Partitioning for XP & Linux, How Much for What?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.

So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
partitions:
one for the XP OS,
one for Linux, and
one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
partitions?

How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
arrangement make sense?

My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as a
regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've been
told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then a
reinstall is easier.

And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .

And one more question. When I install a program on the document-program
partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition too?
Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
Files\Common Files , the usual default place?

--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************
40 answers Last reply
More about partitioning linux what
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
    installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really screw
    with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
    alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it would
    be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux distros
    that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot with
    the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it up so
    that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix enables
    you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to reconfigure
    everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration to a
    USB key.

    http://www.knoppix.net/docs/

    http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove

    --

    Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


    "Nehmo Sergheyev" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:mAy8d.96442$nA6.86356@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
    | I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
    | 80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
    | as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
    | hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.
    |
    | So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
    | partitions:
    | one for the XP OS,
    | one for Linux, and
    | one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
    | partitions?
    |
    | How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
    | arrangement make sense?
    |
    | My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as a
    | regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've been
    | told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then a
    | reinstall is easier.
    |
    | And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
    | interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .
    |
    | And one more question. When I install a program on the document-program
    | partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition too?
    | Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
    | Files\Common Files , the usual default place?
    |
    | --
    | *********************
    | * Nehmo Sergheyev *
    | *********************
    |
    |
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    - Harry Ohrn -
    > You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
    > installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
    screw
    > with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
    > alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
    would
    > be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
    distros
    > that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
    with
    > the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
    up so
    > that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
    enables
    > you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
    reconfigure
    > everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
    to a
    > USB key.
    > http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
    > http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
    > Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    > www.webtree.ca/windowsxp

    - Nehmo -
    Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
    and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
    physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
    the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.


    --
    *********************
    * Nehmo Sergheyev *
    *********************
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Nehmo Sergheyev" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:mAy8d.96442$nA6.86356@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
    > I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
    > 80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
    > as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
    > hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.
    >
    > So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
    > partitions:
    > one for the XP OS,
    > one for Linux, and
    > one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
    > partitions?

    Linux doesn't need much room. If you set aside 5GB for it, you'll probably
    use less than half of that, even with all linux software you want to use
    installed. Linux will play nice with Windows if you install Windows first.

    I'd suggest:

    Install Windows XP, but when it creates partitions, create two partitions.
    If your disk was exactly 120GB (it will show up as less than that during
    partition creation), then I'd suggest 110GB for Windows, 5GB for Windows
    swap file and 5GB NOT partitioned at all. Whatever the actual size of your
    hard drive is when you run the partition program, just subtract about
    11000MB, and use whatever's left to create a partition to install windows
    on. Then create a second partition of about 5000MB for a window swap file.
    That should leave about ~6000MB of unpartitioned space on your hard drive.
    (linux will be happy to use that)

    After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
    linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora) During the linux
    install, you will need to create at least two partitions including a linux
    swap partition. The linux swap file only needs to be about 500MB, so that
    will leave plenty of space for other partitions. Obviously, when you are
    creating your linux partitions, you should use the previously UNpartitioned
    space on your 120GB drive.

    In case you are worried about storing large files downloaded or created in
    linux, you should keep in mind that linux will mount windows partitions
    automatically. Thus you will have a mostly empty windows partition to use
    for storage space in linux. Or you can use any free space there is on the
    80GB drive you are recycling.

    During the linux install, a boot menu will be set up that will allow you to
    choose which OS you want to boot.

    Whether you experiment with linux or not, you might want to get yourself a
    DVDR/W drive and a image program like Ghost or similar (I use acronis true
    image). With Windows and all software installed correctly, I am able to
    back up my entire hard drive on two DVD-Rom disks. You won't likely have a
    problem with linux, but it's good to have a backup anyway. -Dave
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Nehmo,

    There is another alternative from Linspire (a.k.a Lindows). This is a
    simple setup and rather 'mickey mouse' for the true Linux user, but on
    the other hand it is very straight forward and gives you the opportunity
    to play around with Linux.

    I have XP Pro setup on my primary HDD and I just let Linspire do its
    thing on the secondary HDD. Linspire does setup as the primary boot when
    booting up, but that isn't a big deal.

    There had been a deal on www.linspire.com. Somewhere in the ordering
    process you will be able to enter a coupon code ( deviant9 ) which will
    then give you a credit for the purchase price. I'm not sure if the deal
    is still available, but I took advantage of it 2 weeks ago. You also get
    a 15 day subscription to their software library.

    Wayne

    Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > - Harry Ohrn -
    >
    >>You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
    >>installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
    >
    > screw
    >
    >>with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
    >>alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
    >
    > would
    >
    >>be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
    >
    > distros
    >
    >>that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
    >
    > with
    >
    >>the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
    >
    > up so
    >
    >>that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
    >
    > enables
    >
    >>you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
    >
    > reconfigure
    >
    >>everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
    >
    > to a
    >
    >>USB key.
    >>http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
    >>http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
    >>Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    >>www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
    >
    >
    > - Nehmo -
    > Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
    > and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
    > physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
    > the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    - wayneP -
    > There is another alternative from Linspire (a.k.a Lindows). This is a
    > simple setup and rather 'mickey mouse' for the true Linux user, but on
    > the other hand it is very straight forward and gives you the
    opportunity
    > to play around with Linux.
    >
    > I have XP Pro setup on my primary HDD and I just let Linspire do its
    > thing on the secondary HDD. Linspire does setup as the primary boot
    when
    > booting up, but that isn't a big deal.
    >
    > There had been a deal on www.linspire.com. Somewhere in the ordering
    > process you will be able to enter a coupon code ( deviant9 ) which
    will
    > then give you a credit for the purchase price. I'm not sure if the
    deal
    > is still available, but I took advantage of it 2 weeks ago. You also
    get
    > a 15 day subscription to their software library.

