w2k/u7.10 dual-boot

[Teddy Mills]

ubuntu 7.1
apt-get install compiz compizconfig-settings-manager

I think compiz tries for functionality, and less concerned with eye-candy.

/teddy







chris-n/jUll39koHNgV/OU4+dkA at public.gmane.org wrote:
> Lennart Sorensen writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:10:03PM -0500, chris-n/jUll39koHNgV/OU4+dkA at public.gmane.org wrote:
>>> This is uncharted territory so I don't know if you'll want to hazard
>>> a guess. What do you think the chances are that this problem would
>>> be rectified by doing the W2K/u7.10 dual-boot installation again,
>>> this time with W2K on ntfs? 
>>> I just don't want to waste a couple of hours if there's no hope. 
>>> I seem to recall there was some scenario in which the bootloader
>>> should be installed on the "first sector of the boot partition"
>>> instead of the MBR. Maybe that's for a dual-boot of W98 and NT or
>>> somesuch (and nothing to do with linux). Does that ring a bell? 
>>
>> I used to do that back when I used to reinstall windows every 3 months
>> (generally a good idea with win9x), and windows would overwrite the MBR
>> every time, so having the boot loader on the first primary linux
>> partition meant I could get the system booting normally again simply by
>> changing the active partition in fdisk from dos to be the linux
>> partition instead of the C: partition.  The MBR stayed as the generic
>> 'boot the partition with the bootable flag'.
>> Since I no longer reinstall windows (or install in the first place) on
>> my machines, I just install GRUB in the mbr and don't have any
>> partitions flagged bootable.  Windows does seem to insist on having a
>> bootable partition so marking C: bootable might be a good idea.
>
> Okay, I was able to install a u7.10/W2K dual-boot on another computer,
> So, now I know it can be done. Hard drive failure seems unlikely as I
> am able to install either OS on the drive, just not both at the same
> time. I'm wondering if it's the hard drive *model* that's a problem. I
> had the same problem on two identical hard drives - they are WD 160 GB
> drives. The other thing is that maybe my motherboard/BIOS doesn't like
> this dual-boot scenario.
> Would it be worth trying taking the hard drive, installing the
> dual-boot on the computer an which the dual-boot installation works,
> then remove the hard drive and re-install the hard drive (not the OS)
> on the computer I want it on? Obviously some drivers and things will
> change as the hard drive will now have a new computer home. Is that
> even worth trying?
> In the meantime I'll ask the tech at Krazy Krazy (where I bought the
> hard drives) if there is anything about these hard drives that he can
> think of that would cause a problem dual-booting.
> I have had other dual-boot (linux/Windows) installations on the
> computer I want this on, so I know the motherboard/BIOS doesn't reject
> dual-boots as a rule - but this one scenario or this one hard drive
> model is a problem...
> Chris
>
>>
>> Do NOT resize the windows partition while installing linux.  I wouldn't
>> trust it to get that right.
>> -- 
>> Len Sorensen
>> -- 
>> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
>> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
>> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>
>
> -- 
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists