Installing Ubuntu From A Windows System With Wubi

a virtual machine seems _a lot_ easier and _a lot_ more safe.

I've heard of such installers before, but I'm a little bit curious as to how it works. For example, how does GRUB boot the kernel from an NTFS-based filesystem? I was always under the assumption that GRUB was incapable of reading from NTFS partitions.

I'm also wondering about the kernel itself. Did the developers of Wubi compile the ntfs-3g driver into the kernel image? And did they hardcode in the 'system_virtual_disk' kernel parameter? I haven't been able to find any other reference to this parameter on the web.

Anyway, I think the biggest problem with the project at this point is that the ntfs-3g driver which they use is far from perfect, so the lack of stability and speed will likely discourage anyone serious about Linux from using Wubi. Although I'm sure many Windows users would love the outward simplicity of this program.

>a virtual machine seems _a lot_ easier and _a lot_ more safe.

I don't think it's a virtual machine because if it was, you'd be able to run it along side windows. That looks pretty cool, I think i might try it.

Yeah I know its not a virtual machine.

then how would a virtual machine be more safe? what does that even matter? this is an installation method. So instead of dual booting we should just run vmware?

Instead of using wubi you should just partition your harddrive or use vmware.

Wubi is an Ubuntu installer for Windows that lets you install and uninstall Ubuntu from a Windows desktop. Wubi adds an entry to the Windows boot menu which allows you to run Linux. Ubuntu is installed within a file in the Windows file system (a loopmounted partition), this file is seen by Ubuntu as a real hard disk.

it would be slow and people will probably end up crapping up thier MBR with it

I think the biggest problem with the project at this point is that the ntfs-3g driver which they use is far from perfect, so the lack of stability and speed will likely discourage anyone serious about Linux from using Wubi. Although I'm sure many Windows users would love the outward simplicity of this program.

NTFS3g can screw up your NTFS filesystem if it is badly fragmented or has errors. the same goes for resizing NTFS partitions for dual boot.

Always scandisk + defrag then reboot before installing Linux

Wubi is an Ubuntu installer for Windows

The same thing has existed for debian for ages

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Debian-Ubuntu-Windows-Installer-45804.shtml

Is this what you are talking about?

...

> Instead of using wubi you should just partition your harddrive or use vmware.

I know how to make a VM, but how is it safer?

With vmware thereisn't the possibility that you delete all your data or screw up your windows install.

yeah, but it's slow as heck and most people dont even know what vmware is, or how to make vm's.

vmware is not slow, it just can't handle 3d graphics (normal applications work just fine) If a person doesn't know how to make a vm why would he be using wubi?

vmware is not slow, it just can't handle 3d graphics (normal applications work just fine) If a person doesn't know how to make a vm why would he be using wubi?

I use Virtual PC to run my LAMP server and it works just fine . It seems to be quite fast, the only thing that lets it down is crappy graphics but unless you plan on using XGL or playing games, its good enough.

compared to xen, vmware is slow. Xen can almost run vm's natively, but it's a little complicated to configure.

xen isnt for windows though.

true, but it's still a lot faster than vmware.

Is it true that having one of those new CPUs with hardware virtualisation makes XEN faster?

I would imagine so. have you heard about amd's 3 core cpu? they claim it's for people who aren't ready to use 4 cores, but want more than 2.

I dont think multi-core is that great ATM

my P4HT seems to own my dads Core2 at games

I personaly haven't noticed a big difference in performance when using the pentium D and the core 2 duo, although they both have two cores, just one is newer.

For most games like Battlefield 2, Far Cry etc... my P4 HT beats my dads Core2 (we otherwise have identical PCs) but for encoding video etc... my dads Core2 beats my P4HT

why is that though? P4 has two virtual cpu's while the core 2 duo has two physical cores. Maybe because it has 2 cores, it has difficulty executing programs, thus it can't function to its full potential.

I think the reason the Core2 sucks at games though is that most games dont take advantage of the other core, and end up seeing it as a single CPU with half the cache and half the speed of a P4

For modern games which take advantage of the othe core (FEAR, ArmA) the core2 does beat my P4HT by miles.

The Core2Duo also seems to run much cooler and uses way lower power than my P4

Therefore in conclusion the Core2 is the winner but not for older programs which cant take advantage of its multi-core awesomeness

P.S LOL i managed to overclock my dads Core2 from 2ghz to 3ghz hehe and it used the same amount of power and generated the same amount of heat as my 3.6ghz overclocked P4HT whilst remaining more stable.

so will there be a software update to fix this? maybe?

>P.S LOL i managed to overclock my dads Core2 from 2ghz to 3ghz hehe and it used the same amount of power and generated the same amount of heat as my 3.6ghz overclocked P4HT whilst remaining more stable.

rock on!

Yeah i think the overclockiness is because they keep cool better than the P4 (as the core2 is based on the Pentium M design)

The Core 2 brand refers to a range of Intel's consumer dual-core and quad-core (2x2) 64-bit x86 CPUs based on the Intel Core microarchitecture, which derived from the 32-bit dual-core Yonah laptop processor. (Note: The Yonah comprised two interconnected cores — from the Pentium M branded microprocessor — coupled as a single die silicon chip or IC.) The 2x2 "quad-core" (dual-die dual-core[1]) comprised two separate dual-core dies next to each other in one CPU package. The Core 2 relegated the Pentium brand to a lower-end market, and reunified the laptop and desktop CPU lines separated by the Pentium M and Pentium 4 brands.

Unlike the preceding NetBurst architecture of the Pentium 4 or Pentium D branded CPUs, the Core architecture returned to lower clock speeds, and improved processors' usage of both available clock cycles and power. That translated into more efficient decoding stages, execution units, caches, and buses, etc, reducing the Core 2 CPUs' power consumption, while enhancing their processing capacity. With a Thermal Design Power (TDP) of up to only 65 W, the Core 2 dual-core Conroe consumed only half the power of less capable, but also dual-core Pentium D-branded desktop chips[5] with a TDP of up to 130 W[6] (a high TDP requires additional cooling that can be noisy or expensive).

Thats from wiki.