    - Nehmo -
    I once tired to download Lindows (it was supposed to be free), but I
    couldn't download. I never got the problem resolved, but I didn't devote
    much time to it. The brief email exchange was discouraging. I'm sure,
    however, if I had worked more on the problem, it would have been solved.

    Anyway, now I just want to use one of the regular versions of Linux. I
    really can't go wrong because I'll always have my XP OS available.

    --
    *********************
    * Nehmo Sergheyev *
    *********************
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Nehmo,

    There is another alternative from Linspire (a.k.a Lindows). This is a
    simple setup and rather 'mickey mouse' for the true Linux user, but on
    the other hand it is very straight forward and gives you the opportunity
    to play around with Linux.

    I have XP Pro setup on my primary HDD and I just let Linspire do its
    thing on the secondary HDD. Linspire does setup as the primary boot when
    booting up, but that isn't a big deal.

    There had been a deal on www.linspire.com. Somewhere in the ordering
    process you will be able to enter a coupon code ( deviant9 ) which will
    then give you a credit for the purchase price. I'm not sure if the deal
    is still available, but I took advantage of it 2 weeks ago. You also get
    a 15 day subscription to their software library.

    Wayne

    Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > - Harry Ohrn -
    >
    >>You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
    >>installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
    >
    > screw
    >
    >>with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
    >>alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
    >
    > would
    >
    >>be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
    >
    > distros
    >
    >>that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
    >
    > with
    >
    >>the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
    >
    > up so
    >
    >>that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
    >
    > enables
    >
    >>you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
    >
    > reconfigure
    >
    >>everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
    >
    > to a
    >
    >>USB key.
    >>http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
    >>http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
    >>Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    >>www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
    >
    >
    > - Nehmo -
    > Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
    > and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
    > physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
    > the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:

    > - Harry Ohrn -
    >> You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
    >> installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
    > screw
    >> with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
    >> alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
    > would
    >> be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
    > distros
    >> that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
    > with
    >> the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
    > up so
    >> that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
    > enables
    >> you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
    > reconfigure
    >> everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
    > to a
    >> USB key.
    >> http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
    >> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
    >> Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    >> www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
    >
    > - Nehmo -
    > Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
    > and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
    > physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
    > the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.

    If your primary OS is Windows XP and you just want to dink around with Unix
    (note--Linux is just one flavor of Unix--if you can drive one flavor of
    Unix you can generally figure out another one without too much trouble) a
    little, then install Cygwin <http://www.cygwin.com>--you can get a very
    good feel for it and at the same time use its capabilities in conjunction
    with Windows. If you want to go a little deeper, then pay Microsoft the
    hundred bucks for Virtual PC and then install whatever flavor of Unix you
    like on the virtual machine. Works far better than one would expect.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Dave C." wrote:
    > Linux will play nice with Windows if you install Windows first.
    >
    > [......]
    > After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
    > THEN install linux.
    > [.......]
    > During the linux install, a boot menu will be set up that will
    > allow you to choose which OS you want to boot.
    >
    > Whether you experiment with linux or not, you might want to
    > get yourself a DVDR/W drive and a image program like
    > Ghost or similar (I use acronis true image). With Windows
    > and all software installed correctly, I am able to back up my
    > entire hard drive on two DVD-Rom disks.


    Do you use the WinXP multi-boot capability for choosing
    between Windows and Linux? Is that why you choose to install
    WinXP first?

    I assume you run Ghost from the Windows partition. How
    is it at cloning/copying a Linux partition? Can it copy a Linux
    system *to* your system drive to be bootable?

    *TimDaniels*
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    It's not THAT hard to setup partitions so that you can install linux &
    windows on the same drive. Especially now that recent versions of various
    bootloaders don't need to be installed in the first 1024 cylinders.

    On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:22:54 -0600, Harry Ohrn <harry---@webtree.ca> wrote:

    > You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
    > installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really screw
    > with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
    > alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
    > would
    > be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux distros
    > that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot with
    > the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it up
    > so
    > that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix enables
    > you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
    > reconfigure
    > everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
    > to a
    > USB key.
    >
    > http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
    >
    > http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Nehmo Sergheyev <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
    > 80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
    > as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
    > hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.

    > So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
    > partitions:
    > one for the XP OS,
    > one for Linux, and
    > one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
    > partitions?

    Yes, that would be better. Use FAT32 for the windows partitions
    and ext2/3 for the Linux partitions. One reason is that FAT32
    does not support the Unix/Linux permission model to a reasonable
    degree.

    > How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
    > arrangement make sense?

    For Linux I use Debian sarge (download form the net, needs
    DSL/Cable modem to be comfortable) and generally have found
    6GB for the root partition to be generous if a lot and large
    apps are installed. Same for data, unless you plan to
    put media files in there. For XP you also need something
    like 4GB for the OS and swap-file. Install applications
    preferrably not on c:.

    Also advisable is a 500MB (or so) partition for Linux swap space.
    As bootloader I would advise Grub, which can boot both
    Linux and XP without problems.

    > My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as a
    > regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've been
    > told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then a
    > reinstall is easier.

    I would advise doing the backup with Linux. If the Windows partitons
    are FAT32 that works well.

    > And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
    > interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .

    If you have a fats internet connectivity, I advise to go for
    Debian Sarge (testing). A bit confusing in the begionning, but
    once you did the first major update without even a reboot,
    you will be convinced.

    > And one more question. When I install a program on the document-program
    > partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition too?
    > Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
    > Files\Common Files , the usual default place?

