XBMCbuntu???

[Guest tx2sturgis]

Now Brian don't go getting in a huff. .

 

No huff here, but I was focusing on the end solution, rather than the process.

 

I thought you wanted to end up with a HTPC, and/or media center. I further assumed that with computers, internet, and motorcycles at your disposal, (and the income that these things normally require) that you would be willing and able to spend a few dollars to get to that desired result.

 

I'm not a computer tech, so I just bowed out, to make room for the guys who actually know this stuff and can provide the help you need.

 

Like I said, good luck.

 

 

 

[camos]

I have two motorcycles, one of which is my only transportation while I attempt to keep the Venture from disposal. I used to be a computer nerd until I re-discovered motorcycles. While I'm not much of one anymore, my computer and the Internet are my only entertainment which does cost about $60/mo. After that I do have almost $0.00 left for further entertainment which would include the cost of cable. All of that is somewhat off topic but as it is the reason why I'm attempting to put a Media Center on an old-ish computer without spending any/much money it may not be too far off the topic.

 

Huffy isn't good, glad to hear you are not.

 

 

No huff here, but I was focusing on the end solution, rather than the process.

 

I thought you wanted to end up with a HTPC, and/or media center. I further assumed that with computers, internet, and motorcycles at your disposal, (and the income that these things normally require) that you would be willing and able to spend a few dollars to get to that desired result.

 

I'm not a computer tech, so I just bowed out, to make room for the guys who actually know this stuff and can provide the help you need.

 

Like I said, good luck.

 

 

 

[Guest tx2sturgis]

 

I haven't explored what Ubuntu has to offer lately but a year ago, there were 2 versions ... a "server" version and a "desktop" version .

 

Here is a simulated 'tour' of the modern desktop version of Ubuntu:

 

http://www.ubuntu.com/tour/en/

 

It's very basic and doesnt show how good it can look and work on a modern PC...but its good enough for an online demo.

 

And here's a cutie who likes it:

 

[ame]

[/ame] Edited April 13, 2013 by tx2sturgis

[camos]

What is a "minimal version" of Ubuntu and how does that compare to a "complete Linux package" ???

Yah, can't help you much there since so far all I can get is the flashing cursor. The XBMCbuntu is, I believe a minimal, version of Ubuntu that is enough to run the XBMC Media Center. Essentially the XBMC is the desktop but is designed to use the Microsoft Media Center remote control in place of a mouse and expects to be viewed on a 16x9 TV rather than a monitor.

 

I haven't explored what Ubuntu has to offer lately but a year ago, there were 2 versions ... a "server" version and a "desktop" version (can't recall if that is the correct terminology) but basically, two versions and If you installed the server version, that's all you get... a flashing cursor if I remember correctly. I think on a server version you do everything from a command line (aka "flashing cursor") ... however, I was wrong once before .

The Linux command line, if I recall correctly, is more than just a flashing cursor. Like a DOS command line but with a minimal prompt. There are quite a few cool things that can be done with the DOS prompt to ramp it up. The Linux prompt seems to be only a greater than > although I never really looked into doing any customizing of it. I used to be a DOS person before Windows developed into something useful and never really got into Linux mostly because it is so disorganized. I probably have a corporate soul.

 

I don't think there is much, if any, difference between a server and a desktop version of Linux except the GUI which is not of much use on a server and the clutter of drivers and other stuff that is necessary to run desktop apps.

 

Like you, I've been wrong before.

But only once.

[SilvrT]

Well, just downloaded and installed Ubuntu and here I am.

 

My system is just over 5 yrs old and Ubuntu is installed on an IDE HDD that's roughly 10 yrs old.

 

System : AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+ × 2

RAM : 2Gb

[Guest tx2sturgis]

Well, just downloaded and installed Ubuntu and here I am.

 

My system is just over 5 yrs old and Ubuntu is installed on an IDE HDD that's roughly 10 yrs old.

 

System : AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+ × 2

RAM : 2Gb

 

If its good enuff for Nixie Pixel (yum!), I figure its good enough for us old farts.

 

Let us know what you think, but like any new OS, it may take a bit of a learning curve to get used to it.

 

I think you'll like it. You can adjust the size and layout of the left side launcher, but right clicking on the icons or dragging and dropping will get you started on it.

