Sorry if this is slightly off-topic.
Is it possible to modify the order of partitions in the partition
table with Ranish Partition Manager? How can I do it?

I have an HD with:

primary FAT
primary FAT
extended
primary (QNX)

But the partition table, lower left of Ranish partman, shows:

primary FAT
extended
primary (QNX)
primary FAT

(or something like that, can't remember exactly)

This is confusing, for example when I want to hide/unhide partitions
in XOSL, which apparently shows partitions in the same order as the
partition table.

Thanks for any help.

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."Thrak", King Crimson 1995

--- In xosl@y..., Marco De Vitis <marco.dvv@l...> wrote:
> Sorry if this is slightly off-topic.
> Is it possible to modify the order of partitions in the partition
> table with Ranish Partition Manager? How can I do it?
>
> I have an HD with:
>
> primary FAT
> primary FAT
> extended
> primary (QNX)
>
> But the partition table, lower left of Ranish partman, shows:
>
> primary FAT
> extended
> primary (QNX)
> primary FAT
>
> (or something like that, can't remember exactly)
>
> This is confusing, for example when I want to hide/unhide partitions
> in XOSL, which apparently shows partitions in the same order as the
> partition table.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Ciao,
>   Marco.
> --
> ..."Thrak", King Crimson 1995

I believe you can do what you want by putting numbers in the row
column. Move your cursor over the row column and help instructions
come up. But all you have to do is number them the way you want. It
looked like it worked on the demo program but I never tried it for
real.

Kevin

Hi:

Does any one know why the Ranish Partition manager that comes with XOSL
cannot create more than 4 primary
partitions. With DOS you cannot create even a 2nd primary partition, so
RPM is a great
big improvement. But why stop at 4?. Considering that Linux alone needs
a swap and ext2fs partition (2 PARTITIONS),
this is rather limiting. I think I read on Ranish where some of his
commercial version may allow you
to create more than 4 partitions. But how technically complex could it
be to allow for more
partitions to be created. If the source code for RPM is available, can
one possibly hack the
code towards this end?

Thanks...

Every Linux distro that I've seen is perfectly happy
being installed to a logical partition and you can have many of those.
Cheers, Bert


"Hasnain Tariq (NICSW/Boston)" wrote:

> Hi:
>
> Does any one know why the Ranish Partition manager that comes with XOSL
> cannot create more than 4 primary
> partitions. With DOS you cannot create even a 2nd primary partition, so
> RPM is a great
> big improvement. But why stop at 4?. Considering that Linux alone needs
> a swap and ext2fs partition (2 PARTITIONS),
> this is rather limiting. I think I read on Ranish where some of his
> commercial version may allow you
> to create more than 4 partitions. But how technically complex could it
> be to allow for more
> partitions to be created. If the source code for RPM is available, can
> one possibly hack the
> code towards this end?
>
> Thanks...
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to: <mailto:xosl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Is there a opportunity to use a newsreader like forte agent to follow the
threats in this group on yahoo?
If yes: how to setup adresses etc.?

Friedrich

Hello kx2k, on 07/11/2001 at 16.18 you wrote:

kyc> I believe you can do what you want by putting numbers in the row
kyc> column. Move your cursor over the row column and help instructions

Ops, ehm, sorry, I also found it out by myself in the meantime. :)
I didn't imagine that number was the order in the partition table, and
never tried moving the cursor over it... Thanks!

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."A Passion Play", Jethro Tull 1973

Hello Hasnain, on 07/11/2001 at 16.43 you wrote:

HTNB> big improvement. But why stop at 4?. Considering that Linux alone needs
HTNB> a swap and ext2fs partition (2 PARTITIONS),

4 partitions is the "standard" limitation. This is no problem for Linux,
as all its partitions can be logical partitions, and you can have as
many logical partitions as you like, surely more than 4.

If you read RPM's docs, you can find out it is somehow capable of
creating 31 primary partitions, or so I understood, but I never tried
it.

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."Red", King Crimson 1974

> > Did you try BIOS upgrade?
> --- Nope.  Not gonna either, since everything's working, and since
> from the little bit I've read on BIOS upgrading, I can tell that I
> should be smart enough to realize that I don't know enough to feel
> comfortable playing around with that.
At least you should check if new version is available and if resolve
that issue. If that is the case, you should ask someone you can trust
about BIOS upgrading. It is a little dangerous, but not deadly ;-).

>    I'm guessing that I'm just remembering incorrectly, and that it
> is the 1024 problem, but thought that I had read somewhere that
> (either or both) the limitation referred to the first 1024 of the
> _partition_, not the first 1024 of the physical disk, or that
> hiding all previous partitions made the OS think that it  was
> starting from the beginning cylinder of the disk, not the partition.
It's about the first 1024 cyl of the physical disk, not the partition.
But you should know, that many OSes doesn't use BIOS to access HD
anymore. Check on web for details. Try this Excellent MultiBoot
Guide: http://math.uwb.edu.pl/~mariusz/multiboot/ Especially
Chapter "II.1 Geometry of a hard disk drive"

filip.

Sorry, but this isn't possible, because this is a mailing list and not
a newsgroup. If someone were willing to set up a public access news
server for that use, then it would be possible to gateway between the
two, so that anything posted to one also appears on the other.
I help run a web site, so I'll see what I can do.

Phil

=====
C:\DOS\
C:\DOS\RUN\
RUN\DOS\RUN

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

Keep in mind that, while there is no real physical reason that there
cannot be more than 4 primary partitions, that is all that the original
PC spec allows for and thus, using more will horribly screw up under
some partitioning programs, such as Partition Magic, for example. Also,
I know Windows has a hard enough time dealing with multiple visible
primary partitions, and I don't want to imagine the havoc that would be
reeked if it had to deal with more than it thinks can exist. Bottom
line: only make 4 primaries, and make one of them an extended, which
can hold as many logical partitions as your heart desires.

Phil

=====
C:\DOS\
C:\DOS\RUN\
RUN\DOS\RUN

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

> Is there a opportunity to use a newsreader like forte agent to follow the
> threats in this group on yahoo?

which OS are you talking about?
in the end you'll just need a good email client. forget about outlook
and netscape messenger....

under windows, for example, "the bat" (http://www.ritlabs.com/) is
quite a good choice:
capable of setting up various filters, unlimited folders to sort
messages into, macros, different profiles, threading, etc. etc.

good luck,

  philipp

> Does any one know why the Ranish Partition manager that comes with XOSL
> cannot create more than 4 primary partitions.

it's not possible, directly.
this is common knowledge...

as stated in the xosl-netiquette
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xosl/files/admin/XOSL_netiquette.txt):
read all available documentation and additional info PRIOR to posting
to this mailing list! BTW: this includes the mailing list archive.

> Considering that Linux alone needs
> a swap and ext2fs partition (2 PARTITIONS),

you may configure 10 logical partitions (inside extended) and put the
linux stuff there.
e.g. 3 primaries, one extended holding 10 logicals.

in the documentation there's hints how to install various windows
version to a logical partition - to work around the fact windows
usually requires to be installed to a primary partition.
this way you can even put the windows stuff to a logical partition.


if you still need 10 dedicated primary partitions (for whatever
reason), here's two more hints:

a) follow the "trombetti workaround" solution (see mailing list
    archive)
b) use partman standalone as BOOTmanager - instead of XOSL.
    earlier versions of the ranish bootmanager allowed to have more
    than 4 primary partitions.
    as a drawback, those versions don't support HDDs greater than 8GB.
    additionally: to have more than 4 primary partitions is not
    recommended, at all. unfortunately you'd run into loads of problems
    with other handy maintenance tools.
    e.g. partition resizers, fdisk, imaging tools, or even plain
    everyday usage of standard OSs

MfG,

  Philipp G.

I have a two hdd, master and slave with windows in a primary fat 32
partition in both hdd.  the master wont see windows in the slave but the
slave will see the win partition in the master.

Does hiding partitions in partman over ride  xosl?

I have tried changing hiding around in both partman and xosl but windows
doesn't change. Ideally I want to see the slave from the master and not the
other way around.

I have unhidden all partitions and drives and it all boots ok. I only have
problems when I don't "swap" the slave or "fix fat drive numbers".

I have xosl setup in its own partition on the master.

any suggestions?

Mark


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco De Vitis" <marco.dvv@...>
To: "Hans-Ludwig Mahlmann" <xosl@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [xosl] Two boot HDD


> Hello Hans-Ludwig, on 06/11/2001 at 18.34 you wrote:
>
> HLM> Make your experiences about "fixed fat drive number" and "swap
drives"!
> HLM> IMHO, Windows makes a difference in sorting partition letters C, D, E
> HLM> etc. if there are several partitions at your hard disks.
>
> I only use "fix FAT drive number" for Windows98 on secondary HD, while
> I have to use "swap drives" for Linux and QNX.
> Is this ok? How would "swap drives" affect Windows?
>
> A note for Mark: when booting Windows, it's generally a good idea to
> hide ALL primary FAT partitions (except the one you're booting, of
> course), to prevent chaos with Win thinking it's starting from another
> partition... I actually read of someone leaving them visible and
> having no problems, but anyway, just be careful.
>
> Ciao,
>   Marco.
> --
> ..."Homogenic", Björk 1997
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to: <mailto:xosl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hello Mark, on 08/11/2001 at 9.34 you wrote:

MF> Does hiding partitions in partman over ride  xosl?

No, XOSL resets hiding status on each boot, according to the boot menu
item you choose.

MF> I have tried changing hiding around in both partman and xosl but windows
MF> doesn't change. Ideally I want to see the slave from the master and not the
MF> other way around.

That's strange. Double check that you actually did unhide the slave
partition for the master boot item... I can't think of anything else,
sorry.

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."Close To The Edge", Yes 1972

I have un hidden everything and still have the same problem.

I moved the slaved drive to the secondary master. It had a long pause when
both hdd were on the same ide which has gone now but I still cant see any
partitions from first partition on the first hdd. all my win partitions are
primary is this right?

is their anything I can check to ensure I have my partitions set up correct?

Regards

Mark


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco De Vitis" <marco.dvv@...>
To: "Mark Fullerton" <xosl@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [xosl] Two boot HDD


> Hello Mark, on 08/11/2001 at 9.34 you wrote:
>
> MF> Does hiding partitions in partman over ride  xosl?
>
> No, XOSL resets hiding status on each boot, according to the boot menu
> item you choose.
>
> MF> I have tried changing hiding around in both partman and xosl but
windows
> MF> doesn't change. Ideally I want to see the slave from the master and
not the
> MF> other way around.
>
> That's strange. Double check that you actually did unhide the slave
> partition for the master boot item... I can't think of anything else,
> sorry.
>
> Ciao,
>   Marco.
> --
> ..."Close To The Edge", Yes 1972
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to: <mailto:xosl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I have got a preinstalled (using Manufacturer's recovery CD's) XP 60
GB "NTFS" hdd emachines (Model T4155). I wish to dual boot it with my
previous WIN2K os also on NTFS partition in a 40 GB Hdd. Can XOSL be
used to do this. I cannot convert the XP NTFS to FAT32 using PM6 &
PM7. As my Win2K disk has all my main data, before experimenting
there, I would like to know if there is a recommended dual boot path
using XOSL on XP with NTFS OR XOSL with NTFS or FAT32 - I can convert
my Win2K to Fat32 if that is the only solution. any ideas.

> I have got a preinstalled (using Manufacturer's recovery CD's) XP 60
> GB "NTFS" hdd emachines (Model T4155). I wish to dual boot it with my
> previous WIN2K os also on NTFS partition in a 40 GB Hdd. Can XOSL be
> used to do this. I cannot convert the XP NTFS to FAT32 using PM6 &
> PM7. As my Win2K disk has all my main data, before experimenting
> there, I would like to know if there is a recommended dual boot path
> using XOSL on XP with NTFS OR XOSL with NTFS or FAT32 - I can convert
> my Win2K to Fat32 if that is the only solution. any ideas.

This is not difficult to do, and it will not require converting either
of your partitions to FAT32. However, you will need to create a small
partition at the end of one of your drives for XOSL to store its files.
Since you said you have PM7, you should be able to reduce the size of
one of your NTFS partitions, by just a few MB, and create a new,
unformatted partition in the space freed. This should probably go at
the end of your 40GB drive, so that your recovery disk will never
overwrite it.
After creating this partition, boot from a DOS floppy (an image of
FreeDOS is provided on the XOSL home page), and run the installer. When
asked what kind of installation, pick dedicated partition and point it
to the newly created but unformatted partition. It will format it as
XOSL's own type. It should write its MBR to the drive which is booted
by your system's BIOS. I'm assuming that's the 60GB drive. After this
is done, reboot and your computer should enter XOSL rather than Windows
XP.
Click the "Setup" button, and create boot items for Windows XP and
Windows 2000. If you don't need to access the partitions of one from
the other, set them to hidden in the "Hiding" tab. You may also need to
use the "Swap Drives" feature to boot to whichever OS ends up on the
second drive. You can also change that system's boot.ini file to point
to drive(1) instead of drive(0). That is probably the better solution.
If it works perfectly, great! Otherwise, please report back to us on
what went wrong.

Phil

=====
C:\DOS\
C:\DOS\RUN\
RUN\DOS\RUN

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

> It's a 12G drive and the very last partition is a small Fat16 one..
> Can anyone guess what is going on here?

Is it possible that this is an instance of the Windows 9X multiple
visible partitions problem?

Phil

=====
C:\DOS\
C:\DOS\RUN\
RUN\DOS\RUN

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

Something strange happens here with Win2000Pro and XOSL.
In short: Win2k refuses to boot when I unhide an extended partition
(the "Extended LBA" item) in XOSL, telling that the
System32\ntoskrnl.exe file is missing or corrupt.

Now the details. Here is my HD setup (the 2nd and 3rd might be
unimportant, but anyway...):

DISK 1:
primary FAT32
extended
         FAT32
         FAT32
         FAT32
         unallocated
         linux swap
         XOSL
unallocated
primary NTFS (Win2000)

DISK 2:
primary FAT32
extended
         linux reiserfs
         linux ext2
         unallocated
unallocated
primary QNX

DISK 3:
primary FAT32
extended
         filesystem type 0x76 (Amithlon virtual HD)
         FAT32
         unallocated
unallocated

So, I successfully installed Win2000 while ALL other partitions were
hidden by XOSL (except the partition types which cannot be hidden by
it, of course), so Win2000 boots happily thinking it is on C:.

Then, I did unhide the other partitions, one at a time, and it all
worked fine, Win2000 assigned them the next letters; this worked fine
for ALL FAT32 partitions on disks 2 and 3, and also for the primary
FAT32 on disk 1.
The problem shows when I unhide the extended partition on the first
disk (the same disk where Win2k is installed). Please note that I do
NOT need to unhide any of the logical partitions which are inside that
extended one: they can be all hidden, but as soon as I unhide the
"Extended LBA" item, in XOSL, which is pertinent to that extended
partition, Win2k refuses to boot with the reported error, even if all
partitions inside the extended are hidden.

WHY does this happen? Any clue? What is Win2k looking for? And where??

Thanks a lot in advance.

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."The Juliet Letters", Elvis Costello & The Brodsky Quartet 1993

Hello John, on 10/11/2001 at 23.50 you wrote:

JM> Ah - I see - that makes a difference. Odd. Unfortunately I've never
JM> installed Win2k myself, so it was just a guess. As a matter of interest,
JM> what's on the 1st primary?

Win98SE, my everyday partition.

JM> Also, what are the details of the partitions (i.e. start and end location
JM> in cylinder/head/sector)?

Here they are, right from Ranish Partition Manager:

Ranish Partition Manager       Version 2.40.00           February 08, 2001

                    File                Starting         Ending      Partition
  # Type Row   System Type         Cyl Head Sect    Cyl Head Sect  Size [KB]

