#1
  1. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    75
    Rep Power
    2

    Disk 0 partition in windows


    I have my computer in a dual-mode operating system with Windows and Ubuntu.

    I have this 50 GB partition for Ubuntu. Today I was just checking my disk partition using Windows-provided Disk Management I noticed the 50 GB partition divided into three parts. How did this happen. Does Ubuntu automatically do this? What is its significance?
  2. #2
  3. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Novice (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    867
    Rep Power
    275
    yes, its normal..... when linux/ubuntu installs, it normally separates it into the "/boot", "/home", and "/" partitions unless you manually go in and configure it differently during install.
  4. #3
  5. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    75
    Rep Power
    2
    I don't want to start another thread so I'll ask a different but a related question here.
    Grub is Ubuntu's boot-loader right? I installed Ubuntu after Windows. So did Grub takeover Window's bootloader? What happened to Window's boot-loader?
  6. #4
  7. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Novice (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    867
    Rep Power
    275
    If you kept all the default settings during install of Ubuntu and installed it AFTER Windows, then, yes, GRUB boot loader has overwritten the Win7 boot loader in your MBR [master boot record].

    You can get the Win7 boot loader back by booting from a win7 install CD and running the Startup Repair option.....but, you will then, loose ability to boot into Ubuntu until you install EasyBCD and setup a new boot listing for Ubuntu using EasyBCD's own version of grub.
    Last edited by DonR; August 1st, 2013 at 03:09 AM.
  8. #5
  9. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    75
    Rep Power
    2
    I don't understand why boot loader is specific to an operating system. Ubuntu has its grub ans Win7 has it's own.
    The boot loader should be an independent thing which loads the operating system. Why different OS have their own? Am I missing something?
  10. #6
  11. No Profile Picture
    Grumpier old Moderator
    Devshed Supreme Being (6500+ posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    14,430
    Rep Power
    4539
    When you install linux you don't have to install a bootloader (i.e., grub). One reason you would is that until recently MS didn't offer a bootloader capable of booting non-MS operating systems, so if you wanted a configurable bootloader for different os's on the same computer, you'd need something like grub or some other 3rd party boot loader.
    ======
    Doug G
    ======
    Bartender to Rene Descartes "have another beer?" Descartes: "I think not" and he vanished.
    --Alfred Bester
  12. #7
  13. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    75
    Rep Power
    2
    Originally Posted by Doug G
    When you install linux you don't have to install a bootloader (i.e., grub). One reason you would is that until recently MS didn't offer a bootloader capable of booting non-MS operating systems, so if you wanted a configurable bootloader for different os's on the same computer, you'd need something like grub or some other 3rd party boot loader.
    You say "MS didn't offer a bootloader". I don't understand why OS has to provide its own bootloader. Why can't there be a bootloader separate of the OS. Afterall it's only job is to load the OS.

    How can Linux not require any bootloader. Who will load it then?
  14. #8
  15. Did you steal it?
    Devshed Supreme Being (6500+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    14,001
    Rep Power
    9398
    Originally Posted by Avichal
    You say "MS didn't offer a bootloader". I don't understand why OS has to provide its own bootloader. Why can't there be a bootloader separate of the OS. Afterall it's only job is to load the OS.
    That's a pretty big "only" there.

    How would a generic one know how to boot every single operating system that can be devised? You could limit to booting whatever is in the VBR but the key word there is "limit". What about multiple boot options? Do you really want to create a physical volume for every single thing you want to boot? That's four on a typical Linux/Windows dualboot system: Linux, Linux in safe mode, Memtest, and Windows. And now you've maxed out the partition table. And then there's multiple Linux kernels too.

    It's too complicated and there are too many things a generic bootloader would have to support, plus it would be built into the BIOS which means you'd have to flash the firmware to update it.

    Originally Posted by Avichal
    How can Linux not require any bootloader. Who will load it then?
    Linux does require a bootloader. Every OS requires a bootloader. All the bare machine knows how to do is find a hard drive and try to execute whatever is in the MBR.
    What's in the MBR varies because software varies. More than one tool for the job.
  16. #9
  17. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    75
    Rep Power
    2
    Got it. Thank you very much!

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo