> All this multiple OS stuff is getting to me; I've recently come to have a
> need to run Linux, which means I've probably got to upgrade my (sorry, my
> wife's) desktop machine & dual boot it between NT & Linux, or get another
> machine just for that purpose; my notebook has room, but after the fight I
> had to install NT & 95 on it in a stable configuration, I'll be damned if
> go upsetting things trying to get Linux to multi-boot & support obscure
> hardware. I can't have a CDROM & floppy disk drive connected
> I doubt I could even shoehorn Linux in at all.
> Then I've got to bite the bullet and put a network in (my machines are
> currently totally seperate). It's a world of pain.
> Is it just me, or is this kind of system setup stuff a true nightmare for
> everyone (well, except Harvey)?
it's not too bad. i used to have nt, 95, linux and dos all multibooting but
i stopped needing nt and dos (i originally dropped 95 too, but it crept
back in by game force, even if it doesn't get much use). the main problem
is that NT wants to be booted from its own loader so you can either hook the
nt loader off lilo (preferably on it's own hard drive), or add the kernel to
the choices in the NT boot loader. the main problem with the second option
is that it is a pain to update your linux kernel because you have to make a
new bootsector image and copy it to an NT visible partition (but if you are
going to use the stable linux releases, you won't need to do this very
often). look up the NT-WIN95-Linux mini howto (say here:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/Multiboot-with-LILO.html) for a better
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:05 MDT