Hard drive formatted under NTFS want to use Linux on it

[Nasdaq]

I have a Maxtor 40GB HDD 7200 that I formatted using WinXP Pro under NTFS but decided going with a bigger drive so it's been just sitting around. I have decided that I'm going to be giving Mandrake Linux a try and was wondering how I would go about using that drive for this purpose. I have read on other threads that Mandrake will partition during the install but this drive has already been formatted under NTFS will it still work?

Second question about partitions that I have is can I two types or partitions on one drive, such as, one partition be in NTFS and the other using FAT32?

[AccordinglyDone]

You're going to have to format it to ext2/3. I think the Linux install can do this, but I could be wrong. If not, you could use Partition Magic.

And yes, you can have two types of partitions on one hd. How do you think people with one hd dual boot Windows and Linux?

Anyways, good luck with Linux. I just installed RH9 the other day and am learning it.

[Nasdaq]

Thanks for the quick reply on this, but I have not decided if I want to install Linux OS on the drive alone or create a dual boot on one drive as of yet. If I do decide with dual boot should I install Windows first and Linux later or does that not matter? BTW i'll be using Win98SE.

[Zoilo]

Yes. Like Win2k and XP, Linux offers an option to format the drive. As for your second question. I'm wondering that, myself. I hear WinXP should be the last OS installed in any situation, but since you're using 98SE, I think you might have to install Linux first. I believe the Linux bootloader can handle win/nix dual-boots better than Windows can. BTW, good luck with your adventure in Linux. :D

[Nasdaq]

Thanks for the encouragment I will let everyone know how it goes. Here I go into the Linux world............

[AccordinglyDone]

Why should Windows be the last installed?

[LkyOldSun]

if you have Partition magic 8.0 (or other capable partitioning software), then you can reduce the size of your main partition running windows (even if it is NTFS) and KEEP the part you subtracted as UNALLOCATED one way to do this is to create a partition, "borrow" space from the current partition, and then delete the new partition, which will make the space unallocated.(Backup first in case of power-outtage or other tradgedy- I have done this ~10 times w/ PM8.0 and never have had a problem loosing information, but I found it strongly suggested to me) Then if installing a distro like mandrake or redhat, they typically ask during install if you want to install INTO the unallocated space. Click yes, and Linux will move into that space, not bothering the rest of the disk at all. Mandrake will practically install itself, if you just create an unallocated space first. I know that mandrake also makes it really easy to dual boot (I chose LILO) between windows and linux. This is how I was told, and have installed myself, Linux on a system already running windows.
Of course, I was installing with XP already running, and not win98, so I don't know if that makes a difference, (IMHO, I wouldn't think so)

But doesn't win 98 need to be installed 1st to be installed before the boot sector limit if there are more than 1 OS on a drive. If you are installing multiple windows OS, then yes install XP Last- for this reason, I believe.

I think that there are time limited, FREE demos of PartitionMagic available in some of the freeware sites.

[Nasdaq]

Reading from all the replies I would have to gather that the best and easiest way to do a dual boot would be to install Linux and Windows on separate drives. I have Win98SE on an old Maxtor 13.2GB drive and the Maxtor drive I mentioned in my first post that I wish to install Linux so will there be anything wrong with going that route?

[don256us]

I had Win xp pro when I started. While installing Linux, RedHat 9 and Mandrake 8, the proper partitions were created. These installs are really very friendly to a Windows user like me.

When it asked if I wanted Lilo or Grub, I said niether. I created a boot floppy. When I want to boot to Linux, I drop in the floppy and off I go.

Doing this did not change the MBR of my Windows.

[druidelder]

When you say different drives, do you mean in the same machine? Do you plan to change the bios settings each time you want to use a different os? It really would be easier to install both on the same drive. This will leave a record for both in the boot record and will allow you to make the choice without resetting your computer. Here (http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/linux/story/0,24330,3397093,00.html) is a link to TechTV's suggestion on how to proceed, but there are hundreds of links if you Google linux xp dual boot. TechTV's method shows you how to preserve an existing XP installation while removing the need for a boot floppy.

