On 3/1/06, akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxx <akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I know the problem in my case is that when I have an IDE drive in the machine, the BIOS treats that as "the first drive" and when I don't have an IDE drive in the machine, the BIOS treats the SATA drive as "the first drive". I think that is the main source of grub-install confusion since there is no inherent way in GRUB (or NTLDR for that matter) to specify bus/drive/partition ... only drive/partiton. You can get around it once you figure out which drive is which but it is a PITA .. especially when you have a brain-dead BIOS that doesn't give you many options.
/Mike
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:46:00PM -0500, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Mauriat Miranda < mirandam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/27/06, akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxx <akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > > Using the Windows boot loader is the old way from Lilo days. There is
> > > not problem double booting FC4 with Windows (XP or 2000) using grub. I
> > > have done this on three of my machines. But the grub must be applied
> > > after the Windows is installed.
> >
> > Not sure what the subjective phrase "the old way" means, but this is
> > merely chainloading, which is still commonly used. If grub has never
> > failed for you, then good for you. However it has for me and for
> > others (multiple FC installs, multiple dual-boot machines). Using
> > NTLDR is a very safe alternative to being potentially locked out of
> > *both* windows *and* linux. (Been doing this since I had NT4)
> >
> > The MBR doesn't need to be constantly overwritten, this is a common
> > source of problems (for me at least). If you have multiple Windows or
> > Linux distributions installed, you can have 1 corresponding entry in
> > the boot.ini for each bootable partition. This needs to be setup only
> > once, and never really needs to be touched. You can preserve and test
> > multiple grub or lilo installs from multiple distributions by
> > installing a bootloader to the first sector of the bootable partition,
> > as I do. (all Fedora installers have provided this option)
> >
> > Entirely optional, but highly recommended for anyone with reservations
> > about possibly interfering with their windows xp or 2000 boot.
>
>
> I would have to agree ... using NTLDR is not the "old" way, it is the only
> way on some troublesome systems. Most of the time GRUB will boot Linux and
> Windows just fine but there does seem to be the odd nasty
> BIOS+mobo+drive+partition combo that seems to trip Windows into a
> NTLDR-or-death mode.
>
> I have had particular trouble with systems that have both SATA and IDE drive
> interfaces. There doesn't seem to be any standard way for Windows to know
> which one it should treat as "C:" or GRUB to know which is hd0. With enough
> messing around I can usually find a magic combination of bootloader chaining
> but it usually all goes to hell when you pull a drive out.
>
> Maybe this is the scenario that the OP finds themselves in.
>
> /Mike
I agree that is it does not work, it does not work and something else
must be done. But grub knows which is hd0 by the entry in the
/boot/grub/device.map file. We found that sometimes with SATA disks
you have to fool around with the SATA options in the BIOS to make them
work properly in a fedora - windows double boot. I admit I have never
tried this with a SATA - IDE combination but I suspect you are ok as
long as you don't depend on the IDE drive to be the one that is looked
at to find the MBR by default.
I know the problem in my case is that when I have an IDE drive in the machine, the BIOS treats that as "the first drive" and when I don't have an IDE drive in the machine, the BIOS treats the SATA drive as "the first drive". I think that is the main source of grub-install confusion since there is no inherent way in GRUB (or NTLDR for that matter) to specify bus/drive/partition ... only drive/partiton. You can get around it once you figure out which drive is which but it is a PITA .. especially when you have a brain-dead BIOS that doesn't give you many options.
/Mike
