I want to install a Linux build on a partition of my Win2k machine, but I have a few questions first.
1) Which build should I choose? I was told that some Linux builds don't support some hardware. I am using an AMD Duron CPU, an NVidia Geforce2 MX video card, and a soundMAX (very cheap) audio card, I can get more details if someone wants to know.
2) The partition I have right now on my HD is smaller than I want it to be. Can anybody recommend any partition resizing software that has worked for them and NOT messed things up?
You may have trouble with the NVidia card... It should work, but you may not get the performance that it's capable of. You can thank Nvidia for that.
Partition resizing is possible, but risky. No matter what, you may lose everything. If you can, grab a backup before trying. Some commercial software may be able to resize them fairly safely, but I don't know of any free software that can talk NTFS.
For your Linux distro, if you are just getting started, I would highly recommend one of the following (in recommended order):
Mandrake
Redhat
SuSe
All of them will automatically detect and work with your GeForce2MX. I /think/ your soundMAX card is supported. As far as partition resizing - you might be able to use the included partition resizers that come with Mandrake or Redhat (FIPS I think it's called). Or, to be really safe, pick up Partition Magic 9.0 (made by Powerquest). This program is very nice, and works very well. It even has support for ext/2 (the 'default' Linux filesystem), and will talk to Win2K NTFS 5.
Here's a link: http://www.partitionmagic.com/partitionmagic/
Iam using dual boot partition too. Using PartitionMagic (PowerQuest), it really helps me out especially when it comes to resizing and creating partitions. But i also encounter several problems especially when it cames to FAT and NTFS some problem that powerquest software unable to identify FAT partition to make dual boot of win2k and unix. Try to format ur disk to FAT32 rather then NTFS it works.
About the 'ordering' - without getting involved in distro A vs. distro B, could I be allowed to state that they are sorted in 'from most windows-like to less windows like in decending order' - so that if the objective is to learn Unix, vs. getting the most windows-like (perceived as 'easy') Linux, you may want to try out Slackware.
For someone whose objective it is to get the most 'Unix-like' Linux, I always recommend like this:
Slackware
Debian
Redhat
RedHat is probably the ultimate compromise, it sticks to Unix standards for filesystem layout, etc. but also uses a very 'Windows-like' graphical login.
Could I also state that I personally think text based install programs are a lot easier to work with than graphics-based ones - you get only relevant info, no 'decorations' and you are sure that it will work on all video cards ...
I realize that this states just the opposite of what was said before, but I felt it necessary to say this, in the hope that it will not create confusion, but clarity on one thing:
Linux can be anything you want it to be.
You must be clear about what you want before you spend time and money on a particular distro.
And then, rant over, please do not let us forget that Linux is far from the only free Unix for PC:
There is also a whole other set: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, (almost) free Solaris ... I would range these side by side with, or even above Slackware, though, in 'Unix-likeness'.
With all respect and hat off to previous poster for ranging in descending 'ease of use'.