Partitioning for XP & Linux, How Much for What?

[Timothy Daniels]

When you want to do XP just switch cables back
to 120GB drive and boot up.

P.S. I you get a hot swap disk tray, it can be as
simple as changing a CD.

IDE drives can't be hot-swapped. You have to
shut down, then switch the removable tray that
carries the IDE drive, then restart.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Matt]

Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:

- Harry Ohrn -

You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really
screw

with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it
would

be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux
distros

that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot
with

the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it

up so

that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix
enables

you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to
reconfigure

everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration

to a

USB key.
http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp

- Nehmo -
Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.

If your primary OS is Windows XP and you just want to dink around with Unix
(note--Linux is just one flavor of Unix--if you can drive one flavor of
Unix you can generally figure out another one without too much trouble) a
little, then install Cygwin <http://www.cygwin.com>--you can get a very
good feel for it and at the same time use its capabilities in conjunction
with Windows. If you want to go a little deeper, then pay Microsoft the
hundred bucks for Virtual PC and then install whatever flavor of Unix you
like on the virtual machine. Works far better than one would expect.

That is pretty much wrongheaded. The OP should just try Linux, and so
should you.

 

[Matt]

Separate it into 4 partitions:

1 Partition for the Windows OS
1 Paritition for Documents and files
1 Partition for Windows Applications
1 Partition for Linux OS

He will also need a Linux swap partition (2G recommended).

 

[J. Clarke]

Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:

- Harry Ohrn -

You are better off having Linux on a separate drive. During Linux
installation it requires 3 partitions of it's own and it can really

screw

with a drive if you don't know what you are doing during setup. An
alternative to installing Linux, if you just want to get a feel for it

would

be to use Knoppix or MandrakeMove. Both are self-contained Linux

distros

that are run entirely off a CD. To play with Linux you simply reboot

with

the CD and it runs without affecting your Hard drive. You can set it

up so

that you can work with files on a drive if you so desire. Knoppix

enables

you to save your configurations to a floppy so you don't have to

reconfigure

everytime you run it. MandrakeMove can save your special configuration

to a

USB key.
http://www.knoppix.net/docs/
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/mandrakemove
Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp

- Nehmo -
Well, I want to get a feel for Linux, but I also want to go beyond that
and have it permanently. So you're saying I should devote a whole
physical drive to Linux? What would you do in my situation? Clean out
the 80 GB drive too? I suppose I could.

If your primary OS is Windows XP and you just want to dink around with
Unix (note--Linux is just one flavor of Unix--if you can drive one flavor
of Unix you can generally figure out another one without too much
trouble) a little, then install Cygwin <http://www.cygwin.com>--you can
get a very good feel for it and at the same time use its capabilities in
conjunction
with Windows. If you want to go a little deeper, then pay Microsoft the
hundred bucks for Virtual PC and then install whatever flavor of Unix you
like on the virtual machine. Works far better than one would expect.

That is pretty much wrongheaded. The OP should just try Linux, and so
should you.

Next time you're tempted to spout off in this fashion, check headers first.
Want some ketchup for that foot?

 

[chrisv]

After Windows XP is fully installed, tested, and running fine, THEN install
linux. (I'd suggest Mandrake linux or redhat fedora)

You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
previously-installed Linux partition. So, basically, you're screwed
for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
regard as kludges).

 

[Stephen Austin]

You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
previously-installed Linux partition. So, basically, you're screwed
for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
regard as kludges).

You what? Since when? I've just installed Gentoo 2004.2 with 2.6, lilo &
no problems whatsoever. I don't see why the kernel should affect how the
boot works, since its not loaded until after you start booting linux.

Of course, since I haven't yet bothered to go google for it, could well be
talking outta my ass, so feel free to ignore me if thats the case....

 

[Arno Wagner]

You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Huh? I have been using stock 2.6.x up to 2.6.9-rc2 without any
problem like this. Care to give a reference? Or is this just
a problem of Fedora?

Of course, Windows will (intentionally) do the same to a
previously-installed Linux partition.

Not if you create the installation partition with Linux. At least
I have done this successfully several times.

So, basically, you're screwed
for dual-boot, unless you use same third-party boot manager (which I
regard as kludges).

"Huh?" again: Lilo and Grub do the job without problem. And they
are not "third-party".