    0  MBR   Master Boot Record        0    0    1      0    0    1          0
    1  Pri   Unused                    0    0    2      0    0   63         31
    2 >Pri 1 Windows FAT-32 LBA        0    1    1  1,529  254   63 12,289,693
    3  Pri 2 VFAT Extended LBA     1,530    0    1  4,046  254   63 20,217,802
    4  Ã Log Windows FAT-32        1,530    1    1  2,804  254   63 10,241,406
    6  Ã Log Windows FAT-32        2,805    1    1  3,021  254   63  1,743,021
    8  Ã Log Windows FAT-32        3,022    1    1  3,238  254   63  1,743,021
    9  Ã Log Unused                3,239    0    1  4,004  254   63  6,152,895
   11  Ã Log Linux swap            4,005    1    1  4,041  254   63    297,171
   13  Ã Log QNY 4.x               4,042    1    1  4,046  254   63     40,131
   14  Pri   Unused                4,047    0    1  4,227  254   63  1,453,882
   15  Pri 3 Windows NT NTFS       4,228    0    1  4,865  254   63  5,124,735
   16  Pri   Unused                4,866    0    1  4,866   87   21      2,751

>> PS: was it meant as a private message, or was it written for the list?

JM> I didn't notice until after I'd written it all out that I had replied to
JM> you directly and not the group - still - better for only one person to

So... I hope you don't mind if I CC to the list, having some good
discussion around subjects never hurts. ;))
Thanks.

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."Stupid Dream", Porcupine Tree 1999

> Hello John, on 10/11/2001 at 23.50 you wrote:
>
> JM> Ah - I see - that makes a difference. Odd. Unfortunately I've never
> JM> installed Win2k myself, so it was just a guess. As a matter of interest,
> JM> what's on the 1st primary?
>
> Win98SE, my everyday partition.

Did you originally use the Win2k boot manager prior to installing Xosl?


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@...>

> In short: Win2k refuses to boot when I unhide an extended partition
> (the "Extended LBA" item) in XOSL, telling that the
> System32\ntoskrnl.exe file is missing or corrupt.

i think this subject has been covered several times on this mailing
list.
try a full text search on previous postings using the web interface:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xosl/

NB: the netiquette requires you to investigate things like this PRIOR
to posting to the mailing list!

here's the shortcut:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xosl/messagesearch?query=ntoskrnl

good luck,

  philipp g.

Hello Philipp, on 11/11/2001 at 23.05 you wrote:

PG> NB: the netiquette requires you to investigate things like this PRIOR
PG> to posting to the mailing list!

Hey, I have here all messages from the list starting from 12 August,
and the subject was never discussed in this time range, so I don't
think it's anything like a FAQ.

PG> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xosl/messagesearch?query=ntoskrnl

Thanks. Anyway, the resulting messages (which are not that many)
mostly talk about this problem happening when a partition is hidden,
or when the Win2000 partition is moved, but not when a partition is
_SHOWN_ or, even worse, when just the "Extended LBA" XOSL item is
shown, which is what happened here, and seemed mostly strange to me;
it wouldn't have seemed so strange if it happened after HIDING a
partition...

Nevertheless, the fact that those messages talked about the boot.ini
file made me think about it... The Win2000 boot partition was set up
in boot.ini as multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(3), maybe unhiding the
extended partition required a change here?

So, I did unhide all partitions, booted from the Win2000 CD into the
recovery console, and the "map arc" command showed me that the Win2000
partition was becoming ...partition(2).

Although it sounded very unexpected to me that ADDING some partitions
made the primary partition number go down [I will have to check the MS
article on how partitions are named in boot.ini ;)], maybe changing
boot.ini to (2) could fix the problem... but how could I be sure?
What happened if, after changing boot.ini, I could not boot into
Win2000 anymore with any configuration? I could not find a text editor
in the recovery console (is there one?), so I would have been helpless
in that case...

But I finally found a solution: I opened boot.ini in notepad, cloned
the boot item, and changed the clone from (3) to (2), so I would -
hopefully - get the boot menu and be able to test the new config
and/or go back to the old, working one.

So I did, and it worked!

So... problem solved. :)
I described the procedure in detail just in case anyone else needs it,
now or in the future.

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."Homogenic", Björk 1997

Hello John, on 11/11/2001 at 21.23 you wrote:

JM> Did you originally use the Win2k boot manager prior to installing Xosl?

Well, no, I used it when Win2k was on a logical, but now I installed
it from scratch on a primary, deleting the logical, and deleted all
old Win2k boot files from the Win98 primary.

Anyway, problem solved, see other mail. ;)
Thanks anyway!