    You should have all programms store their data in the document
    partition. The problem is that Windows has a tendency to foul up the
    c: partition in a way that only a complete cleanup of that partition
    helps. If your data and apps are elsewere, they still work.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Sorry about the double posting. I posted from Linspire for the first time
    and must have done something wrong. I got some kind of a error message
    during first attempt at posting; so I reposted. Must be the error didn't
    keep the first post from going through .

    Wayne

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:2sg6h8F1gsp3eU2@uni-berlin.de...
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Nehmo Sergheyev <nehmo54@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >> I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to have an
    >> 80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP Home
    >> as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
    >> hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.
    >
    >> So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
    >> partitions:
    >> one for the XP OS,
    >> one for Linux, and
    >> one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
    >> partitions?
    >
    > Yes, that would be better. Use FAT32 for the windows partitions
    > and ext2/3 for the Linux partitions. One reason is that FAT32
    > does not support the Unix/Linux permission model to a reasonable
    > degree.
    >
    >> How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
    >> arrangement make sense?
    >
    > For Linux I use Debian sarge (download form the net, needs
    > DSL/Cable modem to be comfortable) and generally have found
    > 6GB for the root partition to be generous if a lot and large
    > apps are installed. Same for data, unless you plan to
    > put media files in there. For XP you also need something
    > like 4GB for the OS and swap-file. Install applications
    > preferrably not on c:.
    >
    > Also advisable is a 500MB (or so) partition for Linux swap space.
    > As bootloader I would advise Grub, which can boot both
    > Linux and XP without problems.
    >
    >> My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as a
    >> regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've been
    >> told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then a
    >> reinstall is easier.
    >
    > I would advise doing the backup with Linux. If the Windows partitons
    > are FAT32 that works well.
    >
    >> And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
    >> interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .
    >
    > If you have a fats internet connectivity, I advise to go for
    > Debian Sarge (testing). A bit confusing in the begionning, but
    > once you did the first major update without even a reboot,
    > you will be convinced.
    >
    >> And one more question. When I install a program on the document-program
    >> partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition too?
    >> Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
    >> Files\Common Files , the usual default place?
    >
    > You should have all programms store their data in the document
    > partition. The problem is that Windows has a tendency to foul up the
    > c: partition in a way that only a complete cleanup of that partition
    > helps. If your data and apps are elsewere, they still work.
    >
    > Arno
    > --
    > For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    > GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    > "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:32:37 -0400, Dave C. <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    > In case you are worried about storing large files downloaded or created
    > in
    > linux, you should keep in mind that linux will mount windows partitions
    > automatically. Thus you will have a mostly empty windows partition to
    > use
    > for storage space in linux.

    If you intend to do that, you should remember that linux currently doesn't
    support writing to NTFS partitions (the XP default). You will need to
    format the XP partition as FAT32.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Matt wrote:

    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >> Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>- Harry Ohrn -
    >>>
    >>>>You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
    >>>>installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
    >>>
    >>>screw
    >>>
    >>>>with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
    >>>>alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
    >>>
    >>>would
    >>>
    >>>>be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
    >>>
    >>>distros
    >>>
    >>>>that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
    >>>
    >>>with
    >>>
    >>>>the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it
    >>>
    >>>up so
    >>>
    >>>>that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
    >>>
    >>>enables
    >>>
    >>>>you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
    >>>
    >>>reconfigure
    >>>
    >>>>everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration
    >>>
    >>>to a
    >>>
    >>>>USB key.
    >>>>http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
    >>>>http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
    >>>>Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    >>>>www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
    >>>
    >>>- Nehmo -
    >>>Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
    >>>and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
    >>>physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
    >>>the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.
    >>
    >>
    >> If your primary OS is Windows XP and you just want to dink around with
    >> Unix (note--Linux is just one flavor of Unix--if you can drive one flavor
    >> of Unix you can generally figure out another one without too much
    >> trouble) a little, then install Cygwin <http://www.cygwin.com>--you can
    >> get a very good feel for it and at the same time use its capabilities in
    >> conjunction
    >> with Windows. If you want to go a little deeper, then pay Microsoft the
    >> hundred bucks for Virtual PC and then install whatever flavor of Unix you
    >> like on the virtual machine. Works far better than one would expect.
    >>
    >
    > That is pretty much wrongheaded. The OP should just try Linux, and so
    > should you.

    Next time you're tempted to spout off in this fashion, check headers first.
    Want some ketchup for that foot?

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
    >linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)

    You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
    Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
    documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

    Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
    previously-installed Linux partition. So, basically, you're screwed
    for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
    regard as kludges).
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Nehmo Sergheyev" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:ZNA8d.96449$nA6.6376@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:

    > I once tired to download Lindows (it was supposed to be free), but
    > I couldn't download. I never got the problem resolved, but I
    > didn't devote much time to it. The brief email exchange was
    > discouraging. I'm sure, however, if I had worked more on the
    > problem, it would have been solved.

    You should try and resolve the problem. I've tried several distros of
    Linux and only Mandrake 10.1 or Mandrake 10.0RC1 64bit or, believe it
    or not, Linspire, will find and install correctly all my hardware! I'm
    impressed but I believe Linspire could become costly over time if you
    needed a lot of software?

    Anyway, back to WindowsXP and Windows XP 64-bit edition as Linux isn't
    quite what I need.... yet....
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:43:56 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    > "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
    >
    >> After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN
    >> install
    >> linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >
    > You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
    > Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
    > documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >
    > Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
    > previously-installed Linux partition. So, basically, you're screwed
    > for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
    > regard as kludges).