[don256us]

Do you plan to change the bios settings each time you want to use a different os? It really would be easier to install both on the same drive.

I don't follow you on this. Why would you have to change the BIOS to boot from different drives.

If you use a boot loader like Lilo or Grub, they will know which drive Linux is on.

If you do like I do and use no boot loader, the floppy boot disk created during install points to the location of Linux regaurdless of the drive that it resides.

In other words, it really doesn't matter if you load onto the same drive or a different drive.

Am I missing something? I have had it work either way.

[nealric]

BTW, dont try to mount an NTFS partition while running linux- you can corrupt the drive.

Right now, linux can only see fat32.

[Titan386]

Windows should always be installed first, when attempting a dual boot. The reason for this is that Windows likes to wipe the MBR (Master Boot Record, where the Linux bootloader resides) when it installs. Therefore, if you install Linux, and then Windows, you'll have to reinstall the bootloader, as Windows will erase it, leaving you no way to get back to Linux, short of a boot disk.

If you install Windows first and Linux second, however, the Linux installer should detect the existing Windows install, and configure the bootloader for you. When you boot, you'll be able to choose between Linux and Windows. This is the optimal method.

When partitioning your drive, keep in mind that Windows can only read and write to the FAT and NTFS filesystems. Linux, however, can read and write to FAT32, but only read NTFS. Therefore, it is advisable to format one partition in a Linux native filesystem, such as ext2/3 or reiserfs, and another partition in FAT32, which will be fully accessible to both Windows and Linux.

The NTFS driver for Linux is rather buggy, and will probably damage any volume its used on. However, this is clearly stated on its entry in the kernel configuration tool, and it does not appear unless you ask to be prompted for drivers in development. I don't believe any of the larger distributions include this driver by default, either. Therefore, there is very little chance that you will accidently damage any NTFS volumes. If you attempt to write to a NTFS drive while its mounted read only, you'll simply get an error message.

BTW, this question really belongs in Alternative OSes.

[Nasdaq]

Originally posted by don256us


I don't follow you on this. Why would you have to change the BIOS to boot from different drives.

If you use a boot loader like Lilo or Grub, they will know which drive Linux is on.

If you do like I do and use no boot loader, the floppy boot disk created during install points to the location of Linux regaurdless of the drive that it resides.

In other words, it really doesn't matter if you load onto the same drive or a different drive.

Am I missing something? I have had it work either way.

So I am assuming that installing Linux on one drive and Win98 on another drive will work out better? That's what I want to do instead of the dual boot on one drive.

[thalzaar24]

i have a 2nd computer i play with so i decided to load linux on a dual boot with win2kpro.

From my understanding Linux only recognizes it's native file system ext2 (ext3 with the newest versions) and Fat16 (just regular FAT). Win2k and XP support FAT/FAT32/NTFS. So in order for linux to boot on a dual boot, you need a regular FAT partition so both OS's can recognize. This is how i set mine up.

10Mb FAT partition for the boot loader and files (plenty of space really)
win2k 30+Gb NTFS partition
linux 7Gb Ext3 partition

I set the 10Mb partition as active in Fdisk so system knows which partition to look for the boot information. I installed win2k first then linux on the remaining space. I used the Fdisk command to set up the first 2 partitions and Disk Druid (the linux partition program) for the linux mounts.

I use Grub as my bootloader and can dual boot with no problems at all.

[Titan386]

Originally posted by thalzaar24

From my understanding Linux only recognizes it's native file system ext2 (ext3 with the newest versions) and Fat16 (just regular FAT). Win2k and XP support FAT/FAT32/NTFS.

Linux does in fact have support for FAT32 filesystems. You can read more about it here (http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/people/chaffee/fat32.html).

Linux also has limited support for NTFS. Here is the homepage (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/) for the Linux NTFS Project.

