Sorin Srbu wrote:
Apparantely Windows can bork up after a while if the system files aren't on C:. I was thinking the Windows installer will see the linux partitions and try to name them C: and D: etc, thus Windows will be installed on E: or F:, which might not go down well with some programs.
Unless you install Linux on FAT, Winblows won't see it.
Guy Boisvert, ing IngTegration inc.
At Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:28:45 -0400 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Sorin Srbu wrote:
Apparantely Windows can bork up after a while if the system files aren't on C:. I was thinking the Windows installer will see the linux partitions and try to name them C: and D: etc, thus Windows will be installed on E: or F:, which might not go down well with some programs.
Unless you install Linux on FAT, Winblows won't see it.
If MS-Windows can't install itself on the first drive (as seen by the BIOS eg /dev/hda(1) or /dev/sda(1)), it won't install. *MS-Windows* (AFAIK) simply won't install itself anyplace but C: (at least for the core system). I once spent a day or so trying to install MS-Windows NT 4.0 (the pre-cursor to Win2K/WinXP/etc.) on a machine which had a working Linux install on its SCSI disk (SCSI ID 0). I had added a *second* drive (SCSI ID 1). The MS-Windows installer saw the second drive, would format it, but then would claim that there was no drive space to install MS-Windows on. I want through this loop several times. The installer's error messages were quite unhelpful, at least to someone not used to the Redmond mentality. I ended up swaping drive ID jumpers, making the Linux install on drive #1 (/dev/sdb*) and the new disk drive #0 (/dev/sda*). MS-Windows installed itself then (and I had to do a rescue boot to re-install Lilo on the new drive #0).
Guy Boisvert, ing IngTegration inc. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Robert Heller wrote on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:21:01 -0400:
If MS-Windows can't install itself on the first drive (as seen by the BIOS eg /dev/hda(1) or /dev/sda(1)), it won't install.
I think it can install the system to the other drive, but it will want to write the bootloader on the first drive. Which makes sense.
*MS-Windows*
(AFAIK) simply won't install itself anyplace but C: (at least for the core system).
You confuse that. Windows will name the system partition as C:, but that doesn't mean you can install it only on the first partition. If you have four primary partitions you can install four versions of Windows.
Kai
At Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:20:16 +0200 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Robert Heller wrote on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:21:01 -0400:
If MS-Windows can't install itself on the first drive (as seen by the BIOS eg /dev/hda(1) or /dev/sda(1)), it won't install.
I think it can install the system to the other drive, but it will want to write the bootloader on the first drive. Which makes sense.
*MS-Windows*
(AFAIK) simply won't install itself anyplace but C: (at least for the core system).
You confuse that. Windows will name the system partition as C:, but that doesn't mean you can install it only on the first partition. If you have four primary partitions you can install four versions of Windows.
More specificly, MS-Windows *seems* to need to be installed somewhere on BIOS drive 0x80 (the first drive). Older BIOSs would call this (whole) drive 'C:', even if it had multiple partitions (which would end up as C:, D:, etc. in a MS-Windows world).
When I was trying (way back when in the 1990s) to install NT 4.0 on a second (physical) SCSI disk, the NT 4.0 installer was calling it C:, but the installer was failing *after* formatting it. It was giving 'strange' and 'confusing' error messages. It appeared that the installer just did not know how to deal with the hardware situation it found: a full partition 1st drive, with all partitions of types MS-Windows did not understand (eg Linux file systems, etc.) and an available 2nd drive partitioned and formatted for MS-Windows. I suspect this is a situation not expected by the writers of the installer -- part of Microsoft 'arogance' -- eg there is no other operating system but MS-Windows. I wouldn't expect MS-Windows XP to be any different, but don't really know. After that experience with NT 4.0 I have avoided all contact with MS-Windows (any version).
Kai
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 14:43 -0400, Robert Heller wrote:
At Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:20:16 +0200 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Robert Heller wrote on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:21:01 -0400:
If MS-Windows can't install itself on the first drive (as seen by the BIOS eg /dev/hda(1) or /dev/sda(1)), it won't install.
I think it can install the system to the other drive, but it will want to write the bootloader on the first drive. Which makes sense.
*MS-Windows*
(AFAIK) simply won't install itself anyplace but C: (at least for the core system).
You confuse that. Windows will name the system partition as C:, but that doesn't mean you can install it only on the first partition. If you have four primary partitions you can install four versions of Windows.
More specificly, MS-Windows *seems* to need to be installed somewhere on BIOS drive 0x80 (the first drive). Older BIOSs would call this (whole) drive 'C:', even if it had multiple partitions (which would end up as C:, D:, etc. in a MS-Windows world).
When I was trying (way back when in the 1990s) to install NT 4.0 on a second (physical) SCSI disk, the NT 4.0 installer was calling it C:, but the installer was failing *after* formatting it. It was giving 'strange' and 'confusing' error messages. It appeared that the installer just did not know how to deal with the hardware situation it found: a full partition 1st drive, with all partitions of types MS-Windows did not understand (eg Linux file systems, etc.) and an available 2nd drive partitioned and formatted for MS-Windows. I suspect this is a situation not expected by the writers of the installer -- part of Microsoft 'arogance' -- eg there is no other operating system but MS-Windows. I wouldn't expect MS-Windows XP to be any different, but don't really know. After that experience with NT 4.0 I have avoided all contact with MS-Windows (any version).
---- Maybe true back in those days. But these days that is not correct. That's why I asked the OP what Brand of Mother Board he has. Fact is now Win can be installed on the Primary IDE or SATA Port and then moved to another on the same board **IF** the board in question Supports Boot Selection from Hard Disks. Therefore Gruby Grub is not needed because this is taken care of via Hardware.
Windows installer expects to see IDE0 or SATA0 and that is all MS wants it to see during install because they think they are superior. For SCSI Devices drivers are usually required.
JohnStanley
-
Guy Boisvert -
JohnS -
Kai Schaetzl -
Robert Heller