Installing linux - Dual boot

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Andrew, Feb 17, 2006.

  1. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    Hello all - again

    I currently have a 40 gig hdd with windows on it, It has no partitions
    I Also have a second hard drive thats empty which i was going to put in
    the machine so i can install linux onto
    I want to install linux as a dual boot with the current windows

    This will work okay right?

    How about this.

    I have been thinking about reinstalling windows eventually

    If i decided to do it before i install linux i could just format, re
    partition and then put linux onto the other partition
    But if i decided to do it after, Could i, When i install linux,
    Partition so that i can just install windows onto the second partition
    later?

    I did hear a while back that i needed to have windows on the machine
    before you put linux on to dual boot,

    Is this different now?
     
    Andrew, Feb 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:17:08 +1300, Andrew wrote:

    > If i decided to do it before i install linux i could just format, re
    > partition and then put linux onto the other partition But if i decided to
    > do it after, Could i, When i install linux, Partition so that i can just
    > install windows onto the second partition later?


    No!

    Windoze likes to think it's the only OS installed on a computer and it
    will trash the MBR with Grub that you set up pointing at Linux.

    You can get away with one partition for Windoze, but you'll need several
    partitions for Linux.

    Install Windoze first onto the second primary partition. Install Linux
    onto everything else (/boot should be the first primary partition).


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andrew

    Dave Taylor Guest

    A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote in news:pan.2006.02.17.03.07.01.357184
    @s.co:

    > You can get away with one partition for Windoze, but you'll need several
    > partitions for Linux.
    >
    > Install Windoze first onto the second primary partition. Install Linux
    > onto everything else (/boot should be the first primary partition).


    So what this means is DO NOT LET windows use the whole drive. Have some
    unused, unallocated space to let linux install into, your install will be
    very straightforward then.
    Linux installers now, mostly, recognize and add XP into Grub or lilo, so
    most of the stuff you read about partition order etc, is a guideline, and
    best prractices. If you don't know much about manually partitioning
    drives, just let the installers take care of it.

    Try a gentoo install and you will see that it can be a very manual process
    if you choose. The docs at gentoo are great though, they explain the why
    and hows of the process.

    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Feb 17, 2006
    #3
  4. Andrew

    thingy Guest

    Andrew wrote:
    > Hello all - again
    >
    > I currently have a 40 gig hdd with windows on it, It has no partitions
    > I Also have a second hard drive thats empty which i was going to put in
    > the machine so i can install linux onto
    > I want to install linux as a dual boot with the current windows
    >
    > This will work okay right?
    >
    > How about this.
    >
    > I have been thinking about reinstalling windows eventually
    >
    > If i decided to do it before i install linux i could just format, re
    > partition and then put linux onto the other partition
    > But if i decided to do it after, Could i, When i install linux,
    > Partition so that i can just install windows onto the second partition
    > later?
    >
    > I did hear a while back that i needed to have windows on the machine
    > before you put linux on to dual boot,
    >
    > Is this different now?


    This was not correct.

    These days it is easier to have Windows on the machine, then install
    linux and let linux do the boot loading.

    The other way is to use windows boot loader, a wee bit harder but
    achievable.

    If Linux is just to play I'd suggest re-installing windows on the
    fastest drive and Linux on what is left. Realistically you will need 10
    gig for Linux.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Feb 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Andrew

    shannon Guest

    On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:17:08 +1300, Andrew wrote:

    > Hello all - again
    >
    > I currently have a 40 gig hdd with windows on it, It has no partitions
    > I Also have a second hard drive thats empty which i was going to put in
    > the machine so i can install linux onto
    > I want to install linux as a dual boot with the current windows
    >
    > This will work okay right?
    >
    > How about this.
    >
    > I have been thinking about reinstalling windows eventually
    >
    > If i decided to do it before i install linux i could just format, re
    > partition and then put linux onto the other partition
    > But if i decided to do it after, Could i, When i install linux,
    > Partition so that i can just install windows onto the second partition
    > later?
    >
    > I did hear a while back that i needed to have windows on the machine
    > before you put linux on to dual boot,
    >
    > Is this different now?


    Yes, as long as you have the partitioning done.
    The windows install may set up its own bootloader, but you should be
    able to use the cd you installed linux from as a rescue bootdisk to run
    the linux bootloader install again.
    Google "grub install" for more info
     
    shannon, Feb 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Andrew

    Peter Guest

    Andrew wrote:
    > Hello all - again
    >
    > I currently have a 40 gig hdd with windows on it, It has no partitions
    > I Also have a second hard drive thats empty which i was going to put in
    > the machine so i can install linux onto
    > I want to install linux as a dual boot with the current windows
    >
    > This will work okay right?


    some partitioning suggestions and comments over at the wiki ...
    http://wiki.linux.net.nz/PartitioningSuggestions

    Basically, it is easier to make hda1 (ie first primary partition) for
    Windows, then install Windows on that partition, then install Linux. Linux
    will install a boot loader (Lilo or Grub) which can load Windows or Linux
    when you start up.

    HTH

    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Andrew

    s.t.e.v.e. Guest

    Andrew wrote:

    > I did hear a while back that i needed to have windows on the machine
    > before you put linux on to dual boot,
    >
    > Is this different now?


    It's easier if you install Linux second.....but only because Windows is an
    arrogant pig of an OS that disregards any other OS that might be present
    and does not provide any way to boot it.

    Many Linux distros allow you to fix this fairly easily by restoring/
    recreating the Lilo or Grub boot menus.

    Xandros 3.0, for example, allows you to boot the install CD in "Recovery"
    mode.....and "Restore" the current install. This will undo the damage a
    Windows install did by removing any way to boot the Linux system. Instead,
    Xandros will restore the Xandos multi-boot menu and include the Windows
    system on it as an option.

    But if you install the Windows first, then install Xandros Linux, you don't
    have to waste time (5 mins?) with this additional step....which would be
    necessary if you installed them in the reverse order (Linux first.....then
    Windows).
     
    s.t.e.v.e., Feb 18, 2006
    #7
  8. Andrew

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>, s.t.e.v.e.
    @dontchaluvusenet.org.nz says...
    > Andrew wrote:
    >
    > > I did hear a while back that i needed to have windows on the machine
    > > before you put linux on to dual boot,
    > >
    > > Is this different now?

    >
    > It's easier if you install Linux second.....but only because Windows is an
    > arrogant pig of an OS that disregards any other OS that might be present
    > and does not provide any way to boot it.


    Absolute crap. Windows can multi boot different OSs.

    What you mean is the Linux community has not provided something that
    Windows recognises.
     
    Rob J, Feb 22, 2006
    #8
  9. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    Andrew wrote:
    > Hello all - again
    >
    > I currently have a 40 gig hdd with windows on it, It has no partitions
    > I Also have a second hard drive thats empty which i was going to put in
    > the machine so i can install linux onto
    > I want to install linux as a dual boot with the current windows
    >
    > This will work okay right?
    >
    > How about this.
    >
    > I have been thinking about reinstalling windows eventually
    >
    > If i decided to do it before i install linux i could just format, re
    > partition and then put linux onto the other partition
    > But if i decided to do it after, Could i, When i install linux,
    > Partition so that i can just install windows onto the second partition
    > later?
    >
    > I did hear a while back that i needed to have windows on the machine
    > before you put linux on to dual boot,
    >
    > Is this different now?

    Well ive installed it. However just to be safe i took the windows drive
    out completly and put linux onto a different drive. I didnt do any pre
    formatting. In fact i decided to just let linux do it.. however it
    wanted. I was suprised that when it did look at the drives it offered to
    resize the already there windows partition (different drive remember,
    old windows installation) i told it to wipe the lot anyway

    I have not had much time to use it, But i did notice right off the bat
    that the tv out was not working and i could not find the options for it.
    Does anyone have suggestions for that? - its a ti4200 graphics card

    for some reason it detected that i could only run at 1024x768... i
    eventually found another section that allowed me to change that.. I dont
    remember where i went anymore though!

    Next step is to get file sharing working both ways...

    So linux can see my windows shares
    and windows can see the linux shares

    Oh.. have not installed that libdvd stuff yet either

    So far so good though i guess...
     
    Andrew, Feb 22, 2006
    #9
  10. On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:03:45 +1300, Andrew wrote:

    > So linux can see my windows shares
    > and windows can see the linux shares


    Linux can only mount NTFS partions on a read-only basis. Micro$oft has not
    published the complete specification for the NT file system and so Linux
    developers are having to reverse engineer that stuff. Linux, however, CAN
    read and write to FAT file systems.

    Windows cannot see any partitions with anything other than FAT or NT file
    systems.

    What this means is that you'll need to have a FAT partition in order to
    easily share files between Windows and Linux on the one computer.


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Andrew

    Bret Guest

    On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:30:09 +1300, A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:03:45 +1300, Andrew wrote:
    >
    >> So linux can see my windows shares
    >> and windows can see the linux shares

    >
    >Linux can only mount NTFS partions on a read-only basis. Micro$oft has not
    >published the complete specification for the NT file system and so Linux
    >developers are having to reverse engineer that stuff. Linux, however, CAN
    >read and write to FAT file systems.
    >
    >Windows cannot see any partitions with anything other than FAT or NT file
    >systems.
    >
    >What this means is that you'll need to have a FAT partition in order to
    >easily share files between Windows and Linux on the one computer.
    >


    I assumed he was on a lan, he did say "shares" not partitions.
    You may be right, can the OP elaborate?
     
    Bret, Feb 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Andrew

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:03:45 +1300, Andrew wrote:
    >
    > > So linux can see my windows shares
    > > and windows can see the linux shares

    >
    > Linux can only mount NTFS partions on a read-only basis. Micro$oft has not
    > published the complete specification for the NT file system and so Linux
    > developers are having to reverse engineer that stuff.


    No they aren't. Who said the they had to do anything like that?
     
    Rob J, Feb 22, 2006
    #12
  13. On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:54:50 +1300, Rob J wrote:

    >> Linux can only mount NTFS partions on a read-only basis. Micro$oft has
    >> not published the complete specification for the NT file system and so
    >> Linux developers are having to reverse engineer that stuff.

    >
    > No they aren't. Who said the they had to do anything like that?


    Are you suggesting that the technical specifications for the NT file
    system are freely available to Open Source developers, and that Linux
    supports stable read/write access to Micro$oft NT file systems?


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 23, 2006
    #13
  14. Andrew

    Shane Guest

    On 2006-02-22, Bret <> wrote:
    >
    > I assumed he was on a lan, he did say "shares" not partitions.
    > You may be right, can the OP elaborate?
    >


    I read it that way as well, in which case it would be time to mention
    samba
     
    Shane, Feb 23, 2006
    #14
  15. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    Bret wrote:
    > On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:30:09 +1300, A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:03:45 +1300, Andrew wrote:
    >>
    >>> So linux can see my windows shares
    >>> and windows can see the linux shares

    >> Linux can only mount NTFS partions on a read-only basis. Micro$oft has not
    >> published the complete specification for the NT file system and so Linux
    >> developers are having to reverse engineer that stuff. Linux, however, CAN
    >> read and write to FAT file systems.
    >>
    >> Windows cannot see any partitions with anything other than FAT or NT file
    >> systems.
    >>
    >> What this means is that you'll need to have a FAT partition in order to
    >> easily share files between Windows and Linux on the one computer.
    >>

    >
    > I assumed he was on a lan, he did say "shares" not partitions.
    > You may be right, can the OP elaborate?
    >


    I am on a lan, I was meaning "share" - ie shared drives from a different
    computer
     
    Andrew, Feb 23, 2006
    #15
  16. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > On 2006-02-22, Bret <> wrote:
    >> I assumed he was on a lan, he did say "shares" not partitions.
    >> You may be right, can the OP elaborate?
    >>

    >
    > I read it that way as well, in which case it would be time to mention
    > samba

    Yes.. Samba

    I see that there are 2 options.... samba client and samba server

    Do i need both?
    which does what..

    Do i need to install anything on the windows machine? or do i just put
    samba on linux?

    I would imagine the steps are straight forward...

    Install it, run it then done?
     
    Andrew, Feb 23, 2006
    #16
  17. On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:26:53 +1300, Andrew wrote:

    >> I read it that way as well, in which case it would be time to mention
    >> samba

    > Yes.. Samba
    >
    > I see that there are 2 options.... samba client and samba server
    >
    > Do i need both?


    Yes. That is, if you want something from your Linux box for Windows to
    see, and if you want your Linux box to be able to see Samba shares on the
    network.


    > which does what..


    What does your desktop email client connect to?


    > Do i need to install anything on the windows machine? or do i just put
    > samba on linux?


    Dunno about on Windoze. On Linux you need to install Samba, and configure
    it for the right type of security that you want to permit (per user or per
    device). You'll also need to configure WHICH users are permitted to share
    files, and which devices are to be shared. You'll also need to configure
    on which runlevel Samba will be operating.

    You might want to type "man samba" after you've installed it, and have a
    good read.

    And then once you've permitted a user to share stuff, that user will need
    to indicate which directories are to be shared. This is quite straight
    forward under KDE. Dunno about Gnome.


    > I would imagine the steps are straight forward...
    >
    > Install it, run it then done?


    Install it, configure it, run it, done.

    You might also want to install "Webmin" - it makes many things much easier
    to configure by using a browser.


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 23, 2006
    #17
  18. On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:12:52 +1300, Andrew wrote:

    > I am on a lan, I was meaning "share" - ie shared drives from a different
    > computer


    Are they Windows "shares" or NFS "shares"?

    NFS file sharing stuff is much simpler to do on *nix computers.


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 23, 2006
    #18
  19. Andrew

    Shane Guest

    On 2006-02-23, Andrew <> wrote:
    > Shane wrote:
    >> On 2006-02-22, Bret <> wrote:
    >>> I assumed he was on a lan, he did say "shares" not partitions.
    >>> You may be right, can the OP elaborate?
    >>>

    >>
    >> I read it that way as well, in which case it would be time to mention
    >> samba

    > Yes.. Samba
    >
    > I see that there are 2 options.... samba client and samba server
    >
    > Do i need both?
    > which does what..
    >

    As far as I can tell you are setting up a domain to share on
    Using samba server as the domain controller or pdc
    (Depending on how old you are ;-)

    > Do i need to install anything on the windows machine? or do i just put
    > samba on linux?
    >
    > I would imagine the steps are straight forward...
    >
    > Install it, run it then done?


    If only
    http://www.ccs.uky.edu/docs/samba.htm
    I *know* there is a registry hack to be done on a windows XP machine to allow
    it to connect to the samba domain (Its simple and painless, a single key needs
    changeing, as far as editing the registry goes)

    Disclaimer:
    I know sweet FA with samba (except with previously setup domains and putting
    XP clients on) so google may be needed if nobody is able to offer step by step
    The link I posted was from google, but it makes life look.... painful
    Im *pretty sure* there are GUI tools for configuring samba these days
    HTH
     
    Shane, Feb 23, 2006
    #19
  20. Andrew

    MarkH Guest

    Andrew <> wrote in news:43FD014D.5070101
    @wetaeffects.co.nz:

    > I see that there are 2 options.... samba client and samba server
    >
    > Do i need both?


    Yes

    > which does what..


    Samba server is what you use to share out stuff on your Linux PC so the
    Windows PCs can access it. Samba client is what you use on Linux to
    connect to shared stuff on Windows PCs.

    > Do i need to install anything on the windows machine? or do i just put
    > samba on linux?


    Linux would usually come with Samba. Windows can already shared stuff and
    access stuff that is shared.

    Configuring Samba is reasonably straight forward. For the client you just
    need to set the username and password and voila!



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
    "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
    young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
    for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
    Maskerade
     
    MarkH, Feb 23, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Geoff Pearson

    installing linux - without dual boot?

    Geoff Pearson, Jul 31, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,098
  2. Alan
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    1,361
  3. Paul
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    711
  4. Hugh Sutherland

    dual boot or not to dual boot

    Hugh Sutherland, Jan 20, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    542
    Mike Easter
    Jan 20, 2010
  5. Hugh Sutherland

    to dual boot or not to dual boot

    Hugh Sutherland, Jan 20, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    434
    thanatoid
    Jan 21, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page