Callistus Mendonca wrote:
> Using NTLDR to boot Windows and Linux is not such a
> good idea. NTLDR is a program loaded from the hard
> drive boot sector that displays the Microsoft Windows
> NT startup menu and helps Windows NT load. It is much
> better to use a third party boot loader like LILO or
> GRUB to boot into either OS. FC3 allows you the option
> to install either of these.
NTLDR can't boot Linux by itself. But it can chain to lilo or grub
in a file on disk (if NTLDR can read the filesystem).
The alternative is to have grub as the "principal" boot loader. That
can't boot Windows by itself. But it can chain to NTLDR on a boot
sector (or presumably in a file on disk, if grub can read the
filesystem: I haven't tried).
I do know you can chain NTLDR -> grub -> (the same) NTLDR -> ... It's
vaguely interesting for five seconds.
There's a certain similarity to either set up. Grub can be more flexible
when you have multiple free OSes installed: NTLDR can be more flexible
when you have multiple NT-based OSes installed. Either can boot
DOS-based OSes.
As far as I can see, the major differences are
* that Windows installers won't remove a working grub entry from NTLDR
configurations.
* grub can have a prettier background.
* you need grub to select a different kernel. The NT equivalent is
booting in safe mode: since Win2K you select that after the boot
loader has done its job anyway.
I'd probably trust grub more than NTLDR, if I didn't know that Microsoft
installers tend to silently remove it from the master boot record.
As it is, it's horses for courses.
James.
--
E-mail address: james | "We've just been contacted by the Lady of the Lake."
@westexe.demon.co.uk | "Really? What does she want?"
| "A really big towel."
| -- http://www.mopsy.com/d/19981122.html