 

Here are a few apps in the software center to try:

 

• Variety (desktop changer)
  
• Compiz (advanced settings manager)
  
• Shotwell (image manager)
  
• Openshot (video editor)
  
• Pidgin (IM client)
  
• Radio Tray (simple radio tuner)
  
• Google Chrome (browser)
  
• Audacious (audio player)
  
• gPodder (netcast/podcast aggregator)
  
• VLC (video player)
  
• Audacity (audio editor)
  
• Dropbox (file sharing between your devices)
  
• Weather Indicator (like weather bug)
  
  

Edited April 13, 2013 by tx2sturgis

[LilBeaver]

Rick,

 

When you run from a live CD or live USB, it does not use the drivers for your onboard video chip. It uses a "generic" driver that works with most VGA systems. When you then install to HD, Linux will read your actual hardware and then attempt to load a driver for it. If it can't match your hardware, you often will get the flashing cursor. Or, I've seen it load to what most people would call a "DOS command line" screen. Linux is running but cannot load the GUI due to driver confusion.

I seem to have this issue nearly every time I try to install an up to date version of Linux on older hardware....especially some older Dell boxes I have.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Joe

 

 

[...]

Answer for #1:

No. So far I have not tried to access a virtual console. I'm not exactly sure how to go about doing that. The flashing cursor does not allow keyboard input. When booted to the flashing cursor I can not see the MediaCenter computer on my network from my Win7 machine so I can't SSH in from Windows.

 

The "flashing cursor" at this point means that you are either still booting or that the appropriate video drivers are not being loaded so it gets 'stuck' when trying to load the GUI.

 

For what it is worth, if SSH is properly configured you can most likely still SSH into the machine even with this 'flashing cursor' that you describe; but there is a much more direct way to do it -- that is via a virtual console.

To access a virtual console when you are on ANY screen in linux (including the 'flashing cursor screen' that you describe) press "Ctrl" "Alt" "F2" all simultaneously. Depending on the distribution you may need one of the other function keys besides F2. For example on CentOS based systems the GUI is located on F6, F7 or F8 -- except for during the installation process when you have Anaconda on F2, virtual console on F3 and the GUI on F1 [if memory serves me correctly].

If you get a prompt that has something like "username@hostname ~]$" or "hostname>" etc, then you are in and your machine has booted and linux is running fine -- you just need to properly setup your video card.

 

Answer for #2:

XBMCbuntu is XBMC and Ubuntu combined and is a bit different from each package when individually installed. The XBMCbuntu.iso is a live package and an installer combined. There is the choice to either run it off the CD or flash drive or to install it to a HD. I believe XBMC is supposed to act as the desktop in this case.

 

This is where I got the XBMC package.

http://xbmc.org/download/

Click on the XBMC AMD link which will D/L xbmcbuntu-12.00.Intel-AMD.iso.

 

First I spent an hour or so exploring the live package but did not do any testing to see how well it worked with media such as movies or music because it was quite slow running off the CD. Then I installed XBMCbuntu from the CDROM and got the flashing cursor thing. After that I tried running a newer version of XBMCbuntu from a flash drive with the same results as the previous attempt. After that I tried installing a minimal version of Ubuntu without XBMC and still got the flashing cursor on first boot. This could very well point to a video issue as the cause. As you suggested, perhaps I should next try installing a complete Linux package and see if that will load to the desktop.

 

Okay this answers most of my question but as SilvrT asks

 

What is a "minimal version" of Ubuntu and how does that compare to a "complete Linux package" ???

 

I need some clarification as to what you think a 'minimal' or 'complete' linux package is. I think you might be a little confused as to how these distributions are setup. Unless you happen to pick a different distribution that happens to load the proper video card drivers on the install, you are going to repeat the same issues you have been having with the 'flashing cursor'. If you want to do an install of a Linux OS that will most likely work fine without having to do any extra configuration on your machine then I would reccomend going with LinuxMint MATE. Mint typically uses the generic video drivers until after you load the GUI for the first time, at which point it prompts you with a GUI interface to update and properly install your video drivers. This, however, will not solve your Ubuntu/XBMC problem unless you just install the XBMC package on Mint, which will work just fine. There are plenty of media center applications out there in the open source/linux world that will work with a windows media center remote control. Some applications that will allow you to remap the keys of your remote to do whatever you want with them too -- but I digress.

Do not be fooled too much as LinuxMint is Ubuntu based.

