Need opinion on installing dual boot (SuSE and w2k)
I'm building a computer for my 4 year old and I want to put both SuSE and w2k on it. Why w2k? Well, the majority of programs he's going to run are kiddie games which probably won't work in Linux, but might in Crossover Office. (I'll have to see). My issue is do I want to install W2k first then SuSE or the other way around? Normally I've had w2k on first and installed SuSE. Tom -- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems 805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com
On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 11:19, Tom Nielsen wrote:
I'm building a computer for my 4 year old and I want to put both SuSE and w2k on it. Why w2k? Well, the majority of programs he's going to run are kiddie games which probably won't work in Linux, but might in Crossover Office. (I'll have to see).
My issue is do I want to install W2k first then SuSE or the other way around? Normally I've had w2k on first and installed SuSE.
I have setup machines similar to what you want to do. I usually install Windows first then SuSE. But you can do it the other way as well. But installing Windows after SuSE will normally overwrite the bootloader and you will have to reinstall it. But like all things that are computer releated, YMMV. -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, we just do not have all the answers to make the impossible, possible."
Tom Nielsen wrote:
I'm building a computer for my 4 year old and I want to put both SuSE and w2k on it. Why w2k? Well, the majority of programs he's going to run are kiddie games which probably won't work in Linux, but might in Crossover Office. (I'll have to see).
My issue is do I want to install W2k first then SuSE or the other way around? Normally I've had w2k on first and installed SuSE.
Tom
In my limited experience, I've found it easier to load W2k first since it wipes clean a non-Windows OS. 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.
In my limited experience, I've found it easier to load W2k first since it wipes clean a non-Windows OS. 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.
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 the inevitable consequence is that it will demand the whole disc and you will lose your linux install. Unless anybody knows how to hide linux partitions when installing windows. Mike
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 the inevitable consequence is that it will demand the whole disc and you will lose your linux install. Unless anybody knows how to hide linux partitions when installing windows.
Fully agreed on the two disks. But I did watch someone this afternoon install win2K on a system that had SUSE 8.2, and during each of the reboots the win2K install needs he had to select windows from the grub screen. When completed grub and SUSE still both worked fine. The win2K was going into a partion that had been ntfs and he asked win2k to refomat it as fat32. YMMV David
On Thursday 09 October 2003 7:41 pm, david stevenson wrote:
Fully agreed on the two disks. But I did watch someone this afternoon install win2K on a system that had SUSE 8.2, and during each of the reboots the win2K install needs he had to select windows from the grub screen. When completed grub and SUSE still both worked fine. The win2K was going into a partion that had been ntfs and he asked win2k to refomat it as fat32. YMMV David
2 disks is not particularly relevant. Windows demands a c: partition all to itself - this can be quite small, particularly for the NT variants [NT, 200, XP], where the bulk of the install can go on another drive letter. Similarly, GRUB or LILO like a primary partition on the first drive, ie a drive which could be c:, apart from the filesystem, although GRUB and LILO give more options. What you really need is more than 1 primary partition on the first drive, rather than needing a second drive What windows does normally, is it tries to set its own partition as the active partition. Being so dumb that it thinks it is the only operating system in the world, it will set what it sees as the c: drive at install time to be the active partition, without regard for the consequences. It seems not actually touch the MBR for the disk, only the partition table [provided there is already an MBR]. If you have GRUB or LILO, residing in its own partition, all you need to do after a windows install [dunno about after NT, but I don't think it has changed], is in windows to set the GRUB or LILO partition to be active. So before you start, your sequence is MBR - [partition table] - GRUB partition - Linux Windows leaves this: MBR - [partition table] - windows partition Recovery is just a matter of resetting the partition table. I have always recovered from a windows install using the windows tools to reset the active partition, but if you have an NT variant, you could also recover a Linux boot by setting the GRUB partition as a windows boot option, and get to Linux that way. If you then fix GRUB [or LILO] from Linux, and include windows as a boot option, you can then boot to GRUB, to windows boot manager and back to GRUB - or on to windows or Linux of course. Although I have never recovered a partition table by this route, it is certainly possible, because I have set windows boot manager to boot LILO and GRUB. [I think that windows 2000 needs SP1, because M$ included something that reset the partition table every time 2000 boots, with the intent to disable OS/2 boot manager and hence OS/2 on the same machine]. Vince Littler
What windows does normally, is it tries to set its own partition as the active partition. Being so dumb that it thinks it is the only operating system in the world, [...] Well, I've experienced some Linux dists and Unix OS's doing the same
On 2003-10-09, Vince Littler wrote: [...] thing! I've had Linux as my default OS for years. I really dislike M$ and most of it's products, I almost never touch it myself except when helping friends or employers to fix their broken systems (OK, quite often I touch it then), but I find it wise to leave the BS and lies to them. Cheers, HÖ -- /// Helgi Örn Helgason, Registered Linux User: #189958 \\\ \\\ ~~~~ SuSE 8.2 * Kernel 2.4.20-4GB * KDE 3.1.3 ~~~~ ///
On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 14:40, Helgi Örn Helgason wrote:
On 2003-10-09, Vince Littler wrote: I've had Linux as my default OS for years. I really dislike M$ and most of it's products, I almost never touch it myself except when helping friends or employers to fix their broken systems (OK, quite often I touch it then), but I find it wise to leave the BS and lies to them.
Hi there. Original poster here. Thanks to all for the help. I must say, at my office I run a Linux workstation (mine), a linux firewall, and a linux mailserver. I'm hoping to convert my w2k file server to linux in a short time. I also run linux at home. Now, the other workstations in the office run w2k and I have had NO PROBLEM with those machines what so ever. They've been running them for 2 years now and it's been great. I often have folks ask me why I switched to Linux thinking it because of MS problems, but I was just in the mood for something new. I really can't bash MS too much. They have everything I need and W2k works great "for me." I like the Linux philosophy and where it's going and I must say that I'm a devote follower now. Will I switch back to W2k...only to play games. Again, thanks to all for the advice!! tom -- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems 805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com
On Thursday 09 October 2003 8:12 pm, michael norman wrote:
In my limited experience, I've found it easier to load W2k first since it wipes clean a non-Windows OS. 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.
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 the inevitable consequence is that it will demand the whole disc and you will lose your linux install. Unless anybody knows how to hide linux partitions when installing windows.
Mike
Well, with windows NT, it ain't so unless you find the whole process of installing windows so bad, you must keep you eyes shut. Just don't accept the defaults. Vince Littler
Vince Littler wrote:
Well, with windows NT, it ain't so unless you find the whole process of installing windows so bad, you must keep you eyes shut. Just don't accept the defaults.
Vince Littler
Ditto Vince. I was wondering how so many people never bothered to do a custom install rather than accept all the defaults. With a custom install you can decide your entire partitioning layout. Win2K/XP goes in the partition you want and can be primary or logical drive. The NT drive manager is not bad, you just have to read the screens. John S.
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 -- /// Helgi Örn Helgason, Registered Linux User: #189958 \\\ \\\ ~~~~ SuSE 8.2 * Kernel 2.4.20-4GB * KDE 3.1.3 ~~~~ ///
participants (8)
-
david stevenson -
expatriate -
Helgi Örn Helgason -
js -
Marshall Heartley -
michael norman -
Tom Nielsen -
Vince Littler