Reqst: How get Fedora to boot - Redhat

This is a discussion on Reqst: How get Fedora to boot - Redhat ; On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:06:40 +1100, Daeron wrote: >>> It's hard to know whom one should dispise the more between Gates & >>> Intel; > These are companies which effectivly have used US Presidents are golf >caddies & to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

Thread: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

  1. Re: Question about Linux

    On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:06:40 +1100, Daeron wrote:


    >>> It's hard to know whom one should dispise the more between Gates &
    >>> Intel;


    > These are companies which effectivly have used US Presidents are golf
    >caddies & to reverse legal decisions with; it is no small task to
    >bibiograph the history of either MS or Intel. And as to "objective" - who
    >would be interest unless they have a vested interest? Such is life.
    >


    Slightly off-topic, but I think that you might find this book an
    interesting read:

    'Perfectly Legal' by David Cay Johnston

    The author 'won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for his investigative
    reporting'.

    From the jacket:
    'Whether your family makes $30,000 or $300,000 a year, you are being
    robbed because the IRS and other institutions have been systematically
    corrupted -under both Republican and Democratic administrations- to
    serve the needs of people who make millions.'

    Geo


  2. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    In article , Charles Sullivan wrote:
    >On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:39:29 +0000, Dr. Grok wrote:
    >
    >> In article , Charles Sullivan

    > wrote:
    >>>If you're talking about Windows, it _insists_ on being the first
    >>>drive for its installation.

    >>
    >> Yes, but...
    >> You can use the Grub map function to make the second (or third, etc.) become
    >> the first. You can also hide the other drives with Grub during installation.

    >
    >You can do that after it's installed. But Windows is generally
    >installed by booting from a CD (or floppy in the old days), and
    >under that situation Grub is out of the picture until after
    >the installation. Well, mostly out of the picture, since Windows
    >has to be rebooted several times before it's fully installed. To
    >avoid hassles I rejumper the drive as primary master for a Windows
    >install and change it back afterwards.


    You can install Grub on a boot floppy, boot with that and hide the appropriate
    drives. Those drives stay hidden on subsequent boots even if you don't use
    the Grub floppy. You can unhide them after the final windoze installation
    re-boot by using the Grub floppy again. IMHO, easier than opening the case
    and re-jumpering the HD's -- but YMMV.

    Dr. G.

    >
    >> I have W2K on the master drive and RH7.1 on the slave drive. BIOS boots to
    >> the slave drive which is where I have Grub on the MBR. This makes the slave
    >> drive (hd0) in Grub-speak. To boot Windoze I map the master drive back to
    >> (hd0).

    >
    >Yup, I do something similar. But I boot Linux from the first drive
    >and relegate Windows versions to their own drives.
    >


  3. Re: Reqst: How get Fedora to boot

    On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 01:16:27 +0000, Dr. Grok wrote:

    > In article , Charles Sullivan wrote:
    >>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:39:29 +0000, Dr. Grok wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article , Charles Sullivan

    >> wrote:
    >>>>If you're talking about Windows, it _insists_ on being the first
    >>>>drive for its installation.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, but...
    >>> You can use the Grub map function to make the second (or third, etc.) become
    >>> the first. You can also hide the other drives with Grub during installation.

    >>
    >>You can do that after it's installed. But Windows is generally
    >>installed by booting from a CD (or floppy in the old days), and
    >>under that situation Grub is out of the picture until after
    >>the installation. Well, mostly out of the picture, since Windows
    >>has to be rebooted several times before it's fully installed. To
    >>avoid hassles I rejumper the drive as primary master for a Windows
    >>install and change it back afterwards.

    >
    > You can install Grub on a boot floppy, boot with that and hide the appropriate
    > drives. Those drives stay hidden on subsequent boots even if you don't use
    > the Grub floppy. You can unhide them after the final windoze installation
    > re-boot by using the Grub floppy again. IMHO, easier than opening the case
    > and re-jumpering the HD's -- but YMMV.


    That sounds easy enough. I suppose you could just boot from the
    Linux installation CD for that task, couldn't you? (I gather
    Fedora has gotten too big to fit on a boot floppy.)


  4. Re: Question about Linux

    In article <41d497ad$0$1119$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
    Daeron writes:
    >
    > yesterday in doing Web searches for clues on this
    > Linux boot vs. multiple drives issue


    I've not been following this thread, so I may be missing some important
    issues here; if so, I apologize in advance....

    > - - What IF, the Linux developers were so accustomed to Bill Gates MS Dos
    > envirnoment; that they never foresaw or supported the possibility of Linux
    > installation being on a second drive.


    Linux has no problem installing entirely on a second hard disk. In fact,
    Linux is much more flexible about where it can be installed than are most
    x86 OSs.

    That said, Linux does rely on a boot loader to boot, and that must
    normally reside in the MBR of the first hard disk, or rely on another
    boot loader that's located there (or in unusual configurations, on a
    floppy or other bootable medium). The boot loader requirement is an x86
    architecture issue, though, not a Linux issue.

    > My question then, is in two parts:
    > Q1: does the above sound consistant with your experience & what you've heard
    > from other LInux users?


    No. As I've said, Linux has no problems residing on the second hard drive.

    > Q2: does this also mean that I will have to re-write the MBR every time I
    > want to update the Linux kernel?


    Not necessarily. In the x86 environment, the boot loader resides in the
    MBR, and typically either loads an OS kernel or loads a secondary boot
    loader. Depending on the primary (that is, MBR-based) boot loader you
    use, how it's configured, your BIOS options, etc., you might need to
    re-install the boot loader whenever you change the kernel. This would be
    true of LILO in the MBR, for instance, but not of GRUB or of LILO
    installed as a secondary boot loader to a "standard" x86 boot loader.

    --
    Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
    http://www.rodsbooks.com
    Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

  5. Re: Question about Linux

    Rod Smith wrote:
    > Linux has no problem installing entirely on a second hard disk. In fact,
    > Linux is much more flexible about where it can be installed than are most
    > x86 OSs.


    Much more than Most ?
    More than Solaris?, FreeBSD? NetBSD? than BeOS was? than OS/2 was before
    that?. . . .
    . . . in fact, WHICH are the multitude of OS's which are LESS flexible than
    Linux?

    IN fact one of the reasons that I rejected Linux as an alternate x86 OS in
    1998 was that each of the "disto" that it came in all wanted to create
    Microsoft "partitions" on the hard drive --
    now years later you came along telling me that Linux is somehow superior;
    to whom, to what?
    Where is this multitude of OS's that are more restrictive than Linux ?

    For that matter, how many viable OS's are left for x86 anyway?
    It's a dying platform.

    I have to suspect that your main reference outside of Linux is Microsoft,
    and that in your mind it constitutes "most" OS's.? Happily I'm no doubt
    wrong and you can list these other less flexible OS's. ;-)

  6. Re: Question about Linux

    Daeron wrote:

    [...]

    >
    > My question then, is in two parts:
    > Q1: does the above sound consistant with your experience & what you've heard
    > from other LInux users? (I suspose i.e. are you about the only Linux person
    > you know of who has Linux on a non-primary drive? (ignoring the CD based
    > systems that are specially packaged for running from a CD; I'm refering to
    > Linux being on a second drive etc.)


    Don't know. However, generally, when Linux is installed on a second
    disk, lilo or grub is installed on MBR on the first disk, and is used to
    boot both Linux and whatever os might have been installed on the system
    beforehand.

    >
    > Q2: does this also mean that I will have to re-write the MBR every time I
    > want to update the Linux kernel?


    Not if the linux bootloader is not installed in MBR.

    You can have the old dos loader in MBR of disk 1, and have the linux
    loader on whatever partition is registered as the active one (per dos
    fdisk. Also note, there need not be any linux on this active partition,
    linux may stay on a different disk). Then the dos loader in MBR will
    load lilo or grub from the active partition, and then again whatever you
    choose can be loaded from there.

    No matter where you install lilo, after a kernel upgrade, you'll
    typically specify the new image in lilo.conf (or your package manager
    will run a script in the new kernel package doing it for you) and run
    the 'lilo' command to update whatever needs to be updated, MBR or not.
    If lilo is not installed in mbr, mbr is not updated. Same goes for grub,
    except I think it's smart enough to update whatever needs to be updated
    when grub.conf changes automatically.

    --
    jonmartin.solaas¤h0tm4i1


  7. Re: Question about Linux

    Hello

    Jon Martin Solaas () wrote:
    > Daeron wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Q2: does this also mean that I will have to re-write the MBR every
    >> time I want to update the Linux kernel?

    >
    > Not if the linux bootloader is not installed in MBR.


