RE: [UUG/MLUG] Hdd's?

["McIntosh, Jason W." <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Actually, I could read the 95 partitions fine - they were fat16.  As for the
NTFS stuff, I know I didn't have Linux reading off of it at the time.  Linux
CAN read NTFS right now, but at the time, I think I was using Kernal version
1.something.  One of the midle aged 1 kernals.  Either way, it all worked
without a hitch.  NT could read 95, 95 could read 95, and Linux could read
95.  That was it.  It worked, and I was happy.  As I remember, the NT 4.0
bootloader didn't install into the MBR, it just installed straight onto the
HD.  As a matter of fact, there are a few files you can edit that will boot
various partitions on a given disk, although it was wierd in how it handled
them.  Particularly if you ever modified the disk in any way.  I think it
could only load a verions of 95, 98, or NT, but not Linux.  
It worked.  That was the point to all this mess..
Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremiah Johnson [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 2:27 PM
To: EMAIL:PROTECTED
Subject: Re: [UUG/MLUG] Hdd's? 


You probably didn't have windows 95 on NTFS, because win95 can't read
NTFS.  Conversely, NT can't read VFAT, which is what 95 tries to use
unless you tell it otherwise.  Linux, on the other hand, can read both.

I've run Win98 and Linux on the same computer, in fact I'm doing that
right now.  The same harddrive, even, which is what I'm doing now also.
Once you understand how the NT bootloader works, and where it needs to be
(where it needs to believe it is, I should say) then you can make
NT/98/Linux/FreeBSD/BeOS/solaris/<whatever> run without problems.  Its
just a matter of putting each boot loader where it thinks it needs to be.

Jeremiah

On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Jason McIntosh wrote:

>I haven't had too many problems in the past.  At one point in time, I had
>Win95, WinNT, and Linux installed all at once.  I was using Lilo as the
main
>boot loader, which then loaded the NT boot loader to choose 95 or NT.
>Worked without a hitch.  I could see the 95 partition fine (although if I
>remember correct, was using NTFS, so couldn't read it at all).  I don't
know
>what's going on there, but I've never had a problem with multiple OS's on
>one HD.
>Jason
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
>To: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 7:42 AM
>Subject: Re: [UUG/MLUG] Hdd's?
>
>
>> I never had any problems with this but then I've never used NT on the
same
>> machine as another OS. I did notice in some versions of the FAT32
>accessing
>> code that files written from Linux to FAT32 were often bad. I haven't had
>> the problem lately so I assume they fixed it. Also when using UMSDOS I've
>> found there are a lot of problems and is some performance loss so I avoid
>> doing that.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:45:42 -0600 (CST), EMAIL:PROTECTED wrote:
>>
>> >  On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 EMAIL:PROTECTED wrote:
>> >
>> >  > But seriously, NT likes to see it's boot sector a certain way, and
>> >  > lilo can change that.  That's why you have to be careful in you lilo
>> >  > config.
>> >
>> >
>> >  Nimrod--
>> >
>> >  Are you suggesting that my colleague's problem with NT failing to boot
>> was
>> >  due to lilo and not due to accessing the FAT16 partition from Linux?
>> >
>> >  If so, I hope you are right because I have Win98 and RH 6.1 on my
>laptop
>> >  and I'd like to be able to access the Win98 (FAT32) partition from
>Linux.
>>
>> >  I wouldn't want to do it if it might kill Win98.
>> >
>> >  Is there no way to access data in a Linux partition from Win98?
>> >
>> >  Regards,
>> >
>> >  Mike
>> >
>> >  --
>> >  Michael B. Miller
>> >  University of Missouri--Columbia
>> >  http://taxa.psyc.missouri.edu/~mbmiller/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________
>> Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com
>>  The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season
>>
>