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 at 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