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."Stupid Dream", Porcupine Tree 1999

When I choose my Linux item in XOSL, I'm presented with LILO in
"text-menu" mode (or whatever it's called, it's a menu in text mode).
As I want to use two different boot items in XOSL to be able to
automatically select two different boot items in LILO, I tried
assigning some keys to the two XOSL items (cd.cd.cd.ret, for example),
but it doesn't work, it seems like LILO clears the keyboard buffer
before showing its menu.

Does any know any workaround for this?

Thanks in advance.

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."Low", David Bowie 1977

> When I choose my Linux item in XOSL, I'm presented with LILO in
> "text-menu" mode (or whatever it's called, it's a menu in text mode).
> As I want to use two different boot items in XOSL to be able to
> automatically select two different boot items in LILO, I tried
> assigning some keys to the two XOSL items (cd.cd.cd.ret, for
> example), but it doesn't work, it seems like LILO clears the keyboard
> buffer before showing its menu.
>
> Does any know any workaround for this?

There is a workaround for this, although it may seem messy.
I'm assuming that the choices in your LILO menu are separate
installations of Linux, and LILO boots to one of two different
partitions and loads the kernel from it.
You can install LILO on each partition which it is needed to boot, with
the proper options set for that partition and kernel. Then, XOSL will
boot directly to each of those partitions, which will load the LILO
installation specific to that partition.
When (if) XOSL gains the ability to boot the Linux Kernel directly,
LILO will no longer be needed when using XOSL. This will probably
vastly simplify XOSL use with multiple Linux partitions. Anyone wanna
copy some LILO code?

Phil

=====
C:\DOS\
C:\DOS\RUN\
RUN\DOS\RUN

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

Hello Phil, on 13/11/2001 at 3.14 you wrote:

PM> I'm assuming that the choices in your LILO menu are separate
PM> installations of Linux, and LILO boots to one of two different
PM> partitions and loads the kernel from it.

No, unfortunately both choices boot the same partition, with different
options.
But your suggestion might be useful for the second Linux installation
I will do some time in the future. ;)

PM> When (if) XOSL gains the ability to boot the Linux Kernel directly,

This would be very nice. How is XOSL development going? The page on
Sourceforge seems rather empty, yet...

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."Outside", David Bowie 1995

It seems that "ntloader" counts partitions strangly.
At install you hide ext. part which is number 2 in your case. So for him #2
is your 2nd prim.
Use W2k to "create or hide" partitions letter maping.

I hope I did some clarification. :-) filip.

> PM> I'm assuming that the choices in your LILO menu are separate
> PM> installations of Linux, and LILO boots to one of two different
> PM> partitions and loads the kernel from it.
>
> No, unfortunately both choices boot the same partition, with
> different
> options.
> But your suggestion might be useful for the second Linux installation
> I will do some time in the future. ;)

Would it be possible to install LILO in two different places, depending
on which options you want. For example, say your Linux partitions are
on a different hard drive than XOSL. You could put one installation of
LILO in the MBR of this drive, and another in the boot record of a
partition.  In theory, you could even create a whole bunch of small
partitions, each the size of a single cylinder, for the sake of using
the boot record. However, this seems sort of silly.

> PM> When (if) XOSL gains the ability to boot the Linux Kernel
> directly,
>
> This would be very nice. How is XOSL development going? The page on
> Sourceforge seems rather empty, yet...

Yes, I've noticed the same. Geurt, if you're out there, please, come
help us!

Phil

=====
C:\DOS\
C:\DOS\RUN\
RUN\DOS\RUN

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

Hello Filip, on 13/11/2001 at 22.32 you wrote:

FK> At install you hide ext. part which is number 2 in your case. So for him #2
FK> is your 2nd prim.
FK> Use W2k to "create or hide" partitions letter maping.

FK> I hope I did some clarification. :-) filip.

Ehm, no, sorry, I didn't understand. 8-)

During install the extended was hidden, but also the first primary was
hidden, by the way... and nevertheless the second primary has been
identified as #3! Who knows why?

When I did unhide the first primary, the second primary still remained #3.

But when I unhide the extended, the second primary becomes #2. Very
strange.

And what do you mean with "create or hide partition letter mapping"? I
used W2k's disk management tool to assign letters to partitions when I
did unhide them one by one, but can it also create and hide them?

Ciao,
   Marco.
--
..."Crac!", Area 1975