Linux/Win dual boot?

edited June 2003 in Science & Tech
I'd like to get back into Linux but I haven't used it since college (4 years ago). Are dual boot Win2K/Linux machines possible on the same hard drive (and does anyone have a good link to a starter guide for this?) Thanks for the help.

Comments

  • trippintrippin Chatt, TN
    edited June 2003
    Well, its very simple on most linux distros and its also very easy in freebsd, each distro should have a pretty simple guide for doing this. What distro were you planning on running?
  • edited June 2003
    You will probably use either LILO or GRUB for a linux boot loader. Count on using one these for the dual boot. Easier to setup than Windows boot loader. I'll see what I can dig up for info for you. Need to know which you are going to use though.
  • edited June 2003
    I'm not certain about the distro yet, but from what I can gather online, Red Hat is the best fit for me. Are there specific reasons you guys prefer one distro over another ?
  • RobRob Detroit, MI
    edited June 2003
    Redhat's a decent fit for most people out of the box. If you visit google.com/linux and search for dual boot 2k redhat you should get a huge result.
  • ness_25ness_25 Boone, NC
    edited June 2003
    From my experience, I installed Windows first, then Linux plus LILO or GRUB. Easy as pie.
  • RobRob Detroit, MI
    edited June 2003
    Yes, installing linux first, and windows will eat your MBR and not be kind enough to add linux for you.

    If you have a boot floppy its a easy fix, but doing it right the first time helps too ;)

    This is a very FAQ, you should get a huge list of places to help with a google/linux search. Your best bet is to find a guild that you understand the language, read it several times, and maybe even print it before starting.
  • edited June 2003
    Thanks for the information. I'll take a look at LILO in the morning.

    But to be certain, what's the best order to install? I'm not sure since I'm reading ness_25's and your post as conflicting.
  • RobRob Detroit, MI
    edited June 2003
    Were saying the same thing, from oposite views.

    Windows first, then linux in unalloticated space.
    make a boot disk, and you can reinstall/upgrade windows later and still boot back to linux and repair your bootloader. But for the first run, its silly to put yourself into the extra work.

    Also, I find grub a much more feature rich and comfortable bootloader. Alot of people recommend lilo because it was the age old standard forever, but to a new user I would say check out grub.
  • edited June 2003
    Exactly as they are saying man. If you only have one partition install windows onto it. then just have linux take some of the windows partitions space to install. you'll most likely be given lilo as a bootloader when you install linux. just remember if you ever want to stop dual booting that you have to kill lilo or you will run into problems down the road.
  • edited June 2003
    Thanks for the replies. I've finally d'ld Redhat 9 and created the three boot disks using undisker to extract the ISO files and put them onto 3 cds. I have 30G of unallocated space to install on and from what I can find online am I supposed to boot from CD 1? None of the CDs seem to be bootable (I've set my bios to boot from CD). I must be missing a step somewhere.
  • RobRob Detroit, MI
    edited June 2003
    You need to create a CD from the ISO image. Probably something in your extraction method. Tools like Nero or K3B have this option to build the correct CD's directly
  • edited June 2003
    It took me a while to figure that out. I used Undisker originally, which appeared to extract everything correctly, but didn't. Then I found Neros "Burn Image" option and now I am writing this from within Mozilla. Everyone, thanks for all the help.
  • RobRob Detroit, MI
    edited June 2003
    IMHO, redhat 9 is a beautiful OS, even when compaired to my 8.0 station. They've come quantum leaps recently in the desktop area.

    When I see a windows box now, it just looks plain silly.
  • dydxdydx Cymru, UK
    edited June 2003
    IMHO, redhat 9 is a beautiful OS, even when compaired to my 8.0 station. They've come quantum leaps recently in the desktop area.

    True

    First time i used Red Hat was several years ago on a 533MHz Alpha box, didnt look as good as RH 9.

    Hardware support has made amazing progress aswell.
  • ShivianShivian Australia
    edited June 2003
    I'm just installing RH9 onto a box (dualboot with Win2k Server). Got another 8 hours to go on the install :D

    I know absolutely nothing about Linux so I just went for the GRUB bootloader. Fingers crossed that I picked the right options now.
  • trippintrippin Chatt, TN
    edited June 2003
    Originally posted by dydx


    True

    First time i used Red Hat was several years ago on a 533MHz Alpha box, didnt look as good as RH 9.

    Hardware support has made amazing progress aswell.

    Hardware support has almost nothing to do with a linux distro, that all has to do with the kernel. :)
  • edited June 2003
    ->Shivian:


    Um.... Err.... 8 HOURS??? :???: It typically takes me .5 - .75 hours from CD. IF I plumb in the kitchen sink also(load more than 2.5 GIG of the *everything* kind). Iam not flaming you, but do NOT grok why this should be so.

    I would say, given where you are from, you might FTP from PlanetMirror if not doing so. Even from Australia to America it rocks.... I do not remember which universtiy hosts that ftp farm, but it is quite a speedster usually.

    John Danielson.
  • ShivianShivian Australia
    edited June 2003
    Yeah the HDD seems to be screwed... it froze at about 10 hours.
    Interestingly a scan for bad clusters didn't show anything and the primary partition had no trouble. I think I need better disk utils to test for bad sectors.

    Edit: It was chunking like buggery... I thought there was something wrong but wasn't really anything I could do about it so I let it chug along until it froze.
Sign In or Register to comment.