Dual boot Win2k/Linux problem

[dsullinger]

I have a Laptop that dual boots SUSE Linux and Win2k Pro. When the machine powers up, I get the Suse Linux boot loader, then after selecting Windows do I get the Win 2000 loader.

I need to re-install Win2000, what can I do to preserve the SUSE Linux boot loader at startup? If Win2k wipes it out, how can I get it back?

Thanks

 

[RhythmAce]

You really can't do anything to stop win2k from writing to the mbr but that's not a problem. Make sure you have a boot disk or cd for linux. Sometimes you can use the recover option or run the lilo command and it will reinstall lilo on mbr. I'm not sure of the exact command because I use grub but I think it is something like "lilo /dev/hda". That should install lilo on the master boot record of the 1st hard drive.

 

[dsullinger]

The Linux boot loader is grub... does this amke a difference?

 

[dsullinger]

Great, I don't know what I did, but now everytime I boot up, grub drops me into some sort of BASH command line interface... I can't seam to get the graphical interface back up.

 

[AP81]

Try changing the run level

 

[dsullinger]

1. I went to

http://www.suse.com

and downloaded the boot.iso file and burned it with Nero
2. Installed Win2000 and it blew away my MBR
3. Booted the PC with boot.iso CD
4. Told it to boot installed Linux installation
5. Once logged in, I opened YAST and told it to re-create the bootloader
6. Everything is back the way it was... WOOHOO!

Thanks

 

[roarkraman]

hi iam trying to dual boot linux and windows? which windows would be the best to dual boot with linux? would it be better to create the partions with linux or windows?

 

[dsullinger]

I have a 18GB HDD, of which I created 3 partitions using Windows 2000. The first once was 155MB and was formated with FAT32, the next one was 8MB and left unformated. The last one was 10GB and formated as FAT32 and I placed Windows 2000 on this partition.

Once Windows 2000 was installed, I then installed SUSE Linux 8.1. When prompted to do so, I had Linux install the Linux bootloader and I set Windows as the default boot OS.

That's all there was to it.

 

[dsullinger]

Opps.. forgot to explain the first partition. I created this for the master boot record. That way if I ever needed to rebuild Linux, I wouldn't loose my MBR and I could still boot into Windows... well, that was the thought at the time. There were a few other reasons also, but I don't remember them.

 

[ownuridea]

I want to learn Linux and switch over in my own good time. Currently running a system, the apps, setup and data have migrated Win 3.1->98->2000, the current. I need to keep this (some apps like vpn to the office might not work in Linux, or I wouldn't know how to set up). I own a new copy of SuSE 8.2, which proved easy to load on my spare laptop drive, so I've gained some confidence.

I guess the best way to start is to partition my second (30 gb) drive with one partition that can hold Linux and another for prime drive backup. Then will loading Linux into that second drive be straightforward, or is there real danger of overwriting the current system?

Assuming the answer is positive, is there a way to set up to select OS on startup, or do I have to go into BIOS and disable primary drive to run Linux?

Be gentle in the reply - it should be obvious I'm a newbie (even less - a wannabe).

 

[zed994]

yeah,

xp good for dual boot with mandrake 9.1???

Alex

 

[panku]

I think win2k/linux is the best combination..

 

[pansophic]

I have dual booted every version of Windows since Win3.11 and never had any problems with any of them. I currently use RedHat, and get angry at their refusal to include NTFS read-only mounting in their distribution kernel, which makes all of the NTFS-based (WinNT, Win2K and XP) OSs a pain to deal with. But VMWare solved most of that.


pansophic

 

[dsullinger]

ownuridea - If you are using this for elarning Linux in your off time, then the two drives is a good idea so it seperates your production drive from your test drive. That way if you screw up Linux, you don't harm your production drive in any way. I have always ordered 2 hard drives for every Laptop I've received at work so far just for this reason.

Yes, if you have a second drive, then loading Suse will be easy, just drop in the first CD and boot up, you'll be up and running in no time.

 

[ownuridea]

Thanks, dsullinger, but a funny thing happened on the way...

Both drives already had W2K installed. So with the smaller one (4 gb), I loaded SuSE, the dual boot came up fine. I could use either OS no problem.

Now confident, I dropped in the 18 gb, which of course has the working config, files, etc. Load SuSE, and all he** breaks loose. Just an error message, like GRUB Geom Error (not sure, I've since moved on). Could only boot Linux from CD, and could not figure out how to repair (I'm loading to learn, after all!). Finally abandoned all, losing months of work, reloaded Windows, then let Linux resize and load. This time different errors (one of which an absurd boot out of BIOS range - if it was out of bios range, I coldn't have put it there and anyway the drive was working fine with Windows alone).

So now I've given up. Notice SuSE 9.0 is for release this week. I'll order, then try to decide where to try it out - maybe secondary drive on desktop (with primary physically disconnected for safety). Well, I didn't expect this first step to be easy. General feeling is that Linux is almost - but not quite - for the desktop yet. These things take time.

 

[pansophic]

Your boot error has to do with drives in excess of 8GB. It has been "fixed" for all distributions that I know of, but you may have to make post install changes to the boot loader.

If your /boot partition happens to be beyond 1024 cylinders (which works out to be 8GB on most modern drives), then the system will not boot. This can be resolved in Lilo by setting "lba32" in the system-wide settings. I'm not sure how to resolve it in Grub.

That is why your 4GB drive worked fine, and your 18GB drive experienced the problem.

Linux is very good at being the only OS on a drive, just like Windows. In my opinion, Linux is better at being multi booted than Windows. But that is probably why nearly all of my machines run linux, and only a few run Windows.


pansophic

 

[ownuridea]

I sure appreciate your reply; it is the first one that has made sense. As you can tell by my post, I am a complete newbie at Linux, and I want to learn the OS on my own time, not out of necessity.

It turns out I purchased my SuSE from an eBay distributor, not knowing any better. Now that SuSE is releasing 9.0, I'll buy direct from them, which makes the contribution that I think is right and fair. With luck, since 8 gb is a small size by now, the new distro should blow right past the barrier you speak of. If not, I think I'll be entitled to initial installation support from SuSE.

The real "act of faith" will be when I have enough confidence to install the dual boot on my 120 gb desktop, where my real work is stored. I think I'll need doze for a while, as I'm hestiant to assume that such things as the Contivity VPN client that is required to get through the firewall to my office mail (and others) are fully ready for Linux as yet.

Anyway, thanks again for getting me on what seems a logical trail.

Mike

 

[pansophic]

I went dual boot for a long time before making the plunge. I still keep windows around because I do some development for clients on it. I also have one client who does some interesting things with their Word documents, such that they will not open in OpenOffice.

Other than that, I am a complete convert. I'm even messing around with FreeBSD now as well.


pansophic