Re: coexistence with Windows 2000
Just to throw a spanner clean into the works on this issue, I have
Windows 2000 pro and linux dual booting here on my machine. I had debian
set up, did the 2000 install, and it never even touched the bootloader.
Even to the point of when the install was finished, I even had lilo
still intact and functioning. Don't ask me why, and a lot of people seem
to have problems dual booting these 2, but, for me, it was a very basic
process, as I didn't even need a boot disk to get lilo back.
Peter Good.
Joris Lambrecht wrote:
>
> There is no particular order for installing any windows / linux config. BUT
> ... (taratatata)
> If you install Linux first and have installed LILO into the MBR (i believe
> any) windows installation later on will simply clear the MBR so you'll be
> unable to boot into Linux but you system will default boot into Windows.
>
> ---> Keep a Boot diskette handy (AND working) at all time to resolve this :
> remove LiLo and reinstall LiLo
>
> With windows 2000 (NT is friendlier) things get more complicated since these
> versions use their own bootloader and it's a pest. I had to install windows
> 2000 and configure a third-party bootmanager to be able to still boot into
> Linux (powerquest to the rescue). Lilo and the win2k bootloader decided to
> bit each others tails and there was no easy way to solve this (i mean a 30
> second solution). I KNOW there are ways to multi-boot win2k and linux easily
> but it's a mess to set this up since win2k is a bootloader fascist by nature
> and yes this evolution (hint win98 was quite 'natural'). I guess that if you
> use the win2k bootloader to boot the linux /boot or / partition (depends on
> your setup) you'll be happy ever after but i'm not very confident it will be
> an easy thing to do.
Reply to: