recommend boot mgr ??

[Guest promicro]

Hi all,

 

I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot manager

as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one ??

 

thanx. bob

[Guest Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

 

"promicro" <promicro@cox.net> wrote in message

news:e$xYy1zlIHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Hi all,

>

> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot manager

> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one ??

>

> thanx. bob

 

I have used XOSL extensively. It's free and therefore not supported

but it has some nice features, eg.

- I will work with any OS.

- It does not modify existing OS-specific boot loaders.

- To uninstall it, simply restore the original MBR (fdisk /mbr) and

mark the preferred partition "active".

- It can invoke a boot loader on any disk (master/slave/primary/secondary)

- It can invoke a boot loader on any partition (primary/logical)

- If installed in its own partition, this partition can reside in any

partition on any disk.

 

And here are its drawbacks:

- It requires a dedicated 15 MByte partition or else an existing FAT

partition.

- Its documentation is not the best.

- It is unsupported (but AFAIR there is an XOSL newsgroup)

If you intend to use it then I strongly recommend that you first play

with it, using a disposable disk. If you don't then you risk wiping

some existing partition because you're not fully familiar with its

way of doing things.

[Guest Airman Thunderbird]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

 

 

Best I've found:

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootit-next-generation.htm

 

 

 

promicro wrote:

> Hi all,

>

> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot manager

> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one ??

>

> thanx. bob

[Guest philo]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

 

"promicro" <promicro@cox.net> wrote in message

news:e$xYy1zlIHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Hi all,

>

> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot manager

> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one ??

>

> thanx. bob

 

Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,

you don't really need one.

 

By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.

Then with Linux you can use either LILO or Grub

 

You can then have your Linux boot manager "hand off" either directly to

Linux

or to the Windows boot manager where you'd then have to select XP or Win2k.

[Guest Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:eEX1kr9lIHA.6032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>

> "promicro" <promicro@cox.net> wrote in message

> news:e$xYy1zlIHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Hi all,

>>

>> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot manager

>> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one

>> ??

>>

>> thanx. bob

>

> Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,

> you don't really need one.

>

> By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.

 

I beg to disagree. The Win2000/WinXP boot manager is about

as basic as they come. It lacks the following essential features:

- You cannot use it to boot into non-Windows OSs, hence

your recommendation to use Grub too.

- It cannot hide partitions from each other. Since it leaves all

partitions visible, there is the risk of one OS damaging another,

e.g. by installing or updating files on the wrong partition.

- You must have different drive letters for each Windows OS,

which creates some unwanted interdependencies. There are

frequent posts in these newsgroup along the lines "I want to

remove Win98 from drive C:, how to I make my dual Win2000

OS which is currently running on drive C:, run off drive C:?"

With your recommendation you can't. With a proper boot

manager it's a trivial affair.

[Guest philo]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

 

"Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message

news:uPHSpD%23lIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

> news:eEX1kr9lIHA.6032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> >

> > "promicro" <promicro@cox.net> wrote in message

> > news:e$xYy1zlIHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> >> Hi all,

> >>

> >> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot

manager

> >> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one

> >> ??

> >>

> >> thanx. bob

> >

> > Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,

> > you don't really need one.

> >

> > By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.

>

> I beg to disagree. The Win2000/WinXP boot manager is about

> as basic as they come. It lacks the following essential features:

> - You cannot use it to boot into non-Windows OSs, hence

> your recommendation to use Grub too.

> - It cannot hide partitions from each other. Since it leaves all

> partitions visible, there is the risk of one OS damaging another,

> e.g. by installing or updating files on the wrong partition.

> - You must have different drive letters for each Windows OS,

> which creates some unwanted interdependencies. There are

> frequent posts in these newsgroup along the lines "I want to

> remove Win98 from drive C:, how to I make my dual Win2000

> OS which is currently running on drive C:, run off drive C:?"

> With your recommendation you can't. With a proper boot

> manager it's a trivial affair.

>

>

 

I did *not* suggest using the Windows boot manager to boot into Linux.

 

If you re-read my post you will see that I suggested using LILO or Grub to

boot to either Linux *or* to the Windows boot manager.

(Inelegant perhaps but ...hey...it works.)

 

Also , my reply in no way implied that I had offered the best possible

solution. I only said that the OP already has available the means for

multi-booting.

 

You do not know how the OP is using the machine. It *might* be a good thing

to hide each OS from each other. OTOH: maybe the OP wants to transfer data

from one partition to the other. Who knows?

 

Finally. I have no idea why you brought win98 into this. There is no need to

further complicate this.

Though some boot managers of course have the ability to hide portions and

have two different windows installations on a C:

drive, there is no way to do so after the fact. As you know: with all

versions of NT...the "boot" drive letter is persistent and cannot be changed

by a boot manager "after the fact". A reinstall of one Windows version would

be needed

 

 

Note: Just because I do not necessarily agree, don't think for a minute I

don't respect your good judgment. I have been reading your

replies on Usenet for many years and have noticed your replies to be

generally rock-solid.

[Guest Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:uoAhWl%23lIHA.5660@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message

> news:uPHSpD%23lIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>

>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

>> news:eEX1kr9lIHA.6032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> >

>> > "promicro" <promicro@cox.net> wrote in message

>> > news:e$xYy1zlIHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> >> Hi all,

>> >>

>> >> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot

> manager

>> >> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good

>> >> one

>> >> ??

>> >>

>> >> thanx. bob

>> >

>> > Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,

>> > you don't really need one.

>> >

>> > By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.

>>

>> I beg to disagree. The Win2000/WinXP boot manager is about

>> as basic as they come. It lacks the following essential features:

>> - You cannot use it to boot into non-Windows OSs, hence

>> your recommendation to use Grub too.

>> - It cannot hide partitions from each other. Since it leaves all

>> partitions visible, there is the risk of one OS damaging another,

>> e.g. by installing or updating files on the wrong partition.

>> - You must have different drive letters for each Windows OS,

>> which creates some unwanted interdependencies. There are

>> frequent posts in these newsgroup along the lines "I want to

>> remove Win98 from drive C:, how to I make my dual Win2000

>> OS which is currently running on drive C:, run off drive C:?"

>> With your recommendation you can't. With a proper boot

>> manager it's a trivial affair.

>>

>>

>

> I did *not* suggest using the Windows boot manager to boot into Linux.

>

> If you re-read my post you will see that I suggested using LILO or Grub to

> boot to either Linux *or* to the Windows boot manager.

> (Inelegant perhaps but ...hey...it works.)

 

I know you didn't. You suggested using two boot managers:

a) The Windows boot manager for Win2000 & WinXP

b) Grub or Lilo to boot into Linux.

That's two managers. A good boot manager can handle the lot.

I firmly beliefe in the KISS principle, hence the simpler the better.

> Also , my reply in no way implied that I had offered the best possible

> solution. I only said that the OP already has available the means for

> multi-booting.

>

> You do not know how the OP is using the machine. It *might* be a good

> thing

> to hide each OS from each other. OTOH: maybe the OP wants to transfer data

> from one partition to the other. Who knows?

 

Indeed I don't but since the OP is asking for a recommendation, the

group should suggest a versatile solution. A good boot manager lets

the OP selectively hide partitions from each other (note the word:

selectively).

The Windows boot manager has no such option.

> Finally. I have no idea why you brought win98 into this. There is no need

> to

> further complicate this.

 

Replace Win98 with Vista if you like - the point stands that with

the Windows boot manager it gets very messy to change things

later on.

> Though some boot managers of course have the ability to hide portions and

> have two different windows installations on a C:

> drive, there is no way to do so after the fact.

 

Exactly - this is why we should recommend a flexible boot manager

now. If the OP adopts your solution of using the native Windows

boot manager then he won't be able to change things later on. Tough!

> As you know: with all

> versions of NT...the "boot" drive letter is persistent and cannot be

> changed

> by a boot manager "after the fact". A reinstall of one Windows version

> would

> be needed

 

I fully agree, so let's use a good boot manager that lets him

install each OS on drive C:.

> Note: Just because I do not necessarily agree, don't think for a minute I

> don't respect your good judgment. I have been reading your

> replies on Usenet for many years and have noticed your replies to be

> generally rock-solid.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I have worked a lot with boot managers

and I think that I am fully aware of the issues surrounding the one

built into Windows. I respect your opinion too but I felt for the OP's

benefit that I had to comment on your recommendation. This is a

benefit of newsgroups: Responses are often peer-reviewed (mine too!).

[Guest philo]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

 

"John Callaway" <jcalla@erols.com> wrote in message

news:9rnhv3ll6vns6q00dqi0ackvnvmclkqnm9@4ax.com...

> Ditto! When I see Pegasus (MVP) or David Patrick, I usually read the

> post just to learn something!

>

> JPC

>

 

Yes Pegasus always gives good advice and though I'm sure a 3rd party boot

manager would be a good choice.

I had only wanted to point out that it was not mandatory to use one.

> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 08:23:42 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:

>

> >

> >"Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message

> >news:uPHSpD%23lIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> >>

> >> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

> >> news:eEX1kr9lIHA.6032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> >> >

> >> > "promicro" <promicro@cox.net> wrote in message

> >> > news:e$xYy1zlIHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> >> >> Hi all,

> >> >>

> >> >> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot

> >manager

> >> >> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good

one

> >> >> ??

> >> >>

> >> >> thanx. bob

> >> >

> >> > Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,

> >> > you don't really need one.

> >> >

> >> > By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.

> >>

> >> I beg to disagree. The Win2000/WinXP boot manager is about

> >> as basic as they come. It lacks the following essential features:

> >> - You cannot use it to boot into non-Windows OSs, hence

> >> your recommendation to use Grub too.

> >> - It cannot hide partitions from each other. Since it leaves all

> >> partitions visible, there is the risk of one OS damaging another,

> >> e.g. by installing or updating files on the wrong partition.

> >> - You must have different drive letters for each Windows OS,

> >> which creates some unwanted interdependencies. There are

> >> frequent posts in these newsgroup along the lines "I want to

> >> remove Win98 from drive C:, how to I make my dual Win2000

> >> OS which is currently running on drive C:, run off drive C:?"

> >> With your recommendation you can't. With a proper boot

> >> manager it's a trivial affair.

> >>

> >>

> >

> >I did *not* suggest using the Windows boot manager to boot into Linux.

> >

> >If you re-read my post you will see that I suggested using LILO or Grub

to

> >boot to either Linux *or* to the Windows boot manager.

> >(Inelegant perhaps but ...hey...it works.)

> >

> >Also , my reply in no way implied that I had offered the best possible

> >solution. I only said that the OP already has available the means for

> >multi-booting.

> >

> >You do not know how the OP is using the machine. It *might* be a good

thing

> >to hide each OS from each other. OTOH: maybe the OP wants to transfer

data

> >from one partition to the other. Who knows?

> >

> >Finally. I have no idea why you brought win98 into this. There is no need

to

> >further complicate this.

> >Though some boot managers of course have the ability to hide portions and

> >have two different windows installations on a C:

> >drive, there is no way to do so after the fact. As you know: with all

> >versions of NT...the "boot" drive letter is persistent and cannot be

changed

> >by a boot manager "after the fact". A reinstall of one Windows version

would

> >be needed

> >

> >

> >Note: Just because I do not necessarily agree, don't think for a minute I

> >don't respect your good judgment. I have been reading your

> >replies on Usenet for many years and have noticed your replies to be

> >generally rock-solid.

> >

>

[Guest Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

> I had only wanted to point out that it was not mandatory to use one.

 

I fully agree.

[Guest philo]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

 

"Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message

news:uPSKZz%23lIHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

> news:uoAhWl%23lIHA.5660@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> >

> > "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message

> > news:uPHSpD%23lIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> >>

> >> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

> >> news:eEX1kr9lIHA.6032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> >> >

> >> > "promicro" <promicro@cox.net> wrote in message

> >> > news:e$xYy1zlIHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> >> >> Hi all,

> >> >>

> >> >> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot

> > manager

> >> >> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good

> >> >> one

> >> >> ??

> >> >>

> >> >> thanx. bob

> >> >

> >> > Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,

> >> > you don't really need one.

> >> >

> >> > By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.

> >>

> >> I beg to disagree. The Win2000/WinXP boot manager is about

> >> as basic as they come. It lacks the following essential features:

> >> - You cannot use it to boot into non-Windows OSs, hence

> >> your recommendation to use Grub too.

> >> - It cannot hide partitions from each other. Since it leaves all

> >> partitions visible, there is the risk of one OS damaging another,

> >> e.g. by installing or updating files on the wrong partition.

> >> - You must have different drive letters for each Windows OS,

> >> which creates some unwanted interdependencies. There are

> >> frequent posts in these newsgroup along the lines "I want to

> >> remove Win98 from drive C:, how to I make my dual Win2000

> >> OS which is currently running on drive C:, run off drive C:?"

> >> With your recommendation you can't. With a proper boot

> >> manager it's a trivial affair.

> >>

> >>

> >

> > I did *not* suggest using the Windows boot manager to boot into Linux.

> >

> > If you re-read my post you will see that I suggested using LILO or Grub

to

> > boot to either Linux *or* to the Windows boot manager.

> > (Inelegant perhaps but ...hey...it works.)

>

> I know you didn't. You suggested using two boot managers:

> a) The Windows boot manager for Win2000 & WinXP

> b) Grub or Lilo to boot into Linux.

> That's two managers. A good boot manager can handle the lot.

> I firmly beliefe in the KISS principle, hence the simpler the better.

