|
|
I want to build a dual-boot PC with Vista & Linux. Both Vista & Linux have
boot loaders. Why is it necessary to install Windows first? Why can't Linux
be installed first?
I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or expand
the partition from within Windows. Linux requires a separate program to
shrink or expand the partition.
So, please explain why Windows must be installed before Linux or if Linux
can be installed first, what is the sequence of steps.
Thank you.
David
|
|
Here is why:
because linux is not a snob and can see the existence of windows
installations and it adds them to its bootloader
but windows IS a linux snob and can see only windows installs... from win95
and up...
therefore you must install linux last so its superior (in the fact that it
can detect more kinds of OS) can detect all OS and add them as entries
[Quoted Text] > I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or expand
> the partition from within Windows.
This doesn’t work half the times! lol havent you seen people complaining in
here that they cant resize because some files are in use in that disk area?
LOL and there is no good work around unless you use a third party
application ,and in this case the best is paragon partition manager.
"pc nerd" <pcnerd[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D91F4B22-890B-477F-BB2E-99AA66F8F9BF[ at ]microsoft.com...
> I want to build a dual-boot PC with Vista & Linux. Both Vista & Linux have
> boot loaders. Why is it necessary to install Windows first? Why can't
> Linux
> be installed first?
>
> I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or expand
> the partition from within Windows. Linux requires a separate program to
> shrink or expand the partition.
>
> So, please explain why Windows must be installed before Linux or if Linux
> can be installed first, what is the sequence of steps.
>
> Thank you.
> David
|
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:11:01 -0800, pc nerd
<pcnerd[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >I want to build a dual-boot PC with Vista & Linux. Both Vista & Linux have
>boot loaders. Why is it necessary to install Windows first? Why can't Linux
>be installed first?
The Linux installation process immediately recognizes a windows
installation and all distributions I tried will automatically insert a
Windows boot-option when you start your system.
Doesn't work the other way round though, Windows won't recognize an
existing Linux installation.
Much easier if you install Windows first so that's my recommendation
as well.
|
|
having said that in my previous post...
I use the WUBI way to install ubuntu.. that creates a virtual parition in
windows, and puts all the data in that space...
using this method of install you can remove linux from the add remove
programs.. and it adds an entry to the WINDOWS bootloader!
so you have a windows bootloader that says> VISTA and UBUNTU!
quite nice.. and speed is good...
I am fed up with playing around with partitions... so I use the above
method or simply use virtual machines
"pc nerd" <pcnerd[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D91F4B22-890B-477F-BB2E-99AA66F8F9BF[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > I want to build a dual-boot PC with Vista & Linux. Both Vista & Linux have
> boot loaders. Why is it necessary to install Windows first? Why can't
> Linux
> be installed first?
>
> I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or expand
> the partition from within Windows. Linux requires a separate program to
> shrink or expand the partition.
>
> So, please explain why Windows must be installed before Linux or if Linux
> can be installed first, what is the sequence of steps.
>
> Thank you.
> David
|
|
pc nerd wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I want to build a dual-boot PC with Vista & Linux. Both Vista & Linux have
> boot loaders. Why is it necessary to install Windows first? Why can't Linux
> be installed first?
>
> I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or expand
> the partition from within Windows. Linux requires a separate program to
> shrink or expand the partition.
>
> So, please explain why Windows must be installed before Linux or if Linux
> can be installed first, what is the sequence of steps.
>
> Thank you.
> David
Because Microsoft in it's monopoly mentality and infinite wisdom decided
that windows does not need to recognize that other operating systems
exist. Ever.
So if you have linux loaded first, and try to load windows, it will
overwrite your boot partition as though it's a blank harddrive (despite
the fact that another OS is installed), thereby disabling your ability
to boot to linux.
If you load windows, then load linux, linux will recognize that there is
another OS installed that you might still also want to boot to and it
will add an entry to it's bootloader to allow you to choose that other
OS when you boot the computer.
--
"Software is like sex, it's better when it's free."
- Linus Torvalds
DRM and unintended consequences:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
|
|
pc nerd wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I want to build a dual-boot PC with Vista & Linux. Both Vista & Linux have
> boot loaders. Why is it necessary to install Windows first? Why can't
> Linux be installed first?
>
> I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or expand
> the partition from within Windows. Linux requires a separate program to
> shrink or expand the partition.
>
> So, please explain why Windows must be installed before Linux or if Linux
> can be installed first, what is the sequence of steps.
You can install Linux first but because MS operating systems overwrite the
boot files, it is easier to install the MS OS first and then install Linux
and use the Linux boot manager instead.
man grub
If you don't want to do things the easy way, Google for how to install Linux
before Vista or post on one of the many Linux newsgroups/forums.
Malke
--
MS-MVP
Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
FAQ - http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ
|
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:11:01 -0800, pc nerd wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I want to build a dual-boot PC with Vista & Linux. Both Vista & Linux
> have boot loaders. Why is it necessary to install Windows first? Why
> can't Linux be installed first?
It's not necessary. It's just easier that way. MS will overwrite the MBR
so after the MS install (assuming Linux was installed first), you boot a
Live CD and rewrite the MBR - if you know how.
>
> I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or
> expand the partition from within Windows. Linux requires a separate
> program to shrink or expand the partition.
It has always seemed problematic to me to attempt to resize a mounted
file system.
>
> So, please explain why Windows must be installed before Linux or if
> Linux can be installed first, what is the sequence of steps.
Outlined above. If you need more detail, we can go into that.
Why bother? Why not run one in a virtual machine within the other - that
way it's no hassle at all.
>
> Thank you.
> David
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Why bother? Why not run one in a virtual machine within the other - that
> way it's no hassle at all.
I considered that but virtual PC doesn't run Linux. I'd have to use VMware.
OK, I'll do it the easy way.
I have some more questions. I believe that Vista doesn't use boot.ini, but
some other boot file. Is it a text file that can be edited? I want to be able
to alternate default OSes. I want Windows to be the default for, say, a few
months & then I want Linux to be the default OS for a few months. So how do I
edit the Vista boot file so that I can alternate default OSes? You know the
OS that boots after the time-out.
>because linux is not a snob and can see the existence of windows
>installations and it adds them to its bootloader
I thought that the Windows bootloader is used in a dual-boot setup. Can I
use either the Windows or Linux bootloader?
>Doesn't work the other way round though, Windows won't recognize an
>existing Linux installation.
OK
>I use the WUBI way to install ubuntu.. that creates a virtual partition in
>windows, and puts all the data in that space...
>using this method of install you can remove linux from the add remove
>programs.. and it adds an entry to the WINDOWS bootloader!
COOL!
>so you have a windows bootloader that says> VISTA and UBUNTU!
>quite nice.. and speed is good...
"ray" wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:11:01 -0800, pc nerd wrote:
>
> > I want to build a dual-boot PC with Vista & Linux. Both Vista & Linux
> > have boot loaders. Why is it necessary to install Windows first? Why
> > can't Linux be installed first?
>
> It's not necessary. It's just easier that way. MS will overwrite the MBR
> so after the MS install (assuming Linux was installed first), you boot a
> Live CD and rewrite the MBR - if you know how.
>
> >
> > I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or
> > expand the partition from within Windows. Linux requires a separate
> > program to shrink or expand the partition.
>
> It has always seemed problematic to me to attempt to resize a mounted
> file system.
>
> >
> > So, please explain why Windows must be installed before Linux or if
> > Linux can be installed first, what is the sequence of steps.
>
> Outlined above. If you need more detail, we can go into that.
>
> Why bother? Why not run one in a virtual machine within the other - that
> way it's no hassle at all.
>
>
> >
> > Thank you.
> > David
>
>
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] >> Why bother? Why not run one in a virtual machine within the other - that
>> way it's no hassle at all.
>
> I considered that but virtual PC doesn't run Linux. I'd have to use VMware.
You can run Windows in a virtual machine in Linux, though. But,
be aware that whenever you run an operating system in a virtual
machine, there is a price to pay in performance.
>>> I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or
>>> expand the partition from within Windows. Linux requires a separate
>>> program to shrink or expand the partition.
Well, Vista's shrink and expand is also a program. Ubuntu comes
with the gparted program, which does the same thing. When you
install Ubuntu, it automatically allows you to change the partitions.
However, as I understand it, gparted is not yet compatible with
Vista's NTFS. Unfortunately, as I found to my disadvantage,
neither is Vista's shrink facility! Therefore, to shrink or slide
Vista's partition, use Acronis Disk Director or BootIT NG.
To shrink, expand or slide any Linux partition, use gparted,
which is pleasantly easy to use.
>> It has always seemed problematic to me to attempt to resize a mounted
>> file system.
I had no problem whatsoever in shrinking, expanding and sliding
(last night, in fact), using BootIT NG for the Vista partition
and gparted for the Linux partition.
However, you are right that you can't do it on a *mounted*
partition! BootIT NG and gparted both require a bootable CD (I
don't know about Acronis Disk Director). To expand a Vista
partition, you can use its built-in program.