    You what? Since when? I've just installed Gentoo 2004.2 with 2.6, lilo &
    no problems whatsoever. I don't see why the kernel should affect how the
    boot works, since its not loaded until after you start booting linux.

    Of course, since I haven't yet bothered to go google for it, could well be
    talking outta my ass, so feel free to ignore me if thats the case.... :P
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    > "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
    >>linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)

    > You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
    > Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
    > documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

    Huh? I have been using stock 2.6.x up to 2.6.9-rc2 without any
    problem like this. Care to give a reference? Or is this just
    a problem of Fedora?

    > Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
    > previously-installed Linux partition.

    Not if you create the installation partition with Linux. At least
    I have done this successfully several times.

    > So, basically, you're screwed
    > for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
    > regard as kludges).

    "Huh?" again: Lilo and Grub do the job without problem. And they
    are not "third-party".

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Matt wrote:

    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    >>>>If your primary OS is Windows XP and you just want to dink around with
    >>>>Unix (note--Linux is just one flavor of Unix--if you can drive one
    >>>>flavor of Unix you can generally figure out another one without too much
    >>>>trouble) a little, then install Cygwin <http://www.cygwin.com>--you can
    >>>>get a very good feel for it and at the same time use its capabilities in
    >>>>conjunction
    >>>>with Windows. If you want to go a little deeper, then pay Microsoft the
    >>>>hundred bucks for Virtual PC and then install whatever flavor of Unix
    >>>>you
    >>>>like on the virtual machine. Works far better than one would expect.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>That is pretty much wrongheaded. The OP should just try Linux, and so
    >>>should you.
    >>
    >>
    >> Next time you're tempted to spout off in this fashion, check headers
    >> first. Want some ketchup for that foot?
    >>
    >
    > Nah, but thanks for asking! :-)
    >
    > Cygwin is good if you must run Windows, but the OP is able to install
    > and run Linux.

    Yes, he is, and that might be the most attractive alternative for him, but
    just because he can doesn't mean that doing so is the most desirable
    alternative for him.

    > You want him to pay $100 (to Microsoft!) for Virtual PC and then pay
    > again for "whatever flavor of Unix you like"? I confess I don't know
    > what the options are in this regard. How much would you have him spend
    > for Unix (what "flavor"?) on top of Virtual PC?

    The only major Unix variants that are not available under an open license
    are Solaris and SCO System V. NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux are all
    open-source and available at no charge. Personally I'm partial to Gentoo
    Linux, but others have other preferences.

    > I'd like to know what specific belief or assumption is making you come
    > up with these odd approaches. It sound like you don't want to reboot.

    I don't find it an "odd approach" at all. If you come from the mainframe
    world the use of virtual machines is SOP--it's very, very old technology,
    commercially available since the late '60s or early '70s. If you've never
    used one you might want to try it. Personally I find the notion that you
    must reboot to run a different OS on a machine that was designed to support
    virtual operation is the "odd approach". The use of a virtual machine is
    _much_ more convenient that repeated rebooting. Yes, there's a performance
    penalty, but if you're doing something that critical it should have a
    dedicated machine anyway.

    > By the way, Linux is not Unix.

    By what reasoning? If you mean that it can't legally be called that as a
    brand name because SCO owns the brand, that is true, but that is also true
    of Solaris, NetBSD, and FreeBSD among others. If you mean that the code is
    not derived from AT&T source, that is also true but again the same is true
    of NetBSD and FreeBSD, both of which were sanitized so as to allow them to
    be made open-source. Now, you may think that NetBSD and FreeBSD are also
    not Unix, but in that case you are most assuredly in the minority. If you
    mean that it's not good enough for production use, IBM is providing it as
    an alternative on their mainframes, either natively or under VM. If it
    wasn't ready for prime time businesses wouldn't be putting it on
    multimillion dollar hardware.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Matt" wrote:
    >> "Dave C." wrote:
    >>
    >>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
    >>>THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >>
    >> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
    >> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
    >> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >
    > Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
    > (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.


    Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
    Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
    or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?

    *TimDaniels*
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@nospamdot.com> wrote:
    > "Matt" wrote:
    >>> "Dave C." wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
    >>>>THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >>>
    >>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
    >>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
    >>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >>
    >> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
    >> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.


    > Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
    > Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
    > or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?

    What about using a bootmanager from Linux (in the widest sense)?
    The bootmanager form XP is perhaps the worst choice possible.

    Grub or LILO can boot XP just fine. And yes, I have XP and
    Linux on the same disk in my laptop, and have a linux recovery
    system on the first disk in my desktop, were also XP is on the
    same disk. The main Linux system in on RAID1 and only half on
    the first disk...

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Arno Wagner" wrote:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >> "Matt" wrote:
    >>>> "Dave C." wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
    >>>>>THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >>>>
    >>>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
    >>>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
    >>>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >>>
    >>> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
    >>> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.
    >
    >
    >> Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
    >> Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
    >> or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?
    >
    > What about using a bootmanager from Linux (in the widest sense)?
    > The bootmanager form XP is perhaps the worst choice possible.
    >
    > Grub or LILO can boot XP just fine. And yes, I have XP and
    > Linux on the same disk in my laptop, and have a linux recovery
    > system on the first disk in my desktop, were also XP is on the
    > same disk. The main Linux system in on RAID1 and only half on
    > the first disk...


    Do Grub and LILO run under Linux, or are they stand-alone?
    IOW, can they be used for Windows-only systems?

