Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: DC on 9 September 2002, 01:45
-
I want to reinstall my entire system in a short while, to clean up all the old mess and the terrible partitioning system.
My idea was to put Linux on the 40 GB disk (hda), and Windows on the 4 GB disk (hdd) (for compatibility reasons). My Windows of choice is 98.
Now, for various boring reasons, it would be easier to install Linux first, and then Win98. Unfortunatly, that causes a few problems with 98 overwriting the MBR. But I figured that is solvable. I though of two ways:
1) Install Linux
Install Win98
Boot Linux with floppy
Edit lilo.conf (or Grub alternative) and run lilo (grub)
2) Install Linux
Disconnect hda
Install Win98
Connect hda
Boot in Linux
Edit lilo.conf (or Grub alternative) and run lilo (grub)
Now, would these two work? What would be the best and are there other ways?
-
Yes that will work and I have done it that way before. Installing basics and boot loader configuration is another thing we need to add to our FAQ (which hasn't been started yet).
-
There is an easier way too guys.
Install on your Master HD win98. Install on your Slave HD Linux. No need to disconetct anything.
Configure Grub during installation (Put Grub on MBR). When installation finishes the Penguin will see Win 98 and vuala you have two choices. RH or the Bitch (thats how I named my win98 in Grub).
-
Thanks Void Main.
Bazoukas: Linux should be on the master, and installed first, so that's not possible.
-
But the point is, you *can* install Winblows after installing Linux. Sure the easiest way if you can is to install Winblows first but it only takes a second to boot Linux from a boot disk and rerunning LILO. People who say you can't install Windows second are full of beans. Of course I would put Windows on the first drive.
-
ops my bad. I didnt read the whole post.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
But the point is, you *can* install Winblows after installing Linux.
Good
quote:
Sure the easiest way if you can is to install Winblows first
Well, not in my case - I'm using the 4GB disk to hold files I want to take to my new install, so naturally I can't install Windows on it (and I'm NOT installing Windows on the faster 40GB disk either) This is easier (a lot) than burning to CD or something, since I don't have a burner in this PC.
And it sure is easier than formatting part of the 40 GB drive, formatting the 4GB drive and installing Windows, backing up files, formatting part of the 40GB drive and installing Linux, restoring files, finish partitioning and then *really* restore everything how it should be.
quote:
but it only takes a second to boot Linux from a boot disk and rerunning LILO. People who say you can't install Windows second are full of beans. Of course I would put Windows on the first drive.
Well, that would mean I should make the 4 GB disk hda, the DVD player hdb, and the 40GB disk hdc or hdd (I can't put both HD's on the same IDE controller, ATA 33 and ATA 100 don't mix). Or install Windows on the 40GB which - again - is something I won't do. That would all be way to unesthetical, I want Linux and the bootloader on the 40 GB drive on hda, the DVD on hdc and windows on the 4GB on hdd.
-
The only thing I can't remember for certain is if Win9x will have trouble installing on something other than the first drive. I know NT/2K have no problem with this but I recall Win98 being more brain dead. It might be the reason I always put it on the first drive (it doesn't have to be the first partition though I do know that for sure, as long as the partitions before the target partition are not FAT* partitions). Why don't you want to put Windows on the same large drive? You can always format the smaller drive as a shared work drive (make the big drive the master).
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
The only thing I can't remember for certain is if Win9x will have trouble installing on something other than the first drive. I know NT/2K have no problem with this but I recall Win98 being more brain dead.
Really? That might be a problem. Would installing on hda, swapping and using it with hdd work?
quote:
Why don't you want to put Windows on the same large drive? You can always format the smaller drive as a shared work drive (make the big drive the master).
I don't need shared work, I'll just use the Win98 disk for all stuff that needs to be transferred (it'll be used mostly for games anyway, so not much transferring).
But the larger drive is faster and newer (= more reliable). Plus it's easier to keep the two seperated in case I need to move one of the hard disks (this may occur if I need extra space on my other PC). So I want Win98 on the 4GB disk, and NOT on the 40GB.
-
quote:
Originally posted by DC:
Really? That might be a problem. Would installing on hda, swapping and using it with hdd work?
One way to find out, give it a shot. And swapping disks after an install is possible with Linux as long as you realize that you must change the device names in /etc/fstab and in the boot loader (and intall the boot loader on the MBR of the first drive). For the /etc/fstab that's pretty easy, just change it before you shut down and swap the drives.
For the boot loader it might be easiest to make a boot floppy so you can boot up after swapping drives and then reinstall the boot loader after making appropriate changes to the boot loader's config file. You will also have to pass a parameter to your boot disk telling the kernel where the new location of the root file system is. It's not really a big deal though, I have done it on more than one occasion.
Another option is to stick the smaller drive on the first channel and the bigger one on the second channel. If you later remove the first drive you might still have to change the /etc/fstab and boot loader if the device names change. An alternate method is changing the fstab settings by booting in rescue mode from the install CD, or using Tom's boot disk, or knoppix CD, etc, then mount the root file system on the hard drive, then modifying the fstab. I've done it that way as well. But again, that's only if you move/remove a drive to where the device names will change.
[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
ok this is what you've gotta do:
1. install linux on hda but leave a small (20 mb) fat partition at the end... (give it a volume label like win98 or something)
2. format the 4GB disk... put a volume label on it too
3. make a linux boot floppy
4. make the fat partition you created earlier active, and make the linux partition hidden
5. use a win98 startup disk and type dir c: and dir d: to check the label and make sure its the right partition
6. install win98, when it asks for an install directory put D:\WINDOWS
7. let it set up and everything when its finished go into fdisk and make the linux partition active again
8. boot up with the linux floppy, edit lilo to boot from the linux partition and the fat partition at the end of the disk (not the 4GB disk)
then it should work... i did it before to dual boot w2000 and win98 doing it with linux shouldn't be too hard
[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: imthesponge ]
-
that's a really good solution! i like it.
quote:
Well, not in my case - I'm using the 4GB disk to hold files I want to take to my new install, so naturally I can't install Windows on it (and I'm NOT installing Windows on the faster 40GB disk either) This is easier (a lot) than burning to CD or something, since I don't have a burner in this PC.
And it sure is easier than formatting part of the 40 GB drive, formatting the 4GB drive and installing Windows, backing up files, formatting part of the 40GB drive and installing Linux, restoring files, finish partitioning and then *really* restore everything how it should be.
that's actually what i would have done:
made 2 partitions on the big drive, one fat32 and one ext2 or ext3, then i would have stuck all the files on the fat32 partition and installed windows on the small drive (which would be the first hard drive) then i would make the big one the second drive and install linux onto it. this way i would have all my files on a neutral fat32 partition accessible by both systems.
edit:- but i think that imthesponge's solution is better...
[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
The only problem with installing Windows on "D:" is you can then not separate the drives later. But then I would use both drives for Linux and skip the Winblows part altogether. (http://smile.gif) And use VMware if Windows is necessary like I do now. Then moving things around is easy.
-
hey, isn't the 'installing window son d:' thing just so you can install it on the second drive? i was under the impression that you would later change it round so that physical drive would then be c:, but if d:/windows is hardlinked into the system then putting windows on the secondary drive seems a bit pointless to me.
-
umm ... Void spoke somewhere about a FAQ ... is it going to be on the fuckmicrosoft.com portal ?
And if you would appreciate, could i help translating it into dutch ?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
hey, isn't the 'installing window son d:' thing just so you can install it on the second drive? i was under the impression that you would later change it round so that physical drive would then be c:, but if d:/windows is hardlinked into the system then putting windows on the secondary drive seems a bit pointless to me.
Which physical drive you install Windows on has nothing to do with the drive letters. The drive letters are automatically assigned based on the order of the FAT or NTFS partitions. So if you have a small FAT partition on the first physical drive and a large FAT partition on the second drive the first FAT partition Windows would see as "C:" and the second as "D:".
If you had no FAT partition on the first physical drive Windows would see the FAT partition on the second drive as "C:". As long as you install on the second drive with no FAT partition on the first drive you should be able to remove the first drive and Windows would still work. But if you install on "D:" the "D:" gets spread all over the registry and configuration files so you would have an EXTREMELY difficult time trying to remove the first drive at that point. Now you could remove the first drive, then use Parition Magic to shrink the partition on the second drive enough and move the parition to the back of the disk, then create a small FAT parition on the beginning of the disk so it will show up to Windows as the "C:" drive, and allow you to boot your Windows up on D: which is the drive it was installed on. That "might" work but it's a pain in the ass and ugly.
Linux (or any other UNIX) doesn't have problems like this because it does not use drive letters or reference any pariticular partition in the layout of the file system. The only place the file system layout is associated with a physical parition name is in the /etc/fstab (or equivelant). It is relatively easy to move partitions or drives around and then just change it in the "fstab" file in *NIX.
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=f00bar=-:
umm ... Void spoke somewhere about a FAQ ... is it going to be on the fuckmicrosoft.com portal ?
And if you would appreciate, could i help translating it into dutch ?
I think a FAQ would be a cool idea, and translating it would be even cooler. However, I'm a lazy bastard when it comes to documentation so I was hoping someone else would jump on this cool idea. (http://smile.gif)
My thoughts would be to find or write a dynamic FAQ system written in PHP or Perl, using a MySQL or PostgreSQL database. Then interested parties could contribute to the FAQ through an easy interface and adding search functionality would be a breeze. Then webby could create a "faq.fuckmicrosoft.com" host name pointing to the server that is hosting the FAQ where a virtual host would be created to serve it.
Again, I am lazy. I did a little searching and I didn't find any FAQ systems that I really liked that were already written so to do it the way I envision would require writing one from scratch. Now, the translation into other languages might throw a little twist into my previous thoughts. This would be easy in a flat FAQ based system but in a database driven system you would probably need separate tables for each language (or another column which would would contain the language identifier) and each entry would need to be translated and added to the specific language section. However, it would be well worth the added programming.
It would be a good project for those wanting to learn PHP or Perl...
-
i'd love to do it, but i know fuck all about perl and nearly as much about php! i think learning perl would kick ass though, but i don't know that i'd be able to live up to the expectations that i suspect voidmain has!
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Which physical drive you install Windows on has nothing to do with the drive letters.
Yes, i realise that, although the added complication arises of it not actually getting the drive letters in the right order depending on how old they are. for ages i had an E: partition that came physically before the D: partition purely because the E: partition was newer.
quote:
But if you install on "D:" the "D:" gets spread all over the registry and configuration files so you would have an EXTREMELY difficult time trying to remove the first drive at that point.
well that's what i thought, and what i was trying to convey when i asked about it. quote:
Now you could remove the first drive, then use Parition Magic to shrink the partition on the second drive enough and move the parition to the back of the disk, then create a small FAT parition on the beginning of the disk so it will show up to Windows as the "C:" drive, and allow you to boot your Windows up on D: which is the drive it was installed on. That "might" work but it's a pain in the ass and ugly.
fucking right! now i understand that that was what imthesponge was talking about up there! no way! that's an untidy way to do it, and now i understand it, i would have no truck with it.
quote:
Linux (or any other UNIX) doesn't have problems like this because it does not use drive letters or reference any pariticular partition in the layout of the file system. The only place the file system layout is associated with a physical parition name is in the /etc/fstab (or equivelant). It is relatively easy to move partitions or drives around and then just change it in the "fstab" file in *NIX.
and you could really just mount any partition at any point on your / filesystem that had a directory waiting for it. Sounds a lot easier than all this registry nonsense.
So then, the solution to how to install linux first and then windows, is to install linux on the second hard drive (which is the big one) first, and then format the first (the small one) hard drive as fat32 and install windows on it. then use the linux boot floppy to load linux and edit /etc/lilo.conf and run lilo, yes?
did i miss anything out?
-
You got it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
You got it.
Good. Now to get RH 7.3, back stuff up and jump in the deep end (http://smile.gif)
Good thing I'll have Linux even if Win decides it doesn't like my config - better than the other way around (http://smile.gif)