Off-Topic > Starter Packs
grub4dos.gz
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:
--- Quote ---From what I have read at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306559
--- End quote ---
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: ---[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
--- End code ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version