Re: [vox-tech] lert and windows millenium

[MAPSjdnewmil@dcn.davis.ca.us]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:

> i want to report on a lert call i went to today to vox-tech.
> 
> the task was to rescue a dual boot install which went sour.  the person used
> fdisk to split up the windows partition.  needless to say, the partitions
> weren't salvagable.

I have never had this happen (in my "several" not "dozens" of times using
FIPS).  Perhaps they used the old FIPs... that isn't designed for FAT32
partitions.

> for various reasons, i thought this case might be better to install linux
> first, leaving the 1st and 2nd partitions for windows millenium.

Silly!

> 
> the linux install went well.  then we booted with the windows millenium
> install disk and it said something like:
> 
>     windows millenium has detected another operating system on the hard
>     drive.  in order to run windows millenium you need to reconfigure your
>     hard drive to make it compatible with the microsoft product.  press
>     ok to continue with the installation.
> 
> there was a button that said "ok" and "h1" for help.  the message was
> confusing; i didn't know what "reconfiguring a hard drive" meant, so i
> pressed F1.

Darned straight!

>  the help said something like:
> 
>    windows millenium needs the entire hard drive to run correctly.  by
>    pressing "ok" you will delete all partitions currently on the drive, and
>    any files on them.
> 
> egads!  that sure is reconfiguration all right!

a minor detail... :)

> so, unless i did something wrong (which is entirely possible; i know next to
> nothing about M$ operating systems), it would appear that if you're making a
> millenium dual boot, you have two options:
> 
>    a: you MUST install millenium first.  i don't buy that it needs the whole
>       drive for one instant.

Mmm... since Foo (??) helped set one up at the last IF, I guess that is
supported.  You just, as always, have to install M$ first and then adjust
partitions and then install Linux.

>    b: the person should have a 2nd hard drive to install linux on.

That might be appropriate.  But I doubt it is the only solution...

> boo for microsoft!  that stupid error message i saw had "linux" written all
> over it.  i'm sure M$ sees lots of windows/OS2 dual boots...   :-)

No, it had "dual-booting isn't good for us so we aren't going to suggest
for a moment that it is possible because people might want us to answer
questions about it anyway" written all over it. BeOS, Solaris, Linux,
OS/2, doesn't matter. "Anyone savvy enough to want to dual boot two M$
OSes might as well just install Win2k anyway, and who cares about those
other ones. Let them eat cake!"

For that matter, I think dual-booting is a band-aid.  Two machines, or one
machine with a virtual machine inside it, makes much more sense. Linux
looks better as the uptime grows and you use it more... switching from Win
to Linux by rebooting just to do a quick grep slows down your learning
considerably.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Newmiller                        The     .....       .....  Go Live...
DCN:<jdnewmil@dcn.davis.ca.us>        Basics: ##.#.       ##.#.  Live Go...
Work:<JeffN@endecon.com>              Live:   OO#.. Dead: OO#..  Playing
Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries            O.O#.       #.O#.  with
/Software/Embedded Controllers)               .OO#.       .OO#.  rocks...2k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------