    Even if the bootloader is in the MBR, it does not need to be reinstalled
    after upgrading the kernel - if the bootloader is grub.


    > [lilo needs to be updated]
    > Same goes for grub, except I think it's smart enough to update
    > whatever needs to be updated when grub.conf changes automatically.


    No, grub can read some file systems and find the kernel itself. You do
    not need to reinstall the MBR, you can even load kernels that arent in
    your grub.conf or menu.lst at all.

    best regards
    Andreas Janssen

    --
    Andreas Janssen
    PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674 ICQ #17079270
    Registered Linux User #267976
    http://www.andreas-janssen.de/debian-tipps-sarge.html

  8. Re: Question about Linux

    In article <41da4e23$0$6542$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
    Daeron writes:
    >
    > Rod Smith wrote:
    >> Linux has no problem installing entirely on a second hard disk. In fact,
    >> Linux is much more flexible about where it can be installed than are most
    >> x86 OSs.

    >
    > Much more than Most ?
    > More than Solaris?, FreeBSD? NetBSD? than BeOS was? than OS/2 was before
    > that?. . . .
    > . . . in fact, WHICH are the multitude of OS's which are LESS flexible than
    > Linux?


    DOS, Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/200x, and FreeBSD all spring to mind as
    being very inflexible -- they all require installation to a primary
    partition. I'm not sure about Solaris (it's been a while since I
    installed it). Linux isn't more flexible in installation partitions than
    OS/2 per se, but OS/2's boot manager is definitely quite limiting
    compared to LILO or GRUB. I've never used NetBSD, so I can't comment on
    it. BeOS is pretty flexible, on a par with Linux in this respect.

    > IN fact one of the reasons that I rejected Linux as an alternate x86 OS in
    > 1998 was that each of the "disto" that it came in all wanted to create
    > Microsoft "partitions" on the hard drive --


    Most OSs do in fact reside in partitions, on x86 or other platforms with
    which I'm familiar. I'm not sure what you mean by "Microsoft
    'partitions,'" with the word "partitions" in quotes. Do you mean primary
    partitions? If so, that may be the default for some Linux installers, but
    certainly not for all of them, and it can be overridden for most. In fact,
    Linux can reside on primary or logical partitions on the first or any
    subsequent disk, so long as the BIOS can read it. Given the x86 partition
    table, you can't get more flexible than that, at least not in terms of
    installation partitions.

    > For that matter, how many viable OS's are left for x86 anyway?
    > It's a dying platform.


    If you don't consider AMD64 to be in the x86 line, then yes; but AMD64
    OSs generally still use the old x86 partitioning scheme. If you consider
    AMD64 to be part of the x86 line, then I'd have to disagree with your
    assessment that the platform is dying.

    > I have to suspect that your main reference outside of Linux is Microsoft,
    > and that in your mind it constitutes "most" OS's.?


    Wrong you are. I've literally written a book on the subject of
    multi-booting:

    http://www.rodsbooks.com/multiboot/

    --
    Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
    http://www.rodsbooks.com
    Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

  9. Re: Question about Linux

    Up spake Daeron:
    > What planet are you on kid ?
    > DOS, Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/200x are all Microsoft..


    By that argument, everything from System III to Plan 9 are all `UNIX'.

    >> Most OSs do in fact reside in partitions, on x86 or other platforms with
    >> which I'm familiar.

    >
    > No. In fact the vast majority of OS's did *not* require to be in what
    > you call a "partition".


    Can you substantiate that claim?

    >> I'm not sure what you mean by "Microsoft 'partitions,'" with the word
    >> "partitions" in quotes. Do you mean primary partitions?

    >
    > No. I refer to the Microsoft system of declaring what it calls
    > 'partition' of a hard drive. Operating Systems such as Unix, or even
    > the old MacOS, did not require the defining of such stuctures.


    You seem to be talking about a filesystem made with, for example
    "mkfs.ext2 /dev/hda" rather than "mkfs.ext2 /dev/hda1". Is this
    correct? If not, would you care to explain yourself clearly?

    > The Microsoft concept of dividing a drive up into four or less 'partitions'
    > is not, that's a Microsoft system.


    The concept of disk partitions is not a `Microsoft thing'. I invite you
    to check your facts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_%28IBM_PC%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_%28computing%29

    --
    -trent
    Linux isn't so much a product as a binary oral tradition - and
    accumulation of brilliant ideas and powerful tools that hackers have
    been producing for years. -- Mark

  10. Re: Question about Linux

    In article <41dbbf0e$0$13283$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
    Daeron writes:
    >
    > Rod Smith wrote:
    >> DOS, Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/200x, and FreeBSD all spring to mind as
    >> being very inflexible -- they all require installation to a primary
    >> partition.

