"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:uoAhWl%23lIHA.5660@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com.oz> wrote in message
> news:uPHSpD%23lIHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:eEX1kr9lIHA.6032@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > "promicro" <promicro@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:e$xYy1zlIHA.4504@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I have Win2000, Win XP and Linux on 3 partitions and need a boot
> manager
>> >> as neither of these see the others - can someone recommend a good
>> >> one
>> >> ??
>> >>
>> >> thanx. bob
>> >
>> > Though nothing is wrong with using a 3rd party boot manager,
>> > you don't really need one.
>> >
>> > By default, Win2k and XP have their own boot manager.
>>
>> I beg to disagree. The Win2000/WinXP boot manager is about
>> as basic as they come. It lacks the following essential features:
>> - You cannot use it to boot into non-Windows OSs, hence
>> your recommendation to use Grub too.
>> - It cannot hide partitions from each other. Since it leaves all
>> partitions visible, there is the risk of one OS damaging another,
>> e.g. by installing or updating files on the wrong partition.
>> - You must have different drive letters for each Windows OS,
>> which creates some unwanted interdependencies. There are
>> frequent posts in these newsgroup along the lines "I want to
>> remove Win98 from drive C:, how to I make my dual Win2000
>> OS which is currently running on drive C:, run off drive C:?"
>> With your recommendation you can't. With a proper boot
>> manager it's a trivial affair.
>>
>>
>
> I did *not* suggest using the Windows boot manager to boot into Linux.
>
> If you re-read my post you will see that I suggested using LILO or Grub to
> boot to either Linux *or* to the Windows boot manager.
> (Inelegant perhaps but ...hey...it works.)
I know you didn't. You suggested using two boot managers:
a) The Windows boot manager for Win2000 & WinXP
b) Grub or Lilo to boot into Linux.
That's two managers. A good boot manager can handle the lot.
I firmly beliefe in the KISS principle, hence the simpler the better.
> Also , my reply in no way implied that I had offered the best possible
> solution. I only said that the OP already has available the means for
> multi-booting.
>
> You do not know how the OP is using the machine. It *might* be a good
> thing
> to hide each OS from each other. OTOH: maybe the OP wants to transfer data
> from one partition to the other. Who knows?
Indeed I don't but since the OP is asking for a recommendation, the
group should suggest a versatile solution. A good boot manager lets
the OP selectively hide partitions from each other (note the word:
selectively).
The Windows boot manager has no such option.
> Finally. I have no idea why you brought win98 into this. There is no need
> to
> further complicate this.
Replace Win98 with Vista if you like - the point stands that with
the Windows boot manager it gets very messy to change things
later on.
> Though some boot managers of course have the ability to hide portions and
> have two different windows installations on a C:
> drive, there is no way to do so after the fact.
Exactly - this is why we should recommend a flexible boot manager
now. If the OP adopts your solution of using the native Windows
boot manager then he won't be able to change things later on. Tough!
> As you know: with all
> versions of NT...the "boot" drive letter is persistent and cannot be
> changed
> by a boot manager "after the fact". A reinstall of one Windows version
> would
> be needed
I fully agree, so let's use a good boot manager that lets him
install each OS on drive C:.
> Note: Just because I do not necessarily agree, don't think for a minute I
> don't respect your good judgment. I have been reading your
> replies on Usenet for many years and have noticed your replies to be
> generally rock-solid.
Thanks for the feedback. I have worked a lot with boot managers
and I think that I am fully aware of the issues surrounding the one
built into Windows. I respect your opinion too but I felt for the OP's
benefit that I had to comment on your recommendation. This is a
benefit of newsgroups: Responses are often peer-reviewed (mine too!).