Dual boot win98/xp and linux
 

Hi
I am new to linux and will like to know what are the best step to follow to make a dual boot of win98/xp and suse pro 9.2


thanks

first install Windows, then install Linux... Linux installer should detect that windows is installed and boot loader will allow dual boot....

how is it a dual boot if you have 3 OSs? :confused: :o

:p


install windows, leaving some free space for linux in a separate partition or unpartitioned space. then install linux, and install a bootloader (lilo, grub) to the MBR. done.

i'm not sure how to install multiple copies of windows on the same PC, although it probably can be done somehow. gl

from memory, you just do the install - dunno how smoothly that'd go, as I've never tried to see how good the partitioning facility in SuSE is - the mandrake/mandriva version works fine.

Once it's put the bootloader onto the MBR, it should, in theory, be able too see at least one of the windows versions, you can then modify the boot file so it has two versions of the windows entry, just that they'd point to the different locations.

Then if you want to be able to have both mounted/visible, you'd have to make sure about entries in the fstab so that they are mounted (but obviously named differently so that you can go straight to the one that you might want etc etc.

I'm only just a newbie on Linux, but I tried a similar setup once in the past with Win98 / WinXP and Red Hat 9.0.

No matter how many Windows OS's you install on your HD, the boot.ini files will be put on the C: drive. This means your first need to install an OS on the C: drive, than the D: drive, etc...

Since Win98 can't read NTFS drives, you will need to install that one your C: drive (Install WinXP on C: formatted as NTFS and Win98 won't be able to put it's boot.ini on the C: drive as it can't see it. Result: your PC boots in WinXP by default without giving you an option to choose an operating system...)

Your typical Installation would go like this

C: - Win98 (FAT32)
D: - WinXP (NTFS)
E: - Linux.

or

C: - WinXP (FAT32)
D: - Win98 (FAT32)
E: - Linux

Don't know how to configure LILO or GRUB to to make the multiboot work though. I'm a lazy ***** so I installed OSL2000 as a bootloader once Linux was on my HD. After rebooting my PC, I got a nice window with al 3 OS's... Worked without a glitch.

Good luck.

Similiar Triple-Boot but Not W/Win98 & Using Fedora 4
 

I have set up a similiar boot situation on my machine as well. I did not; however, run Windows 98 (or Windows ME, which is what I have) because of its setup limitations. I am running Fedora Core 4 with Updates on Kernel 2.6.12.1398 as well as two Windows XP installations. I have one main XP installation and a smaller one so as to perform administration and emergency tasks. I did look into installing Windows ME, which is a close cousin of Windows 98. I cannot stress enouth the last post where your installation of Windows 98 will have to be on the primary hard drive--hd0 in dos or hda in Linux. As I read, Windows 98 needs to be a primary partition and have access to the MBR--Master-Boot-Record. So make sure you install Windows 98 first on hd0 or hda. Also note that it would be a good idea to format the partition at FAT32 as well as realize that Windows 98 will not be able to read/write/execute NTFS file format of Windows XP. I have heard of people being able to install Windows XP on a Fat32 format, but I never have myself been given the option. I believe there are utilities for purchase that will allow NTFS to be read, and therefore be shared I presume, with Windows 98. ----

After you install Windows 98, I think it best to install Windows XP next. The thing about Windows XP is that it does not have to be located on hd0 or hda and can, I believe, even be installed on a logical partition. Concerning the later perhaps someone else will know. What should happen when installing XP is that it will modify the MBR on hd0 or hda and "locate" the XP partition, which as in my case is on a SATA drive partition 1, or sda1. After you have both installed, you should have a MBR that lets you choose at boot between Windows 98 and XP. On the C:\, whatever the version of Windows, I think, you should be able to modify Wondows' boot.ini file. If you just match the format of the file's configuation you can get Windows to boot to any place that meets its reqirements. Also, from the boot.ini file you can change the label for each Operating System; so that though it is bad enough to have to have "Windows" writtten you can eliminate "Microsoft"--a pleasure indeed. ----

After you have created a Windows MBR that is to your liking and works, its time to install Linux. Now here I do not know Suse Linux and might not be able to help. My experence; however, with the installation of Fedora Core will hopefully parallel, esppecially if you use GRUB as the installtion application for Linux; although I am aware that that different distrubitions customize GRUB, I believe. But Here go's. I have assumed that you have saved space for Linux. Also I think it useful to create as large a partition as possible that can be shared by both Windows and Linux. My shared partition contains my respostories etc. and documents so that I can work with them both in Linux or in Windows. Its size if 64GB. Run through the usual GRUB setup proceedures until you get to the partitioning of your hard drive space. Do not let Disk Druid, if that is what SUSE uses for partitioning, automically partition any space on you hard drive. I mean if your are going to this much trouble to have a triple boot, why take the chance that Disk Druid might miss up your Windows Installations. How you partition for Linux is up to you to decide. I went with guidelines in a book and installed naturally a /SWAP, /, /usr, /tmp, /var, /home, and /local usr. I have read since that there is no need to set up a partition for "opts". This partition structure is working fine for me. ----

After you setup 'HOW" to partition the hard drive(s), you should enter in GRUB a screne where you can set up some advanced options. There is one option which you will not use but I had to use. That was rearranging the boot order of my hard disks so that my SATA drive assumed the primary boot postion over a PATA drive that was being configured as hd0 or hda until I moved sda up to the first position. Also you should be given the option to change the label of your Linux installation and whatever Windows installation is detected. In my case, only the secondary, administrative installation of XP was detected. GRUB listed it is as "other," though I think GRUB will sometimes list it as DOS, which is annoying given that XP does not use DOS. In this screen where you can edit the labels and add boot partitions, do so. I changed my arround setting fitting to what I wanted it to say. I also added the Windows partition that it did not detect. That last step did not help me any however, because Linux still failed to boot into the partition that it did not detect. But in the end you will see that that doed not matter. Try it and be happy if it works.

Here is a crucial step: GRUB will ask you whether to install the boot record and GRUB installation applications on either the Master Boot Record--MBR that houses your Windows installations--or to install into either the /boot or /usr or / directory. It doesn't matter which Linux partition it choices to install into because it will logically know that it did that placement, if my experience holds true. Well, you absolutely do not want GRUB to rewrite the MAIn MBR because that has your Windows boot record on it. By installing Linux's boot elsewhere enables GRUB to boot at boot time, ask what you want to boot, and then boot it. Why because this is what happens: GRUB loads intially insomuch as it knows not to overwrite your WIndows boot record. Then from whatever directory it is installed to, it asks you what to boot to. If you choose Linux, it proceeds with Linux. Here too it is possible to have multiple kernels installed so that you can have one for an emergency and another you use everyday. If you choose Windows, of Other, or DOS, it will consequently begin to load the MBR that has your Windows boot.ini configured. That is why it does not matter it one of your partitions is not listed by GRUB during setup because GRUB will select the Windows MBR, the main MBR, which should have the customized options of booting to Windows XP or Windows 98 already on it. Basically if you choose Windows, GRUB cannot boot Windows and so lets Windows take over the operation.

Well that is how it works on my machine. I have given a lot of detail. I hope it helps. Naturally I will explain myself if need be. Also feel free to ask about the boot process. It took me about two weeks to research it and put it together without any damage coming to any Operating System.

Perhaps another person can relate to this experience as well.

Good Luck.




In any case what you want to do is boot from the hard-drive that has the MBR you have created with Windows 98 and XP.:Pengy:

Re: Similiar Triple-Boot but Not W/Win98 & Using Fedora 4
 

I understand that apart from XP (couldn't say about NT), all versions of windows prefer to be the first OS in a system. Plus the issue of FAT32 etc, XP can read/write FAT32 and fresh installs offer (usually) the option of FAT32 or their recommended NTFS. Yes, there is work in progress to make NTFS partitions fully writable, but I understand that at the moment, most distros take some work to be able to do that. It's not an issue of windows talking to windows, but one of linux talking to windows. Which isn't much of an issue if the windows is formatted FAT32, linux can "do" FAT32.

Again, if the "wisdom" of non XP versions needing to be first, then earlier version, followed by XP would seem sensible. Then the linux. Sure, it depends if this is all on one hard drive on not, as to how much of a pain it might be - but it's my understanding that this should be "reasonably" straight forward.

You haven't got a choice with windows have you. You'd have to google to work out the best way of writing/modifying the MBR so that with "multi-windows" setups, the bootloader see's both (or more) versions - though why in hells name, anyone would want more than one version of windows installed it beyond me! (commercial testing of some sort I suppose?????)


To my knowledge, GRUB is GRUB. The only customisation that I've heard of, is stuff like graphics/splash screens/progress bars. Though it's entirely feasible to they'd put some of the files in places that more suit the policy of the specific distro, plus it may depend on the type of install that you do i.e. single partition install would have /boot/grub/grub.conf in a /boot directory, whereas I have a seperate /boot partition (following my current gentoo install default).
Thats where the FAT32 formatting of a common partition comes in - windows should see it automagically, linux installs have to have it mountable (whether at boot/startup or manually).


Any partitioning facility, WILL NOT touch a windows install, UNLESS you tell it too - the only thing you'd usually do, is when asked, tell an install to put the bootloader onto the first section of the MBR so that it can see all the installed OS's and make the entries (automatically in a lot of cases, though I had to write my own for gentoo, and suspect that that would be the case for maybe Slackware and possibly debian) for the boot config file (for grub it's usually /boot/grub/grub.conf, whereas for lilo it's usually /etc/lilo.conf). Different distros have different defaults (redhat/fedora, gentoo, debian??? seem to opt for GRUB, Mandriva/mandrake and quite a few others seem to follow the "lilo route").

While you're in "learing mode", it maybe be you'll find it easier to let your intended distro do it's own thing. IMO going for a partition scheme like the one TW suggested it serious overkill. The only reason that I followed the gentoo default scheme of /, /swap and /boot, with the addition of /home is so that if I didn't like gentoo, I can easily install a different distro over the top, and just tell it to go into the / partition and tell the installer to put the boot stuff into the /boot just to seperate it out - probably not necessary. the scheme that TW suggested looks very much like a full commercial implementation - which if it works ok, is fine, but why might you want to seperate all that stuff out? unless you're looking at having a mega multi user system of some sort - and just need to make the admin side of things easier/clearer. Choice is yours!

Personally, my home system works very well with just the /, /swap, /boot and /home. I keep everything important in various files there - so it's only the one partition too back up too prevent any damage/loss of data.

I suspect that this might be incorrect. The whole point of putting the bootloader (GRUB or lilo) onto the first part of the first hdd, is that so it can "sit back and see whats there" i.e. if you put it somewhere else, I understand that the system will see a windows MBR first, and only offer you the OS(s) that it can see. Windows doesn't like linux without some modification. Sure you can modify the windows MBR so that it will boot a linux OS, but from the new user standpoint, it's considerably easier to allow the bootloader to overwrite the windows MBR with whichever bootloader you choose (or is default for the distro that you're installing). If you read this, well not all of it, as it'll confuse the hell out of you, but the code examples of what goes into a grub.conf to make the entry for a windows install, you'll see that it's just a couple of lines (in both the genkernel and non-genkernel version - which you don't need to worry about as genkernel is a "gentoo thing", but the entry for the dual boot is pretty much (identical I suspect) to what you'd see in any grub.conf for any distro - of course further down you'll see where it says about doing the same thing for lilo).

If you put the bootloader onto a different partition, you will probably find that you have to have a way of by-passing the windows bootloader so that the linux bootable partitions can be seen and you can then boot the linux install i.e. boot floppy or some similar method.


One of the easiest ways of creating a dual boot, is just too pick one of the mainstream distros like Mandriva, SuSE, Fedora. Make sure you have some unallocated space (remember, sometimes at that point you may just have too know how big the space is to identify it, or you may be lucky in that the installer for whichever distro you want to try, picks it up and actually tells you it's a windows partition) and then just boot the install disc(s). Then let it do it's thing, and just tell it to put the bootloader into the first section of the first hard drive (if you have a multi hdd system). Let it finish and try it.

that method seems to work well with "normal basic" systems (I've done that successfully on 4 different makes of system).

