Can't boot from installation media

[CanyonRoss]

Hi,

I have already successfully installed Kubuntu on one of my machines and was trying to install it on another. The machine is currently running Windows 10. When I press F2 to enter the BIOS and go to manually boot from the USB stick there is no option to boot from USB. Secure boot is enabled, if I disable this, WIndows 10 does not boot. Re-enabling it, it struggles to boot, diagnoses some problem, asks me to reboot and then it works. UEFI is enabled.

The laptop is an Alienware 15 R2. It has 2 SSD hard drives, a 240GB and a 480GB one. About a year ago I tried installing OpenSUSE linux and some how (I think, I can't recall, I used a DVD) I managed to get to the installation part, but the installation media didn't even recognise any hard drives!

So...any thoughts on whether it is possible to get linux to run on this machine as a dual boot? I MUST keep Windows 10 because there is a specific software I need to run, and I cannot have this PC out of action, so I am naturally very cautious about installing it. Windows is installed on the 240GB drive so I guess it might make sense to install it on the 480GB drive if possible.

I don't suppose anybody is in Hampshire, UK and fancies making a few ££ do they? haha.

Thanks in advance - and please treat me like an idiot, and don't assume I am some linux expert!!

Ross

edit - definitely didn't try a DVD install...it doesn't have a DVD drive! I'm not sure how I got it to boot from a USB before!?

[CanyonRoss]

Well... I found a way to boot using USB and I'm trying to install it now. 2 things I'm a bit nervous about...

1st - it asked me to set up a password for secure boot... I'm praying this doesn't interfere with the booting of Windows!

2nd - it only appeared to recognise the 480gb ssd, not the other. Again, if the Linux system doesn't recognise that drive it won't bother me too much, since Windows is installed on that drive, but what WILL bother me is if I can no longer boot into Windows!

It that's the case, and in the boot menu I only see Linux, what on earth do I do?

Cheers!

[CanyonRoss]

Well... I found a way to boot using USB and I tried to install it but it failed... It said it couldn't install Grub - fatal error.

1st - it asked me to set up a password for secure boot...

2nd - it only appeared to recognise the 480gb ssd, not the other 240gb drive which is where Windows is installed... I think, therefore, that it is not recognising the boot loader.

Do I need to disable secure boot from within the bios and then try again? Any thoughts?

I went to install linux on the 480GB drive and it has shrunk my NTFS partition in windows, so now it is about 200GB less than what it was. Ideally I would like to install linux on the 480GB drive but I can do it on the 240GB drive if needed (and only if the installer will recognise that drive some how!). If I do need to disable secure boot, what is to say that I then wouldn't be able to boot into Windows? And is it secure boot preventing the installation media from recognising the 240GB drive?

Thank you very much

But still - if anyone is near Hampshire in the UK I would happily pay a bit to get this working!

[claydoh]

It may be that your system has the 'invisible' drive set o use Intel RST raid implementation, which does not support Linux. Other systems have this issue, such as my Lenovo laptop. You would have to see if there is some sort of setting for that drive, and set it to ahci mode. It could be called something else, though

[jglen490]

What about the Fast Startup setting in Windows. On my Windows 10 OS at work, the power settings are: Control Panel -> Hardware and Sound -> Power Options -> System Settings. On that page there are four buttons near the bottom. The top button is "Turn on fast startup (recommended)". The gov't agency I work with does no give me privileges to do stuff, so that particular setting is grayed out.

You might try unchecking that box, save the changes, and see if that makes a difference with the being able to do stuff with a USB drive. You can always go back to the setting and check it again.

[CanyonRoss]

It may be that your system has the 'invisible' drive set o use Intel RST raid implementation, which does not support Linux. Other systems have this issue, such as my Lenovo laptop. You would have to see if there is some sort of setting for that drive, and set it to ahci mode. It could be called something else, though

Hi, this is interesting. I guess it is possible. I am beginning to think that the risk of messing up my Windows system is too great for the benefit of running Linux on it. I have Linux on my desktop which is what I use most often which is the most important thing. It is a little annoying though as I would definitely prefer Linux on it! When I saw that it failed to install Grub I panicked! Fortunately Windows booted back up fine. Now I am left with a drive 200GB smaller though, which I need to sort out. It's not an issue though, it has plenty of storage space left. I may need to download a partitioner.

What about the Fast Startup setting in Windows. On my Windows 10 OS at work, the power settings are: Control Panel -> Hardware and Sound -> Power Options -> System Settings. On that page there are four buttons near the bottom. The top button is "Turn on fast startup (recommended)". The gov't agency I work with does no give me privileges to do stuff, so that particular setting is grayed out.

You might try unchecking that box, save the changes, and see if that makes a difference with the being able to do stuff with a USB drive. You can always go back to the setting and check it again.

Hi, thanks for taking the time to write that. I have already done that and still no such luck unfortunately.