Arno

 

[XS11E]

I once tired to download Lindows (it was supposed to be free), but
I couldn't download. I never got the problem resolved, but I
didn't devote much time to it. The brief email exchange was
discouraging. I'm sure, however, if I had worked more on the
problem, it would have been solved.

You should try and resolve the problem. I've tried several distros of
Linux and only Mandrake 10.1 or Mandrake 10.0RC1 64bit or, believe it
or not, Linspire, will find and install correctly all my hardware! I'm
impressed but I believe Linspire could become costly over time if you
needed a lot of software?

Anyway, back to WindowsXP and Windows XP 64-bit edition as Linux isn't
quite what I need.... yet....

 

[Nehmo Sergheyev]

- Andre Da Costa -

have

I can see having all the partitions except for the partition for windows
applications. Why break the two apart when they are so integrated through
system dlls and the registry?

- Nehmo -
Are you saying the programs should go with the OS, or are you saying the
programs should go with the documents?

And (referring to Andre's post) I understand the logic of putting the X
P OS on its own partition; you can reinstall the OS without disturbing
the documents. But "re-import the registry settings" to get the programs
working doesn't sound that easy to me. I would have to backup the
registry to a non-OS partition after every install. I suppose that would
work. Are there people who do that?

 

[Malke]

- Andre Da Costa -


- Nehmo -
Are you saying the programs should go with the OS, or are you saying
the programs should go with the documents?

And (referring to Andre's post) I understand the logic of putting the
X P OS on its own partition; you can reinstall the OS without
disturbing the documents. But "re-import the registry settings" to get
the programs working doesn't sound that easy to me. I would have to
backup the registry to a non-OS partition after every install. I
suppose that would work. Are there people who do that?

Hi - Here's how I like to set up a dual-boot:

1 partition for Windows and the programs, formatted ntfs.
1 partition for data that will be shared between Windows and Linux,
formatted FAT32 (Linux support for writing to ntfs is experimental and
I don't suggest it).
1 partition for Linux. Actually, I prefer a separate hard drive for
Linux, but that isn't a requirement.

Install XP first, then whatever Linux distro you've chosen. I use SuSE,
but you might want to look into Lycoris, Xandros, Linspire, or Mandrake
as they all have pretty easy gui installers.

Malke

 

[Matt]

Next time you're tempted to spout off in this fashion, check headers first.
Want some ketchup for that foot?

Nah, but thanks for asking!

Cygwin is good if you must run Windows, but the OP is able to install
and run Linux.

You want him to pay $100 (to Microsoft!) for Virtual PC and then pay
again for "whatever flavor of Unix you like"? I confess I don't know
what the options are in this regard. How much would you have him spend
for Unix (what "flavor"?) on top of Virtual PC?

I'd like to know what specific belief or assumption is making you come
up with these odd approaches. It sound like you don't want to reboot.

By the way, Linux is not Unix.

 

[Matt]

You guys do know, of course, that the latest versions (2.6 kernel) of
Linux will render you Windows partition unbootable? This is well
documented. Happened to me with Fedora C2.

Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1 (2.6 kernel)
all bootable on the same machine.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Hey that's funny, I've got XP, Fedora Core 2, and SUSE 9.1
(2.6 kernel) all bootable on the same machine.

Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?

*TimDaniels*

 

[J. Clarke]

Nah, but thanks for asking!

Cygwin is good if you must run Windows, but the OP is able to install
and run Linux.

Yes, he is, and that might be the most attractive alternative for him, but
just because he can doesn't mean that doing so is the most desirable
alternative for him.

You want him to pay $100 (to Microsoft!) for Virtual PC and then pay
again for "whatever flavor of Unix you like"? I confess I don't know
what the options are in this regard. How much would you have him spend
for Unix (what "flavor"?) on top of Virtual PC?

The only major Unix variants that are not available under an open license
are Solaris and SCO System V. NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux are all
open-source and available at no charge. Personally I'm partial to Gentoo
Linux, but others have other preferences.

I'd like to know what specific belief or assumption is making you come
up with these odd approaches. It sound like you don't want to reboot.

I don't find it an "odd approach" at all. If you come from the mainframe
world the use of virtual machines is SOP--it's very, very old technology,
commercially available since the late '60s or early '70s. If you've never
used one you might want to try it. Personally I find the notion that you
must reboot to run a different OS on a machine that was designed to support
virtual operation is the "odd approach". The use of a virtual machine is
_much_ more convenient that repeated rebooting. Yes, there's a performance
penalty, but if you're doing something that critical it should have a
dedicated machine anyway.

