"bootmgr is missing" when trying to boot into Vista
Suse/NovellThis Forum is for the discussion of Suse Linux.
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.
Distribution: Slackware 11, Solaris 10, Solaris 9, Sourcemage 0.9.6
I don't think you can make Vista load from GRUB. From what I've read, Vista is _designed_ to not boot from any other bootloaders than its own or Microsoft's. It could be a GRUB issue because GRUB support for Vista isn't fully developed yet. You could wait for a newer GRUB release and see if it works, but leave things as they are right now so you won't risk making your system unbootable.
I think Vista was messed up during the Linux Install
There is nothing wrong with this command if Linux and Vista are on the same HD0 boot drive:
title Windows Vista
So, I think the Windows Vista installation had been corrupted some how. Windows Vista has the ability to repair its self using the same installation disk you installed Vista from. However, it will only do so IF the Vista partition is the Active or boot partition. You need a partition managing software like Acronis which now offers a manager that can work with Linux or Vista partitions.
When you boot from the Acronis boot disk you can set the active partition to the Windows Vista partition. Then try to boot Windows Vista. I am thinking it will not boot so then boot from the Windows Vista CD and instead of reinstalling it, select to repair your installation. There is an automatic repair function that can be used. Once Windows Vista is repaired, you would boot your partition manager again and set the Linux partition as the active partition. At that point, the above Grub Menu.Lst command should work properly.
Windows may not work properly if the MBR was replaced with Grub in it. Normally, you would want a generic MBR and load Grub on the same partition as Linux. Then the Linux partition is set as the active partition. You need a setup that if you set the Windows Partition as the active partition, then Windows Vista would load correctly not using Grub.
I triple-boot Suse 10.3/XP Pro/Vista Ultimate completely hassle-free using system commander. System Commander's entry for Suse takes me to Grub, from which I simply boot Suse. I can also boot XP from that point if I mess up and select Suse instead of XP when system commander runs. Grub has and entry for Vista, but it doesn't work and I'm not really worried about fixing it because a three-finger salute (ctrl-alt-del) will get me right back to system commander where vista works fine.
However - what you should do is remove the vista entry in grub, and relabel the XP entry as plain old "windows choices". Your trouble is due to XP and vista both being present.
In this setup, you will select the windows option from grub, which will take you to a choice of vista or XP.
Naturally, you will now curse Bill Gates, purge the evil of windows from your machine, and swear never to sully your hardware with such filth again
This is doesn't make any sense to me. Your problem now is clear as the bootloader in window is for both OS vista and Xp you might not be able to boot directly to vista unless the two OS vista and XP are installed in two different partition. And if so the problem is with the partition numbers for both OS xp and vista. I had almost the same problem and I found out that the laptop comes with small partition which refer to as /dev/sda1 (hd0,0) and then the vista partition /dev/sda2 (hd0,1) and the swab and the ext3 fedora partition. As grub doesn't detect the bootmgr in vista you should tell about it's location. For instance changed ha(0,0) in grub to (hd0,1) and made it active with the option makeactive and the chainloader +1 left as it's
Oh there's a lot of choices... it is often simpler conceptually to let windows handle windows and linux handle linux. Means you don't have to worry about what Redmond is doing to your poor computer. Much.
You're right though - if you install vista over everything, then install XP, you wont get the dual entry in vistas bootloader. (XP is not dual-boot aware.)
But if you install vista alongside an existing XP, vistas bootloader will take over from XP... it's doing you a favour, right? It ends up looking like there's just the one at the start of the XP partition.
(If Vista detects linux, it sometimes wants you to reformat that partition...)
Of course, I haven't looked into this in more detail than this. It is possible there's something I've missed. But it all makes sense if you imagine a world where there is no OS but Windows of two flavours: Vista and pre-Vista.
Vista is just doing, pretty much, what grub does with all *nix multi-boots. Of course, if you chainload grub, you don't normally get another menu.
Along comes linux - grub wants to chainload a windows bootloader. In the first scenario, there are two bootloaders (one for each windows) so that is what we have come to expect. In the second, there is only the one.
This is where folk correct me
Last edited by Simon Bridge; 12-13-2007 at 04:30 AM.