Re: Question about Linux
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia (nkadel_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/09/05
- Next message: Nico Kadel-Garcia: "Re: grub.conf question"
- Previous message: Nico Kadel-Garcia: "Re: Question about Linux"
- In reply to: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: Question about Linux"
- Next in thread: Jon Martin Solaas: "Re: Question about Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:26:23 -0500
"Hamilcar Barca" <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote in message
news:20050108132620.258$Hn@news.newsreader.com...
> In article <ividndBKsKY_w0LcRVn-tA@comcast.com> (Fri, 07 Jan 2005 23:14:33
> -0500), Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> "Hamilcar Barca" <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:20050107180012.930$t1@news.newsreader.com...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Because I've done it. Twice. Without significant difficulty.
>
> Since Windows 2000 disallows this, what insignificant difficulties did you
> encounter in fooling it?
As I remember, only having to reset the MBR with my Linux rescue CD to
reboot the Linux I had on the first drive. Setting MBR's is a bit of an
adventure.
- Next message: Nico Kadel-Garcia: "Re: grub.conf question"
- Previous message: Nico Kadel-Garcia: "Re: Question about Linux"
- In reply to: Hamilcar Barca: "Re: Question about Linux"
- Next in thread: Jon Martin Solaas: "Re: Question about Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
