What is Digg?145 Comments
- shrewduser, on 10/11/2007, -5/+115install linux after installing windows and it plays nice and makes a configurable boot menu and even automatically adds windows to it.... install windows after linux and it disregards any other OS's and tries to take over / make it difficult for novice users...
and they wonder why people don't like them? - GnuTzu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+52As effective as Linux installers are at producing OS agnostic boot configurations, there's no way to prevent a misinformed user--presumably under the advice form some Windows-centric source--from running the Windows tools and wrecking a system. For this, effective recovery tools and support are essential.
Sadly, Linux is often blamed when Windows hasn't been playing nice. - edwardn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32yeah, i agree. it was almost ok for this to happen in the nt4 days, because linux and dual booting was a new thing. after nt/2000, there's no excuse to disregard that another OS might already be installed.
- 4DFX, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19"and they wonder why people don't like them?"
Last time I checked they didn't care about that. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16No...no it doesn't. Grub will ASK the user if the setup if correct and not kill the MBR without user intervention.
- DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17Not if your a company hell bent on Global domination
- ScornForSega, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12The old tricks from XP to edit the boot.ini to use the NT bootloader in linux still work in Vista.
dd if=/dev/hda1 of=/home/user/boot.lnx count=1 bs=512
I used that command a lot while getting my home and work machines to boot linux from an external drive using the NT loader. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Grub usually replaces the Windows bootloader but it also tends to correctly guess where Windows is and sets up to boot it.
- Fafnir43, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11*shrug* Ubuntu's normal installation procedure auto-detected my XP installation (and my dead '98 installation on another hard drive) just fine, and automatically added them to the boot loader. That was over a year ago, so it's not as though it's a recent addition. Microsoft, on the other hand, are and always have been dicks when it comes to allowing any other operating system space on the computer. I know which one I'd choose.
- LordVance, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Yup; as long as many of us need them, they won't care if we like them.
- cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8EasyBCD 1.6 http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=1
SuperGrub http://users.bigpond.net.au/hermanzone/SuperGrubDiskPage.html - greywren, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Perhaps, but _Linux_ novices who want to try out linux while retaining the ability to say, play games on Windows are affected.
- SocialPoison, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The boot information sits in a specific place on the partition. Ever done a grub config file?
Know how you have to have this for windows:
title=Windows XP
rootnoverify (hd0,5)
makeactive
chainloader +1
See that "chainloader+1"?
That's basically telling grub "Hey there's another boot loader on this partition, just let it do its thing."
That's all they'd have to do in Vista to make it play somewhat nice with Linux or OSX or whatever. So if you installed Vista after Ubuntu you'd see the NT boot menu and one of the options would be "Additional System" or "GRUB" or whatever... and if you selected it, the NT boot loader would pass off to that partition.
If the Linux guys can do it, what makes it so tough for Windows?
It's not asking Microsoft to support GRUB, it's asking Microsoft not to strand other OSs that might be installed on the box because of careless deletion of the MBR. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8No...no it's not. Why does Vista need to blow away the MBR and make it difficult to get Grub to work?
- DnasTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5No one is requesting that Microsoft be nice and spend the little effort to analyze the grub config or do anything fancy like that. We already know that companies like Microsoft never give a thought to other products. The problem is that Windows invariably wipes the MBR without the slightest bit of information for the user. A simple "An existing MBR has been detected. Would you like to install the Vista bootloader? If unsure, select Yes." would be far more towards "interoperability" than MS has ever done.
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5We are not asking Microsoft to support Linux, we are just asking them to not pretend they own our computers.
- Tripcast, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I had to end up disabling my second HD in the BIOS to install Vista first, then install Ubuntu. When you have 2 HD's, Vista likes to install itself on one HD, and install the MBR on the second (rewriting any partition on the second HD). Yea, Vista sucks
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Why was this dugg down. Grub is vastly superior to the Vista bootloader. They are quite frankly incomparable.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"If you want "Trusted Computing" use Linux."
I'd rather say:
"If you want trustworthy compiting, use Linux"
as there is a difference between trusted and trustworthy. The former indicates that it is trusted, worthy of the trust or not, and the latter indicates that the system is worthy of trust, but not necessarily trusted. - cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Windows has always done this, so I don't think this can fall under a new charge for anti-competitive behavour.
and it is not taking over another OS, it is taking over the MBR with its own (improved) bootloader.
There are even ways to add Linux back in under the Boot Configuration Data manager, just not as easily as some
other bootloaders make it. - youareretarded, on 10/11/2007, -9/+13Hey that's not cool, Linux is perfect and good, only post negative comments about evil MS here!
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"All one has to do is install Linux AFTER any Windows OS."
Then consider the fact that Windows needs to be reinstalled once in a while... - sirhomer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Actually, all they would have to do is implement the "MultiBoot" specification, which would allow GRUB and other bootloaders to load Windows directly. Linux, the *BSDs, Solaris, and even Mac OS X implement this specification, Windows is currently the only mainstream OS on the market that requires a specific bootloader.
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5...and you must be an MCSE.
So pleased to meet you. - coredump0x01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Or set BS to 446 if you don't want to disturb your partition table data. So use dd if=/dev/hda1 of=/home/user/boot.lnx count=1 bs=446 If you haven't made changes to the partition table, then it won't matter.
- microMania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3EasyBCD (freeware, by NeoSmart Technologies) is my number-one tool for bootloader-related recoveries. If Vista wipes out my MBR, EasyBCD puts Linux back in its place, and auto-configures the dual-boot for me.
Download: http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=1
Documentation: http://neosmart.net/wiki/display/EBCD/Linux - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Oh please. Why does Vista make it hard to install grub on the MBR? Why does Window overwrite the MBR without a word of warning?
1) Most gamers like to keep Window around for the games that don't work in Cedega or Wine.
2) Yes, yes it does. Vista makes setting up dual boot more of a hassle than it needs to be. Why? Because MS knows people are dual booting and they want to kill Linux by hook or by crook. Most of use are IT professionals and we know about diskpart and we know about the kludge that is boot.ini. We also know how things should work and MS doesn't follow the rules of making life easier for the user. - Philluminati, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You don't need to install them in the right order. You just need to reinstall grub from the install cd after you have installed windows. It's on almost every cd.
- AeroSquid, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7It is so easy to trivialize Vista by calling it XP with eye candy. I remember when the same was said about 2000/XP and they were wrong then just like you are wrong now.
- webcrumb, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Let's put this into perspective.
People who install Linux to dual-boot normally know about boot loaders, and if they don't they know where they can find out. It's really very straight-forward to boot from a LiveCD, #grub, root (hd0,x), setup (hd0), quit.
People who are installing Vista are more likely installing over a single installation of Windows XP and so don't care as there is no boot menu.
Grub does everything. I have it quad-booting Ubuntu Gutsy, OSx86, Server 2003 and Server 2008 B3. And strangely enough it all works. - Buelldozer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Re-installing GRUB after Windows has blown it (the MBR) away is a very easy task and it's well documented all of the 'net.
- TheRemoteViewer, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13Ironically Linux/grub has done the same thing to my Windows install on several occasions...
- jslice, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4ive been dual booting vista and ubuntu since vista was released. Your just an idiot.
- webcrumb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5If sites don't display I don't read them. It's just laziness on the part of the coder... javascript just isn't needed to display text.
NoScript FTW!!1, by the way. - AdHaR, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I am currently *triplebooting* with ubuntu, xp and vista, and installed them in that order. I used this guide
http://www.hevnikov.com/blog/2006/11/13/triple-boot-xp-vista-ubuntu-with-single-boot-screen/
You are greeted with the vista bootloader first, and you only get to see GRUB if you choose to boot ubuntu... - DoctaStooge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I would guess that this practice violates Microsoft's Anti-trust settlement, but I don't know all the details so I can't be sure.
- init100, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Not sure, but I think the reason Windows doesn't add a Linux entry is that in order to do so properly, and account for all flavors of Linux (and kernels in different places), it'd have to know how to read the internal GRUB configuration files."
There is a much easier solution: If the Windows installer detects another bootloader than one of Microsoft's own, *don't mess with it at all*. - sneakerelph, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3not sure i'd say low quality as much as it's not worth the money
seriously, for that much money i'd better get a helluva lot more than some bug fixes and a pretty interface. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3What makes it illegal? Hello McFly, it's called being anticompetitive
- Cmain, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I installed Vista after installing Ubuntu, all I had to do was setup GRUB again. Easy guide here: http://apcmag.com/5045/how_to_dual_boot_vista_with_linux
- specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I also installed Vista after Ubuntu. You can use EasyBCD in Vista to make all easy. Just reinstall GRUB to your boot PARTITION, then add a Linux entry in EasyBCD. Problem solved.
Basically, boot with your LiveCD. Fire up the terminal, then type
$ sudo grub
While in the grub command line (grub>) type: $ find /boot/grub/stage1
This will return something like :
(hdX,Y)
X is your drive number and Y is the partition, remember this. If you want to install grub just type:
$ root (hdX,Y)
according to result. Then type:
$ setup (hdX)
if you want to install to the MBR of the partition OR
$ setup (hdX,Y)
if you want to install only to the / partition. - Guard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You usually install the OS with the better boot screen 2nd. Grub is usually a better choice. I think I actually had XP, Vista RC2, and Ubuntu running before, with Vista the last installed (so i got Vista's boot screen) and had no issues with any of my OSs
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2> Don't trust the upgrade advisor ever!
So that's one feature of Windows Update that survives: If it wants to update software, you're probably cool. If it wants to update a hardware driver, expect breakage.
At least they're consistent. - closetosomet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2its running on my computer now perfectly. all i had to do was install vista then install the latest version of ubuntu and it took care of everything. upgrade your grub booter or look up a tutorial on the internet for loading vista from older versions of grub.
- strangewill, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2TBH: It sounds like being really lazy, it doesn't scan to take out OSes after it. Yet seems to wipe out previous installations. Yay for what looks more like cutting corners. D:
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Dude, total FUD here. Grub doesn't bork up things so that you can't boot Windows. Grub will tell you that Windows is installed and WARN you if you are going to mess up the MBR. Windows happily overwrites the MBR and says nothing about it.
As for the support from MS, who cares...I just want them to stop over writing the MBR so I have to re-install grub after I install one of their products. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You can just delete the partition table. No need to worry about anything else.
- MrFatalistic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I've been using Vista's boot manager for a while now, really it isn't that hard to use bcdedit and get your linux up and running again. In a year or 2 from now, it'll be considered childs play and an article like this will never hit digg. Oh wait...
- sneakerelph, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2maybe his job requires massive pron viewage?
- microMania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I've been using EasyBCD for a while, it is a great application!
It actually enables Vista's (as it says above) highly incompatible bototloader to load OS X, Linux, BSD, ReactOS, SkyOS, Unix, DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 9x, Windows 2k/XP, and more!
(don't you just LOVE freeware? lol) -
Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is