It may get a little more complicated if your hardware is very up to date i.e. SATA, RAID and stuff like that or if you're trying to get it onto something that is designed to be windows only and/or bargain basement. Hence a good way of looking into Linux is to try one of the "live" CD distros i.e. knoppix, kanotix, PCLos, Mandriva Move, Ubuntu, etc etc - so you can just boot the disc and if everythings ok, you can just have a go/look without it writing anything to your hard drive at all - it runs entirely from the CD, and the only issue might be how you connect to the internet (ethernet NIC to router/modem is often the easiest, as you should only have to "configure LAN/Network card" with the relevant IP address. Dial up/winmodem is somewhat different - but probably "doable").

Maybe that helps a little ??

regards

John

RE: I hope You Are Not More Confused
 

I sincerely hope that I have not confused you, rama23, with anything I have written in my first post; or this post for that matter.

I do not see the need to respond to each quoted section and comment above made by John; because I would think we would foremost agree that we are both trying to help you. Having a debate is not the answer unless the conflicting advice given impedes your ability to perform a given a task, which in your case is installing a dual boot. Hence I am more than willing to take a back-seat, given my lack of experience with Linux and with this web site.

I have read a lot about how to install Linux with Windows XP. I responded to your request for help by recording my experience. What I wrote is what I did to install Fedora Core 4 on my machine. By all means I defer to John as he is more experienced than I in Linux if something I wrote confuses you. Simply that was not my aim. As to the Windows content of my message I have some confidence in what I said and take issue with John; but, again, how would that help you? I think one of the most wise and telling comments John wrote was:

It may get a little more complicated if your hardware is very up to date i.e. SATA, RAID and stuff like that . . .

I have just recently designed and built a "Do It Yourself" machine. Everything is to my indulgence--cutting edge except two PTA hard-drives that give me 320 GBs of storage. I plan to run two Raid three systems where the first will be composed of three Western Digital 74GB Raptor hard-drives AND the second RAID three of 300 GB hard-drives for storage. I will be using technology from Netcell's syncRAID research and product that most closely matches a RAID three system. I need all this speed, plus overclocked RAM, Overclocked AMD Athlon 64 bit FX-55 CPU, because I run CAD and GIS. For either, sometimes I have seen a computation take over two days running on one machine! To build terrain models, solar studies, light studies is intensive for a computer. Hence the emphasis I have placed on the speed of hardware.

My main Windows XP operating system is located of a Western Digital Raptor SATA Hard-Drive with 74GB and a 10,000 rpm, as I have suggested. It is incredibly fast. My second very minor installation of XP is for an emergency in case the main Windows XP system crashes. I was taught in the University of Virginia's Landscape Architecture graduate program by an all MIT staff to create a second minor Windows be it NT, 2000, 2003, or XP installation given that the size of hard-drives today allow one the space. One can repair the other XP operating system easily, as I have done and would recommend to anyone who has the space to build a second installation-abeit minor.

Finally Fedora Core 4.1 is spread out in small partitions through the three hard drives I have--one SATA, two PATA. The reason for this partitioning scheme that I implemented was to isolate areas of the Linux operating system in case part of it crashed or gets corrupted or has an error that continues to output data until the drive is full. If any of the later should happen, theoretically I was told, I could fix the partition in question while leaving the other partitions unaffected. I say "theoretically" because I am not sure how to go about this rescue procedure yet but, again, was advised to follow this strategy. Certainly it is simpler to have one /boot, /one swap, and /the remainder of the major directories grouped together. I was advised to even have two /swap partions and subsequent read it in a book about how to configure a system that has more than 2GB of RAM. But it--partitioning--is really a choose to make. I have at my access a friendly staff well versed in UNIX who does not mind helping graduate students that can aid me if my system goes down, though I try not bother them.