    *TimDaniels*
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Timothy Daniels wrote:

    > Do Grub and LILO run under Linux, or are they stand-alone?
    > IOW, can they be used for Windows-only systems?
    >
    > *TimDaniels*

    No, Grub and the older LILO (Linux Loader) are boot managers for Linux
    systems which can boot non-Linux systems too if you install it in the
    MBR. Windows XP has its own boot manager which can boot Windows
    operating systems, and there are third-party boot managers for Windows
    that can boot Windows and non-Windows operating systems. BootIT NG is
    one, Boot Magic is another.

    Malke
    --
    MS MVP - Windows Shell/User
    Elephant Boy Computers
    www.elephantboycomputers.com
    "Don't Panic!"
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Matt" wrote:
    > Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >> "Matt" wrote:
    >>
    >>>> "Dave C." wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
    >>>>> THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
    >>>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
    >>>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
    >>> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
    >
    > XP on the first disk. FC2, SUSE, and FreeBSD on the second disk.
    >
    >> Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
    >> or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?
    >
    > I use GRUB (Grand Unified Boot Loader) on the MBR of the first disk so
    > that it points to a grub.conf file in the /boot directory of the FC2
    > installation. That grub.conf is a specification of a boot menu and of
    > the locations of the several OSes. I find GRUB's documents easier than
    > LILO's, and LILO is partly deprecated.


    Before I do a Google search, do you have any hot tips on where
    to find the best documentation on these boot managers? Must
    GRUB run under Linux/UNIX? Can it reside on a partition formatted
    for NTFS (if, indeed, it resides on a partition)?

    *TimDaniels*
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@nospamdot.com> wrote:
    > "Arno Wagner" wrote:
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>> "Matt" wrote:
    >>>>> "Dave C." wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
    >>>>>>THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
    >>>>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
    >>>>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
    >>>> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
    >>> Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
    >>> or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?
    >>
    >> What about using a bootmanager from Linux (in the widest sense)?
    >> The bootmanager form XP is perhaps the worst choice possible.
    >>
    >> Grub or LILO can boot XP just fine. And yes, I have XP and
    >> Linux on the same disk in my laptop, and have a linux recovery
    >> system on the first disk in my desktop, were also XP is on the
    >> same disk. The main Linux system in on RAID1 and only half on
    >> the first disk...


    > Do Grub and LILO run under Linux, or are they stand-alone?
    > IOW, can they be used for Windows-only systems?

    For booting both can do without Linux. Configuration is a
    different question.

    LILO has to be configured with Linux.

    For Grub I have to admit I am not sure. Interactive mode
    from a floppy can be used with any configuration on the HDD
    also one that does not include Linux. However you have to
    specify everything manually, so this is more of an emergency
    option.

    For HDD installation of Grub and/or adjusted configuration, I think
    you need a running GNU Mach, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD.

    However, why not installing a small Linux, say 200MB partition
    size or so, just with a text editor and lilo or Grub configuration?
    You can use e.g. a minimal Debian system for this. If
    you dont use X, sound, mouse, etc. configuration is essentially
    a non-issue.

    Alternatively you can also use a Linux CD, e.g. a Knoppix
    variant to maintain the bootloader.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Arno Wagner wrote:

    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Timothy Daniels
    > <TDaniels@nospamdot.com> wrote:
    >> "Arno Wagner" wrote:
    >>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>>> "Matt" wrote:
    >>>>>> "Dave C." wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
    >>>>>>>THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat
    >>>>>>>fedora)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6
    >>>>>> kernel)
    >>>>>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
    >>>>>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
    >>>>> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
    >>>> Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
    >>>> or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?
    >>>
    >>> What about using a bootmanager from Linux (in the widest sense)?
    >>> The bootmanager form XP is perhaps the worst choice possible.
    >>>
    >>> Grub or LILO can boot XP just fine. And yes, I have XP and
    >>> Linux on the same disk in my laptop, and have a linux recovery
    >>> system on the first disk in my desktop, were also XP is on the
    >>> same disk. The main Linux system in on RAID1 and only half on
    >>> the first disk...
    >
    >
    >> Do Grub and LILO run under Linux, or are they stand-alone?
    >> IOW, can they be used for Windows-only systems?
    >
    > For booting both can do without Linux. Configuration is a
    > different question.
    >
    > LILO has to be configured with Linux.
    >
    > For Grub I have to admit I am not sure. Interactive mode
    > from a floppy can be used with any configuration on the HDD
    > also one that does not include Linux. However you have to
    > specify everything manually, so this is more of an emergency
    > option.
    >
    > For HDD installation of Grub and/or adjusted configuration, I think
    > you need a running GNU Mach, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD.
    >
    > However, why not installing a small Linux, say 200MB partition
    > size or so, just with a text editor and lilo or Grub configuration?
    > You can use e.g. a minimal Debian system for this. If
    > you dont use X, sound, mouse, etc. configuration is essentially
    > a non-issue.
    >
    > Alternatively you can also use a Linux CD, e.g. a Knoppix
    > variant to maintain the bootloader.
    >
    > Arno

    Or just boot Linux from floppy, but I would personally find that got
    really old very quickly. If the OP just wants to try Linux to feel it
    out, then Knoppix is a wonderful choice. Just make sure to have enough
    RAM since it is of course running in RAM. The latest Knoppix is 3.6 and
    can be gotten at http://www.knoppix.net.

    Malke
    --
    MS-MVP Windows User/Shell
    Elephant Boy Computers
    www.elephantboycomputers.com
    "Don't Panic"
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@nospamdot.com> wrote:

    > "Matt" wrote:
    >> Timothy Daniels wrote:
    >>> "Matt" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> "Dave C." wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine,
    >>>>>> THEN install linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel)
    >>>>> of Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is
    >>>>> well documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
    >>>> (2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
    >>
    >> XP on the first disk. FC2, SUSE, and FreeBSD on the second disk.
    >>
    >>> Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
    >>> or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?
    >>
    >> I use GRUB (Grand Unified Boot Loader) on the MBR of the first disk so
    >> that it points to a grub.conf file in the /boot directory of the FC2
    >> installation. That grub.conf is a specification of a boot menu and of
    >> the locations of the several OSes. I find GRUB's documents easier than
    >> LILO's, and LILO is partly deprecated.


