Tranfering Linux

[Joshua Altemoos]

well Linux is going on a second HD and windows on the first and i had
linux first so...... also i have no way of making a boot disk =(

On Sat, 2003-05-17 at 22:30, ron browning wrote:
> I put XP pro on first and left blank partition space and then
> installed RH 9 and all works fine.  Remember, always put windows
> first!
> 
> "Kevin E. Glosser" <keg at adelphia.net> wrote: 
>         On Sat, 2003-05-17 at 15:01, Cyber Source wrote:
>         > I have also never had a problem with it being master/slave
>         or
>         > whatever, it is totally configurable in lilo
>         
>         When I put XP on, neither Grub nor Lilo would enter the second
>         boot
>         stage and become responsive. My machine just sat there.
>         
>         I scoured the net looking for solutions. I found tons.
>         Unfortunately,
>         none of them were correct. Some pointed to the BIOS, some
>         pointed to the
>         boot loader being in the MBR as opposed to the first boot
>         sector on the
>         hard drive.
>         
>         Other people gave workarounds for using XP's bootloader and
>         then editing
>         boot.ini. I didn't want to try this. There was no reason for
>         Grub or
>         Lilo to not work.
>         
>         In the end, although the great majority of people(including
>         Redhat's own
>         documentation) said NOT to put Grub in the MBR, that is where
>         I put it.
>         
>         I have no real an! swer why previously it did not work, other
>         than i
>         believe a newer version of Grub may be the reason I eventually
>         got it to
>         work. However, it was odd that Lilo didn't work either. I had
>         always
>         used Lilo in the past.
>         
>         Regardless, my previous post was meant to state that 1) the
>         solution i
>         used, does work 2) it IS possible to have issues dual booting
>         NT/2000/XP
>         and Linux and 3) for convenience I added the other
>         recommendations.
>         
>         Peter, is there a particular reason why you favor FAT32 over
>         NTFS 5.1?
>         Other, than what I already stated.
>         
>         Microsoft file systems are traditionally considered crap. So,
>         choosing
>         one evil over the other isn't necessarily a joyful occasion.
>         I've never
>         heard anyone say they loved the FAT file system. I've never
>         heard anyone
>         say they liked NTFS either, but it does have some abilities
>         FAT32
>         doesn't. I'm just curious to what makes it unappealing.
>         
>         Thanks for any response in advance.
>         
>         KEG
>         
>         
>         
>         ______________________________________________________________
>         Do you Yahoo!?
>         The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.