Boot problem W2k/FC4 -

[Michael Wiktowy]

On 3/1/06, akonstam at trinity.edu <akonstam at trinity.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:46:00PM -0500, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
> > On 2/27/06, Mauriat Miranda <mirandam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/27/06, akonstam at trinity.edu <akonstam at trinity.edu> wrote:
> > > > Using the Windows boot loader is the old way from Lilo days. There
> is
> > > > not problem double booting FC4 with Windows (XP or 2000) using grub.
> I
> > > > have done this on three of my machines. But the grub must be applied
> > > > after the Windows is installed.
> > >
> > > Not sure what the subjective phrase "the old way" means, but this is
> > > merely chainloading, which is still commonly used. If grub has never
> > > failed for you, then good for you. However it has for me and for
> > > others (multiple FC installs, multiple dual-boot machines). Using
> > > NTLDR is a very safe alternative to being potentially locked out of
> > > *both* windows *and* linux. (Been doing this since I had NT4)
> > >
> > > The MBR doesn't need to be constantly overwritten, this is a common
> > > source of problems (for me at least). If you have multiple Windows or
> > > Linux distributions installed, you can have 1 corresponding entry in
> > > the boot.ini for each bootable partition. This needs to be setup only
> > > once, and never really needs to be touched. You can preserve and test
> > > multiple grub or lilo installs from multiple distributions by
> > > installing a bootloader to the first sector of the bootable partition,
> > > as I do. (all Fedora installers have provided this option)
> > >
> > > Entirely optional, but highly recommended for anyone with reservations
> > > about possibly interfering with their windows xp or 2000 boot.
> >
> >
> > I would have to agree ... using NTLDR is not the "old" way, it is the
> only
> > way on some troublesome systems. Most of the time GRUB will boot Linux
> and
> > Windows just fine but there does seem to be the odd nasty
> > BIOS+mobo+drive+partition combo that seems to trip Windows into a
> > NTLDR-or-death mode.
> >
> > I have had particular trouble with systems that have both SATA and IDE
> drive
> > interfaces. There doesn't seem to be any standard way for Windows to
> know
> > which one it should treat as "C:" or GRUB to know which is hd0. With
> enough
> > messing around I can usually find a magic combination of bootloader
> chaining
> > but it usually all goes to hell when you pull a drive out.
> >
> > Maybe this is the scenario that the OP finds themselves in.
> >
> > /Mike
> I agree that is it does not work, it does not work and something else
> must be done. But grub knows which is hd0 by the entry in the
> /boot/grub/device.map file. We found that sometimes with SATA disks
> you have to fool around with the SATA options in the BIOS to make them
> work properly in a fedora - windows double boot. I admit I have never
> tried this with a SATA - IDE combination but I suspect you are ok as
> long as you don't depend on the IDE drive to be the one that is looked
> at to find the MBR by default.


I know the problem in my case is that when I have an IDE drive in the
machine, the BIOS treats that as "the first drive" and when I don't have an
IDE drive in the machine, the BIOS treats the SATA drive as "the first
drive". I think that is the main source of grub-install confusion since
there is no inherent way in GRUB (or NTLDR for that matter) to specify
bus/drive/partition ... only drive/partiton. You can get around it once you
figure out which drive is which but it is a PITA .. especially when you have
a brain-dead BIOS that doesn't give you many options.

/Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20060301/7f715bae/attachment-0001.htm>