 

A 'minimal' installation with respect to the verbage used in this context typically means that the installation is done is such a way that provides the user with just enough of the OS to function. In the case of XBMC, someone decided to setup a basic Ubuntu based system with the XBMC media center application installed and enough other stuff to make it work. That means that they did not use the 'standard' ubuntu desktop (Either GNOME 3, or any of the others you can choose from) and setup XBMC instead.

 

This is why I am a little confused as to the language you keep using of 'minimal' vs 'complete' install as I do not know if you think picking a distribution and installing every package available [ie a complete install] is going to magically fix the video driver problem you are having. You may be correct in that you may get lucky and pick a distribution that happens to have your card drivers in there or a generic one that will work, but if what you want is XBMC to work, then I would say, do not give up quite yet and just get it setup properly or pick a distribution that will do the setup for you and then just install XBMC or some other media center application so you can kick back and enjoy your machine.

 

 

I haven't explored what Ubuntu has to offer lately but a year ago, there were 2 versions ... a "server" version and a "desktop" version (can't recall if that is the correct terminology) but basically, two versions and If you installed the server version, that's all you get... a flashing cursor if I remember correctly. I think on a server version you do everything from a command line (aka "flashing cursor") ... however, I was wrong once before .

 

Rick:

 

In my experience, the only differences between a 'server' version or 'desktop' version are what repositories and packages are installed by default when you go through and do the setup. No more, no less. In fact, if you click on 'custom installation' when you do one of these setups, it does not really matter whether you clicked on 'minimal system', 'cluster', 'basic desktop', 'server', 'everything including fuel injection and a turbo kit' because when you customize the packages that will be installed you can pick whatever the heck you want to put on there.

 

Server or workstation, you can do things from a 'command line' (terminal) or the GUI -- it is really all up to the user. For those that think just because it is a server you do everything from a command line -- well, you CAN do everything from a command line, if you want to. You could do everything form a command line on a workstation too, if you WANTED too. Just like you could drive your car with your feet, if you WANTED to; that does not mean it is the best way or only way to do something.

I am no expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but I do manage a few of my own servers and a cluster, for my work. My experience is limited to CentOS/Scientific Linux, Open SuSe, Ubuntu/Mint and a few varieties based on each of those. I have a windows machine that I use for some work and the rest I do on a few Linux workstations or servers.

 

For what it is worth, I cannot stand Ubuntu 12 or any of the later ones that have gone to the 'ubuntu one' interface or that force you to run GNOME 3... It is a huge resource hog and strays away from the 'simple' system it used to be. However, it IS much more user friendly for folks that are just getting started with the system and it does work; it is just not my first choice.

 

----

Back to the original issue:

 

This could be one of two things:

(1) Video card drivers not being loaded properly for install

(2) Something happening with the bootloader when doing the actual install

 

If you can access the virtual console and hence your system, then it is definitely (1)

If you have NO access to the virtual console then it is most likely (2).

 

If it is (2) try using the application called unetbootin ( http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/ ) to setup your flashdrive for the XBMC system and redo the installation. (Note that you have to click on the 'for windows' to download the software for windows. When you run this program, make sure you select the radio button for .iso and select the ISO from your HDD to make the image, otherwise you will be downloading a new ISO file which is unnecesary)

I know you said you were using 'Rufus' or something like that, I am not familiar with that program and it may do things just fine, but for the sake of trying to diagnose this, please humor me so we can eliminate some of these variables.

I use unetbootin for ALL of my linux box setups and not once has it failed on me. I have had a lot of screwy things happen with various Linux installations, but never was it unetbootin's fault.

 

 

--

Sorry for my delayed response, work has been especially crazy the last couple of days and I have not been able to get on here nearly as frequently as I was hoping to. In fact, my work day on Thursday took me from 7AM to ~6AM Friday morning when I went home, napped for an hour, ate something and went back to the lab for another day just about like that... *party*.

 

I hope this is helpful, I realize this process is frustrating but remember... it would be too easy if it just 'worked' right?

[LilBeaver]

ALSO -- something that may be a little bit confusing is the labels in the filenames for XBMC. Do note that the 'intel' and 'AMD' (or in some cases it may say "intel-amd" or 'intel-nvidia") in the filename refer to the VIDEO chipset NOT your processor. Just because you have an AMD processor does NOT necessarily mean that you will have an AMD video card chipset on board. Make sure that you are using the PROPER iso for your system.

