On 4/6/06,
Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig White wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 12:25 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>>I found it easier to let the WinXP boot manager chain load GRUB
>>than the other way 'round. MicroSoft products like to be in
>>charge. While GRUB+Linux is not a good match, it is a reasonable
>>match, and works pretty well, whereas GRUB+WinXP is a poor match,
>>and the WinXP boot manager is a pretty reasonable tool. Once GRUB
>>is in memory, it's just GRUB, however it got there, and can load
>>Linux just fine.
>
> ----
> it really doesn't much matter - generally, it's whatever is more
> comfortable for the user but the user is likely to get more and better
> help using grub on this list than the Windows bootloader.
Personally, I am more comfortable with GRUB than I am with the WinXP
boot manager. But I had more troubles getting WinXP convinced to boot
under the control of GRUB than I had getting GRUB convinced to boot
under the control of WinXP boot manager.
> In general, I have found dual-booting a waste of time and energy and can
> only see the point of it on laptops...for people not wanting to give up
> the Windows option.
I wasn't recommending dual-boot systems. In general, I agree that
they are more trouble than they are worth. I was trying to answer
the question as asked. My system is dual boot because I was asked
by a fellow who was willing to pay me money to make it happen.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
