• 0

Please recomend a Partition setup for me


Question

Hi, I am going to do a fresh install of Windows7 and am wanting to install a few Linux Os`s as well. Im OK with setting up Partitions for Windows and 1 Linux distro. Im just a bit confused on what the correct setup should be for the following:

Windows7 (Installed First)

Fedora (Second Install)

Ububntu (Third Install)

openSUSE (4th install)

Can the Linux OS`s share partitions; eg Home, Swap etc.. or do they need there own partitions?

What should be Primary and what should be Logical?

Can anyone show me how I should partition my HDDs so the above OS`s install properly?

MANY THANKS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Install Windows first, then install whichever Linux distro you want next - GRUB should automatically add Windows to the boot list and during Linux setup ask you if you want to install the OS's side by side, it will partition everything for you

Each time you install another Linux distro the same should happen, eventually giving you 4 partitions with the choice to boot either one via GRUB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Yes, but each distro wants a /home /swap partition. can each distro share these partitions? If not what do I do?

Sorry, forgot to say, if I install Windows first,then say ubuntu, if I let ubuntu auto partition for me, it will not leave space for the other distros. Thats why Im thinking I will have to manualy partition, i need enough partitions for each OS. Im thinkiing I will need to have a partition diagram writen down and then use say partition magic to partition BEFORE I install each distro. I hope this makes sence.

MANY THANKS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

You know you could save yourself a lot of issues with just running virtual for the OSes that are not your main use one.

Also all linux distros can jut use a single part, you dont really have to have /home on its own part. As to swap again you don't really need to have that, but as to sharing them between a multiple boot, never tried it. Multiple boots is so 20th century.

Just run your play OSes as Virtual, why would you possible need to actually have to hardware boot to 3 different flavors of linux? :rolleyes:

If you really want to do it this way, you can not create more than 4 primary partitions, so you have to create extended partitions and the logical inside of those to for your other OSes

I would create 1 primary part, and then just 1 big extended for the rest of your disk, then you can create as many logical inside there for all of your OSes, so if you want you could have different for all the /home and /swap if you really really want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The last time I used VMware / Vbox was a good couple of years ago. They where horrible. I know tech moves at a fast pase and Vbox / VMware will have had a mayor overhall since 2008/2009. The last time I checked, the GPU support was non existant, has this been updated to support the latest hardware?; as in, will virtual run the desktops (Gnome 2&3 and KDE) as if they where native? To tell the truth, running virtual is a very good idea, if the hardware support is up to standard. I may give it a go, what are the downsides to running virtual compared to native? Like I said, the gfx support was a major issue for me, not to mention the speed. My hardare (Laptop-Desktop) should be able to cope with whatever I throw at it. Its the software support im worried about. Its gave me something to think about tho, virtual does seem like the next logical step up from multi boot.

MANY THANKS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Well since Vbox is FREE, and pretty much a no brainer to get running in like 5 minutes I would give it a go. Now they do have support for 3d and 2d acceleration.. But your prob best off on their forums for discussion of best graphic performances, etc.

I normally do not run linux boxes with desktops, be it hardware or just a vm - Im more of a console guy when it comes to why I use linux ;) But the few I have played with worked for my needs to be sure. Now if you trying to play some Game and you want 127 FPS I don't think that is going to happen..

But if what your wanting to do is play with the OS, even the GUI then I would think it should work out fine - and I am sure there are a few tweaks and setup preferences to make the graphics perform as best they can, etc. Best to check the the forums on the specific virtual software you are wanting to play with.

But I assure you they have made HUGE strides in performance!! I run multiple vm copies of windows 7 and xp on my workstation quite often at the same time and running a liveCD of Mint virtual, etc. and they are quite responsive, but then again Im not playing any sort of Graphics game or anything on them if that is what your after then no your prob not going to see the same kind of performance you would with native hardware access.. But again give it a go, worse case you learn a few things of how the current software works and then if you not happy with it then we can help you get your multiple boot setup. I use to multiboot many many OSes back in the day windows 9x, 2k couple linux disrtos, at one time I think I had freebsd, openbsd and netbsd all on same box - and I even think beos ;)

But I have not seen a need to even dual boot in years and years - virtual is the way to do it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Cheers, I dont play any games on any of my PCs/Laptops/Tablets; thats what the Xbox-PS3 was made for ;p Im going to take your advice and do a fresh install of Win7 and once i have it setup, give VM a go. Just one last question, are all the VM softwares preaty much the same? I know Vbox is free and VMware is far too much to buy :hmmm: but performance wise, do they all do the same job as well as each other?

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me btw. Apreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Budman continues to be the man >.<

He is indeed correct. I have always preferred VMWare. Given I have licenses through work I have never really tried much else..

I just thought I'd re-affirm Budmans statements :)

(You should +1 him tbh :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

There is vmware player that is FREE, and there is Vmware server, also free and ESXi again that is FREE. Workstation is not though - and their new name is vsphere with is the pro version of ESXi

You can try vmware server if you want to run it on top of a OS. ESXi is baremetal type hypervisor, which you then run all guests.

I use to run vmware server on my home server, but move to virtualbox -- biggest holdback I had moving was headless running of machines that was a piece of cake with vmware server but a bit of a pita with vbox. But got it worked out and now run my linux box that I need 24/7/365 running on vbox on a 2k8 box that is my file/utorrent/whatever/server that I play with, etc.

But sure try vmware player - it might also work for you? I have tried player and like vbox better, when I get around to retiring my current workstation box and making it my server box I will prob put ESXi on it and run my stuff that way, but the current server box is too old to run ESXi (its only 32bit) I tried getting the older version of ESXi that will run on 32bit working, but had some issues with trying to get it to work with PATA disk which at the time was only play disk I had, etc.

Have fun, I think you will really like vbox and with 4.1 its much easier to clone stuff. And nice feature of running virtual you can just take a snapshop before you do anything and if don't like just roll back ;) Or just clone off a new copy to do your testing with, etc.. There are SO many reason to just run everything as a virtual you could write a book ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.