    > What planet are you on kid ?


    [plonk]

    Tip 1: Lose the insulting attitude.

    Tip 2: Learn something about the subjects about which you're writing.

    --
    Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
    http://www.rodsbooks.com
    Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

  11. Re: Question about Linux

    Rod Smith wrote:

    > Tip 2: Learn something about the subjects about which you're writing.


    Perhaps you should, too! Perhaps you should carefully examine what you
    wrote about different partitioning schemes. You are mistaken.

    Chris

    --
    Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!

  12. Re: Question about Linux

    In article ,
    chris writes:
    >
    > Rod Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Tip 2: Learn something about the subjects about which you're writing.

    >
    > Perhaps you should, too! Perhaps you should carefully examine what you
    > wrote about different partitioning schemes. You are mistaken.


    Please point out where you think I was wrong. My partitioning assertions
    from my previous post were:

    >> DOS, Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/200x, and FreeBSD all... require
    >> installation to a primary partition.


    This is, AFAIK, true, with the caveat that the context of the message to
    which I was responding was about multi-boot environments between Linux
    and Windows; thus, I was assuming installation in a way that permits
    co-existence with another x86 OS on the disk. FreeBSD can be installed
    using its own partitioning scheme if you don't care about that, but in
    the context of my original message, this was irrelevant, so I didn't
    mention it.

    >> Linux isn't more flexible in installation partitions than OS/2 per se,
    >> but OS/2's boot manager is definitely quite limiting compared to LILO or
    >> GRUB.


    Again, this is true. OS/2's Boot Manager requires that it be installed in
    a primary partition, although OS/2 proper can install itself entirely on
    a primary or logical partition on the first or a subsequent disk. LILO
    and GRUB can be installed to a primary partition, or they can be
    installed in the MBR or even in a logical partition (although this would
    require some other non-standard boot loader to boot them).

    > BeOS is pretty flexible, on a par with Linux in this respect.


    As I said, BeOS is pretty flexible on this score.

    > Most OSs do in fact reside in partitions, on x86 or other platforms with
    > which I'm familiar.


    Aside from boot floppies, which are irrelevant because we're talking
    about hard disk installations, most OSs do reside in partitions. DOS,
    Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/200x, BeOS, Mac OS (both pre-X and X), FreeBSD,
    Linux, Solaris, Atari TOS, and others all reside on partitions. They
    don't all use the same partitioning systems, though; that varies from one
    platform to another, and occasionally between OSs (as in FreeBSD
    "slices," which are partitions by another name).

    > Do you mean primary partitions? If so, that may be the default for some
    > Linux installers, but certainly not for all of them, and it can be
    > overridden for most. In fact, Linux can reside on primary or logical
    > partitions on the first or any subsequent disk, so long as the BIOS can
    > read it.


    I'd have to do a survey of Linux distribution installers to find out
    precisely which ones do what by default, but some (probably most) x86
    Linux distributions are perfectly happy to install Linux to logical
    partitions, and to install Linux partly or entirely on a second or
    subsequent disk.

    > AMD64 OSs generally still use the old x86 partitioning scheme.


    This is true in my experience, although that's much more limited than my
    experience with IA-32 OSs. I've installed several versions of Linux and a
    beta of Windows 2003 on an AMD64 system. All of these use the old x86
    partitioning scheme.

    If you can show I'm wrong about any of these points, please do. I don't
    claim to be infallible, and I'm perfectly willing to learn new things. On
    the other hand, I don't like being publicly insulted when I try to offer
    advice or information, which is what "Daeron" did.

    --
    Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
    http://www.rodsbooks.com
    Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

  13. Re: Question about Linux


    "Rod Smith" wrote in message
    news:j5jta2-hvt.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks.com...
    > In article <41dbbf0e$0$13283$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
    > Daeron writes:
    >>
    >> Rod Smith wrote:
    >>> DOS, Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/200x, and FreeBSD all spring to mind as
    >>> being very inflexible -- they all require installation to a primary
    >>> partition.

    >> What planet are you on kid ?

    >
    > [plonk]
    >
    > Tip 1: Lose the insulting attitude.
    >
    > Tip 2: Learn something about the subjects about which you're writing.


