Joe Zappa composed on 2015-01-07 16:36 (UTC-0500):
Microsoft goes out of their way to make sure that Windows does not play well with others.
It looks that way, but it ain't necessarily on purpose, or any more than a trivial problem WRT multiboot. When you put a Linux bootloader on a primary instead of the MBR and use legacy MBR boot code to get to that bootloader, the worst one can expect a Windows installer to do is flip two bits in the partition table. Most no boot after installation trouble starts because Linux installers assume a non-null MBR code block needs to be different than as found, which is not materially different from what a Windows installer does. Meanwhile I figured out long before GPT/UEFI that W98 and later XP would install as one wished by giving it limited options, meaning partition in advance, and when its installer found choices needed to be made, it offered up whatever it found acceptable, and accepted the choice made. That meant installing it was not only possible after Linux was installed, but also to other than a primary, choice and location of which was up to the person installing. And done intelligently, the only "non-nice" result would be moving the active flag on HD0, easily reversed via a procedure that could be done booted to Windows in trivially more time than it takes to boot. At least as late as Win7, installation taking as little as one partition remained possible, and with no more "damage" than moving the active flag on HD0. Simply give the Windows installer only one choice, and it will take it. I choose not to give it more than a stepping stone among the partitioned space at the very front of the disk. It boots from a primary, but runs off a logical: Disk /dev/sda: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes, 3907029168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk label type: dos Disk identifier: 0xc22068fb Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 2048 821247 409600 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda2 821248 4917247 2048000 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda3 * 4917248 5736447 409600 83 Linux /dev/sda4 5736448 3907028991 1950646272 5 Extended /dev/sda5 5736480 14227455 4245488 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda6 14227488 14743551 258032 e W95 FAT16 (LBA) /dev/sda7 14743584 113047551 49151984 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT /dev/sda8 113047584 133527551 10239984 83 Linux /dev/sda9 133527584 154007551 10239984 83 Linux /dev/sda10 154007584 174487551 10239984 83 Linux /dev/sda11 174487584 194967551 10239984 83 Linux /dev/sda12 194967584 3793016831 1799024624 83 Linux /dev/sda13 3793016864 3797112831 2047984 83 Linux /dev/sda14 3797112864 3801208831 2047984 83 Linux /dev/sda15 3801208864 3805304831 2047984 83 Linux /dev/sda16 3805304864 3808724991 1710064 83 Linux /dev/sda17 3808725024 3907028991 49151984 d7 Unknown
This has been a historical trend going back even before Linux was started.
Don't forget, Windows originally ran on top of DOS, and IBM selected DOS as the OS necessary to create sales of its hardware. The only thing that mattered was maintaining reputation with this new thing the PC. It had to just work. For clones to work, they had to run the apps that ran on IBM's hardware, which necessitated DOS. There was no serious option for any other OS for a long time. Any would require different software. Eventually Xenix came around, but it basically existed for a nominal number of turnkey systems using special software for which DOS compatibility was irrelevant. It was only later with OS/2 that the idea of more than one OS on a PC was conceived. The inertia was strong, and M$ had no reason to change its focus, which was and is license sales. To it then there was nothing to be gained, and little if any more there is now.
When I buy a laptop, I take the original hard disk with the Windows installation out, and put it in storage, and then put in a new hard drive.
Makes excellent sense. Just because one creates media from the OEM installation doesn't mean the new creation can be expected to work. The only way to test either involves a 2nd HD, or risking loss of the original by attempting to test the validity of the media. The only complete ready to go including Windows license PC I ever bought for myself I sort of did the same thing with. Rather than putting directly into storage, I cloned it to a new (larger) HD first, then tried booting the clone. It offered a boot menu with 2 choices, system restore, and Windows. Neither worked. Windows proceeded a few seconds, then the machine POSTed. Restore ground away copying or whatever for a while, then when trying to boot Windows it proceeded a few seconds after which it was POSTing again. Before support ever got back to me, I downloaded and burned a Win7 iso, installed it, and installed 13.1. When I got the callback the only help I had use for was in finding get activated in the menu. I had thought applying updates on a new installation caused activation automatically.
If I want to attempt to make a dual-boot...
Virtually all mine are multiboot, easier than performing repair or diagnostic operations from live media, and good fallback for when any kind of upgrade goes haywire. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org