Which Linux Distro Should I Get in place of Ubuntu?

[Sir_Lancelot]

I was originally using Ubuntu 7.04 on this computer. But Due to A MAJOR problem that nobody has provided me with a fix for and Im tired of waiting. I want to know which Distro would be right for me.

Im going to be using it as a primary OS and IM going to keep Windows around for gaming. Im currently on a Dual boot system with Ubuntu 7.04 and XP Pro

The reason I want to replace Ubuntu is because my Lite On SATA CDburner / DVD burner combo drives DOES not exist peroid to it, and since IM a linux newbie and the Linux pros are basically being useless to me by not even seeming interested in helping me (some community heh) and the ones that are trying to help dont speak newb, or are just as confused as I am.

and IM sure you agree with thats the ONLY Disk drive on your computer and you cant use it with the OS of choice, its time to find another OS!

So Im going to be using Linux to surf the web, download, play music, burn cds in mp3 format to listen to in my car, chat with friends, and do basic general use stuff, and just keep my dual boot of XP for playing video games.

I want something as close to Ubuntu as possible since BEYOND that CD/DVD issue that ruined that OS for me, I REALLY liked Ubuntu though I cant see how people say its the best when its so ridden with bugs and apperantly has so many issues with SATA drives!

 

[SNGX1275]

I've always liked Suse.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I've always liked Suse.

Ive been thinking of going Debian personally since Ubuntu is Debian based, what can you tell me about Suse compared to Debian? and those two compared to ubuntu

 

[SNGX1275]

Nothing. I don't use linux enough. When I did use Ubuntu the apt get was pretty sweet. But I'm certain there is something similar you can do in Suse. I just thought perhaps you wanted to get away from whatever caused your drive problem, staying debian might not be enough, but again I don't know enough about linux to know.

 

[captaincranky]

This may not help....but it might explain things.......

I suspect that if Ubuntu won't recognize the drive, none of the others will either. I have an Intel Media board (DG965WHMK). This board has a provision (in BIOS), for running SATA drives as "IDE" under XP. However, Linux ignores this software layer completely, and will not install ANY distro without locking up and asking for a SATA driver disc. I have tried Fedora, Suse, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Freespire and the all generate the same result. (Although some distros just lock-up and don't bother to ask for drivers). I also have an Intel 915/P4 machine which, while it has SATA drives, will ACCEPT any Linux distro. Since the 915 board is using XP, the drives must be running as IDE since no RAID driver is installed. In fact, the only HDD drivers installed are those that came with the machine's recovery disc. Go figure. I'll leave it up to Phantasm or someone else more competent the me to develop a theory as to what course of action to take. I have to say that Ubuntu 7.04 went into the 915 with about a dozen or so clicks, (just as easy as an XP install), and works perfectly. I was astounded.
I will make the observation that trying to use a SATA optical drive is probably a needless complication of your computer life.

 

[tragicallyhip]

A very good Debian distro is PC linux,I just installed it on a P.O.S Vaio that had Vista.It recognized all the hardware on the Machine except for the built-in webcam,I have come to the conclusion that the drivers for this Richo cam will never be linuxized.Wine works perfectly and all is good on this laptop.The owner is very pleased with it.

 

[captaincranky]

If this was September 2007, that info might have mattered a bit more. But I suppose, thanks for the heads up any way

 

[BorisandBailey]

I'm wondering with these posts I'm reading that Ubuntu on a SATA drive is a crap shoot! I have Ubuntu on its own SATA drive and it's never given me trouble. It's a terrific OS.

SUSE is fancier...more whizbang stuff to wow you...but, like Windows, the file size is gigantic and it will take at least an hour-and-a-half to load it. Ubuntu just takes 15 minutes and I really like that.

Ubuntu accesses my DVD writeable drive easily but doesn't seem to see my CD drive. Other than that, no problems. It even sees my Windows drive and I can copy files from one drive to the other. Windows won't let me do that.

 

[captaincranky]

Aggravation....It's Not Just for Ubuntu Anymore....

In my personal experience Linux will install on my older machine with SATA drives easily (Intel 915GAG board).

However, on later boards I've tried it on, no go.

This is probably my fault, I never install SATA drivers. Since I'm running XP in all my machines and don't use RAID, I set all the boards to "run as IDE". That satisfies Windows, and the OS install easily.

With ANY recent Linux distro I've tried the, "run as IDE" HAL seems to be ignored and I get a lock-up. The closest I've come to actually installing Linux on a later board is with an Intel G965WHMK. With this board the Linux actually asked for SATA drivers, (even in "IDE" mode). I'm too cheap to buy a FDD, and too lazy to install SATA drivers, which thereby effectively ends my Linux experience.

I suspect, (basically an "un"-educated guess) that the Linux might install correctly with Vista, since it can natively run a single SATA drive as SATA (AHCI). But here, I don't feel the need to suffer Vista to get Linux to run. Since Linux is not much more than a novelty to me, I believe I've arrived at my personal ""moot match point", and resign from the game.

I couldn't get Ubuntu 6 point something or other to convince itself that my Soyo 24" monitor was actually 1920 X 1200, at least with un-updated Intel GMA915 onboard graphics. Ubuntu 7.10 picked up it at full rez easily, same graphics drivers.

Anyway, I'm relatively sure that Ubuntu specifically isn't the problem in this regard, it's the OS in general, and even at that, it's mostly my fault.