On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> i want to report on a lert call i went to today to vox-tech.
>
> the task was to rescue a dual boot install which went sour. the person used
> fdisk to split up the windows partition. needless to say, the partitions
> weren't salvagable.
I have never had this happen (in my "several" not "dozens" of times using
FIPS). Perhaps they used the old FIPs... that isn't designed for FAT32
partitions.
> for various reasons, i thought this case might be better to install linux
> first, leaving the 1st and 2nd partitions for windows millenium.
Silly!
>
> the linux install went well. then we booted with the windows millenium
> install disk and it said something like:
>
> windows millenium has detected another operating system on the hard
> drive. in order to run windows millenium you need to reconfigure your
> hard drive to make it compatible with the microsoft product. press
> ok to continue with the installation.
>
> there was a button that said "ok" and "h1" for help. the message was
> confusing; i didn't know what "reconfiguring a hard drive" meant, so i
> pressed F1.
Darned straight!
> the help said something like:
>
> windows millenium needs the entire hard drive to run correctly. by
> pressing "ok" you will delete all partitions currently on the drive, and
> any files on them.
>
> egads! that sure is reconfiguration all right!
a minor detail... :)
> so, unless i did something wrong (which is entirely possible; i know next to
> nothing about M$ operating systems), it would appear that if you're making a
> millenium dual boot, you have two options:
>
> a: you MUST install millenium first. i don't buy that it needs the whole
> drive for one instant.
Mmm... since Foo (??) helped set one up at the last IF, I guess that is
supported. You just, as always, have to install M$ first and then adjust
partitions and then install Linux.
> b: the person should have a 2nd hard drive to install linux on.
That might be appropriate. But I doubt it is the only solution...
> boo for microsoft! that stupid error message i saw had "linux" written all
> over it. i'm sure M$ sees lots of windows/OS2 dual boots... :-)
No, it had "dual-booting isn't good for us so we aren't going to suggest
for a moment that it is possible because people might want us to answer
questions about it anyway" written all over it. BeOS, Solaris, Linux,
OS/2, doesn't matter. "Anyone savvy enough to want to dual boot two M$
OSes might as well just install Win2k anyway, and who cares about those
other ones. Let them eat cake!"
For that matter, I think dual-booting is a band-aid. Two machines, or one
machine with a virtual machine inside it, makes much more sense. Linux
looks better as the uptime grows and you use it more... switching from Win
to Linux by rebooting just to do a quick grep slows down your learning
considerably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live...
DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go...
Work:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing
Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with
/Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
