The more I think about this the more sure i am that the NT derrivitives don't have a first partition on disk requirement. In a previous life, i had to setup a few multi-windoze boot boxen, and while win9x wouldn't boot from anywhere but 'hda1', i know that i could get NT4 to boot just fine from elsewhere. big question though is whether win2k has changed this behavior. hrmm.
On Thu, 29 May 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote: > I dont know about 2k but the other not NT versions have to be, I think win calls > it "first active partition" or some such, but I think you can set that when you > partition. But I recall installing windows98 on the second drive of a box once, > but again, I had to set the partiton to active. FWIW > > On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:18:24 -0400 (EDT) - Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote the following > Re: Re: XFS resizing & Win2k > > >On Thu, 29 May 2003, Andrew Mathews wrote: > >> | ugh. oh well, i guess i'll give it a whirl. thanks. > >> | > >> | Anyone know if Win2k has any ridiculous need to be on hda1, or will it be > >> | ok sitting on hda4? > >> | > >> > >> No, it needs to be on C:\ <slap> > > > >Seriously, does win2k need to be on the first partition of the primary > >master IDE channel? I don't want to go through all of this to find out > >that win2k won't fly. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