>

> > Also , my reply in no way implied that I had offered the best possible

> > solution. I only said that the OP already has available the means for

> > multi-booting.

> >

> > You do not know how the OP is using the machine. It *might* be a good

> > thing

> > to hide each OS from each other. OTOH: maybe the OP wants to transfer

data

> > from one partition to the other. Who knows?

>

> Indeed I don't but since the OP is asking for a recommendation, the

> group should suggest a versatile solution. A good boot manager lets

> the OP selectively hide partitions from each other (note the word:

> selectively).

> The Windows boot manager has no such option.

>

> > Finally. I have no idea why you brought win98 into this. There is no

need

> > to

> > further complicate this.

>

> Replace Win98 with Vista if you like - the point stands that with

> the Windows boot manager it gets very messy to change things

> later on.

>

> > Though some boot managers of course have the ability to hide portions

and

> > have two different windows installations on a C:

> > drive, there is no way to do so after the fact.

>

> Exactly - this is why we should recommend a flexible boot manager

> now. If the OP adopts your solution of using the native Windows

> boot manager then he won't be able to change things later on. Tough!

>

> > As you know: with all

> > versions of NT...the "boot" drive letter is persistent and cannot be

> > changed

> > by a boot manager "after the fact". A reinstall of one Windows version

> > would

> > be needed

>

> I fully agree, so let's use a good boot manager that lets him

> install each OS on drive C:.

>

> > Note: Just because I do not necessarily agree, don't think for a minute

I

> > don't respect your good judgment. I have been reading your

> > replies on Usenet for many years and have noticed your replies to be

> > generally rock-solid.

>

> Thanks for the feedback. I have worked a lot with boot managers

> and I think that I am fully aware of the issues surrounding the one

> built into Windows. I respect your opinion too but I felt for the OP's

> benefit that I had to comment on your recommendation. This is a

> benefit of newsgroups: Responses are often peer-reviewed (mine too!).

>

>

 

 

Yep. I've worked with boot managers for many years. That's why I now use

removable drive kits <G>!!!!

[Guest John Callaway]

Re: recommend boot mgr ??

 

Ditto! When I see Pegasus (MVP) or David Patrick, I usually read the

post just to learn something!

 

JPC

 

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 08:23:42 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:

>

>"Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message

>news:uPHSpD%23lIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>

>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message

>> news:eEX1kr9lIHA.6032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> >

>> > "promicro" <promicro@cox.net> wrote in message

>> > news:e$xYy1zlIHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> >> Hi all,

>> >>

>> >> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot

>manager

>> >> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good one

>> >> ??

>> >>

>> >> thanx. bob

>> >

>> > Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,

>> > you don't really need one.

>> >

>> > By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.

>>

>> I beg to disagree. The Win2000/WinXP boot manager is about

>> as basic as they come. It lacks the following essential features:

>> - You cannot use it to boot into non-Windows OSs, hence

>> your recommendation to use Grub too.

>> - It cannot hide partitions from each other. Since it leaves all

>> partitions visible, there is the risk of one OS damaging another,

>> e.g. by installing or updating files on the wrong partition.

>> - You must have different drive letters for each Windows OS,

>> which creates some unwanted interdependencies. There are

>> frequent posts in these newsgroup along the lines "I want to

>> remove Win98 from drive C:, how to I make my dual Win2000

>> OS which is currently running on drive C:, run off drive C:?"

>> With your recommendation you can't. With a proper boot

>> manager it's a trivial affair.

>>

>>

>

>I did *not* suggest using the Windows boot manager to boot into Linux.

>

>If you re-read my post you will see that I suggested using LILO or Grub to

>boot to either Linux *or* to the Windows boot manager.

>(Inelegant perhaps but ...hey...it works.)

>

>Also , my reply in no way implied that I had offered the best possible

>solution. I only said that the OP already has available the means for

>multi-booting.

>

>You do not know how the OP is using the machine. It *might* be a good thing

>to hide each OS from each other. OTOH: maybe the OP wants to transfer data

>from one partition to the other. Who knows?

>

>Finally. I have no idea why you brought win98 into this. There is no need to

>further complicate this.

>Though some boot managers of course have the ability to hide portions and

>have two different windows installations on a C:

>drive, there is no way to do so after the fact. As you know: with all

>versions of NT...the "boot" drive letter is persistent and cannot be changed

>by a boot manager "after the fact". A reinstall of one Windows version would

>be needed

>

>

>Note: Just because I do not necessarily agree, don't think for a minute I

>don't respect your good judgment. I have been reading your

>replies on Usenet for many years and have noticed your replies to be

>generally rock-solid.

>