On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:10:24 -0400, JimR <kd1yv6@notmyemail.com> wrote:

>Yes, but there is nothing wrong with GRUB. And if the OP wishes to
>restore the Windows MBR, I believe that is an option on the Windows boot
>disk.

Bettter beware and store it "outside".

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:41:39 -0700, "Timothy Daniels" <NoSpam@SpamMeKnot.biz>
wrote:

> Have you checked which partition is set to "active" and if the
>boot.ini file in that partition is correct?

THAT is not the problem. One big problem is M$'s craze to rape the HDD.

You have to save the sector 0 of the HDD AND ou have to save the sectors 0 of
each partition. That is not the same!

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:02:14 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>System Commander costs $69.95 though.

I used that some years. I stopped using it because of too much trouble. GRUB is
better.

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:42:44 -0700, AJL <55@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

>Restoring the MBR is duck soup compared to the
>shenanigans you sometimes have to go through to get a particular Linux
>distro working correctly with all of the hardware on a particular
>machine... ;)

Might be. Linux is crap, too.

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

In news:elbr755np4hvijil8vhu1vtddcb55gqgrp@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:59:03 +0100:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:20:42 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> That requires a vmware compatible processor though. Many of them are
>> not. Especially in the laptop / netbook departments.
>
> That is interesting! Which ones are not? And why?
>
> Thank you,

As I mentioned to RnR, I stand corrected.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

In news:n3cr75ps5m1ec499ucvdptemue829qrfdf@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:06:36 +0100:
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:02:14 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> System Commander costs $69.95 though.
>
> I used that some years. I stopped using it because of too much
> trouble. GRUB is better.

GRUB doesn't run under over 90% of the computers out there though.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

In news:fqbr75lci885p2a5056kn0hll46gacro9b@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:02:22 +0100:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:20:40 -0400, "olfart" <olfart65@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>> tried to restore several different time....XP still wouldn't boot.
>> Another reason that Linux now keeps the coffee ring off of my desk
>
> I've gone through that uncounted times. Until I found the cuase: the
> tools do not work.
>
> The only thing which really works is the installation DVD of SuSE
> (that is what I use - I do not bother with oder Linux-es).

So I hear. Although pretty useless for 99% of computer users.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

In news:ctbr75148ng4a93hsfgeqpldl5e9mnpvo1@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:04:00 +0100:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:41:39 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
> <NoSpam@SpamMeKnot.biz> wrote:
>
>> Have you checked which partition is set to "active" and if the
>> boot.ini file in that partition is correct?
>
> THAT is not the problem. One big problem is M$'s craze to rape the
> HDD.
>
> You have to save the sector 0 of the HDD AND ou have to save the
> sectors 0 of each partition. That is not the same!

Microsoft's craze to rape the HDD? ROTFL!

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 16:06:09 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>In news:n3cr75ps5m1ec499ucvdptemue829qrfdf@4ax.com,
>Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:06:36 +0100:
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:02:14 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> System Commander costs $69.95 though.
>>
>> I used that some years. I stopped using it because of too much
>> trouble. GRUB is better.
>
>GRUB doesn't run under over 90% of the computers out there though.

That I cannot believe - unless there is something odd with those computers.

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 15:49:05 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>In news:elbr755np4hvijil8vhu1vtddcb55gqgrp@4ax.com,
>Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:59:03 +0100:
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:20:42 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> That requires a vmware compatible processor though. Many of them are
>>> not. Especially in the laptop / netbook departments.
>>
>> That is interesting! Which ones are not? And why?
>>
>> Thank you,
>
>As I mentioned to RnR, I stand corrected.

I only was afraid of problems ahead...

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 16:10:14 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>In news:ctbr75148ng4a93hsfgeqpldl5e9mnpvo1@4ax.com,
>Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:04:00 +0100:
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:41:39 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
>> <NoSpam@SpamMeKnot.biz> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you checked which partition is set to "active" and if the
>>> boot.ini file in that partition is correct?
>>
>> THAT is not the problem. One big problem is M$'s craze to rape the
>> HDD.
>>
>> You have to save the sector 0 of the HDD AND ou have to save the
>> sectors 0 of each partition. That is not the same!
>
>Microsoft's craze to rape the HDD? ROTFL!

No, that mess is for real. I had to spoil the first partition so that Win XP
would not touch it. Under that new condition I was able to install in the second
partition, but still had the problem with the nasty installer messing up the MBR
so that I had to use the SuperGRUB-CD to boot.

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

Ubuntu will respect existing partitions if you ask it to.

I no longer dual boot however, having found that Cygwin running on XP
gives all the linux functionality I need. A surprising number of things work
seamlessly.

In fact I don't see how anybody survives on XP without it.
--
rhhardin@mindspring.com

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:30:18 -0400, Ron Hardin <rhhardin@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Ubuntu will respect existing partitions if you ask it to.
>
>I no longer dual boot however, having found that Cygwin running on XP
>gives all the linux functionality I need. A surprising number of things work
>seamlessly.
>
>In fact I don't see how anybody survives on XP without it.

That is a wrong guess.

1. The problems are not caused by Linux. Windows XP messes up the partitions and
the bootsectors.

2. Cygwin is not Linux! Programs have to be compiled anew to run on Cygwin. This
reduces the number of programs AND it poses a problem for upgrades.

3. Having Linux as an additional OS gives the freedom of more tools AND raises
security because it is ONE WAY MORE to boot the machine. Cygwin can only run
AFTER Windows was booted successfully.

--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amapolis.htm

In news:gb9s75hsm7jnvkv24ivoamqs34crbpirfi@4ax.com,
Happy Oyster typed on Sun, 09 Aug 2009 02:26:46 +0100:
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 16:10:14 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> In news:ctbr75148ng4a93hsfgeqpldl5e9mnpvo1@4ax.com,
>> Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:04:00 +0100:
>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:41:39 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
>>> <NoSpam@SpamMeKnot.biz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you checked which partition is set to "active" and if the
>>>> boot.ini file in that partition is correct?
>>>
>>> THAT is not the problem. One big problem is M$'s craze to rape the
>>> HDD.
>>>
>>> You have to save the sector 0 of the HDD AND ou have to save the
>>> sectors 0 of each partition. That is not the same!
>>
>> Microsoft's craze to rape the HDD? ROTFL!
>
> No, that mess is for real. I had to spoil the first partition so that
> Win XP would not touch it. Under that new condition I was able to
> install in the second partition, but still had the problem with the
> nasty installer messing up the MBR so that I had to use the
> SuperGRUB-CD to boot.

That is okay, since I put Ubuntu Live on a flash drive and booted it up
on a netbook with Windows XP installed on it. And it modified the
Windows registry when I booted Ubuntu up. Fixed the Windows registry so
it would boot again and run the test two more times and Ubuntu screwed
up Windows every time.

So I guess we can add Linux craze to rape the HDD, eh? Although the
difference is that Windows has never been reported to modify any Linux
or Unix partition, but the reverse cannot be said, eh?

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 10:00:20 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>So I guess we can add Linux craze to rape the HDD, eh? Although the
>difference is that Windows has never been reported to modify any Linux
>or Unix partition, but the reverse cannot be said, eh?

No, Linux does exactly what it is told.

Windows XP screw up the HDD.

--
Homöopathische Kindesmißhandlung

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_kind.htm