Re: Triple Boot - Which Partition / Boot Manager is best??

[Knowledge Seeker]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for responding. I got pulled away from my re-build, but I am
back on it now. You are right in your assumption that I was looking
for recommendations that were more fact based. I was hoping to see
the results of a thorough line-item-by-line-item comparison that
somebody may have done (perhaps as a business requirement). Or at
least statements like use xxx because it will do A, B, C, and do not
use yyy because it will not do I, J, K (rather than the more common
response of use zzz--it rocks or I use zzz and like it [with no
explanation of why]).

You suggested that I provide more details about my environment.
I have 3 physical hard drives. The first 2 are set-up in a mirrored
RAID configuration (so they should effectively be considered 1 drive
as I want them to remain exact duplicates). The 3rd drive is one
giant extended partition with 10 logical partitions.

I want to install WinXP (NTFS), Win98 (Fat32), and Red Hat Linux 8
Personal edition. I use WinXP 85% of the time, Win98 14% of the time
and Linux 1% of the time. Please do not read the above statement as
any kind of implication that Windows is better than Linux (or vice
versa)--it is just a statement about my current work environment not a
political statement. I want to be able to hide all the partitions
from each other (but still access common data on some of the logical
drives).

Given that the majority of my time is spent in a Win environment, I
thought that it would be best to use a Win-heritage type product (but
want to make sure that it will support Linux also).

Also, while I am not a computer novice, I am also not a full fledged
System Administrator (and do not really want to become one). So, I
need a tool that is easy to use with a nice GUI.

For partitioning, it would be great to be able to access the tool from
any of the operating systems so that I do not have to reboot (or drop
into a DOS mode).

I was leaning toward BootItNG but after reading the manual, I am a bit
intimidated.




On the day of our Lord Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:18:51 GMT "I'm Dan"
> wrote:

>
>"Knowledge Seeker" > wrote:
>> Which Partition/Boot manager is the best??
>>
>> I need to rebuild my hard drive. I am primarily a Windows user but
>> want to build a triple boot system and include a version of Linux.
>> So, I think that I am looking for a Windows-focused product that will
>> also support Linux. This is for a home system so I want to keep cost
>> down but would like a more elegant and robust product than freeware
>> typically provides (and probably need the support of a commercial
>> product also).
>>
>> There seem to be several good candidates:
>>
>> 1. TeraByte Unlimited BootIt
>> 2. PowerQuest Partition Magic/Boot Magic
>> 3. V-Com System Commander/Partition Commander
>> 4. OSL2000 Boot Manager
>> 5. Paragon Bootmanager/Partition Manager
>>
>>Can you point me to a thoroughly detailed comparative review of these
>>products??
>
>As I'm sure you expected, you're getting lots of opinions about what various
>people *like*, but not a lot of meat about why or what the differences are.
>(One good point, though, was that paying for something doesn't make it
>better.)
>
>Give some thought to how you're going to partition your hard drive to
>support your chosen os's (you indicate triple-booting but mention only two
>os's). Consider that a single hard drive can normally (see below *) only
>support four primary partitions, one of which may be an "extended" partition
>which can be subdivided into additional volumes (aka, partitions) -- the
>partition scheme would look something like ([1] [2] [3] [4a,4b,4c,...]).
>Linux requires at least two partitions (one being its swap partition), so if
>you have a Windows system and like to keep your data on a separate partition
>(e.g., "D:"), you could use up all four partition table entries just between
>these two os's. However, not everything requires its own primary
>partition -- while DOS and Win9x must be installed on primary partitions, XP
>and both linux partitions can live in volumes within an extended partition.
>An example with 5 os's might be ([DOS] [W95] [W98]
>[XP,linux,linux-swap,DOSext]).
>
>Why is this material? Because ideally you want only certain partitions
>visible depending on which os you boot, and some boot managers provide more
>control over hiding/unhiding the various partitions. For example,
>Powerquest's BootMagic is a good, easy-to-use program (and free, if you've
>already got PartitionMagic), but it will only hide primary partitions, not
>individual volumes of the extended partition. In the above 5-os example,
>you could configure BM to boot W98 while hiding the DOS and W95 partitions,
>but BM would not be able to hide the XP partition and leave the DOSext (for
>example, a "D:" drive for W98) visible because they're both within the
>extended partition. W98 won't be able to read the linux partitions anyway,
>nor the XP partition if it's formatted as ntfs, but that's another issue, my
>point is the boot manager is not controlling whether or not those partitions
>are visible. This would be a problem if the XP partition was fat32.
>
>My experience with System Commander was with an old version, but I remember
>that program also could not selectively control the volumes in the extended
>partition.
>
>TeraByte's BootitNG does allow fine-tuning the visibility of all partitions,
>including individual volumes within the extended partition. I believe
>(though I haven't confirmed this) that it can also permit XP to completely
>reside within an extended partition. (Normally if you install XP into an
>extended partition, it still needs to boot from a primary partition that
>can't be hidden). In reference to (*) above, BootitNG can also allow you to
>install more than 4 primary partitions, giving you the ability to install
>huge numbers of os's, but it does so by converting your hard disk's
>partition table to a proprietary format, which personally would make me
>uncomfortable. Fortunately, you don't have to enable that feature.
>
>Another possibility you might look at is XOSL (www.xosl.org), which I
>haven't tried but appears to be full featured and free, as well. I'm not
>really familiar with linux boot managers, but I'm not sure grub or lilo can
>provide this kind of control over the boot options for the DOS or Win os's.
>I'm also not familiar with the other boot managers you've mentioned.
>
>I hope my notes here will spur others to post constructive details or
>correct errors in my notes.
>
>Also, beware that some (many?) os's must boot from a partition physically
>within the first 1024 cylinders of the hard disk, regardless of how you
>manage their visibility. ("Physically" is used loosely here, as modern
>disks translate the real geometry, but typically this means the first 8GB).
>
>And lastly, my personal preferences: BootitNG for complex setups, or
>Powerquest's BootMagic if you don't need BootitNG's enhancements.
>

--

To reply to me directly, please replace the garbage before the @ sign with the name K-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e-S-e-e-k-e-r (without the dashes)

[Walter Clayton]

BING is easier to use than is implied by the manual. The fact that it's as
flexible as it is does make it appear to be convoluted, but I do use it to
manage 10-12 OS images over 4 HDs.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp


"Knowledge Seeker" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for responding. I got pulled away from my re-build, but I am
> back on it now. You are right in your assumption that I was looking
> for recommendations that were more fact based. I was hoping to see
> the results of a thorough line-item-by-line-item comparison that
> somebody may have done (perhaps as a business requirement). Or at
> least statements like use xxx because it will do A, B, C, and do not
> use yyy because it will not do I, J, K (rather than the more common
> response of use zzz--it rocks or I use zzz and like it [with no
> explanation of why]).
>
> You suggested that I provide more details about my environment.
> I have 3 physical hard drives. The first 2 are set-up in a mirrored
> RAID configuration (so they should effectively be considered 1 drive
> as I want them to remain exact duplicates). The 3rd drive is one
> giant extended partition with 10 logical partitions.
>
> I want to install WinXP (NTFS), Win98 (Fat32), and Red Hat Linux 8
> Personal edition. I use WinXP 85% of the time, Win98 14% of the time
> and Linux 1% of the time. Please do not read the above statement as
> any kind of implication that Windows is better than Linux (or vice
> versa)--it is just a statement about my current work environment not a
> political statement. I want to be able to hide all the partitions
> from each other (but still access common data on some of the logical
> drives).
>
> Given that the majority of my time is spent in a Win environment, I
> thought that it would be best to use a Win-heritage type product (but
> want to make sure that it will support Linux also).
>
> Also, while I am not a computer novice, I am also not a full fledged
> System Administrator (and do not really want to become one). So, I
> need a tool that is easy to use with a nice GUI.
>
> For partitioning, it would be great to be able to access the tool from
> any of the operating systems so that I do not have to reboot (or drop
> into a DOS mode).
>
> I was leaning toward BootItNG but after reading the manual, I am a bit
> intimidated.
>
>
>
>
> On the day of our Lord Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:18:51 GMT "I'm Dan"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Knowledge Seeker" > wrote:
> >> Which Partition/Boot manager is the best??
> >>
> >> I need to rebuild my hard drive. I am primarily a Windows user but
> >> want to build a triple boot system and include a version of Linux.
> >> So, I think that I am looking for a Windows-focused product that will
> >> also support Linux. This is for a home system so I want to keep cost
> >> down but would like a more elegant and robust product than freeware
> >> typically provides (and probably need the support of a commercial
> >> product also).
> >>
> >> There seem to be several good candidates:
> >>
> >> 1. TeraByte Unlimited BootIt
> >> 2. PowerQuest Partition Magic/Boot Magic
> >> 3. V-Com System Commander/Partition Commander
> >> 4. OSL2000 Boot Manager
> >> 5. Paragon Bootmanager/Partition Manager
> >>
> >>Can you point me to a thoroughly detailed comparative review of these
> >>products??
> >
> >As I'm sure you expected, you're getting lots of opinions about what
various
> >people *like*, but not a lot of meat about why or what the differences
are.
> >(One good point, though, was that paying for something doesn't make it
> >better.)
> >
> >Give some thought to how you're going to partition your hard drive to
> >support your chosen os's (you indicate triple-booting but mention only
two
> >os's). Consider that a single hard drive can normally (see below *) only
> >support four primary partitions, one of which may be an "extended"
partition
> >which can be subdivided into additional volumes (aka, partitions) -- the
> >partition scheme would look something like ([1] [2] [3] [4a,4b,4c,...]).
> >Linux requires at least two partitions (one being its swap partition), so
if
> >you have a Windows system and like to keep your data on a separate
partition
> >(e.g., "D:"), you could use up all four partition table entries just
between
> >these two os's. However, not everything requires its own primary
> >partition -- while DOS and Win9x must be installed on primary partitions,
XP
> >and both linux partitions can live in volumes within an extended
partition.
> >An example with 5 os's might be ([DOS] [W95] [W98]
> >[XP,linux,linux-swap,DOSext]).
> >
> >Why is this material? Because ideally you want only certain partitions
> >visible depending on which os you boot, and some boot managers provide
more
> >control over hiding/unhiding the various partitions. For example,
> >Powerquest's BootMagic is a good, easy-to-use program (and free, if
you've
> >already got PartitionMagic), but it will only hide primary partitions,
not
> >individual volumes of the extended partition. In the above 5-os example,
> >you could configure BM to boot W98 while hiding the DOS and W95
partitions,
> >but BM would not be able to hide the XP partition and leave the DOSext
(for
> >example, a "D:" drive for W98) visible because they're both within the
> >extended partition. W98 won't be able to read the linux partitions
anyway,
> >nor the XP partition if it's formatted as ntfs, but that's another issue,
my
> >point is the boot manager is not controlling whether or not those
partitions
> >are visible. This would be a problem if the XP partition was fat32.
> >
> >My experience with System Commander was with an old version, but I
remember
> >that program also could not selectively control the volumes in the
extended
> >partition.
> >
> >TeraByte's BootitNG does allow fine-tuning the visibility of all
partitions,
> >including individual volumes within the extended partition. I believe
> >(though I haven't confirmed this) that it can also permit XP to
completely
> >reside within an extended partition. (Normally if you install XP into an
> >extended partition, it still needs to boot from a primary partition that
> >can't be hidden). In reference to (*) above, BootitNG can also allow you
to
> >install more than 4 primary partitions, giving you the ability to install
> >huge numbers of os's, but it does so by converting your hard disk's
> >partition table to a proprietary format, which personally would make me
> >uncomfortable. Fortunately, you don't have to enable that feature.
> >
> >Another possibility you might look at is XOSL (www.xosl.org), which I
> >haven't tried but appears to be full featured and free, as well. I'm not
> >really familiar with linux boot managers, but I'm not sure grub or lilo
can
> >provide this kind of control over the boot options for the DOS or Win
os's.
> >I'm also not familiar with the other boot managers you've mentioned.
> >
> >I hope my notes here will spur others to post constructive details or
> >correct errors in my notes.
> >
> >Also, beware that some (many?) os's must boot from a partition physically
> >within the first 1024 cylinders of the hard disk, regardless of how you
> >manage their visibility. ("Physically" is used loosely here, as modern
> >disks translate the real geometry, but typically this means the first
8GB).
> >
> >And lastly, my personal preferences: BootitNG for complex setups, or
> >Powerquest's BootMagic if you don't need BootitNG's enhancements.
> >
>
> --
>
> To reply to me directly, please replace the garbage before the @ sign with
the name K-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e-S-e-e-k-e-r (without the dashes)

[SrBueno]

