Installing Ubuntu via ISO Mount Created 12 years ago2012-05-02 18:54:04 UTC by Notewell

Alright, so I've been tossing the idea around in my head for a few days that I could set up a sort of "practice" web server (Ie, not connected to the internet, but otherwise set up) using spare parts around my house and Ubuntu as an OS. I have a decent capacity HDD that I am cleared to wipe and can transplant into a better system when one becomes available (or rather, affordable), and a tower with all needed internal components, CD tray and USB ports (It's old, however, so the USB ports are only on the back) There is currently only one problem; The Ubuntu install ISO is around 750MB, and the highest capacity disks I currently have are only 702MB (Rated at 700). I have an installer for Daemon tools, which means I could mount the ISO on and run it from there, but my question is; Would the mount stay even after I've reformatted the drive, or would the install process be halted (and corrupted) as soon as the process deletes the part of the drive responsible for the virtual CD?

Basically, I need to know if I can install Ubuntu properly by mounting it with daemon, or if I have to actually spend money on this project and get a higher capacity CD to burn the ISO on to.

The mounting tools work within the operating system.

You CAN NOT install like that.

Plus, you will not be able to install ubuntu on that small of a drive. Get puppy linux or something if you want to use that drive.

[Edit]

A word of advice, NEVER use Daemon tools. Never.

Nah, virtual drives are just that: software that loads a disk image from the file system. You need to have an OS running before you can use a virtual drive at all.

Hopefully your motherboard isn't so old that it doesn't support USB booting. Find a >1GB USB drive and use this tool to create a bootable USB from your ISO image.

I was afraid that would be the case. Thanks for confirming.
Also, I doubt the motherboard supports USB booting. The drive that came with it (not the one I'm using) runs Windows 95, IIRC. My dad got the system for $20 from the office of the construction firm he used to work at before it closed down.

Also, Stojke: When I said the disk was 700MB, I meant it the CDs I have available.

Guess I'm going shopping on the weekend.

For future reference:

disk (diskette) = HDD

disc (discus) = CD

If you never played with linux before, it will be a hassle setting stuff up. Wanted to be cool myself and ended up with win

Usually they should fit onto a regular cd, had no problems with ubuntu installs.

Also does that system even support cd boot ? Being you got win95 there.

Ubuntu will burn onto a 700MB disc with out any problems.

Archie: Whoops.
rufee: If I recall from the few months ago I did it at school (Web design class, included server setup) it should work just like a standard installer, except that it formats the disk. Also, the HDD I'm rewriting uses XP. Motherboard probably won't factor into it, I think.
Stojke: Alright, I will give that a try before I go out shopping.

@ Rufe - Every system supports CD booting when instructed

@ Jeff - Every installation should fit onto a single disc, i had no problems. Also if this computer is very old, do not even try installing ubuntu onto it. Give us the specs of the PC.
Also, anything, with rare exceptions, below P4 does not support USB boot.

I tried burning it to the disk, and it seems to have worked. I'll have to set up the computer before I can get you the specs, as I can't recall them offhand. (It's been years since it was booted) I do have another computer lying around that should be (at least marginally) more powerful, and after a quick HDD swap between the two, I should be able to use that one as well.
EDIT: The newer one can definitely run it, But I will try it with the older one first.

Huh, seems the only possible option is to burn a CD\DVD or use a USB stick. No other viable option.

Also, anything, with rare exceptions, below P4 does not support USB boot.

Funny how the processor somehow dictates the motherboard's booting capabilities.
EDIT: lol'd at win95 comment. Good shit.

Processors now dictate pretty much everything after the removal of northbridges.

@ Rufe - Every system supports CD booting when instructed

Not everything, had a pc that didnt. Srsly :D, to install anything you had to have 5 floppies and special boot programs

Funny how the processor somehow dictates the motherboard's booting capabilities.

Thats because it used a different chip set than older processors. And that chip set allowed USB booting.
Try connecting things logically more often.

Not everything, had a pc that didnt. Srsly , to install anything you had to have 5 floppies and special boot programs

Well yeah, thats why i said when instructed to. Some times you would need to run DOS to be able to boot a CD installation.
But it also depends on the installation. For example, i have DOS 7.1 custom build that boots even on my 486 PC.

---

jeff just read the POST screen, what does it say? Processor type, speed, check the BIOS for more info (DEL/F2).

Funny because I have a board that doesn't have a pentium 4 [doesn't even support SSE2] but it supports usb booting. Explain to me how it works, I'm obviously too stupid.

Chip set. I already wrote it there.
It is a rare case from my experience that anything that uses an older chip set, aka, before Pentium 4 era, has the capabilities to boot from an USB drive.
It was implemented into newer models for older processors, but it was a rare sight to see an older MoBo before P4 to support that.

So it doesn't have anything to do with the processor and does have to do with the mobo. Interesting how quickly that got turned around.

Don't know if trolling or just doesn't know a thing about computers.

I used Pentium 4 processor as a reference to the chip set that was made for it. With that chip set came the possibility to boot USB devices.
Thats why i said use logic more often.

Back in the day usb wasn't such a big port, before manufacturers started implementing usb drivers into chipsets to support booting of it. Not like now where you can hook anything into anything with usb. Though even in new boards with usb3 its not always possible to boot from.

It depends on the controller as well, for the USB3.
There would have been no problems if people stopped cutting costs so much on such little things.
SATA needs to be more expanded in my opinion. There would be no USB if SATA was cheap back than.

USB is more practical, there is power provided, 5m cables whereas sata provides no power, up to 1m of cable, big controllers so yeah its intended purpose is disk drive interconnections rather then peripherals.

I'll get the specs when I get the computer hooked up. Which probably won't be today.

USB is more practical, there is power provided, 5m cables whereas sata provides no power, up to 1m of cable, big controllers so yeah its intended purpose is disk drive interconnections rather then peripherals.

Well yeah, it was made that way. SATA can support up to 600mV which is around 2 meters.
There are eSATAp connectors which allow connection of USB and SATA devices, a sort of a multi connector. With it you can gain the extra 5V USB gives.
Also, SATA is much faster, so connecting Drives with it is logical. Than again, USB was not designed for fans and toasters and mini fridges either.

But yeah. when i think about it, you are right, controllers are much more simple and the whole thing is realized more simple. No need for extra power input for custom low power consumption stuff. As well as speed. 10MB/s is enough.