![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/4ebf1b0be3ade9e443ca13b5be2413e3.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
-----Original Message----- From: Warrl [mailto:warrl@blarg.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 10:14 PM
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, John Denning wrote:
Greetings -- I want to partition a drive so I can install both Win2K and Linux. I've read I should have a very small partition up front for boot? Is this correct?
Can anyone give me the scoop on what partitions I best create and install what into what? Should I install Win2K first then Linux? And don't install LILO into the MBR?
You're getting into some new territory here. What I've heard about Win2K is that it's something to seriously consider mid to late next year. Never tried it.
First map out how much space you intend to dedicate to Linux, how much you don't care if Linux can't reach, and how much you need to share.
Shared space first: if Linux can read NTFS (don't know) then that's the choice. Otherwise if Win2K can read VFAT (WinNT can't) then that's the choice. Only as a last resort should you consider FAT16, and if you are forced to that monstrosity then do it with many small partitions - less than 1 gig each.
Linux can read NTFS. Win2K CAN read VFAT, so could 4.0, it's FAT32 that 4.0 could not read.
While you CAN boot Linux off a FAT16 or VFAT partition from within MS-DOS, don't bother trying this within WinNT or Win2K. (You can dual-boot Win2K and an older MS-DOS for the purpose if you want...)
Not sure what you're saying there?
Now, you are correct that you don't put lilo in the MBR. It *cannot* boot WinNT and therefore, presumably, won't be able to boot Win2K. WinNT's bootloader *can* boot lilo from a partition's boot sector, and lilo can from there boot Linux.
I've always put lilo in the MBR and I can boot any MS product. Why do you say it can't boot NT? I have lilo in the MBR and it starts up the NT bootloader.
It would be worth a try to install Linux first, just to find out if the Win2K install will give you the option of hooking it up; but I'll bet against it.
Just like NT, it's much easier to install MS products first and Linux last.
As for the small partition early (for the Linux /boot directory), I think this is a very good idea to get in the habit of - having it separate also makes security a little easier.
Yes, it is. Greg Because e-mail can be altered electronically, the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/5c8ad8e56526cd7ba8fb43825227751e.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I'm Not quite sure if W2k likes a ext2fs (linux native) partition, but if you're planning to use a partition for W2K that's bigger than 1GB (i guess this amount is the amount that the BIOS and OS loaders scan for OSes), then you have to put a partition somewhere within that range in order to boot. This could be small so that it only houses the essential stuff for booting to Linux, then you can have the rest past the range and it will have no problems. Again I'm not sure about the W2K stuff dualbooting with linux, but you should install the other OS first before installing Linux. Calyth -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
participants (2)
-
calyth@home.com
-
gregory.thomas@nbc.com