>>> So, please explain why Windows must be installed before Linux or if
>>> Linux can be installed first, what is the sequence of steps.
>> Outlined above. If you need more detail, we can go into that.
If you install Windows before Ubuntu, then Ubuntu recognises the
Windows partition and allows you to boot from either one. It also
allows you to decide which is the default boot partition.
If you install Windows after Linux, then Windows doesn't seem to
recognise the Linux partition. If you've do that and thereby lost
access to your Ubuntu partition, you can pop over to the Ubuntu
support forums, where they'll explain how to recover from this.
|
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:11:01 -0800, pc nerd
<pcnerd[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >I want to build a dual-boot PC with Vista & Linux. Both Vista & Linux have
>boot loaders. Why is it necessary to install Windows first? Why can't Linux
>be installed first?
>
>I'll admit that Vista has a pretty neat feature - one can shrink or expand
>the partition from within Windows. Linux requires a separate program to
>shrink or expand the partition.
>
>So, please explain why Windows must be installed before Linux or if Linux
>can be installed first, what is the sequence of steps.
>
>Thank you.
>David
1) You ask, "Why must Windows...be installed first?".
2) I answer, this is not exactly true.
When Installing two Windows versions, the oldest version should be
installed first, so that the older version can be added to the Boot
Menu of the newer version.
When dualbooting between Linux and Windows, LInux should be installed
first, so the Linux install can appear on the Windows boot menu, since
installing LInux last will not allow Windows to be added to the Linux
boot menu.
--
Donald L McDaniel
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > When dualbooting between Linux and Windows, LInux should be installed
> first, so the Linux install can appear on the Windows boot menu, since
> installing LInux last will not allow Windows to be added to the Linux
> boot menu.
With Ubuntu, this is incorrect. When installed last, Ubuntu does
add Windows to the boot menu, and gives you the option of making
it the default boot partition.
|
|
pc nerd wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I considered that but virtual PC doesn't run Linux. I'd have to use
> VMware.
I think it does, but since I use VMware on both Windows and Mac I'll let you
do the Googling to be sure.
> I have some more questions. I believe that Vista doesn't use boot.ini, but
> some other boot file. Is it a text file that can be edited? I want to be
> able to alternate default OSes. I want Windows to be the default for, say,
> a few months & then I want Linux to be the default OS for a few months. So
> how do I edit the Vista boot file so that I can alternate default OSes?
> You know the OS that boots after the time-out.
Vista doesn't use boot.ini. It uses BCD:
Vista Boot Configuration Data Editor (BCDE) FAQ
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc721886.aspx
BCDEdit Command-Line Options
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709667.aspx
Most people prefer to use a gui front-end. Vista Boot Pro is excellent. But
you don't need to do this since you're going to be using Grub. Look at
Grub's options - or man grub like I originally told you to - and you'll see
that you can override the default OS boot order at any time and change it
whenever you want.
Malke
--
MS-MVP
Elephant Boy Computers - Don't Panic!
FAQ - http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/#FAQ
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Most people prefer to use a gui front-end. Vista Boot Pro is excellent. But
> you don't need to do this since you're going to be using Grub. Look at
> Grub's options - or man grub like I originally told you to - and you'll see
> that you can override the default OS boot order at any time and change it
> whenever you want.
Or, if you prefer a GUI for grub in Ubuntu, use StartUp Manager.
System -> Administration -> StartUp-Manager
Visit the Ubuntu forums to find out how you can uninstall unused
kernels.
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:03:45 +0000, Paddy Landau
<paddylandau[ at ]hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >> When dualbooting between Linux and Windows, LInux should be installed
>> first, so the Linux install can appear on the Windows boot menu, since
>> installing LInux last will not allow Windows to be added to the Linux
>> boot menu.
>
>With Ubuntu, this is incorrect. When installed last, Ubuntu does
>add Windows to the boot menu, and gives you the option of making
>it the default boot partition.
Whether it is incorrect or not, it is the way Microsoft suggests that
dual-boots be setup.
Why? Installing Linux last trashes Microsoft's MFT, replacing it with
its own.
Microsoft says "Legacy OSes first, newest MS OS last." Since Linux is
considered a "Legacy OS" by Microsoft, I advise all to do it
Microsoft's way. You'll be much happier in the end, when you delete
Linux and expect to find your Windows OS bootloader still alive, and
have no way to reinstall the correct MFT. (this is why its always a
good idea to PAY for your Windows installation disk.)
Donald L McDaniel
|
|
|