Knowledge Seeker wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for responding. I got pulled away from my re-build, but I am
> back on it now. You are right in your assumption that I was looking
> for recommendations that were more fact based. I was hoping to see
> the results of a thorough line-item-by-line-item comparison that
> somebody may have done (perhaps as a business requirement). Or at
> least statements like use xxx because it will do A, B, C, and do not
> use yyy because it will not do I, J, K (rather than the more common
> response of use zzz--it rocks or I use zzz and like it [with no
> explanation of why]).
>
> You suggested that I provide more details about my environment.
> I have 3 physical hard drives. The first 2 are set-up in a mirrored
> RAID configuration (so they should effectively be considered 1 drive
> as I want them to remain exact duplicates). The 3rd drive is one
> giant extended partition with 10 logical partitions.
>
> I want to install WinXP (NTFS), Win98 (Fat32), and Red Hat Linux 8
> Personal edition. I use WinXP 85% of the time, Win98 14% of the time
> and Linux 1% of the time. Please do not read the above statement as
> any kind of implication that Windows is better than Linux (or vice
> versa)--it is just a statement about my current work environment not a
> political statement. I want to be able to hide all the partitions
> from each other (but still access common data on some of the logical
> drives).
>
> Given that the majority of my time is spent in a Win environment, I
> thought that it would be best to use a Win-heritage type product (but
> want to make sure that it will support Linux also).
>
> Also, while I am not a computer novice, I am also not a full fledged
> System Administrator (and do not really want to become one). So, I
> need a tool that is easy to use with a nice GUI.
>
> For partitioning, it would be great to be able to access the tool from
> any of the operating systems so that I do not have to reboot (or drop
> into a DOS mode).
>
> I was leaning toward BootItNG but after reading the manual, I am a bit
> intimidated.
>
>
>
>
> On the day of our Lord Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:18:51 GMT "I'm Dan"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Knowledge Seeker" > wrote:
>>> Which Partition/Boot manager is the best??
>>>
>>> I need to rebuild my hard drive. I am primarily a Windows user but
>>> want to build a triple boot system and include a version of Linux.
>>> So, I think that I am looking for a Windows-focused product that will
>>> also support Linux. This is for a home system so I want to keep cost
>>> down but would like a more elegant and robust product than freeware
>>> typically provides (and probably need the support of a commercial
>>> product also).
>>>
>>> There seem to be several good candidates:
>>>
>>> 1. TeraByte Unlimited BootIt
>>> 2. PowerQuest Partition Magic/Boot Magic
>>> 3. V-Com System Commander/Partition Commander
>>> 4. OSL2000 Boot Manager
>>> 5. Paragon Bootmanager/Partition Manager
>>>
>>>Can you point me to a thoroughly detailed comparative review of these
>>>products??
>>
>>As I'm sure you expected, you're getting lots of opinions about what
>>various people *like*, but not a lot of meat about why or what the
>>differences are. (One good point, though, was that paying for something
>>doesn't make it better.)
>>
>>Give some thought to how you're going to partition your hard drive to
>>support your chosen os's (you indicate triple-booting but mention only two
>>os's). Consider that a single hard drive can normally (see below *) only
>>support four primary partitions, one of which may be an "extended"
>>partition which can be subdivided into additional volumes (aka,
>>partitions) -- the partition scheme would look something like ([1] [2] [3]
>>[4a,4b,4c,...]). Linux requires at least two partitions (one being its
>>swap partition), so if you have a Windows system and like to keep your
>>data on a separate partition (e.g., "D:"), you could use up all four
>>partition table entries just between
>>these two os's. However, not everything requires its own primary
>>partition -- while DOS and Win9x must be installed on primary partitions,
>>XP and both linux partitions can live in volumes within an extended
>>partition. An example with 5 os's might be ([DOS] [W95] [W98]
>>[XP,linux,linux-swap,DOSext]).
>>
>>Why is this material? Because ideally you want only certain partitions
>>visible depending on which os you boot, and some boot managers provide
>>more
>>control over hiding/unhiding the various partitions. For example,
>>Powerquest's BootMagic is a good, easy-to-use program (and free, if you've
>>already got PartitionMagic), but it will only hide primary partitions, not
>>individual volumes of the extended partition. In the above 5-os example,
>>you could configure BM to boot W98 while hiding the DOS and W95
>>partitions, but BM would not be able to hide the XP partition and leave
>>the DOSext (for example, a "D:" drive for W98) visible because they're
>>both within the
>>extended partition. W98 won't be able to read the linux partitions
>>anyway, nor the XP partition if it's formatted as ntfs, but that's another
>>issue, my point is the boot manager is not controlling whether or not
>>those partitions
>>are visible. This would be a problem if the XP partition was fat32.
>>
>>My experience with System Commander was with an old version, but I
>>remember that program also could not selectively control the volumes in
>>the extended partition.
>>
>>TeraByte's BootitNG does allow fine-tuning the visibility of all
>>partitions,
>>including individual volumes within the extended partition. I believe
>>(though I haven't confirmed this) that it can also permit XP to completely
>>reside within an extended partition. (Normally if you install XP into an
>>extended partition, it still needs to boot from a primary partition that
>>can't be hidden). In reference to (*) above, BootitNG can also allow you
>>to install more than 4 primary partitions, giving you the ability to
>>install huge numbers of os's, but it does so by converting your hard
>>disk's partition table to a proprietary format, which personally would
>>make me
>>uncomfortable. Fortunately, you don't have to enable that feature.
>>
>>Another possibility you might look at is XOSL (www.xosl.org), which I
>>haven't tried but appears to be full featured and free, as well. I'm not
>>really familiar with linux boot managers, but I'm not sure grub or lilo
>>can provide this kind of control over the boot options for the DOS or Win
>>os's. I'm also not familiar with the other boot managers you've mentioned.
>>
>>I hope my notes here will spur others to post constructive details or
>>correct errors in my notes.
>>
>>Also, beware that some (many?) os's must boot from a partition physically
>>within the first 1024 cylinders of the hard disk, regardless of how you
>>manage their visibility. ("Physically" is used loosely here, as modern
>>disks translate the real geometry, but typically this means the first
>>8GB).
>>
>>And lastly, my personal preferences: BootitNG for complex setups, or
>>Powerquest's BootMagic if you don't need BootitNG's enhancements.
>>
>
> --
>
> To reply to me directly, please replace the garbage before the @ sign with
> the name K-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e-S-e-e-k-e-r (without the dashes)

