Re: Question about Linux

From: Hamilcar Barca (hamilcar_at_tld.always.invalid)
Date: 01/08/05 

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:00:18 -0700

In article <XOSdnfqB_O3lGEPcRVn-sg@comcast.com> (Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:47:58
-0500), Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

> "Hamilcar Barca" <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote in message
> news:20050107013429.844$wp@news.newsreader.com...
>> In article <41de29f7@quokka.wn.com.au> (Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:27:17 +0800),
>> Matthew Gunn wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone else know the answers to sort these two out.
>>
>> With the possible exception of Xenix, Microsoft operating systems have all
>> required a primary partition on the first hard drive.
>
> And this is blatantly untrue. Win2K and WinXP and Win2003 all work just fine
> on secondary drives, I'm not sure about NT 4.0.

This is true and always has been true, despite your protestations to the
contrary. If this is not clear, why not read Microsoft's installation
documentation? Windows 2000 requires, as did Windows NT4, a primary
partition on the first hard drive.

It is possible to use a small primary partition as the "System partition"
and put the "Boot partition" in an extended partition or on a secondary
drive, but this doesn't change the fact that a primary partition on the
first hard drive is and always has been a fixed requirement of Microsoft.

Emulation software, such as runs on Solaris computers can fool Windows
into thinking it's started from a primary partition; BIOS mapping may be
able to do the same. However, the operating system itself must believe it
is started "from a primary partition on the first hard drive". There is
no exception.

> [snip unrelated discussion of MBR] 

-- 
"Patent terrorists are companies whose business models are based on
 patent litigation as a threat and licensing as a revenue source."
-- Richard Wilder.  CNet News.com.  January 6, 2005.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question about Linux
    ... >> With the possible exception of Xenix, Microsoft operating systems have all ... It is possible to use a small primary partition as the "System partition" ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)
  • Re: Question about Linux
    ... >> With the possible exception of Xenix, Microsoft operating systems have all ... It is possible to use a small primary partition as the "System partition" ...
    (comp.os.linux)
  • Re: partitioning Dell for linux
    ... presume you mean) as being opposites. ... MS operating systems. ... As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the DOS bootloader requires one primary partition to be marked "active". ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: primary vs. extended partions - pros and cons?
    ... John-Paul Stewart writes: ... >> There is no need for any primary partition at all. ... >> With the obvious exception of the extended partition itself. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)