\r\nI'll need Multi-Boot because I still need Windows, I cannot quit cold turkey.\r\nI need to develop ASP and VB apps to keep in practice and I need Access\r\ndatabase practice as well.\r\n

You're making excuses. This is the first of six.

If this whole situation is too overwhelming for you, if you can't\r\nmake up your own mind about what to do, if you're not willing to do some\r\nlegwork, don't fucking bother. It's not worth it Norm. Not for you.\r\nNot for us. Just don't complain that the way things are sucks, because\r\nyou'll have to change for it to do so.

I take it you've currently got a system with legacy MS Windows\r\nrunning on it. Either continue to use it, or use this as the first\r\ndrive on your new system. If you must dual-boot, it's far easier to do\r\nit with HDs dedicated to each system. legacy MS Windows has a bad habit\r\nof mistreating coexisting systems, and has severe restrictions as to how\r\nit can be installed (first partition of first IDE drive, typically).

By insisting on a dual boot, you're creating the following problems\r\nfor yourself:

\r\n
• Installing and configuring a new HD.
\r\n
• Installing and configuring legacy MS Windows on the system.
\r\n
• Installing and configuring GNU/Linux on the system.
\r\n
• Installing and configuring other OS(s) on the system.
\r\n
• Configuring one or more boot managers.
\r\n
• Fixing problems caused by boot manages and/or OSs as a result.
\r\n
• Constantly booting between systems.
\r\n

By contrast, installing a drive on a new system and booting the\r\ncomputer is a rather simpler problem. Note too that you can\r\nbuy a full, if not top-of-the-line, computer for little\r\nmore than the $167 you've spent on the drive, and less than the $210\r\nyou've spent on the drive + Promise ATA card, plus tax, cables,\r\nmountkits, etc.

\r\nLILO sounds complicated to get it to recognize large hard drives, but the\r\nHowto doesn't mention if GRUB is any easier or better to support large hard\r\ndrives.\r\n

If you're going to whinge about LILO and GRUB, don't even try this,\r\nNorm. For your sake and ours.

\r\nDebian is a bit confusing to me, I am not sure what disks I really need to\r\ndownload to install it. Downloading all the disks will take some time.\r\n

Read the fucking documentation. Information on getting Debian is [link|http://www.debian.org/distrib/|here]. If you can't decide for\r\nyourself whether buying (or having someone ship you -- as I know has\r\nbeen both offered and done) install disks, using a network install, or\r\nbuying a preconfigured system best fits your needs, again, don't even\r\nfucking bother. We don't need it. Neither do you.

\r\nI might start out with Red Hat, since it can boot from the disk to install,\r\nunlike the Free SuSE version. My friend who is a local Linux expert supports\r\nRed Hat, so I can go to him for advice.\r\n

The good news is that [link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/Main/DebianChrootInstall|Red Hat makes a\r\nsurprisingly good Debian installer]. Other than that, I cannot\r\nrecommend it. Note that access to RH updates in the future looks\r\nquestionable.

\r\nMy ABit VH6-II Motherboard says it can do Ultra ATA100 with the built in IDE\r\ncontrollers, so do I really need that Promise card? I Googled the card and\r\nLinux and found people having a lot of issues with the Promise Ultra 100 TX2\r\ncard. Lockups, unable to access CD-Burner, etc.\r\n

Here's how you assess something like this:

\r\n
• Try it without the Promise card.
\r\n
• If that doesn't work, try it with the Promise card.
\r\n
• Post any followup questions here.
\r\n
• Make up your own fucking mind.
\r\n

Again, if you can't cope with this, don't bother.

\r\nMaybe I'll just install Windows for now, read up on the Howtos to figure out\r\nhow Linux can work with the larger hard drives and install later.\r\n

Maybe, just maybe, Norm is just fine the way he is, and he doesn't\r\nhave to change. Give that a shot, Norm, but don't bitch if the scenery\r\nis always the same.

OK, Norm, you're making progress, which is commendable. Focus on the\r\ntask and the solution.

\r\nOk, first things first. Windows has to be installed before Linux, or\r\nelse it may mess up the Linux partition and mess up LILO or GRUB.\r\n

Well, if you're going to insist on multi-boot, yes. IIRC, it's\r\nWin9x or ME, then NT/2K/XP, then GNU/Linux, if these are the platforms\r\nyou're planning on running.

\r\nFirst thing I did was update my ABit VH6-II BIOS to Ver 7F for large HD\r\nsupport. Onboard Ultra ATA100 Controller works fine now, sees all\r\n160Gigs in CMOS setup.\r\n

This should be sufficient. Since the controller's UDMA, you should\r\nsee the disk's full performance as well. This is based on my\r\nunderstanding of the whole current IDE/ATA drive technology, which is\r\nsketchy at best (both my understanding, and the technology).

\r\nI tried Win98 FDISK, it reported 21Gigs, \r\n

Known issue. Remember: once you're past 2 GiB, or hell, 512 MiB,\r\nyou're into the patch and band-aid school of PC technology. Standard\r\n"barriers" are: 512 MiB, 2.1 GiB, 3.2 GiB, 4.2 GiB, 7.9 GiB, 33.8 GiB,\r\nand 167 GiB, or thereabouts (most of this from the GNU/Linux Large Disk\r\nHOWTO). In the case of Win98, see this KB article: [link|http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q243/4/50.ASP&NoWebContent=1|ScanDisk\r\nErrors on IDE Hard Disks Larger Than 32 GiB]. Your use of 3rd party\r\nutilities is probably the Right Thing[tm].

\r\nI tried XP setup, it reported\r\n137Gigs. Bah! I finally went and used the WD Data Lifeguard Tools and\r\nformatted and partitioned it with that. I made the reserved Linux\r\npartitions "FAT32" for now, I figure CFDISK can change them later or the\r\nLinux setup can if I keep them empty.\r\n

\r\nWin98 install is going fine, XP Pro will be later, and then OS /2, and\r\nthen Red Hat and maybe Debian. After I read the Howtos Karsten kindly\r\npointed me to, that is. :)\r\n

You're welcome ;-)

\r\nI am posting this from a spare machine that wouldn't take Linux, but\r\nwould take Windows. This one locked up in the middle of a Red Hat\r\ninstall, the other one had media errors but the motherboard eventually\r\nwent bad (I'm thinking the IDE controllers were failing, hence the Media\r\nErrors?).\r\n

Any reason this system can't remain your dedicated legacy MS Windows\r\nsystem? My experience is that it is far better to keep separate systems\r\nfor separate OSs rather than to dual-boot them. [link|http://www.tightvnc.com/|TightVNC] (Free Software) makes\r\nremote-accessing pretty much anything a snap.