[gentoo-amd64] Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[gentoo-amd64] Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Julien Cassette]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 627 bytes --]

Hello,
I needed to install Windows XP on a logical partition, but I found that it
can't boot from such a partition because NTLDR needs to be installed on a
primary one.
So I set up the following partition scheme:
  /dev/sda1 ext3 Gentoo root
  /dev/sda2 ntfs NTLDR
  /dev/sda4 Extended
    /dev/sda5 ext2 Gentoo portage
    /dev/sda6 swap Gentoo swap
    /dev/sda7 ext3 Gentoo home
    /dev/sda8 ntfs Windows XP

Win xp installed and booted without problem but now that I need to restore
GRUB, I am wondering if I need to write "root (hd0,1)" or "root (hd0,7)"
into the grub.conf to boot windows.

Thanks for your help
Julien.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 775 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Beso]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 960 bytes --]

to boot windows you have to write:
title Windows
root (hd0,1)
chainloader +1
this will boot your winxp. you have to boot the ntldr partition which then
loads xp

as for the other linux distro use boot partition as root.

2007/10/28, Julien Cassette <hazynrg@gmail.com>:
>
> Hello,
> I needed to install Windows XP on a logical partition, but I found that it
> can't boot from such a partition because NTLDR needs to be installed on a
> primary one.
> So I set up the following partition scheme:
>   /dev/sda1 ext3 Gentoo root
>   /dev/sda2 ntfs NTLDR
>   /dev/sda4 Extended
>     /dev/sda5 ext2 Gentoo portage
>     /dev/sda6 swap Gentoo swap
>     /dev/sda7 ext3 Gentoo home
>     /dev/sda8 ntfs Windows XP
>
> Win xp installed and booted without problem but now that I need to restore
> GRUB, I am wondering if I need to write "root (hd0,1)" or "root (hd0,7)"
> into the grub.conf to boot windows.
>
> Thanks for your help
> Julien.
>



-- 
dott. ing. beso

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1373 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Saturday 27 Oct 2007, Julien Cassette wrote:
> Hello,
> I needed to install Windows XP on a logical partition, but I found that
> it can't boot from such a partition because NTLDR needs to be installed
> on a primary one.
> So I set up the following partition scheme:
>   /dev/sda1 ext3 Gentoo root
>   /dev/sda2 ntfs NTLDR
>   /dev/sda4 Extended
>     /dev/sda5 ext2 Gentoo portage
>     /dev/sda6 swap Gentoo swap
>     /dev/sda7 ext3 Gentoo home
>     /dev/sda8 ntfs Windows XP
>
> Win xp installed and booted without problem

This is interesting. I've had various versions of Windows on various 
machines over the years and I've never managed to get grub to start Windows 
unless Windows was on the first primary partition. Yet in your case no part 
of Windows is on the first primary partition. What's your secret? Or has 
the latest version of grub been fixed in this respect?

> but now that I need to restore GRUB, I am wondering if I need to
> write "root (hd0,1)" or "root (hd0,7)" into the grub.conf to boot windows.



-- 
Rgds
Peter.
Linux Counter 5290, Aug 93
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Duncan]

Peter Humphrey <prh@gotadsl.co.uk> posted
200710280822.59398.prh@gotadsl.co.uk, excerpted below, on  Sun, 28 Oct
2007 08:22:59 +0000:

> On Saturday 27 Oct 2007, Julien Cassette wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I needed to install Windows XP on a logical partition, but I found that
>> it can't boot from such a partition because NTLDR needs to be installed
>> on a primary one.
>> So I set up the following partition scheme:
>>   /dev/sda1 ext3 Gentoo root
>>   /dev/sda2 ntfs NTLDR
>>   /dev/sda4 Extended
>>     /dev/sda5 ext2 Gentoo portage
>>     /dev/sda6 swap Gentoo swap
>>     /dev/sda7 ext3 Gentoo home
>>     /dev/sda8 ntfs Windows XP
>>
>> Win xp installed and booted without problem
> 
> This is interesting. I've had various versions of Windows on various
> machines over the years and I've never managed to get grub to start
> Windows unless Windows was on the first primary partition. Yet in your
> case no part of Windows is on the first primary partition. What's your
> secret? Or has the latest version of grub been fixed in this respect?

By the time I switched to GRUB, I was off of MS/proprietaryware forever 
(or at least until it's no longer proprietary- aka slaveryware), but back 
on LILO, and from the GRUB documentation and what I've read of other 
users, it should be similar -- and even on MS itself (at least 9x, I left 
it instead of switching to eXPrivacy, precisely because it /was/ 
eXPrivacy, and that was a line I could not and would not cross, period, 
if neither Linux nor other alternatives were there I'd have been driven 
to piracy, but luckily they were, and I wasn't), there was and is no need 
to have anything MS as the first partition.