    > Before I do a Google search, do you have any hot tips on where
    > to find the best documentation on these boot managers? Must
    > GRUB run under Linux/UNIX? Can it reside on a partition formatted
    > for NTFS (if, indeed, it resides on a partition)?

    Grub can boot windows only by use of the Windows boot-sector. It
    needs its configuration file in a partition with a filesystem
    it can read. It does understand FAT 16/32, so you could put the
    config file on such a partition. It does not understand NTFS.

    I think the initial installation can be done from a Grub-floppy,
    but I am not sure. I never was without a Linux, at least on CD when
    doing this kind of work.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >> "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
    >>>linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >>
    >>
    >> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
    >> Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
    >> documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >
    >Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1 (2.6 kernel)
    >all bootable on the same machine.

    It doesn't happen every time, but it's a fact it happens, when you
    first install Windows and then install Linux. It happened to me.

    From
    http://www.hut.fi/~tkarvine/linux-windows-dual-boot-resizing-ntfs.html

    Fedora Core 2 and other distributions using Linux kernel version 2.6
    alter the partition table so that Windows no longer recognizes those
    partitions. This problem does not show with every installation of
    Fedora Core 2, and it never occurs with Fedora Core 1. The problem is
    annoying but fixable without data loss. This worked for me: boot to
    Knoppix 3.3 (Linux 2.4), sfdisk -l. Check the correct geometry: CHS
    Cylinders Heads Sectors. (There are also other sources to check the
    correct geometry, such as printings on hard disks and sometimes bios.)
    Rewrite the partition table to reflect the correct geometry, using
    your own values for /dev/hda, C H and S.

    sfdisk -d /dev/hda |sfdisk --no-reread -C 16037 -H 255 -S 63 /dev/hda
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    >> "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
    >
    >>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
    >>>linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >
    >> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
    >> Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
    >> documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >
    >Huh? I have been using stock 2.6.x up to 2.6.9-rc2 without any
    >problem like this. Care to give a reference? Or is this just
    >a problem of Fedora?

    All 2.6 kernels have the issue, is my understanding.

    >> Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
    >> previously-installed Linux partition.
    >
    >Not if you create the installation partition with Linux. At least
    >I have done this successfully several times.

    What do mean, exactly? Windows will replace the boot-loader every
    time, and not give an option to boot Linux, from what I've seen.

    >> So, basically, you're screwed
    >> for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
    >> regard as kludges).
    >
    >"Huh?" again: Lilo and Grub do the job without problem. And they
    >are not "third-party".

    "Lilo and Grub" are NOT what I consider "kludgy third party
    boot-loaders". In theory, the preferred way to get the dual-boot
    going is to install Windows first, then Linux, using Grub or Lilo to
    allow dual-booting.

    FC2 uses Grub by default, and there was no option to boot Windows. It
    was hosed. It's a documented fact that the 2.6 kernel has this
    problem.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
    >> Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
    >> documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >
    >Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1 (2.6 kernel)
    >all bootable on the same machine.

    Here's another link:

    http://lwn.net/Articles/86835/

    and another

    http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/05/fhassel_windows_not_booting91.html
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    >FC2 uses Grub by default, and there was no option to boot Windows. It
    >was hosed. It's a documented fact that the 2.6 kernel has this
    >problem.

    I mis-spoke there. As I recall, Grub gave the option, but Windows
    would not boot.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    > Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    >>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    >>> "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
    >>>>linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >>
    >>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
    >>> Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
    >>> documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >>
    >>Huh? I have been using stock 2.6.x up to 2.6.9-rc2 without any
    >>problem like this. Care to give a reference? Or is this just
    >>a problem of Fedora?

    > All 2.6 kernels have the issue, is my understanding.

    I am completely unaware of this and since I have
    used a dual-boot machine since 1994, I should have noticed
    something, should I not? And if there is an issue I would
    like to know exactly what it is...

    >>> Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
    >>> previously-installed Linux partition.
    >>
    >>Not if you create the installation partition with Linux. At least
    >>I have done this successfully several times.

    > What do mean, exactly? Windows will replace the boot-loader every
    > time, and not give an option to boot Linux, from what I've seen.

    Oh, that is what you mean. But that is not real damage, just a small
    issue to be corrected with a Linux recovery CD/floppy or a grub
    boot-floppy. Takes two minutes and is routine for me. Note that
    this does nothing to the Linux partition. It is purely an MBR
    issue.

    >>> So, basically, you're screwed
    >>> for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
    >>> regard as kludges).
    >>
    >>"Huh?" again: Lilo and Grub do the job without problem. And they
    >>are not "third-party".

    > "Lilo and Grub" are NOT what I consider "kludgy third party
    > boot-loaders". In theory, the preferred way to get the dual-boot
    > going is to install Windows first, then Linux, using Grub or Lilo to
    > allow dual-booting.

    Or use the other way round and the Grub-floppy/Grub-CD/Knoppix CD to
    make Linux bootable again. Quite simple. Of course you have to
    understand some bootloader basics for this.

    > FC2 uses Grub by default, and there was no option to boot Windows. It
    > was hosed. It's a documented fact that the 2.6 kernel has this
    > problem.