 

[SilvrT]

Rick:

 

In my experience, the only differences between a 'server' version or 'desktop' version are what repositories and packages are installed by default when you go through and do the setup.

 

Yes, I nodis ... from reading.

 

I just installed Ubuntu 12.10 ... really not my cuppa tea. FireFox has screwed up three times already LOL

 

Think I'll try the latest version of Open SuSe as that's what I use at work albeit a much older version.

[LilBeaver]

Yes, I nodis ... from reading.

 

I just installed Ubuntu 12.10 ... really not my cuppa tea. FireFox has screwed up three times already LOL

 

Think I'll try the latest version of Open SuSe as that's what I use at work albeit a much older version.

 

HAHA. Not surprised. Linux Mint [mate] is what Ubuntu USED to be... before they added all the extra mac/winders user interface garbage...

 

Open SuSe has not changed much in the last couple years -- at least from an user perspective so it may be just like you remembered...

[Guest tx2sturgis]

HAHA. Not surprised. Linux Mint [mate] is what Ubuntu USED to be... before they added all the extra mac/winders user interface garbage...

 

Open SuSe has not changed much in the last couple years -- at least from an user perspective so it may be just like you remembered...

 

We can all agree that linux is a good stable operating system under the hood...its just mainly a matter of which distro is appealing to the user in its interface.

 

I really like the Ubuntu interface, especially the HUD or Dashboards 'Home' button....it lets me find what I'm looking for quickly. I remember the old windows days (and macs too!) of scrolling and clicking thru lots of nested menus, trying to remember where a program or menu item is located. Especially the program icon..then the sub-program, then the sub menu under that....clicking and clicking, trying to remember where something was located. Was XYZ program located under accessories? Or Media? Or Internet? Was doc.doc located in this folder? or the other one?

 

Yeah...sick the little search dog on it...and wait... and wait...then 425 results later....oh never mind....I'll go ride the bike!

 

 

At least Macs have the spotlight icon..you can find something pretty quick that way.

 

I also prefer the Ubuntu software center, and the fact that nearly EVERY linux third party app has an Ubuntu version. I also like Mint, but its hard to fault Ubuntu these days if you just want something thats easy to use...at least for me.

 

I am using 12.04, LTS, mainly because of the Long Term Support. It will be supported and updated until sometime in 2017 I beleive...that aint bad for a 'free' OS!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2013 by tx2sturgis

[SilvrT]

here I am again, now in open SuSe.

 

Installation as easy as Ubuntu.

 

KDE desktop ... I'm familiar with that.

 

and FireFox hasn't crashed ... yet!

[SilvrT]

..and now I'm back in Ubuntu LOL

 

Thought I'd give it another go ..

[camos]

ALSO -- something that may be a little bit confusing is the labels in the filenames for XBMC. Do note that the 'intel' and 'AMD' (or in some cases it may say "intel-amd" or 'intel-nvidia") in the filename refer to the VIDEO chipset NOT your processor. Just because you have an AMD processor does NOT necessarily mean that you will have an AMD video card chipset on board. Make sure that you are using the PROPER iso for your system.

 

I'll check that one out. Thanks for the heads-up.

[camos]

 

The "flashing cursor" at this point means that you are either still booting or that the appropriate video drivers are not being loaded so it gets 'stuck' when trying to load the GUI.

 

For what it is worth, if SSH is properly configured you can most likely still SSH into the machine even with this 'flashing cursor' that you describe; but there is a much more direct way to do it -- that is via a virtual console.

SSH in from where? When at the flashing cursor the MediaCenter PC can not be seen on the network so I cannot do it from my workstation.

To access a virtual console when you are on ANY screen in linux (including the 'flashing cursor screen' that you describe) press "Ctrl" "Alt" "F2" all simultaneously. Depending on the distribution you may need one of the other function keys besides F2. For example on CentOS based systems the GUI is located on F6, F7 or F8 -- except for during the installation process when you have Anaconda on F2, virtual console on F3 and the GUI on F1 [if memory serves me correctly].

If you get a prompt that has something like "username@hostname ~]$" or "hostname>" etc, then you are in and your machine has booted and linux is running fine -- you just need to properly setup your video card.

It definitely does not get that far.

