There's this PC I know, which has both WinXP and Linux running on it side by side. Since the XP partition seems to be becoming more and more unsecure (I found a few trojans when I ran both Malwarebytes and a bootable Kaspersky Rescue CD on it yesterday; not fully sure if they were false positives), I presume I want to use mainly just Linux on it, and XP will hang around there just for some retrogames (that fail to run on newer PCs/Win7).

Anyway, the Linux is Ubuntu. It used to be the older LTS release (10.x?), but I used the internal update to the latest Unity-powered LTS (12.04.1?). The upgrade itself seemed to go fine, kudos for that.

But I don't like Unity, and I feel other Linux distros might support such older hardware and resolutions better than the new Ubuntu. The only resolutions I can get in Ubuntu are 800x600 and 1024x768, when the monitor is in fact one of those old funky 1280x1024 flat screen monitors with their oddball aspect ratio. To this day I don't understand why that stupid aspect ratio ever came to be, but there you go. Almost the same for that stupid 16:10.


ANYWAYS! I want to replace Ubuntu with something nicer, be it Mint or anything. So how to replace it completely? I'm ready to install it from the scratch, but I'd rather not touch the WinXP installation, I might get infected in the process.

I was thinking of first getting rid of the whole Ubuntu partition(s), and then starting the new Linux distro installation from the scratch. But does it matter that there is an existing grub in the MBR or wherever it is? Will it be replaced completely with the new installation, causing no problems? And will the system work anyway with the old grub hanging around (ie. I can still boot to XP from it), when I have removed the Linux partitions?

I've googled around how to remove grub so that I could really start from a clean table, but in those instructions I am supposed to boot from an XP installation CD, which I don't think I have, into some recovery mode, and run fixmbr or something similar from there.
.
Thanks and bye.

Yeah, I've taken backups of any files I'd like to keep, and I am able to revive the XP installation too, if needed. But I'd rather not do that, especially if I decide to replace the Linux distro a few times (but I think I'll go with Mint).

Anyway, if the grub is supposed to get replaced with the new Linux installation anyway, maybe that's all I need to know. I guess I'll just give it a try. And just to make myself understood, I don't feel I need to keep any other settings or configurations with the current Ubuntu (like the Linux partitions etc.), it is fine if I can just replace it completely and start the next installation from the scratch.

If no better suggestions come during the rest of the day, I might just as well mark your message as the solution.

If GRUB was installed on Linux partition you are safe to just reformat entire partition and install Mint. But if GRUB was installed in MBR of drive you have to somehow (don't know how) remove it from MBR of the drive. What I would do: image XP, reset drive to factory settings, repartition it, reimaged XP and installed Mint (with GRUB installed ON LINUX PARTITION NOT MBR od the drive)
In that case start partition should be Mint.

The configuration files are presumably automatically generated, unless you yourself changed them. So there shouldn't be any need for you to back those up. At least not in this day and age. The process of configuring a Linux disrto is a lot easier than it used to be.

OTOH, backing up things like /etc isn't a bad idea. It certainly doesn't take much time or space. I just don't see any reason to, unless you manually edited files in there.

With Linux and XP, the installer should automatically create the appropriate menu configuration for GRUB. If you had something like FreeBSD or something on an unrecognizable partition that could potentially require intervention.But, it won't so you don't need to.

Mint is a good choice, just do a little research to decide which one you're wanting to use. There are a couple options, but they should all be good. It comes down to the UI, both are more sane than what Ubuntu is using, so it shouldn't be a big deal, but it's better to choose the one you're likely to want first.

If your /home isn't already on a separate partition, that's something you'll want to do, especially if you aren't committed to a particular distro as it makes things that much more convenient later on.

Not much to add as hedwards has pretty much mentioned it all already.

Getting rid of an old and installing a new Linux-System is as easy as formatting the existing partition(s) and installing the new system. If you have a separate partition dedicated for the /home folder you could even keep the latter and thus all your user configuration files and whatever other files you've saved there. Of course, if you wish to do so you should not format the partition containing the /home folder and data during the install process. ;-)

Concerning GRUB, you can still use it to boot Windows even when there’s no Linux system installed. It’s a Multiboot boot loader after all. But if you’re going to install a new Linux system you can of course also simply re-install a new boot loader, which is probably the easiest way in order to prevent any configuration and version mismatching problems.

The 5:4 screens were intended as workplace monitors, since they allowed the display of a whole A4 (or: US letter format) page with good readability, with no need for scrolling. That has always been one of goals for monitors on workplaces. In the meantime, screens have become large enough to achieve that goal no matter what their aspect ratio is, so the 5:4 screens have outlived their purpose.

16:10 screens are great though. I actually paid more for my last monitor just to get one of the last 16:10 screens available. They are a good compromise for people who use the screen for working and gaming, and they allow me to play old 1600x1200 games in their native resolution, something that 16:9 screens can't do.

How can I tell? WinXP was installed first on the first partition, and after that I just booted the machine with an Ubuntu installation CD, and installed it to the second, free, partition (and let it make any additional partitions if it wanted, like for the swap file, I don't recall...).

