Small technical question - Linux

This is a discussion on Small technical question - Linux ; Ok, I know this isn't the normal place to ask this stuff, but I don't really frequent any other linux groups and I can't seem to find a definitive answer on google... Here's the deal, I am trying to setup ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Small technical question

  1. Small technical question

    Ok, I know this isn't the normal place to ask this stuff, but I don't
    really frequent any other linux groups and I can't seem to find a
    definitive answer on google...

    Here's the deal, I am trying to setup my Vista box as a dual boot. I am
    trying to set it up the same way I had my XP box setup - basically, I
    want to use the Vista boot manager to chain load to grub, and then grub
    boot linux. So far nothing to weird about that... The process is pretty
    much the same, except that Vista doesn't use the boot.ini anymore. You
    have to use the bcdedit command in a console to add the entry to the
    boot manager...

    Anyway, everythign goes fine for the Linux install. I install grub to
    the linux boot partition, use dd to copy the first block of that
    partition to a file and copy it over to drive C. Then I add teh linux
    entry to Vista's boot menu. So far so good.

    Problem is that when I select linux from the boot manager, it chains to
    grub just fine - but all I get is a black screen that says Grub in the
    top left corner.... Very strange.

    I've tried installing both gentoo and kubuntu - and I get the same
    result. What I want to ask is could this have something to do with a
    slightly backwards drive configuration?

    See, the Linux boot partition is the second partition on disk 1
    (/dev/sda2). The root partition is /dev/sda4. Vista is actually
    installed on /dev/sdb1.

    So, on vista, drive C: is /dev/sdb1 (disk 2). Drive E: is /dev/sda1
    (disk 1). I suppose this is what I get when you let someone else build
    your system

    Anyway, I'm not really expecting much - but, if anyone can shed some
    light on this I would appriciate it. If it is the drive thing, then I
    can switch them around, but I want to avoid that if at all possible (I
    would probably have to do a repair install on Vista to get it to boot
    again


    --
    Tom Shelton

  2. Re: Small technical question

    So anyway, it was like, 01:13 CET Jan 18 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    Tom Shelton was all like, "Dude,

    [..]

    > Anyway, I'm not really expecting much - but, if anyone can shed some
    > light on this I would appriciate it.


    My suggestion would be to do it the other way around, put grub on the
    master boot record and let it chainboot the ms bootloader. There's
    no copying of boot sectors involved in that case, but you'll have to
    restore grub (easy to do from a live cd, for instance) whenever you
    reinstall vista.

    This is the way I've done dual boots since windows 95, and it's worked
    perfectly every time. Editing grub.conf (or lilo, back when) was
    always easier to me than figuring out the ms boot.ini syntax.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    09:35:09 up 6 days, 16:13, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.07, 0.04
    Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  3. Re: Small technical question

    On Jan 18, 8:39*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:

    >> I've tried installing both gentoo and kubuntu


    >> Anyway, I'm not really expecting much - but, if anyone can shed some light on this I would appriciate it.


    > My suggestion would be to do it the other way around, put grub on the master boot record and let it chainboot the ms bootloader ..


    Any Linux I've ever installed automatically configured for dual boot,
    the most recent being Xubuntu, no messing around with dd or anything.
    As Johan said it's best to let grup do the job, Vista is innovated to
    not co-exist with any other alien OS.

    Do be carefull and remember not to fire up Vistas Disk Manager, it
    automatically overwrites the MBR ..

    http://www.pronetworks.org/forum/about78184.html

  4. Re: Small technical question

    * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Problem is that when I select linux from the boot manager, it chains to
    > grub just fine - but all I get is a black screen that says Grub in the
    > top left corner.... Very strange.


    I'm just guessing, but maybe that's the grub command-line prompt. Try
    typing "help".

    > I've tried installing both gentoo and kubuntu - and I get the same
    > result. What I want to ask is could this have something to do with a
    > slightly backwards drive configuration?
    >
    > See, the Linux boot partition is the second partition on disk 1
    > (/dev/sda2). The root partition is /dev/sda4. Vista is actually
    > installed on /dev/sdb1.


    You have to tell grub which is which. in a file called
    /boot/grub/device.map.

    (hd0) /dev/sda
    (hd1) /dev/sdb

    > Anyway, I'm not really expecting much - but, if anyone can shed some
    > light on this I would appriciate it. If it is the drive thing, then I
    > can switch them around, but I want to avoid that if at all possible (I
    > would probably have to do a repair install on Vista to get it to boot
    > again


    As far as the Vista end... well, we're not deploying it in our
    projects, so I don't know squat about setting up its boot parameters.