 

I need some clarification as to what you think a 'minimal' or 'complete' linux package is. I think you might be a little confused as to how these distributions are setup.

There are an endless number of chances for me to be confused but I don't think this is one of them. Read this page which is where I got the "minimal" terminology from.

 

Unless you happen to pick a different distribution that happens to load the proper video card drivers on the install, you are going to repeat the same issues you have been having with the 'flashing cursor'. If you want to do an install of a Linux OS that will most likely work fine without having to do any extra configuration on your machine then I would reccomend going with LinuxMint MATE. Mint typically uses the generic video drivers until after you load the GUI for the first time, at which point it prompts you with a GUI interface to update and properly install your video drivers. This, however, will not solve your Ubuntu/XBMC problem unless you just install the XBMC package on Mint, which will work just fine. There are plenty of media center applications out there in the open source/linux world that will work with a windows media center remote control. Some applications that will allow you to remap the keys of your remote to do whatever you want with them too -- but I digress.

Do not be fooled too much as LinuxMint is Ubuntu based.

 

A 'minimal' installation with respect to the verbage used in this context typically means that the installation is done is such a way that provides the user with just enough of the OS to function. In the case of XBMC, someone decided to setup a basic Ubuntu based system with the XBMC media center application installed and enough other stuff to make it work. That means that they did not use the 'standard' ubuntu desktop (Either GNOME 3, or any of the others you can choose from) and setup XBMC instead.

That would be my understanding too.

 

Back to the original issue:

 

This could be one of two things:

(1) Video card drivers not being loaded properly for install

(2) Something happening with the bootloader when doing the actual install

 

If you can access the virtual console and hence your system, then it is definitely (1)

If you have NO access to the virtual console then it is most likely (2).

 

If it is (2) try using the application called unetbootin ( http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/ ) to setup your flashdrive for the XBMC system and redo the installation. (Note that you have to click on the 'for windows' to download the software for windows. When you run this program, make sure you select the radio button for .iso and select the ISO from your HDD to make the image, otherwise you will be downloading a new ISO file which is unnecesary)

 

Sorry for my delayed response, work has been especially crazy the last couple of days and I have not been able to get on here nearly as frequently as I was hoping to. In fact, my work day on Thursday took me from 7AM to ~6AM Friday morning when I went home, napped for an hour, ate something and went back to the lab for another day just about like that... *party*.

No need to apologize. Following your suggestions and possibly a few others that I come up with has taken me a fair amount of time. Last evening I got unetbootin and created an XBMCbuntu package. A little different but essentially the same as Rufus with the the same result in the end.... flashing cursor. After that I d/l the Ubuntu desktop version and put that on the flash drive to install. That possibly got me close to a desktop but it errored out and suggested I click on an icon to continue installing Ubuntu but nothing apparent happened. That takes me to 11pm when I had the brilliant idea to try installing Win7. Didn't finish until almost 3am. A totally bone headed move. Anyway, it installed OK and ran, very slowly of course with only 500MB RAM. When I opened MediaCenter it said it needed 64MB video RAM to operate properly. So it was a given that to run Win7 MC would require some upgraded hardware. The point of this exercise was to see if Win7 would install at all. Since it did that it seems to indicate all the hardware is working as well as it can and should run XBMC or Linux even if not optimally. I have not yet tried installing Mint but will get to it.

 

I hope this is helpful, I realize this process is frustrating but remember... it would be too easy if it just 'worked' right?

It is very helpful and I very much appreciate the time you have spent helping me. It's not over yet and I still hope to get some flavour of XBMC up and running. As a side note, I found the original XP Media Center 2005 that was installed on this box. Not the disks, unfortunately, just the .iso's that I had backed up in my storage system. Stupid me, I did not think at the time that I might also need the install key so they may not be of any use. Oh well....

[Guest tx2sturgis]

Anyway, it installed OK and ran, very slowly of course with only 500MB RAM. .

 

I'm reminded of the old phrase from, I believe, HeeHaw:

 

You tried to load TWO tons of fertilizer, in a ONE TON TRUCK?

 

I'm still monitoring this thread and thought I'd be out of the technical discussion, but dude...

 

You're trying to run a modern operating system and media center on a computer with only 500 mb of RAM?

 

Seriously?

 

You should probably be looking at Puppy Linux and be happy with a functioning browser.

 

http://www.puppylinux.com/index.html

[camos]

Oh really Brian! Define monitoring.

 

I have stated before that if I decide to run Win7 on this box the hardware will need to be upgraded. Re-read the thread you just answered and you will see I only installed Win7 to see if all the components were working. The fact that it did work, if not particularly adequately, does prove at least the hardware is operational. Since it is operational one would think Linux could at the very least be installed and probably run "better" than Win7. This box as it stands did a credible job of handling XP Media Center back in 2006. I have 2 GB RAM kicking around here somewhere, unfortunatly it is in a safe place for now.

 

 

Besides it is more like a half ton truck.

 

I'm reminded of the old phrase from, I believe, HeeHaw:

 

You tried to load TWO tons of fertilizer, in a ONE TON TRUCK?

 

I'm still monitoring this thread and thought I'd be out of the technical discussion, but dude...

 

You're trying to run a modern operating system and media center on a computer with only 500 mb of RAM?

 

Seriously?

 

You should probably be looking at Puppy Linux and be happy with a functioning browser.

 

http://www.puppylinux.com/index.html

[Guest tx2sturgis]

 

Since it is operational one would think Linux could at the very least be installed and probably run "better" than Win7.

 

In the case of very limited RAM, I have to ask:

 

Did you set up a linux 'swap' partition?

 

Linux is a very efficient system, once it is installed, but it needs some 'headroom' in the form of RAM to help get the heavy lifting done during installation. The modern versions of Linux generally assume (and require) modern hardware.

 

I go back to my original theory: The installation of the grub bootloader is failing, or maybe the OS wont even load with such limited RAM available. I once tried to install an early version of Mint on a netbook with 512mb of RAM, and it failed too.

 

Find some new (larger) RAM modules and get them installed...then try again. I bet it will work with a bit more room to get the job done.

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2013 by tx2sturgis

[camos]

In the case of very limited RAM, I have to ask:

 

Did you set up a linux 'swap' partition?

 

Linux is a very efficient system, once it is installed, but it needs some 'headroom' in the form of RAM to help get the heavy lifting done during installation. The modern versions of Linux generally assume (and require) modern hardware.

 

I go back to my original theory: The installation of the grub bootloader is failing, or maybe the OS wont even load with such limited RAM available. I once tried to install an early version of Mint on a netbook with 512mb of RAM, and it failed too.

 

Find some new (larger) RAM modules and get them installed...then try again. I bet it will work with a bit more room to get the job done.

 

 

 

I did not set up anything because the Linux install does not complete. This is going on an empty HD as in it is not dual booting. I could boot to DOS and have a look at what files are on the HD but it's Linux and I would not know what to look for.

 

I have to ask, is two tons of fertilizer leaner than Linux?

[Guest tx2sturgis]

 

I have to ask, is two tons of fertilizer leaner than Linux?

 

 

 

Well, it certainly will keep a large yard greener. Linux was never very good at that.

 

Edited April 15, 2013 by tx2sturgis

[LilBeaver]

I did not set up anything because the Linux install does not complete. This is going on an empty HD as in it is not dual booting. I could boot to DOS and have a look at what files are on the HD but it's Linux and I would not know what to look for.

 

I have to ask, is two tons of fertilizer leaner than Linux?

 

Actually you would NOT be able to do this. The standard linux filesystem cannot be read by Dos/windows file systems (FAT16/FAT32/NTFS).

 

Although, it does beg the question as to whether the installation does not actually finish or is the installation finished it is just not configured properly to boot.

 

A question I should have asked right away was how much time have you given the machine on the 'flashing cursor' screen? On a first boot on an older/slower machine might take a while to actually get going -- For example, it may take more than just a few minutes -- possibly up to 20 or 30 depending on what is going on...

[LilBeaver]

SSH in from where? When at the flashing cursor the MediaCenter PC can not be seen on the network so I cannot do it from my workstation.

 

It definitely does not get that far.

 

 

Define 'cannot be seen on the network' -- Do you mean that you simply cannot browse to it from a windows machine or you cannot access it at all? During the setup process you should have had an opportunity to configure the network interface(s) -- either using DCHP or set a static IP address. Either way, if the machine starts the network services and SSH is running then you should be able to access the machine, even if it does not laod the GUI. You just need to know the IP address which you can either (1) Assign or (2) do a lookup [via your router, if you cannot get to it from the machine itself].

