2 OS's, 2 HDD's, and 1 Computer....

Southpaw76 · 11-03-2006, 02:34 PM

Hello all,
I'm in the process of relocating again, I'm remaining in the same city but I'm moving from my brothers house to an apartment nearby. I'm going to be adding a second HDD to my desktop and I would like to set it up like so:

Code:

Dell Dimension 4300
Intel Pentium4 (Northwood) 2GHz
1024MHz DDR RAM @ 333MHz
HDD #1 40Gb Seagate
  (running WinXP, for my wife)
HDD #2 80Gb Western Digital
  (running Slackware-11, for me with a small partition dedicated to sharing files between both OS's)

I figure that this should be a pretty standard setup. However I have read somewhere that when sharing OS's in one system that it is probably a good idea to install Windows first followed by Linux. Does this also apply to a setup such as mine with more than one HDD???

BaltikaTroika · 11-03-2006, 03:12 PM

I believe that the problem isn't with the number of hard drives, it's with the boot loader. Linux plays nicely with Windows, but not the other way around. Therefore, it's easiest to install Windows, then linux, and dual boot with the boot loader that linux installs.

Southpaw76 · 11-04-2006, 01:55 PM

So are you saying that if I install *NIX on my 80Gb HDD and WinXP on my 40Gb HDD, I should install windows first followed by Linux, then on the boot loader (whether it's Lilo or Grub), label my Linux drive hda and my windows drive hdb???

Or does it not matter which one is hda and which one hdb is, as long as windows is installed first???

Electro · 11-04-2006, 04:48 PM

When using seperate hard drives to store seperate OS, it does not matter what order you install Linux or Windows. Just tell Windows the correct drive. I use removable hard drive bays in Primary Master and Secondary Master to make it easier and fool proof when installing new OS. If you do not what to get removable hard drive bays, I recommend disconnecting the Linux drive before attempting to install Windows. Of course do this when the computer is completely off including its stand-by current.

BTW, Make sure your wife is not an administrator or else your Linux installation will be toast.

2damncommon · 11-04-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

...However I have read somewhere that when sharing OS's in one system that it is probably a good idea to install Windows first followed by Linux.

As BaltikaTroika says, this is purely to prevent you posting "I installed Linux/Windows and now I have lost my Windows/Linux."
If you know how to configure your bootlaoder and have alternate boot methods there isn't a problem.
For instance the Slackware install DVD will boot Slackware.
And you can make a boot floppy for XP.

J.W. · 11-04-2006, 05:23 PM

Installing Windows first is just easier, because the Windows installation process will overwrite the Master Boot Record (MBR). As a result, if you install Linux first, then Windows, you'll need take other steps to restore Linux as a boot option. It's not hard as long as you know what you're doing, but why go through the hassle. It's just simpler to do Windows first, then Linux

Electro · 11-04-2006, 07:09 PM

What I have said is correct. Adding to what I have said, if using one hard drive and storing multiple OS on only one drive, installing Windows first makes it easier. What Southpaw76 is doing is different. Southpaw76 is installing two OS but on seperate hard drives. Southpaw76 can install Linux first and then disconnect the drive. Next install Windows. The master boot record is only changed on the Windows drive, but the MBR on the Linux drive is not changed.

J.W. · 11-05-2006, 04:23 PM

Understood. I never said that your comments were incorrect. I'm only saying that in my experience it's less work to install Windows first, then Linux. Whether a dual boot is on a single hard drive or multiple hard drives, due to the fact that the Windows installation doesn't play nice with an existing Linux install, it's just quicker and less of a hassle to do Windows first