    I happen to know them. Windows 2K/2003/XP all seem to work just fine on
    secondary drives, it's just managing the boot loader that gets awkward.



  14. Re: Question about Linux

    In article ,
    "Nico Kadel-Garcia" writes:
    >
    > I happen to know them. Windows 2K/2003/XP all seem to work just fine on
    > secondary drives, it's just managing the boot loader that gets awkward.


    They all require a few critical files on a primary partition, even if the
    WINDOWS (or WINNT) directory can reside elsewhere. That's not the case
    with Linux or BeOS (or OS/2, if you don't use its Boot Manager -- but
    installing OS/2 to a logical partition can be tricky in that case).

    --
    Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
    http://www.rodsbooks.com
    Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

  15. Re: Question about Linux

    Does anyone else know the answers to sort these two out. I have no idea
    but I am getting sick of the "i'm right", "no I'm right", "no I'm right"
    banter going back and forth.

    Build a bridge fellas and then get over it.


    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > "Rod Smith" wrote in message
    > news:j5jta2-hvt.ln1@speaker.rodsbooks.com...
    >
    >>In article <41dbbf0e$0$13283$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
    >>Daeron writes:
    >>
    >>>Rod Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>DOS, Windows 9x/Me, Windows NT/200x, and FreeBSD all spring to mind as
    >>>>being very inflexible -- they all require installation to a primary
    >>>>partition.
    >>>
    >>> What planet are you on kid ?

    >>
    >>[plonk]
    >>
    >>Tip 1: Lose the insulting attitude.
    >>
    >>Tip 2: Learn something about the subjects about which you're writing.

    >
    >
    > I happen to know them. Windows 2K/2003/XP all seem to work just fine on
    > secondary drives, it's just managing the boot loader that gets awkward.
    >
    >



  16. Re: Question about Linux

    In article <41de29f7@quokka.wn.com.au> (Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:27:17 +0800),
    Matthew Gunn wrote:

    > Does anyone else know the answers to sort these two out.


    With the possible exception of Xenix, Microsoft operating systems have all
    required a primary partition on the first hard drive.

    Some, including NT4 and Windows 2000, can use this partition as a "System
    partition", and allow the installation of the rest of the operating
    system in a "Boot partition" which can be in an extended partition or on
    another disk completely. (It may be possible to overcome this limitation
    by trickery, such a remapping drives so that Windows is unaware that it
    didn't get what it wanted.)

    Is it important?

    --
    Q: You can make an argument from the open-source side that --
    A: [interrupts] No, no, nobody can make the argument that open source is
    actually more open and sensitive to encourage more third-party innovation.
    -- Interview with Steve Balmer. President, Microsoft. 7 April 2004


  17. Re: Question about Linux

    Hamilcar Barca wrote:

    > In article <41de29f7@quokka.wn.com.au> (Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:27:17 +0800),
    > Matthew Gunn wrote:
    >
    >> Does anyone else know the answers to sort these two out.

    >
    > With the possible exception of Xenix, Microsoft operating systems have all
    > required a primary partition on the first hard drive.
    >

    Correct.
    non-Microsoft OS's such as *BSD , BeOS, even OS/2 could all be installed on
    drives without any Dos "partition" either primary or otherwise.

    BTW: the only reason this subject first came up was because I was surprised
    that pointing a LILO at the "partition" with a Fedora Linux partition in it
    did not result in it being able to boot.
    I'm accustomed to a LILO only needing to point at the start of a drive or
    'partition' for the OS installed there to be able to boot (because most
    OS's have a boot-strap at the first logical block that then redirects to
    the required boot sequence);
    if I understood what one good person explained elsewhere, with Linux it
    needs to point to current Kernel or some other file & not just the start of
    the drive/partition.
    I assume there is some kind of advantage to this file specific scheme ;
    there is nothing wrong with that, most everything in life has two sides, a
    positive & negative, advantage & disadvantage.

    but for some reason certain people seemed to take offense that I dare
    mention that other OS's do not have the Linux / boot-manager requirement.

  18. Re: Question about Linux


    "Hamilcar Barca" wrote in message
    news:20050107013429.844$wp@news.newsreader.com...
    > In article <41de29f7@quokka.wn.com.au> (Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:27:17 +0800),
    > Matthew Gunn wrote:
    >
    >> Does anyone else know the answers to sort these two out.