 

There are an endless number of chances for me to be confused but I don't think this is one of them. Read this page which is where I got the "minimal" terminology from.

Understood

 

 

 

No need to apologize. Following your suggestions and possibly a few others that I come up with has taken me a fair amount of time. Last evening I got unetbootin and created an XBMCbuntu package. A little different but essentially the same as Rufus with the the same result in the end.... flashing cursor. After that I d/l the Ubuntu desktop version and put that on the flash drive to install. That possibly got me close to a desktop but it errored out and suggested I click on an icon to continue installing Ubuntu but nothing apparent happened. That takes me to 11pm when I had the brilliant idea to try installing Win7. Didn't finish until almost 3am. A totally bone headed move. Anyway, it installed OK and ran, very slowly of course with only 500MB RAM. When I opened MediaCenter it said it needed 64MB video RAM to operate properly. So it was a given that to run Win7 MC would require some upgraded hardware. The point of this exercise was to see if Win7 would install at all. Since it did that it seems to indicate all the hardware is working as well as it can and should run XBMC or Linux even if not optimally. I have not yet tried installing Mint but will get to it.

...

.

 

Well if you really only have 512 MB of ram then that is something to be addressed. I will comeback to that.

 

Since you have windows 7 on there now, go ahead and go into the device manager and write down the video card information, and post it up here so I know what you are working with.

 

You said that your ubuntu installation "errored out" and then an icon showed up to continue installing but nothing apparent happened. What does that mean? How long did you wait? Did you try switching to look at the terminal that Anaconda writes to so that you can actually monitor the process? Did the icon perhaps suggest 'additional drivers'?

Also, was this Ubuntu 12.04/12.10 or some other iteration?

NOTE that the minimum requirements for Ubuntu 12 are a 700 MHz processor [intel celeron or better], 512 MB of ram and 5GB of hard drive space.

You do NOT have enough ram to run this -- especially if you are using the onboard video since that shares the system ram. -- if you want to test a Linux system, using something like Damn Small linux (DSL), Puppy Linux or you could do CentOS as long as you do not install the GUI.

 

Before going much further, and since you have windows 7 on this machine, could you go ahead and actually look up your machine info and post it here so I know what kind of components you are working with. Earlier you did mention your motherboard and such, which is fine, processor, chipset and video card are also very important at this time as well. Are you trying to use the on board video or do you have a dedicated card?

 

Anyway -- Don't worry, there is something out there that will run on this machine for you

[LilBeaver]

We can all agree that linux is a good stable operating system under the hood...its just mainly a matter of which distro is appealing to the user in its interface.

 

I really like the Ubuntu interface, especially the HUD or Dashboards 'Home' button....it lets me find what I'm looking for quickly. I remember the old windows days (and macs too!) of scrolling and clicking thru lots of nested menus, trying to remember where a program or menu item is located. Especially the program icon..then the sub-program, then the sub menu under that....clicking and clicking, trying to remember where something was located. Was XYZ program located under accessories? Or Media? Or Internet? Was doc.doc located in this folder? or the other one?

 

Yeah...sick the little search dog on it...and wait... and wait...then 425 results later....oh never mind....I'll go ride the bike!

 

 

At least Macs have the spotlight icon..you can find something pretty quick that way.

 

I also prefer the Ubuntu software center, and the fact that nearly EVERY linux third party app has an Ubuntu version. I also like Mint, but its hard to fault Ubuntu these days if you just want something thats easy to use...at least for me.

 

I am using 12.04, LTS, mainly because of the Long Term Support. It will be supported and updated until sometime in 2017 I beleive...that aint bad for a 'free' OS!

 

 

 

 

Well, first of all, I did not mean to come across as if I were 'bashing' Ubuntu. There are many flavors for a reason. Sounds like your setup works well for you and that is great! For me, I absolutely HATE using the mouse to have to click around to start programs or for almost anything else really. I find it inefficient and irritating. Give me some keybaord shortcuts and/or a terminally window, and look out. Yes, it does mean that my way may not be as 'user friendly' to everyone, but it is user friendly to me so .

