Win2k, XP & Linux multi boot install

[jose]

Hi everyone,

I installed win2k, XPsp1 & RH3.0 on a 36g scsi drive.
Partitioned as follows:

primary 17.5gigs - win200sp4
Extended:
D: 6.5gig - winXP pro sp1
Linux - the rest of the hd ~10gig

Now I use System Comander 7 to do the multiboot , but the win2k option is
lost . Only when I select XP, do I get a second bootloader w/ win2k & XP as options.

What I'd like to know is what's the best way to install XP so that I can get rid of
it if I need too w/out affecting win2k ??

Also is it better to install XP in the 1st primary partition ? I read that you have to
install both win2k & XP in primary partitions.

So should I have created 2 primary partitions & 1 extended (for Linux) ?

Are there any benefits to installing win2k & XP in the same partition ??

ie would installing both win2k & XP in the same partition make a diff w/ other apps installed ?? ie MS Office ?? or would I have to install Office2000 twice for
each OS ??


Thank you for the helpl

Regards,
Jose

 

[Basie]

First Question is why are you still using RH3? You could pick-up Fedora Core 2 or
Mandrake10 for a few bucks if you don't have a cable or dsl modem. When doing a triple boot the order of installs should be exactly the way you did it. Win2k, WinXP
then Linux. Since the bootloader files are on the Win2K partition you can get rid of
WinXP anytime. Your fine as far as your partition setup and yes you would have to install Office2000 for both XP and Win2K.

 

[jose]

I use RH3.0 for comercial support for myself & my clients. They are running an Enterprise Database "Unify", and that's the OS that unify supports.
They don't mind paying $799/yr. for support & this is a good way to Support Linux vendors. If someone doesn't pay then they'd go out of business. 🙂

Is it better to install XP & win2k in seperate partitions like I did or better to use the 1st partition & install them together ?

Regards,
Jose

 

[SUOrangeman]

LOL. Basie, RH3 is actually RedHat Enterprise Linux 3.0 (most current available), which costs a lot of money and is just as up-to-date as Fedora, if not moreso.

Now, on to jose's question.

(FYI, I multi-boot WinME, Win2K Pro, WinXP Pro, Win2K3 Svr, Linux, and FreeBSD all in separate partitions off of one 36GB Raptor. In other words, I have a little bit of a clue! 😉)

OK, I had started to write a multi-page essay, but I'll spare you for now.

If you are using a third-party boot loader, I think you'd ultimately want all of your bootable partitions to be primary. I think System Commander would allow you to hide non-relevant partitions when booting (say, hide Win2K from XP and vice-versa). But, it sounds like you are beyond that point.

It sounds like everything is working (i.e., youy can get to all of your OSes), just not from one boot menu. If you had used partition hiding (and, maybe, you still can), you might get all of the boot options on one menu.

With my setup, I only use the Microsoft NT boot loader. I also do not install any/many apps in more than one OS (why install Office twice? Do you really need it in both OSes?).

If you are willing to install everything all over again, I would

1. Partition the drive completely before installing any OS.

2. Install Win2K and then XP on different partitions

3. Install RedHat.

If you let RedHat install its boot loader on the MBR, you'll still have the two-menu thing going to boot Windows. If you tell RH to install its boot loader on the boot partition (wherever /boot it) and *not* the MBR, you can use BootPart to add RH to the NT loader menu.

I could seriously write several pages more, but I'll wait for your questions and try to address them directly.

-SUO, partitioning fiend

 

[jose]

Thanks SUOrangeman,

Right now I did those steps, but installed XP in the Extended Logical Partition. So I'm not sure it's easy to remove if I want to.
I also install Lilo in the /boot partition & not on the MBR. I have to install Office in both windows to test compatablity w/ my VB programs.

I've been pre-partitioning before I install w/ partitionmagic then I start the install process.

So would you recomend making 2 primary partitions (for win2k & XP) and 1 extended partition for RH3 ??
Or 1 primary partition for both win2k & XP in the same partition w/ Office2000 in there also, but installed twice ?

Regards,
Jose

 

[drag]

Rh3.0 isn't "as up to date" as Fedora. It's not ment to be. It's designed for long-term enterprise work, the OS will be supported/updated/maintained for 5 years. Thats a garrentee. Redhat Enterprise is in between Redhat 9.0 and Fedora Core 1 in terms of actual software "newness".

Fedora only supports a couple versions of their software, and they release a new version every six months. It's up to the end user to keep up to date with the fast moving Linux developement cycle. You can get updates for older RH/Fedora OS thru the legacy fedora project and they will maintain OSes up to 3 or 4 revisions old.

Effectively this means that once Fedora is 2 years old it is obsolete and should be completely avoided and upgraded to a newer version. The Redhat Enterprise can go on with mainstream support for nearly half a decade between upgrades. This reflects the different goals of each Redhat version. Redhat learned with it's numbered releases that it's better to have a fully mature OS aviable for enterprise support rather then trying to keep up with the Joneses.

My recommendation:

w2k -- first partition
WinXP -- second partition (if that's even possible)
Linux -- third partitoin
Extended -- fourth partition
Swap space -- fifth (logical) partition.

Install from oldest to newest. Redhat is the most capable in terms of handling multibooting OSes, Windows can only handle other newer versions without messing with the boot loader. Lilo is much more capable then NTLDR, and grub more so. If you want to get rid of the linux boot loader, then you always have the recovery console from your boot cds for restoring the Windows OS's boot loader.

HOWEVER. If it's not broken, don't fix it. There are lots of different arragements that work perfectly well.

 

[SUOrangeman]

If you are willing to install everything from scratch 🙂, ...

1. Partition as follows:

Primary 1GB (maybe less) FAT32/16/12 - Windows boot files swap file, temp files only (this will be C: in both Win2K and WinXP)
Primary 500MB Linux - /boot (expand/shrink if you play with multple kernels)
Extended (rest of drive)
Logical xxGB NTFS for Windows 2000 (D: )
Logical xxGB NTFS for Windows XP (E: )
Logical xxGB Linux - /
Logical 500MB Linux swap

With this arrangement, both Win2K and WinXP will see C:, D:, and E:. You can hide D: from WinXP and E: from Win2K via the Disk Management tool. If you are really anal (as I tend to be when partitioning and building systems), you can have XP "show up" as its own "D:" and not "E:". I'll only expound later, if you ask.

2. Install Win2K

3. Install WinXP

At this point, you should have the "natural" multi-boot option provided by Microsoft.

4. Install RHEL3. Put its boot loader where you wish (MBR or /boot)

BTW, I did not mean to imply that RHEL3 is near-bleeding edge. It's just the most current offering fully supported by RedHat. I've only heard complaints about Fedora, but, then again, complaints are often given freely, while praise can be hard to come by. I'm currently a Gentoo man, but I always go over the top with updates and end up unmerging something uber critical, rendering my install useless. I do currently support RedHat 8.0 on ten machines I manage at work. :/ Lucky me.

-SUO

 

[jose]

"WinXP -- second partition (if that's even possible) " I was wondering the samething. But XP seems to be installed in D:\windows ??

BTW RedHat 4.0 will be out in Feb. 2005 and will be based on 2.6 kernel & increased security enhacements.

Regards,
Jose

 

[jose]

SUOrangeman,

Thanks alot, just one more question. I have a RH7.3 box that has old dbms software & don't want to pay for addl. upgrades to move it to RH3.0 ..

I checked redhat's site for an updated iso of 7.3 but there's none. So if this box every fails then I'd have to reinstall w/ the original RH7.3 install cds. 🙁

How would I update this old version 7.3 ?? Would Yum work fine ?

I'm getting ready to reinstall 2000, XP, & RH7.3 on a test drive to fine tune my multi boot installs .. 😱

Thanks for the info.

Regards,
Jose

 

[drag]

Depends on how much disk space you have to work with. I figure the best bet is to make a complete backup of the OS. Make a tarball of it, there are places that will tell you how to do it properly. That way you can just pop in a fresh harddrive and restore the OS completely if you have a computer or OS failure.

You can still get updates for the time being at fedoralegacy.org, btw.

Then once you get the OS backed up I would simply concintrate on migrating it to a newer OS. Yum wouldn't work that hot, it never does a 100% job as there are some changes to the OS that aren't covered by RPMs, unlike Debian were everything is thru apt. Redhat also made substantial changes to it's OS from the 7 series to the 8 series (although not anywere nearly as drastic from 6 to 7). From the 8 series upwards a upgrade is usually a smooth path. Redhat had pretty much everything standardized in 8, athough there are some changes that only automaticly happen thru the upgrade proccess using a install CD.

Maybe try to upgrade to Fedora and migrate the database to that, instead of updating the entire OS you just move the database. Also there are third party distros that compile Redhat enterprise from Redhat's sources and release the OSes for free so that people don't have to pay for the support costs from Redhat in order to obtain the operating system.
white box linux is one that is based off of RHEL 3.0. Although there are others that may be better. Never used them myself.

Also there is always Suse aviable or even Debian among others.

 

[SUOrangeman]

http://download.fedoralegacy.org/redhat/7.3/

I'm kinda stuck on RH 8.0 because my machines are not connected to the Internet and I have to get government approval to use anything newer. At the same time, I need to have the machines available for "real work." A very delicate balance indeed. I'd like to go to the latest, greatest distro (preferably RH, so that the govvies won't have their minds blown to much), but now that has an associated price to it. True open-source stuff (like Fedora) with no corporate backing doesn't give them warm fuzzies. I'd liken the scenario to wanting somebody that offers a product, but be able to sue them in case something goes wrong. Kinda hard to point your finger at the entire open source community and demand action (even if you're more than likely to get it ... for free!).

-SUO

 

[jose]

Drag & SUOrangeman:

Thanks alot for the info guys. I'm going to try and convince them to move to RH 4.0 , because they definitly wouldn't
want to pay for another upgrade to RH4.0 in Feb. 😉
I'll readup on making a tarball of the entire OS. It's amazing how companies resist upgrades. That if something were to happen to their systems, their bus. would grind to a crawl.

Again, thanks for the info.

Regards,
Jose