I presume that installation put the grub into the MBR (I can boot to both Ubuntu and WinXP from it), I didn't even know there is an option not to install grub into MBR, if you are installing it beside WinXP.

What I've googled for wiping out grub altogether from MBR, I recall the instructions went something like this (from my memory):

1. boot your machine with a Windows XP installation CD
2. while it is loading, press F3 (?) to go to some recovery mode or something, that lets you go to command prompt from the XP installation CD, without booting away from the CD.
3. In the command prompt, give either "fixmbr" or "fdisk /mbr" command, or something like that.

The problem is, I don't seem to have a XP installation CD that would allow me to do step 2.

Anyway, if the new Linux installation completely overwrites the grub, that's fine I guess. I hope it does not retain all the several older Ubuntu boot installation items there, but completely gets rid of them too.

Hmm...if you did not change anything while installing Ubuntu – GRUB installed itself into MBR because it is the default option. I don’t have experience with installing GRUB from one distro over another one. I always wipe old installation before I proceed with new. But you don’t really need to use XP installation CD to reset MBR. I would recommend this software
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootit-bare-metal.htm - nice partitioning/imaging tool that can be installed and run from CD/USB without installing it to HDD (fully operational trial for 30 days).
On page 53 of the manual you’ll find description of Std MBR option that you need. Using it and setting your XP partition as active should do the trick. Of course backup first (for instance using Terabyte software mentioned above).

Happened so far...

- Removed the Linux partitions with the WinXP Disk Management. (Control Panel).

- Rebooted the PC with the Mint 13 Maya DVD, and after it had fully booted to desktop, started the installation.
...
- After rebooting the machine from HDD, got a GRUB Rescue prompt, ie. it didn't work out as it should.

- Booted from my Win98SE installation CD, but told it to boot from HDD instead... odd, no grub nor grub rescue prompt anymore, as if merely inserting the 98SE installation CD automatically wipes the MBR clean??? Whatever, that's what I wanted anyway, now it boots to the WinXP partition without any grub.

So now I am basically in the situation I wanted to be, removed Ubuntu partitions and grub from MBR. But for the life of me, I have no idea how to install Mint successfully!

I boot from the Mint (live) DVD, wait until it is on the desktop, and double-click on the "Install Linux Mint" icon. I tell it to install it beside the WinXP installation, it asks for my location, username/password (and shows some "copying files" progress bar at the bottom)...

...but that never seems to get finished? The installation screen just disappears at some point, and I am back to the Mint Live desktop, with an "hourglass" mouse pointer, as if it is still doing something all the time. But there is no indication whatsoever what it is doing, e.g. is the Mint installation still ongoing in the background, or is it already finished, or what?

This doesn't seem to change no matter how long I wait. If I tell Mint to restart, I think I get to that grub rescue prompt after a reboot, indicating the Mint installation was not fully finished or it failed for some other reason.

What would be a good alternative for home use besides Mint (or Ubuntu)? Or does the Cinnamon Mint installation go differently? I'd prefer a pure setup CD/DVD, not a live CD. I've never liked installing Linux from these live CDs for some reason.

Did you try to install MINT with Mate?

Yes, it was the first one on this list (32bit):

http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php

I don't know what is the exact difference between Mate and Cinnamon, so I went with the first one. I think I've run it in a virtual machine before too.

It is aggravating that I don't even get any error. The installation starts, but it apparently just cancels itself at some point, and/or hangs there. I am able to move around and use the menus in the live desktop after that too, including shutdown. There is no clear indication whether there has been an error, or if the installation is finished, or if it is still ongoing in the background. But waiting several hours should be enough, I think.

It has occurred to me that is my system simply too weak for Mint, and that's why the installation fails? But I presume not, because it install the newest Ubuntu just fine. It is some single-core AMD CPU (2GHz or so), ATI X800 (Pro?), 768MB of RAM. Mint runs ok from the live DVD though, albeit slowly of course as it loads everything from the DVD.

EDIT: Nope, I exceed the minimum requirements (512MB RAM minimum, albeit they recomend 1GB), just checked it from the Mint pages. I sent the query to their forums too, maybe someone there can help.

This is probably the reason (and solution) to my Mint Live installation problem:

http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=102866

It seems to be pretty widespread problem too. Damn, they've screwed up. They should fix it ASAP in the installation media, leaves a bad taste to people's mouth.

In short: before starting the installation, give this command in a terminal window:

sudo apt-get remove ubiquity-slideshow-mint

which removes the slideshow program that for many makes the installation crash. Stupid!

Yes. That's ridiculous.

I remember when I upgraded Ubuntu to a higher version (don't really remember which one) installation process went fine I got logon screen and then I got hang. Few hours later by test & error I finally discovered that it was caused by SpeedStep technology - when I disabled it in BIOS - tadam!
Do I have to mention that in previous version of Ubuntu (the one I migrated from) SpeedStep worked just fine ..?