Even with the 'older' windows interfaces, I could zip through with keyboard shortcuts and get done what I needed to. It may not have looked as simple as clicking the 'home' button and scrolling to the program I want but my fingers work faster than my eyes do when it comes to finding the program I want. So, you like yours and I like mine so

 

My other problem with the fancy GUIs is that the GUI uses system resources. the more system resources that the GUI is using up the less I have available for my calculations and nobody wants slow calculations :no-no-no: Again, for home use I am not quite as concerned about the resource aspect of it BUT I am also content to continue using what I am familiar with.

 

I respect your choices as I know you respect mine.

 

 

..and now I'm back in Ubuntu LOL

 

Thought I'd give it another go ..

 

HAHA, well look at you! :happy65:

 

I should have been a little more careful with my earlier comments about not being surprised that things crashed. The last few versions of firefox have been a bit buggy, hence their rapid fire release of updates int he last month or a few.

Once you get your Ubuntu up, don't forget the quick sudo apt-get update/upgrade to get everything up to snuff.

 

 

In the case of very limited RAM, I have to ask:

 

Did you set up a linux 'swap' partition?

 

Linux is a very efficient system, once it is installed, but it needs some 'headroom' in the form of RAM to help get the heavy lifting done during installation. The modern versions of Linux generally assume (and require) modern hardware.

 

I go back to my original theory: The installation of the grub bootloader is failing, or maybe the OS wont even load with such limited RAM available. I once tried to install an early version of Mint on a netbook with 512mb of RAM, and it failed too.

 

Find some new (larger) RAM modules and get them installed...then try again. I bet it will work with a bit more room to get the job done.

 

 

 

 

I did not set up anything because the Linux install does not complete. This is going on an empty HD as in it is not dual booting. I could boot to DOS and have a look at what files are on the HD but it's Linux and I would not know what to look for.[...]

I have already commented on the filesystem compatibility issue above.

What do you mean that your installation does not complete? Making the choices of partitioning the hard drive includes the setup of the Swap partition. If you have linux do this automatically, then it typically matches your RAM and that is it. In your case, I would set the SWAP partition to ~2GB or maybe a little more, just to be sure to have enough -- even after you find your elusive ram sticks.

 

As Tx2sturgis mentions, the Swap space is used by the OS as 'virtual ram'. That is to say that linux (well any OS) reserves part of the hard disk to read and write to as the 'random access memory'. On modern systems with 8+ GB of ram, this process is not quite as critical as it used to be but in your case, I would triple check to make sure the swap space is being allocated appropriately.

[SilvrT]

HAHA, well look at you! :happy65:

 

I should have been a little more careful with my earlier comments about not being surprised that things crashed. The last few versions of firefox have been a bit buggy, hence their rapid fire release of updates int he last month or a few.

Once you get your Ubuntu up, don't forget the quick sudo apt-get update/upgrade to get everything up to snuff.

 

 

I think that's where the problem was first time around ... I didn't do the updates before I started "playing" .... but even afterwards, it still screwed up.

 

On second install, I did the updates right away and Firefox seemed to work fine.

 

But, I went to watch a youtube movie and the whole computer froze up after about 2 or 3 min ...

 

Ubuntu doesn't seem to have proper drivers for my video card (NVIDIA) but at least the drivers it's using work, for the most part, and that's probably why the thing froze.

 

Whatevah .. I went back to Winders for the time being.

[Guest tx2sturgis]

 

Ubuntu doesn't seem to have proper drivers for my video card (NVIDIA) but at least the drivers it's using work, for the most part, and that's probably why the thing froze.

 

 

Dang. One of the known weaknesses of any Linux distro is hardware drivers, especially video drivers and wifi drivers.

 

Since linux is open source, community supported, and free, they cant be expected to 'buy' updates (or even include propietary, copy-protected drivers) from the hardware manufactures, or pay to get support. Nor do some of the hardware makers provide 'free' linux drivers.

 

So most Linux distros must use existing windows drivers...some work well this way, and some dont.

 

Its easy to blame linux, but in reality, the hardware makers should put out either universal drivers, tested with the major OS'es including the top ten linux distros, or specific drivers for linux. Some hardware makers do exactly that. Kudos to them.

 

Silvr, I would suggest a simple test on your system:

 

Use the hardware switch to turn off the wifi, if used, then hook up a wired cat5 cable to your router.

 

Then reboot, and try running it that way for awhile. If it runs fine, we can assume it might be the wifi driver having issues.

 

If it still stalls, then we know its most likely NOT the wifi issue.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2013 by tx2sturgis