grub

[SrBueno]

Knowledge Seeker wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for responding. I got pulled away from my re-build, but I am
> back on it now. You are right in your assumption that I was looking
> for recommendations that were more fact based. I was hoping to see
> the results of a thorough line-item-by-line-item comparison that
> somebody may have done (perhaps as a business requirement). Or at
> least statements like use xxx because it will do A, B, C, and do not
> use yyy because it will not do I, J, K (rather than the more common
> response of use zzz--it rocks or I use zzz and like it [with no
> explanation of why]).
>
> You suggested that I provide more details about my environment.
> I have 3 physical hard drives. The first 2 are set-up in a mirrored
> RAID configuration (so they should effectively be considered 1 drive
> as I want them to remain exact duplicates). The 3rd drive is one
> giant extended partition with 10 logical partitions.
>
> I want to install WinXP (NTFS), Win98 (Fat32), and Red Hat Linux 8
> Personal edition. I use WinXP 85% of the time, Win98 14% of the time
> and Linux 1% of the time. Please do not read the above statement as
> any kind of implication that Windows is better than Linux (or vice
> versa)--it is just a statement about my current work environment not a
> political statement. I want to be able to hide all the partitions
> from each other (but still access common data on some of the logical
> drives).
>
> Given that the majority of my time is spent in a Win environment, I
> thought that it would be best to use a Win-heritage type product (but
> want to make sure that it will support Linux also).
>
> Also, while I am not a computer novice, I am also not a full fledged
> System Administrator (and do not really want to become one). So, I
> need a tool that is easy to use with a nice GUI.
>
> For partitioning, it would be great to be able to access the tool from
> any of the operating systems so that I do not have to reboot (or drop
> into a DOS mode).
>
> I was leaning toward BootItNG but after reading the manual, I am a bit
> intimidated.
>
>
>
>
> On the day of our Lord Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:18:51 GMT "I'm Dan"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Knowledge Seeker" > wrote:
>>> Which Partition/Boot manager is the best??
>>>
>>> I need to rebuild my hard drive. I am primarily a Windows user but
>>> want to build a triple boot system and include a version of Linux.
>>> So, I think that I am looking for a Windows-focused product that will
>>> also support Linux. This is for a home system so I want to keep cost
>>> down but would like a more elegant and robust product than freeware
>>> typically provides (and probably need the support of a commercial
>>> product also).
>>>
>>> There seem to be several good candidates:
>>>
>>> 1. TeraByte Unlimited BootIt
>>> 2. PowerQuest Partition Magic/Boot Magic
>>> 3. V-Com System Commander/Partition Commander
>>> 4. OSL2000 Boot Manager
>>> 5. Paragon Bootmanager/Partition Manager
>>>
>>>Can you point me to a thoroughly detailed comparative review of these
>>>products??
>>
>>As I'm sure you expected, you're getting lots of opinions about what
>>various people *like*, but not a lot of meat about why or what the
>>differences are. (One good point, though, was that paying for something
>>doesn't make it better.)
>>
>>Give some thought to how you're going to partition your hard drive to
>>support your chosen os's (you indicate triple-booting but mention only two
>>os's). Consider that a single hard drive can normally (see below *) only
>>support four primary partitions, one of which may be an "extended"
>>partition which can be subdivided into additional volumes (aka,
>>partitions) -- the partition scheme would look something like ([1] [2] [3]
>>[4a,4b,4c,...]). Linux requires at least two partitions (one being its
>>swap partition), so if you have a Windows system and like to keep your
>>data on a separate partition (e.g., "D:"), you could use up all four
>>partition table entries just between
