I've been away from Linux for quite some time. I have just set up a PC for my wife who is bedridden but Windows would not allow me to adjust the size of certain objects, icons being the most annoying, so I thought, (now that's a dangerous concept) "Linux will fix this, I'll install Linux". Being the considerate husband that I am I decided to set it up on my media server first. Broke out my AMD64bit Karmic Koala cd and installed it like a dream, from there it has all been downhill! That version is too old to access the repositories, ok, I'll download the latest and greatest. TWO DAYS later I've finally managed to, at least get some semblance of an installer running, I'd have thought that by now support for nVidia chipsets would be endemic. After numerous "black screens" and so forth, I am currently in the process of finally partitioning a drive, (I hope, I seem to be waiting a long time for nothing to happen). It took me nearly 48 hours to get a fully working system using Windows 7 (including all updates and other software) on this same computer. If later versions of Ubuntu, and, I suspect, other perversions, are so "user unfriendly" I cannot see them becoming a viable alternative to the bits of fruit (Apple) and Windows. I'd have thought that by now, Linux would be a fairly mature OS with minimal issues to the novice. Heck, even Windows has managed to "get it right" (well sort of) ever since the days of DOS (remember those) some of the time.
Now to some questions.
If I manage to download and install a Live CD/USB and, get it working with no black screen issues etc, do I still need separate variants for Intel and AMD processors?
Why is it that the installer only shows the absolute drive name (sda, sdb, etc) but does not seem to show the volume name which would make it much easier installing on a system with multiple drives?
Bookmarks