    >
    > With the possible exception of Xenix, Microsoft operating systems have all
    > required a primary partition on the first hard drive.


    And this is blatantly untrue. Win2K and WinXP and Win2003 all work just fine
    on secondary drives, I'm not sure about NT 4.0.

    > Some, including NT4 and Windows 2000, can use this partition as a "System
    > partition", and allow the installation of the rest of the operating
    > system in a "Boot partition" which can be in an extended partition or on
    > another disk completely. (It may be possible to overcome this limitation
    > by trickery, such a remapping drives so that Windows is unaware that it
    > didn't get what it wanted.)


    The OS is different from the MBR, the Master Boot Record. Getting the Master
    Boot Record recognized at boot time isn't merely an OS issue, it's a BIOS
    issue. That's the little fiddly bit that the BIOS recognizes at boot time
    and says "Oh, look, I hid the operating system and its kernel over here!"

    Loading MBR's is a bit of a black art and can be very misleading in its
    behavior.



  19. Re: Question about Linux

    MBR can be used for storage disk partition table and it also with a
    small program(boot manager-GRUB) that used for bootup the machine.
    Windows 98 not boot manager that way you had no choice which OS will be
    loader. Windows NT or above included a boot manager. You can also using
    such boot manage to include LINUX option. Of course, you must correct
    assign a root (/) and boot (if another partiton used for boot). I had
    using Win NT, Win 98 and linux on same machine without problem by using
    LILO and grub is next generation boot manager that also solved 1024
    cylinder limitation of LILO.

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > "Hamilcar Barca" wrote in message
    > news:20050107013429.844$wp@news.newsreader.com...
    >
    >>In article <41de29f7@quokka.wn.com.au> (Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:27:17 +0800),
    >>Matthew Gunn wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Does anyone else know the answers to sort these two out.

    >>
    >>With the possible exception of Xenix, Microsoft operating systems have all
    >>required a primary partition on the first hard drive.

    >
    >
    > And this is blatantly untrue. Win2K and WinXP and Win2003 all work just fine
    > on secondary drives, I'm not sure about NT 4.0.
    >
    >
    >>Some, including NT4 and Windows 2000, can use this partition as a "System
    >>partition", and allow the installation of the rest of the operating
    >>system in a "Boot partition" which can be in an extended partition or on
    >>another disk completely. (It may be possible to overcome this limitation
    >>by trickery, such a remapping drives so that Windows is unaware that it
    >>didn't get what it wanted.)

    >
    >
    > The OS is different from the MBR, the Master Boot Record. Getting the Master
    > Boot Record recognized at boot time isn't merely an OS issue, it's a BIOS
    > issue. That's the little fiddly bit that the BIOS recognizes at boot time
    > and says "Oh, look, I hid the operating system and its kernel over here!"
    >
    > Loading MBR's is a bit of a black art and can be very misleading in its
    > behavior.
    >
    >


  20. Re: Question about Linux

    In article (Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:47:58
    -0500), Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    > "Hamilcar Barca" wrote in message
    > news:20050107013429.844$wp@news.newsreader.com...
    >> In article <41de29f7@quokka.wn.com.au> (Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:27:17 +0800),
    >> Matthew Gunn wrote:
    >>
    >>> Does anyone else know the answers to sort these two out.

    >>
    >> With the possible exception of Xenix, Microsoft operating systems have all
    >> required a primary partition on the first hard drive.

    >
    > And this is blatantly untrue. Win2K and WinXP and Win2003 all work just fine
    > on secondary drives, I'm not sure about NT 4.0.


    This is true and always has been true, despite your protestations to the
    contrary. If this is not clear, why not read Microsoft's installation
    documentation? Windows 2000 requires, as did Windows NT4, a primary
    partition on the first hard drive.

    It is possible to use a small primary partition as the "System partition"
    and put the "Boot partition" in an extended partition or on a secondary
    drive, but this doesn't change the fact that a primary partition on the
    first hard drive is and always has been a fixed requirement of Microsoft.

    Emulation software, such as runs on Solaris computers can fool Windows
    into thinking it's started from a primary partition; BIOS mapping may be
    able to do the same. However, the operating system itself must believe it
    is started "from a primary partition on the first hard drive". There is
    no exception.

    > [snip unrelated discussion of MBR]


    --
    "Patent terrorists are companies whose business models are based on
    patent litigation as a threat and licensing as a revenue source."
    -- Richard Wilder. CNet News.com. January 6, 2005.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast