recommend boot mgr ??

[promicro]

Hi all,

I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot manager
as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one ??

thanx. bob

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Hi all,

I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot manager
as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one ??

thanx. bob

I have used XOSL extensively. It's free and therefore not supported
but it has some nice features, eg.
- I will work with any OS.
- It does not modify existing OS-specific boot loaders.
- To uninstall it, simply restore the original MBR (fdisk /mbr) and
mark the preferred partition "active".
- It can invoke a boot loader on any disk (master/slave/primary/secondary)
- It can invoke a boot loader on any partition (primary/logical)
- If installed in its own partition, this partition can reside in any
partition on any disk.

And here are its drawbacks:
- It requires a dedicated 15 MByte partition or else an existing FAT
partition.
- Its documentation is not the best.
- It is unsupported (but AFAIR there is an XOSL newsgroup)
If you intend to use it then I strongly recommend that you first play
with it, using a disposable disk. If you don't then you risk wiping
some existing partition because you're not fully familiar with its
way of doing things.

 

[philo]

Hi all,

I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot manager
as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one ??

thanx. bob

Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,
you don't really need one.

By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.
Then with Linux you can use either LILO or Grub

You can then have your Linux boot manager "hand off" either directly to
Linux
or to the Windows boot manager where you'd then have to select XP or Win2k.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,
you don't really need one.

By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.

I beg to disagree. The Win2000/WinXP boot manager is about
as basic as they come. It lacks the following essential features:
- You cannot use it to boot into non-Windows OSs, hence
your recommendation to use Grub too.
- It cannot hide partitions from each other. Since it leaves all
partitions visible, there is the risk of one OS damaging another,
e.g. by installing or updating files on the wrong partition.
- You must have different drive letters for each Windows OS,
which creates some unwanted interdependencies. There are
frequent posts in these newsgroup along the lines "I want to
remove Win98 from drive C:, how to I make my dual Win2000
OS which is currently running on drive C:, run off drive C:?"
With your recommendation you can't. With a proper boot
manager it's a trivial affair.

 

[philo]

I beg to disagree. The Win2000/WinXP boot manager is about
as basic as they come. It lacks the following essential features:
- You cannot use it to boot into non-Windows OSs, hence
your recommendation to use Grub too.
- It cannot hide partitions from each other. Since it leaves all
partitions visible, there is the risk of one OS damaging another,
e.g. by installing or updating files on the wrong partition.
- You must have different drive letters for each Windows OS,
which creates some unwanted interdependencies. There are
frequent posts in these newsgroup along the lines "I want to
remove Win98 from drive C:, how to I make my dual Win2000
OS which is currently running on drive C:, run off drive C:?"
With your recommendation you can't. With a proper boot
manager it's a trivial affair.

I did *not* suggest using the Windows boot manager to boot into Linux.

If you re-read my post you will see that I suggested using LILO or Grub to
boot to either Linux *or* to the Windows boot manager.
(Inelegant perhaps but ...hey...it works.)

Also , my reply in no way implied that I had offered the best possible
solution. I only said that the OP already has available the means for
multi-booting.

You do not know how the OP is using the machine. It *might* be a good thing
to hide each OS from each other. OTOH: maybe the OP wants to transfer data
from one partition to the other. Who knows?

Finally. I have no idea why you brought win98 into this. There is no need to
further complicate this.
Though some boot managers of course have the ability to hide portions and
have two different windows installations on a C:
drive, there is no way to do so after the fact. As you know: with all
versions of NT...the "boot" drive letter is persistent and cannot be changed
by a boot manager "after the fact". A reinstall of one Windows version would
be needed


Note: Just because I do not necessarily agree, don't think for a minute I
don't respect your good judgment. I have been reading your
replies on Usenet for many years and have noticed your replies to be
generally rock-solid.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

I did *not* suggest using the Windows boot manager to boot into Linux.

If you re-read my post you will see that I suggested using LILO or Grub to
boot to either Linux *or* to the Windows boot manager.
(Inelegant perhaps but ...hey...it works.)

I know you didn't. You suggested using two boot managers:
a) The Windows boot manager for Win2000 & WinXP
b) Grub or Lilo to boot into Linux.
That's two managers. A good boot manager can handle the lot.
I firmly beliefe in the KISS principle, hence the simpler the better.

Also , my reply in no way implied that I had offered the best possible
solution. I only said that the OP already has available the means for
multi-booting.

You do not know how the OP is using the machine. It *might* be a good
thing
to hide each OS from each other. OTOH: maybe the OP wants to transfer data
from one partition to the other. Who knows?

Indeed I don't but since the OP is asking for a recommendation, the
group should suggest a versatile solution. A good boot manager lets
the OP selectively hide partitions from each other (note the word:
selectively).
The Windows boot manager has no such option.

Finally. I have no idea why you brought win98 into this. There is no need
to
further complicate this.

Replace Win98 with Vista if you like - the point stands that with
the Windows boot manager it gets very messy to change things
later on.

Though some boot managers of course have the ability to hide portions and
have two different windows installations on a C:
drive, there is no way to do so after the fact.

Exactly - this is why we should recommend a flexible boot manager
now. If the OP adopts your solution of using the native Windows
boot manager then he won't be able to change things later on. Tough!

As you know: with all
versions of NT...the "boot" drive letter is persistent and cannot be
changed
by a boot manager "after the fact". A reinstall of one Windows version
would
be needed

I fully agree, so let's use a good boot manager that lets him
install each OS on drive C:.

Note: Just because I do not necessarily agree, don't think for a minute I
don't respect your good judgment. I have been reading your
replies on Usenet for many years and have noticed your replies to be
generally rock-solid.

Thanks for the feedback. I have worked a lot with boot managers
and I think that I am fully aware of the issues surrounding the one
built into Windows. I respect your opinion too but I felt for the OP's
benefit that I had to comment on your recommendation. This is a
benefit of newsgroups: Responses are often peer-reviewed (mine too!).

 

[philo]

Ditto! When I see Pegasus (MVP) or David Patrick, I usually read the
post just to learn something!

JPC

Yes Pegasus always gives good advice and though I'm sure a 3rd party boot
manager would be a good choice.
I had only wanted to point out that it was not mandatory to use one.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

I had only wanted to point out that it was not mandatory to use one.

I fully agree.

 

[philo]

I know you didn't. You suggested using two boot managers:
a) The Windows boot manager for Win2000 & WinXP
b) Grub or Lilo to boot into Linux.
That's two managers. A good boot manager can handle the lot.
I firmly beliefe in the KISS principle, hence the simpler the better.


Indeed I don't but since the OP is asking for a recommendation, the
group should suggest a versatile solution. A good boot manager lets
the OP selectively hide partitions from each other (note the word:
selectively).
The Windows boot manager has no such option.


Replace Win98 with Vista if you like - the point stands that with
the Windows boot manager it gets very messy to change things
later on.


Exactly - this is why we should recommend a flexible boot manager
now. If the OP adopts your solution of using the native Windows
boot manager then he won't be able to change things later on. Tough!


I fully agree, so let's use a good boot manager that lets him
install each OS on drive C:.


Thanks for the feedback. I have worked a lot with boot managers
and I think that I am fully aware of the issues surrounding the one
built into Windows. I respect your opinion too but I felt for the OP's
benefit that I had to comment on your recommendation. This is a
benefit of newsgroups: Responses are often peer-reviewed (mine too!).

Yep. I've worked with boot managers for many years. That's why I now use
removable drive kits <G>!!!!