What MS OSs *DO* seem to require is that the boot partition be a primary 
partition, that is, one of the first four, not a logical partition (>4) 
in a secondary partition.  I'm not sure if it's possible to have GRUB/
LILO fake this or not.

MS also normally requires that its boot partition, in addition to being a 
primary partition, is set bootable.  (Only one of the primary partitions 
can be set bootable.)  However, I believe both GRUB and LILO can fake 
this, making the MS bootloader believe it's on the bootable partition 
when it's not.

As Beso mentioned, you also have to configure GRUB/LILO to do the 
chainloader thing.  Basically what the chainloader functionality does is 
fake out the MS bootloader, making it think it's booting straight out of 
BIOS, and that whatever previous bootloader (GRUB/LILO in our case) is 
that BIOS.  IOW, the MS bootloader directly parallels GRUB/LILO on its 
own, so just as you can use Loadln to chainload GRUB/LILO, you can 
configure GRUB/LILO as a chainloader to load the MS bootloader.

>> but now that I need to restore GRUB, I am wondering if I need to write
>> "root (hd0,1)" or "root (hd0,7)" into the grub.conf to boot windows.

As Beso mentioned, hd0,1, but don't forget the chainloader, or it's not 
going to work, because it expects to be booting from BIOS, and the 
chainloader makes it look as if that's what's happening.

The reason you use hd0,1 is because that's where the MS bootloader is.  
If you were booting Linux, you'd put the Linux partition (hd0,7), if 
something else (say one of the BSDs, or a Fedora/Ubuntu/Mandriva/Mint/
whatever Linux install), you'd put its partition.  The chainloader... 
well I explained that above.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 28 Oct 2007, Duncan wrote:

> By the time I switched to GRUB, I was off of MS/proprietaryware forever
> (or at least until it's no longer proprietary- aka slaveryware)

So what is your qualification for pronouncing on it?

> What MS OSs *DO* seem to require is that the boot partition be a primary
> partition, that is, one of the first four, not a logical partition (>4)
> in a secondary partition.

I've already told you that this is not true. IT DOES NOT WORK on the second 
primary partition. This is a known problem with grub.

[remainder snipped unread]

-- 
Rgds
Peter.
Linux Counter 5290, Aug 93
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Peter Humphrey]

Oh, I forgot to add: welcome to my kill file, where you are in very select 
company.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.
Linux Counter 5290, Aug 93
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Beso]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]

> I've already told you that this is not true. IT DOES NOT WORK on the
> second
> primary partition. This is a known problem with grub.


i've had it work with grub on the second primary partition.
i used to have a first partition for windows, then a second for linux and
then the exted ones. after some system fixing i finished to have the / on
hda1, xp on hda2 and the other linux parts. now i'm fully happy to be with
/boot to hda1, / on hda2, swap /hda3 and the other parts on lvm2 after
removing winzoz. i had only needed a functioning wireless driver, but since
i wasn't able to get one in more than one year, in the end i finished
getting another wireless device.
anyway, on my system having windows on hda2 or even on extended didn't
bothered grub.




-- 
dott. ing. beso

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1006 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Thierry de Coulon]

On Sunday 28 October 2007, Beso wrote:
> > I've already told you that this is not true. IT DOES NOT WORK on the
> > second
> > primary partition. This is a known problem with grub.
>
> i've had it work with grub on the second primary partition.
> i used to have a first partition for windows, then a second for linux and
> then the exted ones. after some system fixing i finished to have the / on
> hda1, xp on hda2 and the other linux parts. now i'm fully happy to be with
> /boot to hda1, / on hda2, swap /hda3 and the other parts on lvm2 after
> removing winzoz. i had only needed a functioning wireless driver, but since
> i wasn't able to get one in more than one year, in the end i finished
> getting another wireless device.
> anyway, on my system having windows on hda2 or even on extended didn't
> bothered grub.

I'd say the second partition is only a problem if the first is "seen" by 
Winblow - that is if it has any filesystem readable by it.

