On 2003-10-09, michael norman wrote:
In my limited experience, I've found it easier to load W2k first since it wipes clean a non-Windows OS.
This is not right since it doesn't even see the Linux partition if there is a Windows partition available.
Load Linux afterwards since it is kinder to its "roomate" and tries to coexist. I would consider having two disks if you don't mind spending a bit more. A second harddisk is great for Linux; to keep the swap partition on but for double booting there's no difference at all.
I'd certainly endorse both statements, particularly about having separaete discs, because when, as you will have to in my experience reinstall Windows if they are both on one disc
What? This is just absolutely wrong!
the inevitable consequence is that it will demand the whole disc and you will lose your linux install. If you just make a Windows partition first, then W2k won't even see the Linux partition and therefore won't touch it.
Unless anybody knows how to hide linux partitions when installing windows.
Doublebooting W2k and Linux is very easy, I find W2k the simplest M$ OS to double (or multi-) boot with Linux, at least as easy as with another Linux OS. *Hiding* Linux is not needed, just make a FAT partition while making the Linux partitions and W2k will spot it and not Linux. Do not make a NTFS partition, to my experience W2k doesn't accept that as a choice. Even if W2k overwrites the MBR it's easy to boot SuSE with the boot CD-ROM and just re-install Grub. Cheers, Helgi Örn -- A Smith & Wesson beats four aces.