grub4dos.gz

[newbody]

The easiest way is to run the automated install script instead of manually editing and copying files.

But as regular users in this forum has attested that creates a new such grub4dos along with their earlier such. And that is not what I want.

So my way was the easiest for somebody already having a well working grub4dos with many entries and well integrated with Win7Starter too.

[roberts]

I had left out the step to also loadpack /tmp/ntfs-3g.gz which enables write access to NTFS so that the copy and edits can be completed.

Updated existing grub4dos instructions:
http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=9762.msg53256#msg53256

[newbody]

This part of the OP post can be due to my sloppy English and confused mind. I tried to explain but your thought my explanation was part of the request. It was not. I just wanted RC2 to work as any other fural bootable linux distro do. One just add the needed menu.lst and it just works. Nothing fancy is required at all. Even I that usually fail with almost everything can do such in a few minutes manually.

You wrote

Again, all the questions are on how to back into a installation with an existing grub4dos
remix or remaster.

The automated script is not trying to support complex exiting grub4dos with Puppy or remixes.

That part will be misleading to any newbie having no idea what you talk about.

I apology that my lack of fine tuning in how to express myself in a foreign language did mislead you.

I have now almost everything working with the official TCL so no need for remixes for me and no request that your rc2 should take any precautions to such either.

I would prefer that you edit that one out from that post. It fills no function and only is misleading.

[roberts]

Glad to hear that it is working with official Tiny Core.

Hopefully Guy, Rich, jur or some of our other documentation contributors will be able to update/create specific wiki pages for specific starter packs that newbies can understand.

Programmer types such as myself are not the best to provide documentation.
Besides I already have a new programming challenge that I wish to tackle to further improve Core.

[newbody]

Yes give priority to that one.

I am very poor at description but if none else give it a try I will within fourtnight? or three weeks or so try to retell how I did the current install for people who have my set up with Netbook that has no CD but working USB slots that I made use of for USB keyboard and USB mouse and a USB memory to make the install a super simple thing once one knew how to.

one way to make it easy would be to have the ntfs-3g.gz as a separate download on the repo so one could take it down to the usb memory. Then one nead not start any loadpack and try to figure out what that is and how to find where the files are.

Thanks for not giving up on me despite my confusing language.

[jur]

Boot options home=hda1 opt=hda1 work as expected. Of course the level 1 directory of your Widows Xp now has /home/tc and /opt directories populated. So then Tiny Core now occupies three directories on XP.

Well it most certainly didn't work on my first "successful" trial. When I rebooted, there was a boot message about these locations not being supported.

Aside from your rant about instructions, there were a number of other observations I made as well. Those instructions, seeing how simple you stated them should be abundantly visible during the process, not be obscurely hidden in a rc post - how many bytes could it be?

[jur]

I have IMHO an important suggestion:

Instead of applying bootlace to drive C and modifying the boot sector, which is a risky move, consider the less risky option of simply editing boot.ini and appending the additional boot option to it and passing the boot process to brub when the user selects this.

This way, the disc is left intact for the user and removing TC (perish the thought) will leave the user with their original Windows boot intact.

Users wishing to try out TC would feel a lot more at ease if they had the assurance that their Windows installation won't be touched, and that they could simply delete TC if they so wished. But modding the boot sector creates anxiety, as well as potential for disaster when the user suddenly panics and hits ctrl-alt-del, or if the power fails on their desktop in the middle of the process.

[curaga]

home and opt on ntfs? permission problems ahoy

[jur]

home and opt on ntfs? permission problems ahoy

Exactly.

[newbody]

I like what Jur writes here and if the newbie already have dual booting then the install mess up that one too does it not? And if one have it already installed as I had then the easier way is to have the ntfs-3g.gz to be delivered in the right place without first having to do the Panel > Start package thing and then look for it in places a newbie have no experience of. bzImage and tinycore.gz are already in the iso in the directory boot so it is easy to put ntfs-3g.gz there too with a read me txt file that gives the menu.lst for those that already have a dual boot install and them easily add that by copy and paste and only change the hda1 to sda3 whatever them see apply on their computer.

http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=9762.msg53349#msg53349

home and opt on ntfs? permission problems ahoy

curaga and jur how can I test this if it happen on my install too? Any easy to check example?

[jur]

@ roberts:

I just want to come on record and express my strong support for the install GUI work - please don't take any clumsy wording on my part to be as negative, not meant that way at all. As I said earlier, I wanted this long ago and am very glad about it.

[roberts]

I am a self confessed newbie when it comes to Windows beyond 9x.

My last involvement with Windows was Windows95 and adding TCP/IP stack for network at City of Garden Grove. Later some had Windows98. I retired eleven years ago. Never liked Windows and don't use it. We would not even have a grub4dos+NTFS support if it had not been that I was given a hand-me-down Via 533Mhz/512MB XP system. It boots XP. That's about it.

@jur, I don't see brub in the grub4dos.tcz on which this starter pack is based. I have no desire to "adopt" this extension. If it is part of grub4dos then perhaps you will wish to contact the extension maker. 

From what I have read at  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306559  I can append

c:\grldr="Tiny Core Linux" to boot.ini

But then is the user expected to:

Start->Control Panel->Change to classic view
Double click System icon
Advanced Tab
  Startup & Recovery click Settings
    Under System Startup you can change the default OS to boot as well as set the time to wait for the user's choice, i.e., use Windows boot menu.

Newbie's are fine with THAT procedure or am I missing something? Seems to me that MS makes it difficult to have users easily access alternate OS.

My current bootlace.com is simple and effective.

I cannot be made to believe that a "self proclaimed newbie" is one that already has grub4dos with an extensive array of OS to boot from. That is surely not the target of current state of starter pack.

To me it is far easier to run MbrFix.exe /drive 0 fixmbr, or even dd a copy/restore the mbr.

The less time I have to spend in Windows the better frame of mind I will be.

[Rich]

From what I have read at  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306559

That's odd, they don't seem to mention installing Linux.

[maro]

Robert: I don't think that the user really has to make any manual changes (like defining a default boot option and adding a timeout value). At least on the WinXP systems I've got access to the following lines

Code: [Select]

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
are already present in the default 'c:\boot.ini' file. So adding the additional entry (plus having the relevant 'grub4dos' files including it's configuration in place) is all that needs to happen.

I've used a few times the WUBI installer that Ubuntu (and LinuxMint) are using for a nice co-existence of Windows and a Linux system without requiring partition changes (it just creates two files that will be loop mounted: one large EXT4 one and a swap one). And AFAIK this is all what this type of installation changes. It therefor leaves the NT boot loader in place and (when selected) grub4dos starts up the Linux system. I agree that this leaves the newbie user maybe with more of a "warm&fuzzy" feeling that not much has changed and might lower the threshold of adoption.

Another thing altogether is the fact that AFAIK the boot loader has changed significantly since Vista (and the 'boot.ini' file is no more). Therefore the path via 'boot.ini' appears to be limited to WinXP (and the other NT-type versions like Win2k). OTOH having 'grub4dos' as the primary boot loader might be a more flexible solution across the different Windows versions.

[roberts]

Adding the additional entry to boot.ini did not result in a Windows menu, instead XP booted directly. Only after the many steps to force XP to display a boot menu, and then I needed to increase the time for the user to make a selection.

If, however, there is no boot.ini for newer versions of Windows, then using boot.ini is a moot point.

If Vista and Win7 are able to be chain loaded then existing starter pack should work.