Thierry

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Beso]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 661 bytes --]

yes, that should be the case, since winzoz installs its ntldr on the first
readable partition. one time it has happened that i've reinstalled
forgetting to hide the fat32 partition and winzoz installed on it the ntldr
and i had to start it from that partition instead from the one it was
installed.  at least i was able in the end to free myself from it, since the
apps that i've been using in winzoz are better and opensource in linux. :-)


I'd say the second partition is only a problem if the first is "seen" by
> Winblow - that is if it has any filesystem readable by it.
>
> Thierry
>
> --
> gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
dott. ing. beso

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 967 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On Sunday 28 October 2007, Beso wrote:

> yes, that should be the case, since winzoz installs its ntldr on the
> first readable partition. one time it has happened that i've
> reinstalled forgetting to hide the fat32 partition and winzoz
> installed on it the ntldr and i had to start it from that partition
> instead from the one it was installed.  at least i was able in the end
> to free myself from it, since the apps that i've been using in winzoz
> are better and opensource in linux. :-)

Windows has the concept of "system partition" and "boot partition" (and, 
for microsoft, they mean _exactly_ the opposite of what you may think).
Here is a good explanation:

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/

The article is about multibooting, but it also does a good job of 
explaining how windows boot.
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 28 Oct 2007, Thierry de Coulon wrote:

> I'd say the second partition is only a problem if the first is "seen" by
> Winblow - that is if it has any filesystem readable by it.

I have /dev/hda1 ext2, /dev/hda2 ext2, /dev/hda3 HPFS, then various logical 
partitions up to /dev/hda12. /dev/hda4 is the extended partition. Grub 
cannot start Win XP. I don't see how that fits this theory.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.
Linux Counter 5290, Aug 93
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Mathieu Seigneurin]

On Sunday 28 October 2007 12:44:42 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Sunday 28 Oct 2007, Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> > I'd say the second partition is only a problem if the first is "seen" by
> > Winblow - that is if it has any filesystem readable by it.
>
> I have /dev/hda1 ext2, /dev/hda2 ext2, /dev/hda3 HPFS, then various logical
> partitions up to /dev/hda12. /dev/hda4 is the extended partition. Grub
> cannot start Win XP. I don't see how that fits this theory.
>
> --
> Rgds
> Peter.
> Linux Counter 5290, Aug 93

I believe the partition number is not really important, as long as:
- the partition is set as bootable (grub might be able to do that 
automagically)
- all the win boot files reside fully inside the first 1024 cylinders of the 
drive (so preferably: the partition itself should start and end in those 
first 1024 cyls.)

or something to that effect.

Thanks,
Mathieu
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Thierry de Coulon]

On Sunday 28 October 2007, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Sunday 28 Oct 2007, Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> > I'd say the second partition is only a problem if the first is "seen" by
> > Winblow - that is if it has any filesystem readable by it.
>
> I have /dev/hda1 ext2, /dev/hda2 ext2, /dev/hda3 HPFS, then various logical
> partitions up to /dev/hda12. /dev/hda4 is the extended partition. Grub
> cannot start Win XP. I don't see how that fits this theory.
>
> --
> Rgds
> Peter.
> Linux Counter 5290, Aug 93

Where is XP? If you really mean HPFS (OS/2?) then XP will see HPFS as drive C, 
I guess. Another point is: how did you create you partitions. I can't say 
why, but I've experienced that Winblow/DOS tools seem to "name " partitions 
(C,D,E) and Winblow keeps seeing them as C,D,E even if you reformat them from 
Linux.

Thierry

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Beso]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3966 bytes --]

2007/10/28, Etaoin Shrdlu <shrdlu@unlimitedmail.org>:
>
> On Sunday 28 October 2007, Beso wrote:
>
> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/
>
> The article is about multibooting, but it also does a good job of
> explaining how windows boot.


hmmm i still didn't understand  :-( maybe this is something like a religious
mystery....



I have /dev/hda1 ext2, /dev/hda2 ext2, /dev/hda3 HPFS, then various logical
partitions up to /dev/hda12. /dev/hda4 is the extended partition. Grub
cannot start Win XP. I don't see how that fits this theory.



hmmmm.... what's your windows partition?! i can only see exts and hpfs,
which is not meant to work with windows xp:

Windows 95 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95> and its successors Windows
98 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98>, Windows
ME<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_ME>could only read/write HPFS
when mapped via a network share, but could not
read it from a local disk. They listed the
NTFS<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS>partitions of networked
computers as "HPFS", because NTFS and HPFS share the
same filesystem identification number in the partition table.

Windows NT 3.1 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1> and
3.51<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.51>had native
read/write support for local disks and could even be installed
onto an HPFS partition.

Windows NT 4 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_4> still could read
and write from local HPFS formatted drives however, using HPFS was
discouraged starting with Windows NT 4 and in subsequent versions. Starting
with Windows 2000 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000> the filesystem
driver pinball.sys enabling the read/write access was removed from the
default installation. Pinball.sys was included on the installation media for
Windows 2000 and could still be manually installed and used with some
limitations.[*citation
needed<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources>
*] Later Windows versions did not ship with this driver.

Windows XP Professional allows to read and write like Windows 2000 Since the
they are similar in code.

so if you're using winzoz xp with hpfs of course you cannot boot inside
it.... the driver for the fs support lacks with xp. of my experience from xp
sp2 you cannot use any fs that is not ntfs, or be forced to have a difficult
experience.

I believe the partition number is not really important, as long as:
- the partition is set as bootable (grub might be able to do that
automagically)
- all the win boot files reside fully inside the first 1024 cylinders of the
drive (so preferably: the partition itself should start and end in those
first 1024 cyls.)

or something to that effect.

don't be to obscure!!!! for windows xp to work there are 2 important things:
1. install it before linux
2. have the partitions on hd removed except the unix ones (ext,reiserfs acc)
that aren't supported by windows, or manually hide them with some tool
3. install linux, install grub and configure it to boot from (hd0,1) with
chainloader+1 if your windows partition is the second.

ps. installing xp from extended partition is nonsense, if that's the only
windows partition in the system. it still needs a primary bootable partition
in which to insert the ntldr and some other stuff.
pps. USE THE FOLLOWING AT YOUR OWN RISK:
the last option of installing xp is to have a linux /boot partition
formatted with fat32 and install the ntldr and the system files of windows (
config.sys and the ones that are in the c:\ directory) inside there. but in
this way you could experience a really bad experience if windows does
something inside there (it needs to have full access to that partition or it
will not boot) and makes your system unbootable. so, after you've considered
a lot this workaround and want to try it be sure at 110% that you have at
least 3-4 working /boot backups and that you'd be able to boot inside a
linux enviroment to fix the partition.
-- 
dott. ing. beso

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5077 bytes --]

[gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Duncan]

Mathieu Seigneurin <mseigneurin@tiscali.fr> posted
200710281300.58224.mseigneurin@tiscali.fr, excerpted below, on  Sun, 28
Oct 2007 13:00:58 +0100:

> I believe the partition number is not really important, as long as: -
> the partition is set as bootable (grub might be able to do that
> automagically)

Agreed.  (Set as bootable means one of the first four partitions, since 
that's the number that fits in the MBR.  At least the MS boot loader and 
related files must therefore be on one of those, tho the main system can 
be elsewhere.)

> - all the win boot files reside fully inside the first 1024 cylinders of
> the drive (so preferably: the partition itself should start and end in
> those first 1024 cyls.)

I know that used to be the case with W9x, but does eXPrivacy still have 
the 1024 cylinder limitation?  If so, that's surprising.  I'd have 
thought that would have changed with eXPrivacy at least.  

The 1024 limitation, if it still exists, might explain why it's reported 
working for some, but not others, however.  <shrug>

> or something to that effect.

=8^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Duncan]

Peter Humphrey <prh@gotadsl.co.uk> posted
200710281013.25383.prh@gotadsl.co.uk, excerpted below, on  Sun, 28 Oct
2007 10:13:25 +0000:

> Oh, I forgot to add: welcome to my kill file, where you are in very
> select company.

<shrug>

I make it a point not to post unless I believe it likely someone out 
there will find my post useful, and would rather you /not/ read them if 
you find them consistently without merit or use.  As that would appear to 
be the case, by all means, killfile me with my blessings!  =8^)

Meanwhile, if and when you find it worthwhile reading my posts once 
again, I expect I'll still be here, posting as always for those that /do/ 
find them useful.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 28 Oct 2007, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Sunday 28 Oct 2007, Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> > I'd say the second partition is only a problem if the first is "seen"
> > by Winblow - that is if it has any filesystem readable by it.
>
> I have /dev/hda1 ext2, /dev/hda2 ext2, /dev/hda3 HPFS, then various
> logical partitions up to /dev/hda12. /dev/hda4 is the extended partition.
> Grub cannot start Win XP. I don't see how that fits this theory.

Apologies - I meant NTFS for the XP partition, of course.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.
Linux Counter 5290, Aug 93
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Load NTLDR from GRUB?

[Beso]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 913 bytes --]

try universal boot cd with ranish partition editor, make the third partition
executable and then reboot and use:

title windows
root(hd0,2)
chainloader +1

and that should start windows xp without any problem.

2007/10/30, Peter Humphrey <prh@gotadsl.co.uk>:
>
> On Sunday 28 Oct 2007, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 Oct 2007, Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> > > I'd say the second partition is only a problem if the first is "seen"
> > > by Winblow - that is if it has any filesystem readable by it.
> >
> > I have /dev/hda1 ext2, /dev/hda2 ext2, /dev/hda3 HPFS, then various
> > logical partitions up to /dev/hda12. /dev/hda4 is the extended
> partition.
> > Grub cannot start Win XP. I don't see how that fits this theory.
>
> Apologies - I meant NTFS for the XP partition, of course.
>
> --
> Rgds
> Peter.
> Linux Counter 5290, Aug 93
> --
> gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
dott. ing. beso

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1302 bytes --]