| Ultimate Edition 2.4 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 12 2009, 09:11 AM (803 Views) | |
| Gina | Nov 16 2009, 10:53 PM Post #41 |
|
I agree - it says it will install the boot loader into a partition but it won't. However, the good news is that (on my P4) installing to the MBR works and also finds all the other OSs including other Ubuntus and Windows XP. AND THEY WORK!! After running 9.10 I ran XP - perfect - then older versions of Ubuntu - 9.04, 8.10, 8.04.1 and Xubuntu (forget which version) and they too booted and ran fine.I tried installing on my laptop but there is something wrong which I'll sort out later. It wouldn't get past the CD menu except for memtest - that worked fine. It wouldn't run the CD Check or load Ubuntu - either from CD drive or USB stick. Now I'm off to bed Good night
|
![]() |
|
| Gina | Nov 17 2009, 01:36 PM Post #42 |
|
Ubuntu 9.10 32 bit now installed on my AMD64 using Alternate CD image and installing grub into MBR - and working Oh and without a separate /home as yet. Next to check booting of other OSs.
|
![]() |
|
| Phaedrus | Nov 17 2009, 02:29 PM Post #43 |
|
I would guess most people will choose the default and grub will be installed in the mbr and should work. It looks like the failure is only occuring when you have a non-standard setup, or want to install grub in a location other than root. |
![]() |
|
| Gina | Nov 17 2009, 04:24 PM Post #44 |
|
Yes. It was because some people said grub2 wouldn't boot older OS versions that I didn't initially let it install into MBR, figuring that I'd stick with grub legacy as my main boot loader - chainloading to the grub2 versions. But this is simply not necessary unless there's a 2nd level grub menu - allowing independent kernel updates for several systems. I've yet to sort out how to do this with grub2 but from now on I'm expecting to stick with grub2 and Ubuntu versions 9.10 and onwards - unless I find something particularly bad with 9.10. I will learning about grub2 and finding out how to configure it to my liking in the coming days, weeks, months... And I will be producing a beginners guide in due course I intend staying at the front of development ![]() Actually, I had a problem getting the Ubuntu 9.10 Desktop CD to install grub2 at all, even to MBR. That's why I'm using the Alternate CD image. Edited by Gina, Nov 17 2009, 04:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Phaedrus | Nov 17 2009, 06:02 PM Post #45 |
|
I wonder why Ubuntu chose grub over Lilo? |
![]() |
|
| Gina | Nov 17 2009, 08:02 PM Post #46 |
|
No idea. There may be some info somewhere - I seem to remember reading something some time back. I remember using Lilo many years ago when I was trying Red Hat (I think it was). I've tried various distros over the years. Red Hat, Open Susie, Knoppix, and several others I can't remember ATM. I have a feeling you can install Lilo in Ubuntu and use that if you want. Don't know what the differences are - can't remember much about Lilo now. |
![]() |
|
| Phaedrus | Nov 17 2009, 08:38 PM Post #47 |
|
I did a bit more techy reading on the pros and cons of grub vs lilo. Not the most enthralling stuff i have to say ![]() Grub is better btw. |
![]() |
|
| Gina | Nov 17 2009, 09:38 PM Post #48 |
|
Thanks I have some reading to do on grub2
|
![]() |
|
| Gina | Nov 18 2009, 07:53 PM Post #49 |
|
I'm now running UE 2.4 on my AMD64 machine. It evidently installed alright except for grub2. Installing other versions of Ubuntu 9.10 has fixed this and I now have a grub2 boot menu with all my systems listed and bootable, including this one. I've even got the developmental Lucid Lynx 64 bit installed and working ![]() Next thing I want to do is set up my own personalised boot menu in grub2. The default doesn't show the difference between a vanilla 9.10 and UE 2.4. Likewise with 9.04 and UE 2.3. I would also like the correct OS to boot by default - I don't want it booting Lucid by default. |
![]() |
|
| Phaedrus | Nov 19 2009, 09:50 AM Post #50 |
|
Manually editing Grub2 is more involved than Grub but can be done. I think Startup-Manager will probably do what you need though. (System>Admin>Startup-Manager) Its pre installed in UE. (Dunno about Karmic?) I just used it to mess about with Grub.(original) Haven`t tried it with Grub2 yet though. |
![]() |
|
| Gina | Nov 19 2009, 10:20 AM Post #51 |
|
There are still problems with StartUp Manager and grub2 ![]() Startup Manager bugs ??? While this is a thread in Lucid dev forum, it applies to Karmic aka 9.10.
Edited by Gina, Nov 19 2009, 10:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Gina | Nov 19 2009, 10:26 AM Post #52 |
|
Grub2 wiki |
![]() |
|
| Phaedrus | Nov 19 2009, 10:27 AM Post #53 |
|
just had a look at Startup Manager on the grub2 pc and the options are limited compared to grub. Basically you can only change the default OS an the appearance with grub2 |
![]() |
|
| Phaedrus | Nov 19 2009, 10:29 AM Post #54 |
|
I guess either Startup Manager will be updated to allow more options for Grub2 or else a Grub2Edit will be made. |
![]() |
|
| Phaedrus | Nov 19 2009, 10:34 AM Post #55 |
|
Here`s a good site for Grub2 info: http://members.iinet.net/~herman546/p20.html |
![]() |
|
| Gina | Nov 19 2009, 06:18 PM Post #56 |
|
ah yes Herman and I have a "mutual appreciation society" Though IMO Herman is more expert
|
![]() |
|
| Gina | Dec 3 2009, 11:44 AM Post #57 |
|
I've got Lucid installed on my AMD64 and working fine. Not sure what to do about UE 2.4. 2.3 seems more reliable. I've decided to do Lucid testing on the AMD64, since theings seem to work - including booting. Apart from going into command line but I'm looking into that. Another UF member has the same problem though his times out a lot quicker. As long as I don't have to restart too often I can live with it. |
![]() |
|
| Phaedrus | Dec 3 2009, 12:07 PM Post #58 |
|
Lucid should be good. The LTS`s are usually good with all the planned features implemented and working. |
![]() |
|
| Phaedrus | Dec 3 2009, 12:16 PM Post #59 |
|
Back on the subject of UE. I found 2.3 to be good and run that on the Lappy. I still don`t like some default UE theme ideas. If you take the default theme and open up OO Word Processor you start with a black page? Also some of the menus (in general) are very unclear with the default theme. It is good to have all those apps installed and configured like you get with UE, but I`m thinking of going back to a standard Ubuntu for Lucid, and installing and setting up just what I need. |
![]() |
|
| Gina | Dec 3 2009, 01:55 PM Post #60 |
|
Yes, I'm just using standard Ubuntu Lucid and I don't think I'll bother with UE 2.4. It's interesting to see all those apps but I don't actually use them! I think the Karmic theme is nicer than the UE 2.4 and I agree, there are a lot of not-so-nice and confusing things about UE 2.4. I'll leave the UE 2.3 system on for now. Looking at my boot menu (Lucid found everything) I need to do some tidying up. And I want to do some menu configuration too. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Computer Chat · Next Topic » |






And I will be producing a beginners guide in due course 
12:20 AM Jul 11