UPDATE: I made a fresh boot disk and ran fdisk /mbr, then sys c:, and....... Everything's just peachy on the Windows front, for now. I guess it's all downhill from here...@B-)
However, I'm a bit confused about Peter's comments (below) regarding running a dual boot on separate hard drives. Was the recommendation against two OS's on separate hard drives, or against using a boot disk instead of LILO/GRUB? Please elaborate. I was gonna reinstall RH 7.2 on the slave drive and now a cloud of uncertainty looms above... Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Thanks for the advice.. > > > > Both OS's seemd to be unstable when Windows crashed so I could not mount > > the Windows partitions to backup files (that was one of the first things I > > tried, and kernel panic came up) > > > > I do have two large HDD (40G for win98 and 30G for RH7.2) and thought that > > would suffice to keep the two lovebirds away from each other, but I'll try > > the fdisk /mbr and boot linux with a floppy instead of grub. > > i *highly* recommend against that route. i'm trying to think of any > linux guru or guru in training among us who has, at some point or > another, said that if you must have a dual boot, keep the OS's on > different hard drives. i remember jeff saying this. i think i remember > steve peck saying this. i've certainly said this. > > you've got two big hard drives. what's the problem? > > while it's possible for people like rod roark or jeff newmiller to be > wrong about something, to not pay attention to everything they say is, > well, just plain nuts. > _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
