disk partitioning problem (ignore the first e-mail I did not mean to send that one)

[Mike McCarty]

Jeff Vian wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 17:09 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 

[snip]


> While most of your comments make sense, *please* do not spread FUD.

Speak for yourself. Oh, sorry, you did.

> The great majority of us using dual boot machines are using grub to dual
> boot.  Using the NTFS boot loader is an option, but unlike several years
> ago when NT4.0 refused to boot unless it's own boot loader was used,
> modern microsoft operating systems are (mostly) happy to boot with the
> chainloader from grub. I personally have used Win2K and WinXP this way
> with no heartaches.
> 
> In general, the best way to dual boot is 1) install the M$ operating
> system (he already has that) and 2) install Linux.  Allow it to install
> the boot loader on the MBR and make sure it adds the option (it does
> automatically) to boot the other OS.

I did exactly what you suggest. And I wound up with a system
which refused to boot. It wanted to go into 'auto recovery' mode, and
attempt to restore the machine to its 'factory shipped' state,
using a recovery partition on that machine.

I stand by my recommendations. First get a system which can boot
WinXP, and can boot Linux using GRUB on a floppy. Then install the
GRUB on the boot sector of the intended boot disc, and let the
XP boot manager manage the boot. When that works, if one is
adventurous enough, one can try saving the MBR to a file on a floppy,
and try installing GRUB (or whatever) into the MBR. It won't work
from there on my machine. If GRUB won't work from there, then the MBR
can be replaced.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!