    I still don't see any kernel issue here at all. 2.6 will not touch
    a partition unless told to. It may be that the FC2 installer is bad.
    I have observed no effects on Windows partitions with the Debian
    installer. And that Grub in FC2 has no option to boot Windows
    surely is FC2's fault and not that of Grub. You can still go to
    the Grub shell and boot Windows manually and as long as you can
    boot a linux from somewhere you can reinstall/maintain LILO.

    I don't quite see your problem. Of course if you do not have
    any possibility ti boot besides the HDD, you may be screwed.
    But then how did you perform the installation in the first
    place?

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    >>FC2 uses Grub by default, and there was no option to boot Windows. It
    >>was hosed. It's a documented fact that the 2.6 kernel has this
    >>problem.

    > I mis-spoke there. As I recall, Grub gave the option, but Windows
    > would not boot.

    O.K., then this was likely because the preconfigured Windows
    boot optins were wrong. Solution:

    - boot into grub bit not farther
    - Go to grub shell.
    - Tell it which partition is Windows:
    root (hd0,1)
    if on hda1, adjust if somewere else.
    - Make the partition active (for some reason Windows still needs this):
    makeactive
    - Tell Grub to use the chainloader:
    chainloader +1
    - Boot:
    boot

    This should bring Windows up o.k.. Also works with a Grub
    boot-floppy. You can add the correct settings from Linux in the
    /boot/grub/menu.lst file once you have figured them out.

    An other possibility is that FC2 did damage in the partitioning
    process. Still not a Linux or Kernel issue, but a problem of
    FC2. That Linux is a great OS does not mean there are no broken
    distros or installers.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    > Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote:

    >>chrisv wrote:
    >>> "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
    >>>>linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
    >>> Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
    >>> documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >>
    >>Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1 (2.6 kernel)
    >>all bootable on the same machine.

    > It doesn't happen every time, but it's a fact it happens, when you
    > first install Windows and then install Linux. It happened to me.

    > From
    > http://www.hut.fi/~tkarvine/linux-windows-dual-boot-resizing-ntfs.html
    [...]
    O.K., from a document referenced there:

    Primer:
    There is a bug in Fedora Core 2 that causes the hard disk
    geometry as reported in the partition table to be altered during
    installation. This change may cause Windows boot failure. Although
    this bug is severe, it is recoverable and no data should be lost. It
    is important not to panic if and when this happens so you do not cause
    further problems or cause actual loss of data in the process of
    recovering from the error.

    This is not a Linux or Kernel issue. This is a broken installer that
    does the partitioning wrong. I never experienced this problem. I now
    have a 2.6 kernel on all my systems. However I do all my partitioning
    manually with Linux fdisk. I have heard that some of the fdisk
    alternatives can cause this problem but was not interested enough to
    investigate, since fdisk works well.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    > Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote:

    >>chrisv wrote:
    >>>
    >>> You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
    >>> Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
    >>> documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.
    >>
    >>Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1 (2.6 kernel)
    >>all bootable on the same machine.

    > Here's another link:

    > http://lwn.net/Articles/86835/

    This is the FC2 problem.

    > and another

    > http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/05/fhassel_windows_not_booting91.html
    From this: " ... The partitioning tool parted, which YaST uses during
    the installation, may write an incorrect partition table...."

    Yes, parted has problems with a 2.6 kernel and windows partitions.
    But they are parted's problems, not kernel problems. I also find
    parted a quite scary tool, since you do not get verification
    questions on dangerous operations.

    As I said, these are bad installers using partitioning tools that have
    issues with 2.6. I have had no problems at all partitioning for
    Windows with Linux fdisk. And fdisk does not do any changes to disk
    until you quit it, a feature I like very much. Of course fdisk is
    quite old and has some issues. For example it still sticks to the
    notion of cylinders. parted does away with them and just uses size.

    Maybe one additional comment for SuSE: I used SuSE until lasst year,
    when I finally got fed-up with their unability to perfrom reliable
    updates between different versions. I am now running Debian without
    these problems.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Matt wrote:

    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >> Matt wrote:
    >
    >>>I'd like to know what specific belief or assumption is making you come
    >>>up with these odd approaches. It sound like you don't want to reboot.
    >>
    >>
    >> I don't find it an "odd approach" at all. If you come from the mainframe
    >> world the use of virtual machines is SOP--it's very, very old technology,
    >> commercially available since the late '60s or early '70s. If you've
    >> never
    >> used one you might want to try it. Personally I find the notion that you
    >> must reboot to run a different OS on a machine that was designed to
    >> support
    >> virtual operation is the "odd approach". The use of a virtual machine is
    >> _much_ more convenient that repeated rebooting. Yes, there's a
    >> performance penalty, but if you're doing something that critical it
    >> should have a dedicated machine anyway.
    >>
    > Okay, so you are saying that XP runs a process that emulates an i386
    > processor and the other PC hardware?

    It doesn't emulate the processor--it doesn't need to--virtual operation has
    been designed into every Intel or Intel-compatible processor from the 80386
    on. It does emulate some of the peripherals, notably the video, the
    network card, and the sound board--in each case a commonplace and widely
    supported chip is emulated.

    And this is not specific to XP.

    Microsoft Virtual PC runs on Windows 2000 or XP--the last version that
    Connectix produced before Microsoft bought them out also ran on Windows 98
    and NT. There's also a Mac version that runs a full software emulation of
    the x86. There was an OS/2 version that had just shipped when Microsoft
    bought out Connectix, but Microsoft seems to have killed it.

    The competing product, vmware, runs on Windows NT, 2K, and XP, and on Linux.
    It's for the most part a better product, however it costs twice as much.

    Both Microsoft and vmware have free demo versions available, but for Windows
    only.

    Both also have server versions of their products which I haven't played
    with.

