Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Even though sdb1 shows as ntfs windows doesn't recognize it for some reason. I've even tried switching the cables with no effect.
hda is recognized by qtparted as 60 gb, however bios only sees 2.1g , drive may have gone bad?
This sounds like you actually have two disk problems:
(1) hda, an IDE/PATA one, is 60Gb but BIOS only recognizes 2.1Gb of that, and
(2) sdb, an SCSI/SATA one, has it's first partition as ntfs but Windows does not recognize that.
(1) I don't understand how BIOS could only recognize 2.1Gb, but the OS could recognize all 60Gb. That makes no sense to me. You'd think if the BIOS sees 2.1GB, then that is what the OS would see too (the OS uses the BIOS after all).
(2) When you say "Windows doesn't recognize sdb1", do you mean the Windows installer? If it's not a Windows installer CD giving you the problem, where are you booting Windows from?
Motherboard is Asus k8n-e deluxe bios is from around 2002. I think that WD disktoools did somthing to fool 98. When I attempted to install XP upgrade it found no O/S. When I originall installed XP before going to linux the installer wold ask for a qualifying product and I wousld install my 98SE cd, now it doesn't even give me that optiom
We need to know the make/model description of the computer. Without knowing more information I'm just SWAGing an answer here. There were several stepping stone BIOS hard drive size limitations, 504MB, 2.1GB, 8.4GB, 32GB and 137GB. linux is capable of reading the information from the drive instead of the BIOS.
If MS is not recognizing sdb then it is probably a driver issue. Need to know what type of drive i.e. SCSI, SATA etc. During the initial stage the MS installer will ask for special drivers.
I think there may be a misunderstnading of the hard disk partition creation and formatting.
If a NTFS partition is created its partition table will have entries containing the hard disk addresses of its starting and finishing points plus a partition type number which is 7. That partition is not formatted and Linux in general does not write on NTFS partitions and therefore should not be asked to do foramtting in NTFS.
When the partition is present to a XP it can recognise it but could not mount it because it has no filing system inside. Therefore in XP a user must use the "disk Management" program (by right click "My computer, then left click "Manage", then "storage" and finally "disk Management") to format it. Only after a partition has been formatted then it has a filing index and so can be mouted by XP.
A user can only claim XP does not recognise the disk if he/she could not find it in the disk management program.
As regarding the Bios only recognises 2.1 Gb that is clearly a misinformation, as the fdisk program has reported 60Gb Post #8. Linux got its information of the hard disk from the Bios!
I think that WD disktoools did somthing to fool 98. When I attempted to install XP upgrade it found no O/S. When I originall installed XP before going to linux the installer wold ask for a qualifying product and I wousld install my 98SE cd, now it doesn't even give me that optiom
Now you're throwing older versions of Windows into the mix. Windows 98SE does not support ntfs at all. It would just be some "unknown partition type" in 98SE's view. That would have been some feat for "WD disktools to fool 98" ... making it work with a filesystem type it didn't support.
As far as your XP upgrade disk no longer giving you a choice to pop in your old 98Se disk for proof up upgrade eligibility, that could be because the XP upgrader sees your ntfs partition and knows that 98SE would never have been able to exist in that environment. Therefore the upgrader is not allowing you to choose an 98SE->XP upgrade path (it might think it's a fraudulent upgrade attempt, due to ntfs being present). This is just a guess - but a somewhat plausible one given Microsoft's attempts to protect their OS from piracy. And their track record of somewhat sloppy, and occassionally incorrect, determination of what is legit and what is not.
I would try nuking your ntfs partitions from the partition table so the XP upgrader just sees unpartitioned space. Give it a blank canvas to work with, rather than one that's already been painted on by a different artist.
I don't believe that the problem is with the system bios since it is currently supporting 2 160g sata's. What I think happened was that disktools some how formated the drive so that 98/fat32 would be able to use the drive.
I wonder if i was to reformat the ntfs as fat32 the xp ugrade would accept it.
Can you fix this problem? It is mostly related to you (or via an installer) asking Grub to load something, possibly the splash screen, that has now been removed or changed. Grub can not proceed and so it stops.
(1) You can edit the /boot/Grub/menu.lst if you still have the Linux that provide a home to Grub. This way you know exactly where Grub is objecting to.
(2) Remove Grub by restoring MS system MBR. Last link of my signature Task B1 or B2 refers. You bypass Grub. MS MBR boots any primary partition that has been marked "active" (or "bootable in Linux term).