[jglen490]

There's nothing wrong with you having two computers that each successfully run their own OS. I realize not everyone has the ability or capacity to do that, but that is actually a far better solution than dual booting. Also, some PC/laptop manufacturers implement UEFI in such a way as to make it difficult to successfully install two OSes on the same box.

[Don B. Cilly]

I have six OSes on the same box, but then none of them are Windows-related

[CanyonRoss]

There's nothing wrong with you having two computers that each successfully run their own OS. I realize not everyone has the ability or capacity to do that, but that is actually a far better solution than dual booting. Also, some PC/laptop manufacturers implement UEFI in such a way as to make it difficult to successfully install two OSes on the same box.

It is quite tempting to buy a relatively cheap laptop to run Windows and have the Alienware one run Linux...although it appears I can't even get it to install at the moment!! I'm weary about turning off secure boot etc and messing up the Windows drive to be honest...that's my issue. If I didn't need the Windows working I would not worry and could at least give it a try. But the fact that the Kubuntu installer doesn't seem to recognise the 240GB Windows drive...would that be something to do with secure boot? If not, then surely disabling secure boot wouldn't make much difference, and I still couldn't install Linux on that laptop?

Thanks again for the help chaps!

[WWDERW]

I've never been one for dual booting. What I tend to do is run a VM for any secondary OSs that I may want to run for whatever reason.

On the rig in my siggy, I run 4 OS and can run them all at the same time. One is actually a VM within a VM (due to VB not having any support for the legacy OS and ironically, even doing it within another VM without any hardware acceleration, it still performs at very close to native performance as if it was on bare metal).

Doing something like this would mean that your computer (be it a laptop or a desktop) should be properly spec'ed out as mileage on doing this will drastically vary from one person to the next. At one time, I too had software that was very specific to Windows (very niche, very proprietary) and I had found that VMing the Windows OS was far more stable then trying to run a dual boot. But again, the device should be properly spec'ed for that as you will be running 2 OSs at the same time and sharing resources at the same time. Not everyone's cup of tea, but it has worked well for me when I was transitioning to Linux and still needed the crutch of Windows. Just something that I thought I would throw out in there in case your laptop could handle a VM.

[Don B. Cilly]

I wonder why VMs on my system run really slow and clunky, whereas running an OS from a USB stick with persistence space runs almost close to a HD installation.

Maybe because I only have 8G of RAM, and I only allocate 4G to the VMs? But then Virtualbox by default allocates far less..
Or because it's "only" a 4-core 2G CPU?
Or because I use Virtualbox?

[WWDERW]

I can only speak from a Windows in a VM perspective, not to sure about Linux (and I'm sure it would depend on the DEs used etc, Windows, there aren't as many options).

First off, get rid of the Virtualbox notion. I use Virtualbox for all the main VMing, now for the VM within a VM, that second VM is being run from Virtual-PC. So that's Virtualbox for the main VM, then within that VM using Virtual-PC for the second one.

4GBs on a 64 bit VM (for Windows again) would be used all up by Windows and one program (if talking about Ps, Ai etc) and that would just be bare minimum to use both. If you are using one of the more demanding DEs, that could have an impact on that I'm sure and then it depends on what programs you are running as well. Any memory leaks for operations that you do etc?

I personally wouldn't run a VM with anything less then 16GB (physical, not what's allocated to the VM). But then again, I'm also VMing Windows, not other Linux rigs. If I want to squeeze out more for the VM and less for the bare metal OS, then I would use something like XFCE. I've run it, full tilt on my rig it comes in at 800 or so MBs of memory used, while KDE is about 1.9 GB. That means alot, especially if the program in the VM is demanding (and I've edited video in Premier within the VM as well and it still does better then KDen (honestly, I prefer Blender for video editing if doing on Linux as well)).

I've had the opposite feeling for running an OS off a USB. Some where better then others, but some were just awfully slow.

[Don B. Cilly]

Well, considering I can boot from USB, and this thread, isn't about VMs... I made another one

[WWDERW]

this thread, isn't about VMs... I made another one

I know it wasn't. I was putting this out there as another option considering I know where the OP is coming from with needing to keep a copy of Windows due to very niche and proprietary programs that for a variety of reasons may not have a Linux equivalent or may not be up to snuff (and no I'm not talking about just differiences in workflows, but actually difference in performance and efficiency). A lot of people don't even think about doing VMs, they think about dual booting first (or only), so I was just making sure it was an option to evaluate for the OP to see if it might work for them. That's all.

[CanyonRoss]

Right, I had a friend who had a spare key for a partitioning software and I have effectively deleted the partition that I was going to install Linux on and effectively things are back to where they were...Here is a partition table

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JMy...ew?usp=sharing

You can see Windows is installed on Disk 1, and disc 0 is my general data disc. There is an option to clone or migrate the OS...would it be possible to clone/copy the data disc then format it, migrate the OS to that drive (the 480GB one) and then split create another partition on that drive (the 480GB one) so it has a spare, unallocated 200GB and try to install Linux on that? I am not sure whether by migrating the OS over to the other hard drive whether it would move the boot loader etc over as well?

Maybe I should just give up