Post removed.

TheRLG · Post by **TheRLG** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:42 pm

Post removed.

mm765 · Post by **mm765** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:50 pm

install xp first and instead of a 20gb linux partition use a 19gb root (/) and a 1gb swap partition.
many ppl prefer having an extra boot partition but im doing fine without it for a few years now so i guess you could too

TheRLG · Post by **TheRLG** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:52 pm

Post removed.

bal · Post by **bal** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:52 pm

Hmm, I first installed WinXP and then Fedora Core 3. The partition manager (grub) automatically boots WinXP after a few seconds now. This was all done automatically by Fedora. But notice that you won't see the Linux partitions in Windows... Also decide what file system you want to use for the Windows partitions. NTFS isn't quite good supported under Linux, only reading is possible with the module I tried. FAT is fully supported.

mm765 · Post by **mm765** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:56 pm

hmm..the only purpose for a boot partition i ever understood was when the boot-loaders were not able to boot from a partition that startet after cylinder(or sector?) 1024 on a harddisk. so then you would create a small boot partition within that limit to be able to run the bootmanager at all. but since that limit is long gone i dont see any more purpose for it. but thats just me and there may be a purpose i dont know of.

TheRLG · Post by **TheRLG** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:56 pm

Post removed.

mm765 · Post by **mm765** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:58 pm

it will only affect you if you want to exchange data between windows and linux.
since you cant write to a ntfs-partition from linux and cant write to a linux partition from windows.

TheRLG · Post by **TheRLG** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:00 pm

Post removed.

afecelis · Post by **afecelis** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:41 pm

KDE is more fancy and good-looking; it's also more resource-demmanding. Gnome is more traditional-looking and less hardware straining.

Remember that there are packages and software designed for each environment. KDE software looks prettier whereas Gnome software relies heavily on the GTK libraries, therefore not so pretty.

In other words (graphically speaking); KDE=Winxp; Gnome=Win98.

If you got a fast PC go with KDE, it's nicer and on good hardware it runs smooth. Another pro on its favor is that it's more constantly developed than Gnome. I wouldn't bother installing Gnome at all.

read this funny comparison I ran itnto:
http://www.illusionary.com/GNOMEvKDE.html

TheRLG · Post by **TheRLG** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:54 pm

Post removed.

bal · Post by **bal** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:58 pm

That would be the easiest way to go. Though you'll have to do it with less harddisk security options and a bit less performance in WinXP. But it's worth it

.

afecelis · Post by **afecelis** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:06 pm

but FAT is so damn slow!!!

you really need to share info among the 2 OS's?

I'd go with separate file systems, NTFS for winxp and ReiserFS for Linux. But this would be in case I don't want to do any crossover sharing.

Usually I like to separate both things, even when dual-booting.

RLG not logged · Post by **RLG not logged** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:28 pm

would it be possible to do NTFS for windows, and just use FAT for the one i would put my linux stuff on?

mm765 · Post by **mm765** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:41 pm

use ntfs for xp and ext2,reiserfs or whatever for linux and use fat for one partition you will then use for data-exchange between them.

RLG not logged · Post by **RLG not logged** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:43 pm

mm765 wrote:use ntfs for xp and ext2,reiserfs or whatever for linux and use fat for one partition you will then use for data-exchange between them.

what is ext2? lol

ooh i just used Knoppix! Linux rocks!