>>these two os's. However, not everything requires its own primary
>>partition -- while DOS and Win9x must be installed on primary partitions,
>>XP and both linux partitions can live in volumes within an extended
>>partition. An example with 5 os's might be ([DOS] [W95] [W98]
>>[XP,linux,linux-swap,DOSext]).
>>
>>Why is this material? Because ideally you want only certain partitions
>>visible depending on which os you boot, and some boot managers provide
>>more
>>control over hiding/unhiding the various partitions. For example,
>>Powerquest's BootMagic is a good, easy-to-use program (and free, if you've
>>already got PartitionMagic), but it will only hide primary partitions, not
>>individual volumes of the extended partition. In the above 5-os example,
>>you could configure BM to boot W98 while hiding the DOS and W95
>>partitions, but BM would not be able to hide the XP partition and leave
>>the DOSext (for example, a "D:" drive for W98) visible because they're
>>both within the
>>extended partition. W98 won't be able to read the linux partitions
>>anyway, nor the XP partition if it's formatted as ntfs, but that's another
>>issue, my point is the boot manager is not controlling whether or not
>>those partitions
>>are visible. This would be a problem if the XP partition was fat32.
>>
>>My experience with System Commander was with an old version, but I
>>remember that program also could not selectively control the volumes in
>>the extended partition.
>>
>>TeraByte's BootitNG does allow fine-tuning the visibility of all
>>partitions,
>>including individual volumes within the extended partition. I believe
>>(though I haven't confirmed this) that it can also permit XP to completely
>>reside within an extended partition. (Normally if you install XP into an
>>extended partition, it still needs to boot from a primary partition that
>>can't be hidden). In reference to (*) above, BootitNG can also allow you
>>to install more than 4 primary partitions, giving you the ability to
>>install huge numbers of os's, but it does so by converting your hard
>>disk's partition table to a proprietary format, which personally would
>>make me
>>uncomfortable. Fortunately, you don't have to enable that feature.
>>
>>Another possibility you might look at is XOSL (www.xosl.org), which I
>>haven't tried but appears to be full featured and free, as well. I'm not
>>really familiar with linux boot managers, but I'm not sure grub or lilo
>>can provide this kind of control over the boot options for the DOS or Win
>>os's. I'm also not familiar with the other boot managers you've mentioned.
>>
>>I hope my notes here will spur others to post constructive details or
>>correct errors in my notes.
>>
>>Also, beware that some (many?) os's must boot from a partition physically
>>within the first 1024 cylinders of the hard disk, regardless of how you
>>manage their visibility. ("Physically" is used loosely here, as modern
>>disks translate the real geometry, but typically this means the first
>>8GB).
>>
>>And lastly, my personal preferences: BootitNG for complex setups, or
>>Powerquest's BootMagic if you don't need BootitNG's enhancements.
>>
>
> --
>
> To reply to me directly, please replace the garbage before the @ sign with
> the name K-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e-S-e-e-k-e-r (without the dashes)

grub

[Paul Larson]

Knowledge Seeker > wrote in
:

> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for responding. I got pulled away from my re-build, but I am
> back on it now. You are right in your assumption that I was looking
> for recommendations that were more fact based.

Have you seen ExtIPL? I haven't used it for a few years but the program was
elegant in its simplicity.

http://www.tsden.org/ryutaroh/extipl/extipl.html

Paul

[Paul Busby]

Walter Clayton prematurely pulled the chain & typed:
> BING is easier to use than is implied by the manual. The fact that
> it's as flexible as it is does make it appear to be convoluted, but I
> do use it to manage 10-12 OS images over 4 HDs.

Only 10-12 OSs & only 4 discs - you pussy ;)