The Place to Start for Operating System Developers
http://f.osdev.org/
I think we all know that.rdos wrote:By only supporting Unix-like systems, they lose all credibility as a "free software" organization. GNU, in fact, is an acronym for Linux.
1. Look at GPTrdos wrote: 1. What is the use of 48-bit LBA access when partition tables only contain 32-bit entries?
2. How does a chain-loaded boot-sector know it's disc location? The disc drive should be passed in DL, but what about the start sector of the partition?
It's important only what size and partitioning scheme disk has. You should note that GPT is bad suitable for booting existing BIOS-based Windows systems. If you have disk with size up to 2 Tb don't think about to use GPT. As JAAman said there is theoretical possibility to use disk with size up to 4 Tb minus 1 Kb without GPT too (when partition with position and length 0FFFFFFFFh is used). If you use multiboot-compliant boot loader then no reason to get position of the boot partition from boot loader. The partition number is enough. You can put legacy GRUB on NTFS partition only if it will be running directly by GRUB's stage1 (not by stage1_5). But this is not used because GRUB's config file and other data should be placed on non-NTFS paftition anyway. Therefore your partition configuration is typical for legacy GRUB/NTFS. You can install GRUB and your kernel on FAT partition (stage1 should be placed into MBR) and use simple config file to choice between Windows 7 or your kernel. Or you can use my technique (see below).rdos wrote:This really sounds too complex.
What would be the easiest solution if I wanted a PC with a SATA-disc (non-IDE mode) to boot a multiboot-compliant kernel from a FAT32 partition located in the third partition slot? Partition 1 and 2 are NTFS. I also want to chain-load Windows 7 from partition 2. Additionally, the boot-loader must be placed in the MBR of the disc, as booting from a CD/DVD is too time-consuming because it is not possible to permanently set default-boot from CD/DVD.
It seems like legacy-GRUB cannot handle this as it is not possible to place GRUB stages on the first partition (it is not even visible in Windows 7).
I will take your wishes into accountSolar wrote:That's the single most annoying thing with Windows Setup. Whatever boot manager I use is my decision. An OS setup has no business doing anything outside its assigned installation partition(s). You may subserviently ask me if I already have an MBR boot manager installed, and if you could do me the favor of installing one, but generally speaking an OS is a guest of mine given a specific partition to reside in, and my MBR / boot manager is none of its business. I will chain-load the partition bootloader. How I do that is my business.
I just wanted to say that advanced users can use setupmbr/setupldr tools separately. I understand your indignation and I'm solid with you because I practice double system configurations (Win/Win, Win/Linux-based OS, Win/my kernel-based OS) and when I install Windows in second turn it has replaced my MBR boot loader 
You can install legacy GRUB on the partition where your system is placed (I don't believe that NTFS is base FS for your system) and then use "chainloader (hd0,x)+1" to the NTFS partition. Or you can install my Alter into MBR and GRUB's stage1 into VBR of "your partition" and then use GRUB only for your specific needs (for example I use modified GRUB just as one of my second stage boot loaders).rdos wrote:I think I found the solution after I posted this. It seems like I'm using an old GRUB (legacy) version and this is why it cannot read NTFS, nor can place the boot stages on any partition.
Let we try to do that floppy. Why did you not try some Linux LiveCD?So, the answer probably is GRUB legacy. I also searched for GRUB2 solutions, but I'm unable to find anything that does not require a Linux / UNIX installation (there are no prebuilt floppy-images available).
A GRUB legacy 0.97 floppy image would be appreciated. I can mount it with vfd in Windows in order to update the contents of the menu.lst file. I could also host such an image on my website, and someone could link it from the GRUB wiki-page so others can use it as well. The floppy-image of GRUB that I use is 0.5.97 (I think it is from 2001).egos wrote:Let we try to do that floppy. Why did you not try some Linux LiveCD?
Solar wrote:Am I on your ignore list or something?
There is no mention of which version they contain. The first one seems to be from 2004, and thus would (probably) not be 0.97. In fact, it is only 3 years younger than the one I already have. The second one is in bz2-format, which is not readable in Windows (yes, I know there are Windows tools for this, but without knowing if this is version 0.97 I wouldn't bother to install those tools).Solar wrote:Trying again: Disk Images links to two different ready-made GRUB floppy images at the bottom of the page.
I'll look into that.Solar wrote:Also, installing GRUB through a Knoppix LiveCD is an option that does not require you to install Linux on your laptop.
Works perfectly good. I just installed it on the MBR of my Sony Vaio. Thanks, Solar.Solar wrote:http://www.rootdirectory.de/solar/floppy.img.zip. That's 0.97-somewhat-ubuntu, because I couldn't be bothered to compile from vanilla sources for you. I didn't test it either, it's a simple follow-the-Wiki-tutorial. You're welcome.
I've got passed the stage "do everything yourself".Solar wrote:Basically, I failed. Because I was unable to make you do it yourself, which would have been easy enough...
But that's your failure, not a failure of the GRUB team to provide Windows binaries, nor a failure of our Wiki, which provides a really simple description of how to do it.rdos wrote:Especially when it comes to compiling things on Unix/Linux. I've been there, and decided "no more".
False.rdos wrote:It seems like legacy-GRUB cannot handle this.
False.rdos wrote:(there are no prebuilt floppy-images available)
False.rdos wrote:It also assumes that it is Linux (or a UNIX-derivate) that is to be dual-booted with something, and that this OS is already installed.
You didn't provide the "Windows binaries". You provided a boot-disc for GRUB, which the GRUB team should have done. There is no sense in every user (that might not run a Linux/Unix-derivate) having to create a bootable floppy for GRUB. This should be part of making a new version! It is like distributing an OS as source-only.Solar wrote:But that's your failure, not a failure of the GRUB team to provide Windows binaries, nor a failure of our Wiki, which provides a really simple description of how to do it.rdos wrote:Especially when it comes to compiling things on Unix/Linux. I've been there, and decided "no more".
Deciding against something is one thing. But don't point to others for blame.
There are binaries of grub legacy.. They're not "Windows binaries", because that doesn't make any sense.rdos wrote:You didn't provide the "Windows binaries". You provided a boot-disc for GRUB, which the GRUB team should have done. There is no sense in every user (that might not run a Linux/Unix-derivate) having to create a bootable floppy for GRUB. This should be part of making a new version! It is like distributing an OS as source-only.
