Post #14,310
10/20/01 2:00:36 PM
|
True
The official line is that Crappy Windows (i.e. the 16-bit variety of which WinME is the latest incarnation) has to boot off the first primary partition of the first disk in the system.
Proper Windows (i.e. NT, 2K and XP) will boot from any available partition.
It /is/ possible to make WinME boot off something else, but quite honestly the kindest thing to do to a WinME boot partition is format the blasted thing.
Peter Shill For Hire [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
|
Post #14,366
10/21/01 12:31:38 AM
|
Re: Situation deteriorated - once Win2K or Linux touches ...
disk WinMe & Win98 won't even boot.
Quite a few odd things have happened. I had 3 new IBM disks - when pristine I was able to boot with WinMe and format & install. I need bloody WinMe for the graphics support for a special simulater (else it would be in the garbage).
Both Linux & Win2000 can see & work with these disks but once I touch them with Linux or Win2000 - WinMe & Win98 (either CD based ot diskette based ) hang after boot (seems they can no longer handle the media.
I have spent 20 odd hrs on this now & am ready to give up. I can't even get WinMe on its own to install even though I went to Linux & used its fdisk to wipe all partitions (to get back to square 1).
What a time wasting bummer - all because I wanted Linux & WinMe on same computer.
Doug
|
Post #14,401
10/21/01 4:13:41 AM
|
How To Multi Boot, The Peter Whysall Way.
Here's a tip.
When you're installing multiple operating systems, install the most stupid and selfish one first. That's WinME.
Then install Windows 2000, taking the option to do a separate installation rather than upgrade what you've got.
*Then* install Linux.
But if you've got Windows 2000, why the hell are you bothering with WinME?
Peter Shill For Hire [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
|
Post #14,406
10/21/01 4:49:24 AM
|
Re: As said ...
I bought that computer to run a graphics intensive simulator - one sad fact one learns about graphics is that Win2000 doesn't support DirectX which many of these need to I had to use WinMe or Win98. (CarterCopter X-Plane flight Simulator).
After 8 more ehours tedious trying out I determined that the troubles only seemed to hppen if I used a 60GB disk as disk 1.
I now have Win Me installed in C Win2000 installed in D and Linux on the 2nd disk with its own boot diskette.
That at least achieves what I need - I would love to dump Win Me (but strangely it is so much faster than Win2000).
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #14,409
10/21/01 7:45:15 AM
|
Windows 2000 does support DirectX
I've got DX8 installed here...
WinME might seem faster than W2K, but think of the children^Wreboots :)
Peter Shill For Hire [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
|
Post #14,426
10/21/01 10:18:49 AM
|
Re: Hmmmm - I will try it with this simulator
The notes I had - plus some talks with gaming folks, said win2000 couldn't support the DirectX & OpenGL modules needed. But if they can - you will have made me a happy boy. Will test. The joysticks work ok.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #14,433
10/21/01 11:00:04 AM
|
I'm a fairly heavy-duty gamer
Though my poison is first person shooters - which probably stress a 3D hardware rendering solution more than most. I do it all, OpenGL (e.g. Quake III Arena, Counter-Strike) and Direct3D (e.g. Max Payne) on W2K.
Peter Shill For Hire [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
|
Post #14,502
10/21/01 10:23:27 PM
|
Re: I learn yet again (when will it stop :-)
Thanks muchly - I just went to the web site of the X-Plane Simulator (to order the newsest version) and sure enough, they now say it runs under Win2000.
[link|http://www.x-plane.com|X-Plane web site]
I really can't remember why I had got it into my head that Win2K wouldn't support gaming ???
Anyway - am still satisfied I have at last set up a heavy duty server that runs multiple OSes and that I have got the hang of shuffling partitions & fixing the resulting problems.
My Partition magic did warn me that my Linux partition spaned a type of partition that might cause errors and wanted to convert it to a format that does ??? - I am not familiar with this so cancelled the operation incase doing so screwed Linux ?
What I am wondering is why these partitions don't get created by Linux or Win, so that a partition can span past the 1024 boundary ?
I had thought that all recent OSes had dealt with the 1024 problem (post Win NT )
Any pointers ?
Cheers
Doug Marker
|
Post #14,428
10/21/01 10:22:05 AM
|
Re: Linux RH7.1 has changed from RH7.0 - wants /boot to be
on 1st disk & in a lower position that 1024 cyl count. 7.0 didn not make this reuqest & worked ok where placed ???
7.1 has caused me almost as much hasstle as b windows.
But I have all three working together (Win Me, Win2000 & Linux RH7.1). Also I will *never* do a dual boot of WinMe & Win2000 where both sit in the C disk - McAfee stuffed that installation completely.
Cheers
Doug
|