Lastly I think John is dead on about suggesting the following:

Hence a good way of looking into Linux is to try one of the "live" CD distros i.e. knoppix, kanotix, PCLos, Mandriva Move, Ubuntu, etc etc - so you can just boot the disc and if everythings ok, you can just have a go/look without it writing anything to your hard drive at all - it runs entirely from the CD,

I ran Knoppix 'live' cd and perhaps their dvd as well. It was a good test of what to expect. Also I hear that having a 'live' Linux disc is helpful in a rescue mode for both Linux and Windows, though given that Linux has to go through hoops to read NTFS file systems I wonder if the 'live disc' would be of any use for an NTFS oriented operating system--Windows NT, 2000, 2003, XP, and I believe "Longhorn" or "Windows Vista," which is not going to premier with a new file system as planned but make use of NTFS as well. Coincidently it my understanding that these non-Dos operating sytems can be installed on other places than the first partition whereas Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, and Me have to be installed on the first hard-drive. But anyway I have transgressed . . . . Please take John's excellent advise and run a 'live' cd before you install Linux to the hard-drive.

I regret in a way the nature of this post. It seems to be off center from helping you. That was all I tried to do. If you run into anything that looks like something I wrote about I can explain myself some more. But agian John, who I owe a thanks for clarifying and correcting me and thus allowing me to learn, has the experience. I have only built one distrubtion on one complex computer. I thought I could help though. I sure hope I have not confused you in anyway, as that would be unconstructive. Perhaps its tough being a "Newbie" and wanting to equally contribute given elsewhere where I am recieving help on some problems I am running into myself.

With the best regard and hope for good tindings, Alas!

Tim or "TW"

TDW

:Pengy:

Actually TW, I got the impression, immediately after originally reading your post that to have installed on such a complex partitioning scheme, you are either "hiding your light under a bushel", or have access to some very good quality advice, or just done one hell of a lot of research.

My reply wasn't too be critical. It's just that your excellent knowledge was rather more than I felt that both rama23 and slackhack were looking for i.e. your partitioning scheme is something I understand, that would be for either server functions or high end apps (ha!, having read your second post, I wonder which one it is - Doh!).

The thread was originated in the newbie forum, hence my suggestion. Afterall, with a /, /swap, /boot and /home partitioning scheme, it's reasonably straight forward to install/setup, plus as we all tend to pounce on the apps such as email clients etc and maybe some desktop customisations, that would be done/kept in the user account (aka /home/username), then if the person is still in the lower levels of learning, at least if they don't like a distro that someone suggests, then they can just install something else to the /boot and / (again, reasonably straight forward) and as long as they install a minimum of the same apps (email, browser, etc etc) they can usually just log in as user and carry on from where they left off (or just where they got bored/annoyed/whatever).

My friend, your example is pretty damn indepth. On some SERIOUS hardware. Though with CAD and stuff like that, well thats serious work - so it's not too suprising.

The knowledge level that I've got too, is only because of lots of trial and error, and one hell of a lot of assistance from here at LQ and a few other distro specific forums.

But I still struggle like hell when trying anything new - Mainly I suspect, because I'm from a non-techie background and that means that I have problems with the IT mindset.

My pet hate, is linux documentation. Most of it's "piss poor". Which, I suspect, is because while those who have the ability to develop some incredible applications, don't necessarily follow that "mere mortals" also need well written documentation (one of the reasons that I've ended up using gentoo - it's not so "easy" to install if you just want to click a few buttons/boxes, but if you just stick to the install handbook then even a dummy like me can manage it).

I alluded to "It may get a little more complicated if your hardware is very up to date i.e. SATA, RAID and stuff like that . . ." because I noticed, during my latest install of gentoo, that there are additional steps to be taken if you are dealing with SATA or RAID (and probably for the latest PCIe boards/cards etc etc - I didn't look too closely, as I've yet to go down that path - whereas it seems you're already there :cool: ).

Irrespective, I just hope that rama23/slackhack can get something from our posts.

regards

John

p.s. if it's not too nosey, what does a system like the one you mentioned (your DIY/Bleeding edge/Indulgence one) cost to put together ?