    --
    If God had meant for us to be in the Army, we would have been born with
    green, baggy skin.

  5. Re: Small technical question

    On 2008-01-18, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    > On Jan 18, 8:39*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:
    >
    >>> I've tried installing both gentoo and kubuntu

    >
    >>> Anyway, I'm not really expecting much - but, if anyone can shed some light on this I would appriciate it.

    >
    >> My suggestion would be to do it the other way around, put grub on the master boot record and let it chainboot the ms bootloader ..

    >
    > Any Linux I've ever installed automatically configured for dual boot,
    > the most recent being Xubuntu, no messing around with dd or anything.
    > As Johan said it's best to let grup do the job, Vista is innovated to
    > not co-exist with any other alien OS.
    >
    > Do be carefull and remember not to fire up Vistas Disk Manager, it
    > automatically overwrites the MBR ..
    >
    > http://www.pronetworks.org/forum/about78184.html


    Exactly why I don't ever let grub manage the system in a dual boot
    configuration. Besides, this isn't Vista's fault. It reaches grub, but
    grub fails. I'm trying to figure out why.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  6. Re: Small technical question

    * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-01-18, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>
    >> Do be carefull and remember not to fire up Vistas Disk Manager, it
    >> automatically overwrites the MBR ..
    >>
    >> http://www.pronetworks.org/forum/about78184.html

    >
    > Exactly why I don't ever let grub manage the system in a dual boot
    > configuration. Besides, this isn't Vista's fault. It reaches grub, but
    > grub fails. I'm trying to figure out why.


    After the installation of Windows Vista, you will want to install
    Linux. DO NOT resize the Vista partition during the installation of
    the Linux distribution! Due to the change in NTFS versions, no Linux
    partitioning program, nor standard Windows partitioning programs, can
    properly alter the partition that Vista is installed to.

    Figures. How can anyone deal with such instability?

    In any case, why not let grub manage the configuration? It was built
    especially for that task, even here, where it cannot automatically
    handle the Vista booter.

    --
    McGowan's Madison Avenue Axiom:
    If an item is advertised as "under $50", you can bet it's not $19.95.

  7. Re: Small technical question

    On 2008-01-18, [H]omer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
    >
    >> Anyway, everythign goes fine for the Linux install. I install grub
    >> to the linux boot partition, use dd to copy the first block of that
    >> partition to a file and copy it over to drive C.

    >
    > Why?
    >
    > That's seems to be a rather unnecessary step.
    >


    For several reasons - the biggest being that I like to keep the
    interactions between the two as small as possible. It basically boils
    down to some bad experiences with linux installs screwing up my windows
    partition. One was Suse, thought that one they had a patch recovery
    procedure to fix it. The other was Xandros (I think, it's been a while
    ago) and that one was so bad that I had to recover the data and reformat
    to get windows to boot again.

    Further, it makes reinstalling windows much simpler if it's needed
    (though that one hasn't really been a problem). It makes removing Linux
    easier if I decide to.

    Anyway, there are lots of reasons I prefere this setup.

    >> See, the Linux boot partition is the second partition on disk 1
    >> (/dev/sda2). The root partition is /dev/sda4. Vista is actually
    >> installed on /dev/sdb1.
    >>
    >> So, on vista, drive C: is /dev/sdb1 (disk 2). Drive E: is /dev/sda1
    >> (disk 1). I suppose this is what I get when you let someone else
    >> build your system

    >
    > If you have a proper Vista install disk, I recommend starting from
    > scratch, as this setup is far too convoluted.
    >


    I know. I hate it - but I had the system built at a local shop, and I
    didn't realize what they had done until I went to install Linux on the
    machine.

    I appreciate your response... I think what I might do is backup all the
    data and start over.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  8. Re: Small technical question

    On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:13:34 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > Here's the deal, I am trying to setup my Vista box as a dual boot. I am
    > trying to set it up the same way I had my XP box setup - basically, I
    > want to use the Vista boot manager to chain load to grub, and then grub
    > boot linux. So far nothing to weird about that... The process is pretty
    > much the same, except that Vista doesn't use the boot.ini anymore. You
    > have to use the bcdedit command in a console to add the entry to the
    > boot manager...


    Have you tried using easybcd? http://neosmart.net

    It's pretty bone dead easy and you don't have to do any of that fiddling.

+ Reply to Thread