By the way, Linux is not Unix.

By what reasoning? If you mean that it can't legally be called that as a
brand name because SCO owns the brand, that is true, but that is also true
of Solaris, NetBSD, and FreeBSD among others. If you mean that the code is
not derived from AT&T source, that is also true but again the same is true
of NetBSD and FreeBSD, both of which were sanitized so as to allow them to
be made open-source. Now, you may think that NetBSD and FreeBSD are also
not Unix, but in that case you are most assuredly in the minority. If you
mean that it's not good enough for production use, IBM is providing it as
an alternative on their mainframes, either natively or under VM. If it
wasn't ready for prime time businesses wouldn't be putting it on
multimillion dollar hardware.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?
Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?

What about using a bootmanager from Linux (in the widest sense)?
The bootmanager form XP is perhaps the worst choice possible.

Grub or LILO can boot XP just fine. And yes, I have XP and
Linux on the same disk in my laptop, and have a linux recovery
system on the first disk in my desktop, were also XP is on the
same disk. The main Linux system in on RAID1 and only half on
the first disk...

Arno

 

[Matt]

Are all those OSes on the same hard disk?

XP on the first disk. FC2, SUSE, and FreeBSD on the second disk.

Do you use WinXP's boot manager to do the selection,
or do you use a 3rd party boot manager (e.g. Boot Magic)?

I use GRUB (Grand Unified Boot Loader) on the MBR of the first disk so
that it points to a grub.conf file in the /boot directory of the FC2
installation. That grub.conf is a specification of a boot menu and of
the locations of the several OSes. I find GRUB's documents easier than
LILO's, and LILO is partly deprecated.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

What about using a bootmanager from Linux (in the widest sense)?
The bootmanager form XP is perhaps the worst choice possible.

Grub or LILO can boot XP just fine. And yes, I have XP and
Linux on the same disk in my laptop, and have a linux recovery
system on the first disk in my desktop, were also XP is on the
same disk. The main Linux system in on RAID1 and only half on
the first disk...

Do Grub and LILO run under Linux, or are they stand-alone?
IOW, can they be used for Windows-only systems?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

XP on the first disk. FC2, SUSE, and FreeBSD on the second disk.


I use GRUB (Grand Unified Boot Loader) on the MBR of the first disk so
that it points to a grub.conf file in the /boot directory of the FC2
installation. That grub.conf is a specification of a boot menu and of
the locations of the several OSes. I find GRUB's documents easier than
LILO's, and LILO is partly deprecated.

Before I do a Google search, do you have any hot tips on where
to find the best documentation on these boot managers? Must
GRUB run under Linux/UNIX? Can it reside on a partition formatted
for NTFS (if, indeed, it resides on a partition)?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Matt]

Before I do a Google search, do you have any hot tips on where
to find the best documentation on these boot managers? Must
GRUB run under Linux/UNIX? Can it reside on a partition formatted
for NTFS (if, indeed, it resides on a partition)?

*TimDaniels*

I don't know all that much about grub, but I have usually been able to
get it to do what I want. You might try
http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/. Here is some info from my Fedora
installation:

Name : grub Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 0.94 Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
Release : 5 Build Date: Thu 06 May 2004
11:37:56 PM CDT
Install Date: Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:53:36 PM CDT Build Host:
tweety.build.redhat.com
Group : System Environment/Base Source RPM: grub-0.94-5.src.rpm
Size : 815365 License: GPL
Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 07 May 2004 02:49:12 PM CDT, Key ID
b44269d04f2a6fd2
Packager : Red Hat, Inc. <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
URL : http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/
Summary : GRUB - the Grand Unified Boot Loader.
Description :
GRUB (Grand Unified Boot Loader) is a boot loader capable of booting
into most free operating systems - Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, GNU Mach,
and others as well as most commercial operating systems.

 

[Malke]

Do Grub and LILO run under Linux, or are they stand-alone?
IOW, can they be used for Windows-only systems?

*TimDaniels*

No, Grub and the older LILO (Linux Loader) are boot managers for Linux
systems which can boot non-Linux systems too if you install it in the
MBR. Windows XP has its own boot manager which can boot Windows
operating systems, and there are third-party boot managers for Windows
that can boot Windows and non-Windows operating systems. BootIT NG is
one, Boot Magic is another.

Malke