In regards to dual booting, this is my personally perferred method, and the one that I feel yields the best results (this assumes a unpartitioned drive, you can delete all partitions (and therefore, all data) on a drive to get it in this state) :

1- Install Windows onto a relatively small (generally 4 gig) partition. Use whatever filesystem you like, usually NTFS.

2- Install Linux. Depending on what you plan to do, partition 5 - 20 gigs. Some distros will do this automatically for you, but they may try to take more space than you want, so I suggest verifying the automatic configuration and adjusting it if needed. Distros like Red Hat, Mandrake, and Suse will also detect your Windows install and configure a bootloader for you.

3- Take the remaining space on the drive and format it in FAT32 (also called vfat in Linux). This will allow you to easily swap files between the two systems.

If you want to install each OS on a seperate drive, that's possible too. You can, if you prefer, install a Linux bootloader into the MBR of the Windows drive, so that when you boot, you are prompted with a choice of the two OSes. You could also keep them seperate, and change the boot order in the BIOS to switch between them.

Some people also use a hardware switch to toggle between two hard drives. This is probably the easiest method, and it's faster than going into the BIOS to change things. The disadvantage is that there is no way for one OS to see the files stored on the other's hard drive.

[druidelder]

I didn't realize that GRUB and LILO could boot to different drives (makes sense, just hadn't thought about it). My point was that by using different drives you would have an extra step, (boot disk, bios, etc...), but I guesss that doesn't hold true if GRUB/LILO can boot to separate drives. Personally, I hate using boot disks unless I have to (mostly because I lose them). I don't thnk it would really be easier than having a partitioned drive (particularly since newer distros of linux can automatically include windows as a boot option if it is already installed on a partition of that drive, no muss, no fuss), but I guess not really any harder either.

[don256us]

Reading from all the replies I would have to gather that the best and easiest way to do a dual boot would be to install Linux and Windows on separate drives. I have Win98SE on an old Maxtor 13.2GB drive and the Maxtor drive I mentioned in my first post that I wish to install Linux so will there be anything wrong with going that route?

That's what I did. Works fine for me.

I hate using boot disks unless I have to (mostly because I lose them).

The issue for me is that I've been burned with Lilo. By putting Linux on another drive and no boot loader, I have no worries of losing my wifes stuff again on the Windows partition. Happened more than once.

[Nasdaq]

Originally posted by don256us


That's what I did. Works fine for me.



The issue for me is that I've been burned with Lilo. By putting Linux on another drive and no boot loader, I have no worries of losing my wifes stuff again on the Windows partition. Happened more than once.

So, the Linux boot loader is not 100% reliable and one should make a boot disc when using dual OSes with two dirves.

[don256us]

So, the Linux boot loader is not 100% reliable and one should make a boot disc when using dual OSes with two dirves.

That's not quite what I'm saying. My local Linux guru likes Grub better but all of this doesn't mean that Lilo isn't good. Just wasn't good for me. Please note that I'm very good in Windows and hardware but a total n00b to Linux. My Lilo problems could have been all me.:cry:

What I am saying is that there are several option availible to you. I am also saying that you CAN do what you are asking to do.

My confort level keeps me with a boot disk and no loader.

Put linux on the same drive, a different drive, use grub, lilo, or a floppy, it's all good.

[Nasdaq]

Thanks for all the replies this forum is great.

[four4875]

when i installed mandrake (both 8.1 and 9) over XP, i just installed it wioth XP still installed. it did everything itself, from bein able to resize the partitions, to boot loader, to reading my MP3s off of my win NTFS partition. i need to redownload the ISOs and install mandrake again.....

[TechnoNRGKid]

Eh, I stopped reading all the post only eager to post on wich i have done....

From my exp's Linux is always last. in the order they fall is...
windows 95
windows 98
windows 2000
windows xp
Linux OS
Debian <---
This last one i found out Debian is always installed last of all linux os, dunno why.

Its REALLY easy to install linux and windows on a dual boot, linux can do it all for you if you want to use the linux boot manager.

Just install windows, then install linux. of course making sure you have availabe extra partition, and ya dont need a 2nd harddrive, its real easy on 1 harddrive. im running xp and