JedMeister

Not that I'm aware of. But again, the Ubuntu forums is probably the place to be asking Ubuntu specific questions. PS now I think about it, it probably is possible, but how easy would be to set up is probably another matter. Happy to be proven worng though!

A few things (ie my 2c worth): Firstly upgrading from 11.04 to 11.10 is not a 'minor upgrade'. An Ubuntu upgrade replaces pretty much every single package on your computer! So it hardy counts as a minor upgrade. Although in some respects less radical than changing from one version of Windows to another, it's still a pretty major thing. Secondly, personally I don't like doing in place upgrades (like you've done). I much prefer to do a clean install. In my experience they're much more successful and much less prone to 'glitchy' problems, like you're reporting. This is nothing new, in fact they have got better over time, but I still prefer a clean install. I haven't used 11.10 but I strongly suspect that your issues are more to do with the fact that you've upgraded, rather than specific issues with 11.10. Given your specs I'd be going for something a bit lighter myself. If you want to stick with Ubuntu, try Lubuntu (Ubuntu with the LXDE desktop) or if you're willing to try something else have a look at Mint LXDE edition. Mint is based on Ubuntu but it's prettied up a bit and a bit more user friendly (eg all the non-free codecs preinstalled). My personal favourite is Bodhi Linux. It's based on Ubuntu too, although on the older 10.04 (which is a LTS release - Long Term Support) but includes a number of updated packages and uses the awesome Enlightenment desktop. It's really lightweight like LXDE but much prettier. Like Ubuntu it's available as a live CD so you can give it a whirl without installing it. Having said all that you state that you'd rather not reinstall, so rather than posting here (on a Windows forum) I'd head over to the Ubuntu forums and post there. The likelihood of you getting someone who knows enough about Ubuntu to help you solve (or at least improve) your system woes is much higher there. I doubt there are too many Ubuntu experts hanging out on these forums. Although I could be wrong...

Thanks for the link bookie32. FOG looks very interesting and I will definitely have a closer look at that when time allows. But from the brief look I had at it I think I see what the issue is. From what I can gather FOG has DHCP built-in and 2 (or more) DHCP servers on one subnet is bad! They will clash! Because FOG requires DHCP to do its thing over the network (ie give IPs to the PCs booting from the FOG server) for it to function properly you will need to leave that one enabled and disable the one in your router. AND definitely set a static IP for your FOG server.

Firstly I have no idea what FOG is so a little more info or a link or something would be useful. Secondly I would strongly suggest setting a static IP for a server. Generally DHCP is ok for clients/desktops/laptops/etc but many routers only give time limited leases, even if this is not the case (or you disable it) if you don't bind the MAC to the IP (in the DHCP setup) if there is a power outage or the router is reset for any reason you will most likely end with a different address for your server. Easy solution: go static.

Sometimes you need to log off and log back in again before monitor configuration works. Other thing to check is which driver you are using. I think by default newer versions of Ubuntu will install the open source drivers, personally I have had more luck with the Nvidia proprietary drivers (assuming that your Dell has Nvidia graphics). If this simple stuff doesn't help then I strongly suggest that you head over to the Ubuntu Forums and ask some of the experts there. I found a couple of threads that are vaguely relevant (here and here) but as they're not quite the same as your issue you're probably best to start a new thread detailing your hardware (find out what graphics chip etc). Provide links to other threads that seem similar (if you find any) and if you don't get any response then bumping after 24 hrs seems to be acceptable over there. Good luck

right, my proc definitely supports AMD-V, I read that the mobo has to support the extensions as well and I did not see an option in my bios but I assume that since CPU-Z recognized that extension then my bios 'should' support them Good point, you are of course right, the motherboard must also support it. I would imagine that if CPU-Z recognises it then you're good to go. I have found some Intel mobos require a BIOS setting, but I haven't come across an AMD one that does. If you wanted to be totally sure you could fire up a LiveCD and at the terminal type grep svm /proc/cpuinfo (on Intel chips swap the "svm" for "vmx"). If it returns nothing then you're out of luck, otherwise you're good to go. This should work on most Linux distros but definitely does in Debian based ones (Ubuntu, Mint, etc) I definitely do NOT want to make this a headless box. I did read about some solutions being meant for headless boxes but it never occurred to me to try to use this to narrow my options, so thank you.No worries, I didn't think that was what you were looking for! I can't 100% guarantee it with Windows (I haven't used VBox on Windows for some time) but I'd be very surprised if it couldn't. Each VM is independent so what you're after shouldn't be a big deal at all. I just double checked with VBox 3.2.0-OSE under Ubuntu 10.04 and I had 3 VMs running simultaneously, no worries. I then shut them down in a different order to starting them. All good.I don't use it much as I have a headless server running Proxmox so all my VMs run on that (I use VNC to connect to them) but from the CLI you can do some pretty neat stuff with VBox such as auto-starting specific VMs on host boot, auto shutdown/save state/etc on host shutdown. Again I haven't tried on Windows but surely those features wouldn't be Linux only!?

FYI AMD CPUs post skt 939 (ie skt AM2 on) that support x64 also support virtual extensions, so your would for sure. Intel CPUs 'Core' on mostly do, but you need to check as some don't. For your usage scenario, I would steer away from bare metal hypervisor type setup unless you want to fork out for Win Server 2008 with Hyper-V and run that as your base. AFAIK all other bare metal hypervisor OS are designed to run headless so no GUI (you access the VMs remotely). If you are looking at that as an option then I highly recommend ProxmoxVE (Debian based hypervisor with powerful WebUI and utilizing KVM for full virtualisation and OpenVZ for Linux container virtualisation), although I'm sure its overkill for what you want. From what you've described I'd go for bare metal install of Win 7 x64 with all other OSs intalled under VirtualBox (or similar). Obviously there are other options but I personally like VirtualBox best of all. I don't use Windows much anymore but in Linux is has whats called "seamless mode" where the app window running in the VM actually appears to be native, I'd imagine that's also available for Windows VirtualBox (which would be handy for XP apps). Also VirtualBox (under Linux anyway) seems to make use of the CPU's virtual extensions to improve VM performance (although probably not to the same extent as a full blown hypervisor would). Good luck and I'd be keen to hear your final decisions and their rationale, and whether it fulfills your expectations once you have it up and running.

IMO with Win2K's impending EOL its time to upgrade, either to XP (if your hardware can hack it) or maybe better still a Linux distro. There are a few good Linux candidates: The 'mini' distros PuppyLinux or DSL (**** Small Linux) are known to work well on extremely limited specs. Other distos such as WattOS (current version based on Ubuntu, new version to be based on Debian) and Lubuntu (a soon to be official lightweight version of Ubuntu). CrunchBang Linux may be another option (again originally based on Ubuntu but now moving to Debian base) but I haven't played with it so can't say too much (but I do know its known for good performance).

I'm guessing from the fact you're posting in the "Other Operating Systems" that it is not a Win OS you are planning on running? Whilst MS Virtual PC 2007 should work ok, I think it would be safe to assume that its optimised for Win OSs. Of the remaining 2 you mentioned, VirtualBox would be my preference for desktop testing/development. Having said that VMware server is available free and works quite well if you wish to have a number of VMs running. It really comes into its own if you wish test your VMs on an alternate PC (to the one your on) as it has a web interface rather than a normal window. Because of this, VMware Server lends itself nicely to remote admin.

Google is your friend A couple of results from the search "reset password Ubuntu 9.10" (should apply to Kubuntu as well). http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/resetpassword http://www.unixnewbie.org/how-to-reset-your-ubuntu-password/