around as long?

~Matt

Your assumption is quite correct, as far as it goes.

The *buntu policy (as I understand it; I'm just another user but have been so for seven years now) is to issue a new version twice each year, once in April and once in October. The version numbers "04" and "10" are taken from the month, with the first part taken from the year. Thus 12.04 came out originally in April of 2012 while 13.10 is from October of 2013.

Because of the rather frequent release of new versions, certain releases are termed as "Long Term Support" or "LTS" and so far, at least, those have been the April release in even-numbered years. Thus 12.04 is the current LTS version. Oher versions go to End Of Life (no more support; they don't actually quit working but don't get kept up to date any more) much more rapidly; LTS versions originally were supported for three years and now that has been increased to five for most of them (the "server" versions have always been five).

Non-LTS versions are where new ideas get tried out; in many respects they seem to be "beta test" versions of those ideas. The LTS versions seem to be more mature, in many ways, and because of their longer lives, seem to be better understood by those of us who take their computing quite seriously whether it's our livelihood or "just" a hobby (in my case, it's both, and that's probably true for many of the regular posters here). However, the accessory programs don't get kept up to date; for instance, I use "AbiWord" as my word processor (Xubuntu uses it instead of Libre Office) and the version included in 12.04 has an annoying cosmetic problem involving the vertical scroll bar. That was fixed for 12.10, but 12.04 continues to use the older unrepaired version and only updates it to fix security problems; cosmetic changes don't get distributed.

In both the "normal" and "LTS" releases, time pressure to keep to the announced schedules seems always to result in (1) being a few days late and (2) letting a few bugs slip through undetected. That's why it's best to wait a month or two for those bugs to be found and fixed.

While I started using Xubuntu at version 7.04, which was one of the short-lived "beta" releases, I quickly moved to 8.04 when it appeared and have run only LTS versions ever since. As monkeybrain said, I wait a few months to do the updating when a new one appears; I ran 10.04 for more than a year before moving to 12.04, since there were quite a few changes involved. I'll probably go to 14.04 sometime this summer, but 12.04 will be supported for three more years so there's no rush.

As for the differences, they're "not much" for Xubuntu but quite a bit more for the main-line Ubuntu. I run quite a few "virtual machines" and try out new releases in such an environment; for Xubuntu, the main difference is a bit of tweaking in the appearance of the desktop. I've not tried Ubuntu itself in either version lately; its "Unity" features are not compatible with my working habits and my aging eyes, while Xubuntu fits my experience and preferences like an old well-worn-in glove.

Either version should do well for your initial installation, since you plan to replace it with the newest LTS once that stabilizes!

[fluctuatinganomaly]

I seem to have run into a slight issue :/

I know this is a Ubuntu forum, but I hope I can get a little help. I've reinstalled windows 7 and I've run the auslogics defragger a good few times. Now, it appears I have alot of unmoveablefiles, which I'm led to believe are things that the system is currently using, and hence forth, cannot do anything with. I figured an offline defrag would solve this issue, but a portion of the unmoveable files are in the middle of some free space (I can post a picture if thsi is required to give you a better idea of what I'm on about)

any ways, after the offline defrag didn't work, I figured I'd boot into safe mode and run the defrag there, hopefuly, being in safe mode would free up alot of the system resources seeing as alot of things don't get loaded. Problem is, it gets to the login screen for safe mode, hangs a second or two (bout long enough for me to put half my password in) then it restarts....

I dont get why, it doesnt happen in normal boot mode, and it doesn't sound like power is lost in the system, it just happens... like some one pressed a soft reset button or something?

Any one have any idea why this is happening? or anything about my bunch of unmoveable files? (theres alot)

~Matt

[mastablasta]

that's the problem of using non genuine windows. no propper pathces & updates.
try running the default windows defrager - i am not sure how you are defragging but it could be that defragmenting program itself is using that space. otherwise maybe there is some recovery cd or similar that can defragment while booted from CD. that should also free disk so that files can be moved elsewhere.

they could also be files in your bin etc. from wikipedia.
Limitations
In Windows 2000 and later operating systems, Disk Defragmenter has the following limitations:

• It does not defragment files residing in the Recycle Bin or files that are in use.[14] In particular, this includes the registry, page file and hibernation file.
• Prior to the Windows Vista release, only one volume could be analyzed or defragmented at a time and only one instance could run.[15]
• Only local volumes can be defragmented, network volumes are not supported.[15]
• The GUI version prior to Windows Vista cannot be scheduled, however the command line utility since Windows XP and later can be scheduled.[citation needed]
• Unlike previous versions, the GUI version in Windows Vista does not display a map of disk fragmentation, nor does it display progress during defragmentation

[JKyleOKC]

I've reinstalled windows 7 and I've run the auslogics defragger a good few times. Now, it appears I have alot of unmoveablefiles, which I'm led to believe are things that the system is currently using, and hence forth, cannot do anything with. I figured an offline defrag would solve this issue, but a portion of the unmoveable files are in the middle of some free space.

(snipped)

Any one have any idea why this is happening? or anything about my bunch of unmoveable files? (theres alot)

~Matt

I don't run Win7 so cannot help with the reboot in safe mode, but do use Auslogics Pro on my XP VMs and can shed some light on the unmoveable files. I get that same situation on most of the VMs and, like you, have found that the offline defrag handles some of them but not all. I've never found that these files were "in use" when the defragger ran.

In Auslogics, if you put the mouse pointer on a single square of one of those "unmoveable" clusters and don't move it, after a short time a popup message box will appear and tell you what that square/cluster contains. In almost every case I've examined, what's there is the MFT (Master File Table) which is to NTFS approximately the same as inodes are in Linux file systems, and, like the inodes table, cannot be modified except by reformatting the drive -- which would lose all stored information.

Apparently, unlike Linux's inodes table, the MFT can -- and does -- get expanded automagically if need be during operation. When that happens, it becomes fragmented, and since it's the cornerstone of all file access in the system, it cannot be moved while the system is in use, which means any time that the drive is spinning.

My conclusion from this is that fragmentation of the MFT cannot be reduced; we simply have to accept those blocks that force other files to fragment a bit. The offline defrag DOES handle all of the "unmoveable" files that can be fixed, but the rest are simply the price we must pay for using the system. I'm not at all sure that I prefer the total failure that happens when we run out of inodes; at least NTFS does continue to work until the disk is completely full, and what little fragmentation remains doesn't seem to pose any real performance problems.

[fluctuatinganomaly]

The program its self has settings to empty the recyling bin, temporary files etc as well as registry and other settings. I have Just performed another format and reinstall, and have come to the conclusion that the safe mode issue was because I was using a trial version of windows 7 (perhaps, its the only conclusion I can come to) any ways, I have used a different disk this time, and safe mode seems to work fine.

As for the unmoveable files, I have no clue what they are, I moused over them and they are just unmoveable!?

Since the reinstall (for the second time) I have run: Analyze, simple defrag and optimise space - 3 times over in that order.
Then I scheduled and ran an offline defrag, after reboot I ran the space optimise again and now, I will post results

ClusterMap.jpg

(hope I've done that right)

Any ways, as you can see from the image, I have alot of free space, then more non-fragmented space as well as unmoveable files (the grey) the grey-ish blue in the top right corner are the MFT clusters....

I understand that it can increase and decrease as needed, but find it hard to believe it would affect that many clusters?

~Matt

[JKyleOKC]

I moused over them and they are just unmoveable!

Try a left-click on one of the unmoveable clusters. I don't have any of the VMs here running at the moment to verify the action needed, but there's definitely a mouse action that will tell you what's in the cluster -- and when you get that little pop-up displayed, you can try one of the detail options in the bottom third of the screen to get a more detailed listing of what is inside.

I agree that you have almost as much space tagged "unmoveable" as is occupied by actual defragged files, and that doesn't seem right. It's possible that these clusters could be other system files besides the MFT -- but in my own experience, once the MFT fragments, it stays that way permanently, and once it grows, it never again shrinks.

The defragged files way out in the free space area always trouble me, too; when I want free space defragged, I want ALL allocated file space (except that which cannot be moved) to be located ahead of the very first sector of free space. Unfortunately I've never found an NTFS tool that's capable of making that happen, although it ought to be reasonably simple for an experienced hardware-level developer.

I HAVE found, however, that the "optimize" option does a better job than does the "simple defrag" so you might give that a try. Getting rid of system services that you don't need might also reduce the number of unmoveable blocks.

Be that as it may, we're getting dangerously far from *buntu support here and I don't really want a moderator to close the thread!