Follow Up
 

John,

I have started a "thread" that responds to questions we might talk about as well as almost finished an expense sheet on my computer. The latter is something I have not wanted to do because I feared the thought of actually knowing where my madness had taking me in building the computer I have designed . . . and will continue to design and build. But, up front, I do not want to post how much I spent in a public forum because that is really a private matter. I will share with you, John; as I think interestering discussions could come out of it. So you are not being too nosy. I realize that the cost of a jacked-up computer might be benefittial to others; however, but I simply do not want to discuss my expendures publically. So if it acceptable with you, if I am not violating your space, I will eMail you.

I will say that publically I am experimenting with a new idea to me in computer ownership. I mean often one gets a system on a cerrtain date and time and not too long from then the computer is obsolete. Yes, people buy new graphics cards and RAM . . . but how many are ready to replace the motherboard on the very day the recieved the new computer. I would contend that that the number is not high, but of course I could be wrong. Yet I have designed my "custom job," which was assembled in June of this year, with the intention of replacing the motherboard, RAM, and Graphics Card(s) in three years. It is sort of like I see the a computer as a "ghost in the machine," a familiar philosophical concept to me, a philosophy major in undergradtuate school. The essence of the "ghost in the machine" concept, which I believe Descartes was the first to use the term, is that there is something greater than the sum of the parts. That is how I am looking at my computer. When it come time to change the motherboard I will replace it; if I need to get a new case I will replace it. Yet the whole time I will retain an operating machine that goes by the name MrJinx, a character in a recent Bob Dylan song. ---- Along the way the "obsolite" parts will be assembled into another computer that will eventual operate as well, though it is likely that I will give it away to my nephews for college. ----- So that is how I see this computer I have now--not one cost, but an ungoing cost of inprovements. Its an experment to see if the concept works. For this reason installation of Linux, and alas! Windows, will be an issue of concern--unless I invest in a MacMini and turn it into my Linux Machine, with Apple as a second boot. All though to a much lesser extend, I detest Apple as I do Microsoft . . . . How's that for "pissing in the wind. . . "

Else I am having tremendous problems with my Linux setup. I posted a question about this issue but no one really touched it. So I am out of look. I did a mass install of the Fedora Extras, and within that set of software, ther is a applications that causes a system-wide error. Ever time the machine boots, every other line post an error:

ERROR: Id.so: object '/lib/libsafe.so.2' from /etc/id.so.preload cannot preload: ignored.

I am not sure what is causing the error; but the error is real nonetheless. I fear it will crash the system as it has done so before. John I might need your expertise in Linux to figure this out; as I am at home, setup with my machine and not at my appartment I keep in Charlottesville for work at the A-School where I could bounce questions off the Tech Staff at the Architecture School (we call it short--the A-School).

Take care and sorry for the late reply. I was involved with family and rebuilding the Linux Fedora Core 4 system hat crashed last week. Installing GCC++, libg, Java, and Gnome are a bear . . . .


Tim

:Pengy:

I've spent the last two nights (at work) mulling over this. I haven't experienced something like that, but can only suggest that you might want too look in the /etc/id.so.preload file and see if the /lib/libsafe.so.2 is in there - sorry I know that's probably a bit obvious.

Because if the preload file is set up to look for something and it isn't there it could conceivably throw up varying errors. If it should be that, you'd then have to google for /lib/libsafe.so.2 too see what package it comes from (or if it can be downloaded individually). As it looks like a depenedency thing (guessing here).

As for "expertise" Tim, my entire linux knowledge could be written on the back of a very small postage stamp!

Ha! I only ever answer questions that are either the same, or look similar to something that I've experienced. Otherwise I "keep Schtum"! :D

But if that error seems to be system wide, then I can only presume it's either main system (distro) or default window manager related. Again, guessing.

If the /lib/libsafe.so.2 is a specific package, it may be that you'd have to re-install an entire app to get rid of it. I've only had occassions where some package(s) didn't install for some reason because of some dependency not installing - but the app still worked.

Sorry if thats more of a blank for you, but it's all I can think of.

regards

John