    There was an attempt at GPL equivalent, plex86, but it was much more
    limited--it wouldn't run any guest OS but Linux, and the last activity on
    it seems to have been over a year ago.

    > Then you just run the binaries
    > from an ordinary *nix distro?

    Yes. Or BSD or Novell or Windows or Plan 9 or BeOS or whatever.

    > Or do you run a distro made especially
    > for the virtual machine?

    Nope. Except to the extent that if the default kernel doesn't have support
    for the particular peripheral chips being emulated compiled in you'd want
    to recompile with those drivers, same as you would for any machine.

    > If it is an ordinary distro, I don't know how
    > you would install the system.

    Same way you'd install it on any machine. Insert the CD and boot up
    (assuming the distribution CD is bootable of course). But what you're
    booting is the virtual machine, whose display appears in a window on your
    Windows or Linux desktop.


    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Nehmo Sergheyev" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:mAy8d.96442$nA6.86356@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

    > I'm setting up a new boot drive of 120 GB (and I'm also going to
    > have an
    > 80 GB, but there's already stuff on that), and I intend to use XP
    > Home
    > as my main OS. But I also want to learn this Linux thing I've been
    > hearing about, so I want to make a separate partition for that.
    >
    > So what's the best way to partition the 120 GB HD? I assume three
    > partitions:
    > one for the XP OS,
    > one for Linux, and
    > one for documents and programs? Should this be separated into two
    > partitions?
    >
    > How much space should I allocate for each partition? And does this
    > arrangement make sense?
    >
    > My main concern is having a system that can be backed up easily, as
    > a
    > regular precaution, and fixed easily should something happen. I've
    > been
    > told that a separate partition for the OS is preferable because then
    > a
    > reinstall is easier.
    >
    > And while I'm asking, which Linux should I get? One Linux app I'm
    > interested in is Asterisk http://www.asterisk.org/ .
    >
    > And one more question. When I install a program on the
    > document-program
    > partition, should I make it put its common files on that partition
    > too?
    > Or should I allow the program to put its common files on C:\Program
    > Files\Common Files , the usual default place?


    My best advice for this is No Partitions. Use mobile racks with
    separate
    drives. One has to reboot to change from one OS to another anyway.
    This promotes less foul-ups with partitioning, boot loaders etc etc.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Frank" wrote:
    > My best advice for this is No Partitions. Use mobile racks with
    > separate drives. One has to reboot to change from one OS
    > to another anyway. This promotes less foul-ups with partitioning,
    > boot loaders etc etc.


    Mobile racks (a.k.a. "caddies" and "removable trays") are
    indeed very convenient. I installed a Kingwin unit of the type
    with the cooling fan built into the bottom of the removable tray
    (http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_detail.asp?LineID=&CateID=25&ID=136),
    and it works beautifully, keeping the hard drive (a Maxtor
    DiamondMax Plus 9) quite cool. I use it for backing up the
    entire contents of each of my two internal hard drives. The only
    tradeoff is a slight whooshing noise from the air rushing into the
    front of the removable tray. With 3 hard drives and a few ATAPI
    devices, round cables are necessary to make everything fit, so I
    use the ones with the aluminum braid shielding. So far,
    no problems.

    *TimDaniels*
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Whatever you want to "blame" for the problem, it's a fact that there's
    an issue which affects most, if not all, 2.6-based Linux distros. You
    may be someone who has created many dual-boot systems and have an
    arsenal of work-arounds, but there's a lot of Linux-curious people out
    there to whom this is new stuff. Adding Linux to a Windows machine
    SHOULD be an easy affair, with Linux installing the Grub or Lilo
    bootloader, which then offers a choice of OS upon boot-up.

    My point here is that people thinking of doing a Windows/Linux
    dual-boot need to be aware of this issue, because it CAN leave your
    Windows partition unbootable!
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:00:07 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    >
    >Whatever you want to "blame" for the problem, it's a fact that there's
    >an issue which affects most, if not all, 2.6-based Linux distros. You
    >may be someone who has created many dual-boot systems and have an
    >arsenal of work-arounds, but there's a lot of Linux-curious people out
    >there to whom this is new stuff. Adding Linux to a Windows machine
    >SHOULD be an easy affair, with Linux installing the Grub or Lilo
    >bootloader, which then offers a choice of OS upon boot-up.
    >
    >My point here is that people thinking of doing a Windows/Linux
    >dual-boot need to be aware of this issue, because it CAN leave your
    >Windows partition unbootable!

    Just install Grub to the Linux drive only. Leave the XP boot loader where
    it is and use it to boot XP or Linux. You can use Raxco's Diskstate to
    grab the Linux boot sector and add it to the XP boot menu automagically if
    you need a tool to do it for you. Simple.

    --
    Michael Cecil
    http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    > Whatever you want to "blame" for the problem, it's a fact that there's
    > an issue which affects most, if not all, 2.6-based Linux distros. You
    > may be someone who has created many dual-boot systems and have an
    > arsenal of work-arounds, but there's a lot of Linux-curious people out
    > there to whom this is new stuff. Adding Linux to a Windows machine
    > SHOULD be an easy affair, with Linux installing the Grub or Lilo
    > bootloader, which then offers a choice of OS upon boot-up.

    > My point here is that people thinking of doing a Windows/Linux
    > dual-boot need to be aware of this issue, because it CAN leave your
    > Windows partition unbootable!

    Of course it can. But don't balme the kernel, blame the distributors.
    If it were the kernel, _every_ 2.6 based distro would be affected
    and a bug-report should go into the 2.6 bugzilla. If it is
    the distro, people should complain rather loudly to their vendor,
    since they paid money explicitely to not have this type of problem.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Windows XP Partition Linux Storage Product