Slashdotted - XP dual boot issue

[David McCormick]

I guess I'm just lucky, I have been dual booting Windos XpPand RH 8.0 
FC-1 FC-2 and FC- X86_64 using first LILO and now GRUB.  At this time I 
have a triple boot system using grub to boot FC-2 X86_64 and XP-32, and 
the beta XP-64 . I have not run across the problems that others are 
reporting.  I have XP32 on my sda disk, FC-2 one the sdb disk and XP-64 
on the sdc disk with Grub loaded to sda1 mbr partition. I installed 
XT-32 first and then FC-2. XP-64 is booted by first booting XP-32 which 
gives me a second boot screen with  XP-32 and XP-64 as choices.  Just an 
aside XP-64 is just about unusable in its beta form.  It loads drivers 
for my ATI900 PRO but not Sound Blaster live 5.1, no printers are 
supported, in fact very little is supported other than graphics boards. 
MS suggests that you tell the board and printer Manufacturers to get on 
the stick.  With the exception of Nautilus crashing every time you start 
it and that you can"t set Gnome Screen preferences because that also 
crashes every time I start it, I just use KDE instead, I really like the 
X86_64 I just wish the 32 bit libs were loaded when its installed so 
that I could use a couple of programs that run fine on FC-2 but not FC-2 
X86_64.

David

rory at childwelfare.ca wrote:

>>------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 14
>>Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:34:18 -0400
>>And, I guess we'll get to read about how it's an
>>MS problem and how newbies and Window-users shouldn't be using
>>Fedora if they want to migrate to Linux and only have themselves
>>to blame if they encounter this problem.
>>    
>>
>>>>>Not true. They bought Windows, right? Call tech-support. Demand
>>>>>correction of bug.
>>>>>
>>>>>Or... much better, ignore them entirely... or give them a call:
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi, just to say: one less Windows user...
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>Rui
>>>      
>>>
>>Humm, bad attitude IMO.  OTOH, its a well known fact that a windows 
>>install will trash any linux installed mbr things and has been doing 
>>it for years.  On purpose we think...
>>    
>>
>
>
>It's more than just a bad attitude.  It's a defeatist attitude.  
>
>What an easy world for a monopolist it would be if every time they put
>up an obstacle, their opponents said, "We're not going to try to
>overcome that obstacle.  They put it up, so they should take it down."  
>
>And telling a monopolist that they just lost a customer doesn't shake
>them like a normal corporation because they don't abide by market forces
>or fair competition.  
>
>Our *responsibility* in the face of monopolistic tactics like this is to
>build workarounds and fixes.  Fortunately, I'm guessing that Redhat
>people working of this might feel similarly.  If nothing else, I'm sure
>they're not sitting around waiting for MS to fix the bug, as this user
>suggested.  
>
>MS created the problem, but it's up to us to find the solution. 
>Mandrake did have a similar problem with 10.0 CE that didn't take my
>system down, so I was lucky, but they fixed it. This isn't a
>Fedora-specific issue.  And possibly this is a kernel issue.  But it
>doesn't matter if, at its root, this is MS's creation - it's the Linux
>community's problem now to fix.  
>
>Or, we could just call MS tech support and demand a correction to the
>bug... ;)
>
>By the way, since this bug has been noted by multiple users since
>February, is it in the errata?  I couldn't find it.  
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040523/d82b4c76/attachment-0001.htm>