On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 02:41:34PM -0400, Patrick Moroney wrote:
> CW Harris wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 01:28:14PM -0400, Patrick Moroney wrote:
> >>CW Harris wrote:
[...]
> >>>Why not just boot from a rescue disk (I think most/all install disks can
> >>>be used as rescue disks also--check
CW Harris wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 01:28:14PM -0400, Patrick Moroney wrote:
CW Harris wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:18:45AM -0400, Patrick Moroney wrote:
I'm trying to install Debian Sarge stable as a second operating
Sarge is not yet "stable"---still "testing"
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 01:28:14PM -0400, Patrick Moroney wrote:
> CW Harris wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:18:45AM -0400, Patrick Moroney wrote:
> >>I'm trying to install Debian Sarge stable as a second operating
> >>
> >Sarge is not yet "stable"---still "testing"
> >
>
> --Understood -
Patrick Moroney wrote:
CW Harris wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:18:45AM -0400, Patrick Moroney wrote:
I'm trying to install Debian Sarge stable as a second operating
Sarge is not yet "stable"---still "testing"
--Understood - but I've successfully installed other machines.
system on a
CW Harris wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:18:45AM -0400, Patrick Moroney wrote:
I'm trying to install Debian Sarge stable as a second operating
Sarge is not yet "stable"---still "testing"
--Understood - but I've successfully installed other machines.
system on a 200 gig drive and not
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:18:45AM -0400, Patrick Moroney wrote:
> I'm trying to install Debian Sarge stable as a second operating
Sarge is not yet "stable"---still "testing"
> system on a 200 gig drive and not having a lot of success. The
> installation goes fine; I install Lilo in the MBR, t
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/970
Has a good discussion about this with some possible fixes. It would be
intresting to learn what ends up working.
If that doesn't work?
http://marc.free.net.ph/message/20040428.024535.b600e7e7.html
RRP
Patrick Moroney wrote:
After wiping out the debian partitio
After wiping out the debian partitions with debian's fdisk, I tried the
XP installation cd - followed it's instructions, it failed & I lost
everything on the harddrive. Using debians fdisk to mark the windows
partition as bootable got the thing going again. Partition 1 is ntfs.
fdisk /mbr cl
The strange one about this is that to restore the mbr in xp you are
supposed to boot from the xp intallation cd, select recovery console and
then run fix mbr and fix boot (might be fixmbr and fixboot, with no
spaces) I wonder what fdisk /mbr did?
Is partion 1 Fat32 or ntfs?
RRP
Patrick Morone
Partition 1: 35g - Windows XP (ick - for my wife & kids)
Partition 2: 1g - /
Partition 3: 1g - Swap
Partition 4: 500m - /tmp
Partition 5: 5g - /var
Partition 6: 75g - /usr
Partition 7: 20g - /home
RRPotratz wrote:
Patrick Moroney wrote:
I'm trying to install Debian Sarge stable as a second operati
Patrick Moroney wrote:
I'm trying to install Debian Sarge stable as a second operating system
on a 200 gig drive and not having a lot of success. The installation
goes fine; I install Lilo in the MBR, the system goes for a reboot and
then I get the following errors upon reboot:
request_module[
I'm trying to install Debian Sarge stable as a second operating
system on a 200 gig drive and not having a lot of success. The
installation goes fine; I install Lilo in the MBR, the system
goes for a reboot and then I get the following errors upon reboot:
request_module[block-major-3]: Root fs
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 05:23:53AM -0700, Richard Weil wrote:
> Just a small update, since I'm sure someone will
> someday search and find this thread ...
>
> I got it working. The grub configuration in menu.1st
> was fine; windows had overwritten the MBR. I don't
> know if it's possible, but I *m
Just a small update, since I'm sure someone will
someday search and find this thread ...
I got it working. The grub configuration in menu.1st
was fine; windows had overwritten the MBR. I don't
know if it's possible, but I *may* not have installed
grub to the MBR the first time (I don't recall runn
Chris Metzler wrote:
> Alex Malinovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > bootloader. This happened to me before, but you said you installed
> > Debian AFTER you installed Windows, so this shouldn't be an issue.
>
> I agree that it shouldn't be an issue; but that's very much what
> this smells like.
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:58:12 -0500
Alex Malinovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Based on the partition listing you gave in your original message, grub
> should be set up as follows:
>
> Windows: root (hd0,0)
> Debian: root (hd0,2)
>
> Keep in mind that in grub, partition 1 is actually 0, 2 is
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 14:09, Richard Weil wrote:
> I don't have the machine in front of me, but I'm
> nealry certain that I don't have "savedefault" set. I
> believe my grub entry for win xp was essentially the
> same as what is shown in the grub docs:
>
> title win
> root (hd0,1)
> makeactive
>
d0,1), which is the /boot directory
(and where grub lives). Perhaps this is wrong, but I
interpret "root" in the context of grub to basically
mean grub's root.
Richard
--- Alex Malinovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 13:35, Richard Weil wrote:
> > I&
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 13:35, Richard Weil wrote:
> I'm having a grub/dual-boot problem.
>
> I'm running Sarge with the kernel from the initial
> install. The hard drive has 4 primary partitions:
>
> part 1 = win xp
> part 2 = /boot --> marked bootable in par
I'm having a grub/dual-boot problem.
I'm running Sarge with the kernel from the initial
install. The hard drive has 4 primary partitions:
part 1 = win xp
part 2 = /boot --> marked bootable in partition table
part 3 = /
part 4 = swap
I installed win XP into part 1. I then instal
On Friday, August 31, 2001 9:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> > > I don't know if the windows 2000 boot loader is different than windows
9x,
> > > but when I used to use windows 98, I had in /etc/lilo.conf:
> > > other=/dev/hda1
> > >label=win
> >
> > Works just fine for w2k.
> >
> I am no
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 04:55:50PM -0400, Narasimhamurthy Giridhar wrote:
>
> FAT32-thats how i formatted it.
>
here's a lilo.conf that i use on one of my debian boxes
which has windoze on it as a dual-boot (windoze is on hda1,
debian has a small /boot partition on hda2 and the root partition
on
FAT32-thats how i formatted it.
Narasimhamurthy Giri, Clemson University Computer Science Dept.
---
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
---
O
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:00:54PM -0400, Narasimhamurthy Giridhar wrote:
> I am not sure though cos yday I removed Win2k , put back Win ME and only
> then did the dual boot work. Owise i used to get that
> "inlcuding Win9"
> "Fatal: no image installed" error. Havent still figured out the problem.
what about "table=/dev/hda" ?
- Original Message -
From: Greg Wiley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: dual boot problem
> On Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Greg Wiley wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:56:39PM +, Giri X wrote:
> > > | I recently installed Debian on a ayatem that had Win2k on it b4. I
> made 2
> > > | [...]
> > > | thing). There was no Wind
On Thursday 30 August 2001 17:56, Giri X wrote:
> Hi
> I recently installed Debian on a ayatem that had Win2k on it b4. I made 2
> partiotions using GNU Parted and put Debian on the second. But after the
> installation of Debian, I am not able to boot into Win2k. I checked
> /etc/lilo.conf. It had
On Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:56:39PM +, Giri X wrote:
> > | I recently installed Debian on a ayatem that had Win2k on it b4. I
made 2
> > | [...]
> > | thing). There was no Windows image. So now i can boot only into Debian
but
> >
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:56:39PM +, Giri X wrote:
> Hi
> I recently installed Debian on a ayatem that had Win2k on it b4. I made 2
> partiotions using GNU Parted and put Debian on the second. But after the
> installation of Debian, I am not able to boot into Win2k. I checked
> /etc/lilo.co
on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 02:31:30PM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:56:39PM +, Giri X wrote:
> | Hi
> | I recently installed Debian on a ayatem that had Win2k on it b4. I made 2
> | partiotions using GNU Parted and put Debian on the second. But after the
> |
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 02:31:30PM -0400 or thereabouts, dman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:56:39PM +, Giri X wrote:
> | Hi
> | I recently installed Debian on a ayatem that had Win2k on it b4. I made 2
> | partiotions using GNU Parted and put Debian on the second. But after the
> | inst
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:56:39PM +, Giri X wrote:
| Hi
| I recently installed Debian on a ayatem that had Win2k on it b4. I made 2
| partiotions using GNU Parted and put Debian on the second. But after the
| installation of Debian, I am not able to boot into Win2k. I checked
| /etc/lilo.co
Hi
I recently installed Debian on a ayatem that had Win2k on it b4. I made 2
partiotions using GNU Parted and put Debian on the second. But after the
installation of Debian, I am not able to boot into Win2k. I checked
/etc/lilo.conf. It had only 2 images, vmlinuz and old*.*(forgot the exact
th
Hi Daisy
Did you run /sbin/lilo after changing lilo.conf? Dean
Daisy Nguyen Davis wrote:
> I installed linux on apartition of 7GB using text installation and
> fdisk instead of diskdruid because diskdruid limited the size of each
> partition to 4GB maximum.
>
> I installed the PC with dual boo
I installed linux on apartition of 7GB using text installation and
fdisk instead of diskdruid because diskdruid limited the size of each
partition to 4GB maximum.
I installed the PC with dual boot: winnt and Linux. When the system
boot up, it only see Linux at the boot time. I was surprise that
Thanks to all that offered suggestions on this one. For future use, I'm
posting below the solution that worked (quite nicely) for me, since it
wasn't posted previously.
Michael Stenner wrote (Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:39:43 -0400 (
On 19 Aug 98 13:39:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Following instructions I found on this list some time ago, I installed
>hamm and win98 separately: each have their own drive - only one was
>hooked up at a time. Than, I put both drives in: Linux as hda and win
>as hdb. THis was nothing new f
On Wed 19 Aug 1998, Michael Stenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Following instructions I found on this list some time ago, I installed
> hamm and win98 separately: each have their own drive - only one was
> hooked up at a time. Than, I put both drives in: Linux as hda and
win
> as hdb. THis wa
On Wed 19 Aug 1998, Michael Stenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Following instructions I found on this list some time ago, I installed
> hamm and win98 separately: each have their own drive - only one was
> hooked up at a time. Than, I put both drives in: Linux as hda and win
> as hdb. THis w
Following instructions I found on this list some time ago, I installed
hamm and win98 separately: each have their own drive - only one was
hooked up at a time. Than, I put both drives in: Linux as hda and win
as hdb. THis was nothing new for linux, so I started up linux and ran
lilo with the fol
40 matches
Mail list logo
