July 31st, 2013, 11:10 AM
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?
July 31st, 2013, 01:29 PM
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.
August 1st, 2013, 01:57 AM
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?
August 1st, 2013, 03:05 AM
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.
August 1st, 2013, 06:59 AM
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?
August 1st, 2013, 11:44 AM
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.
It is a truism of American politics that no man who can win an election deserves to. --Trevanian, from the novel Shibumi
August 1st, 2013, 12:12 PM
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.
Originally Posted by Doug G
How can Linux not require any bootloader. Who will load it then?
August 1st, 2013, 12:30 PM
That's a pretty big "only" there.
Originally Posted by Avichal
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Avichal
What's in the MBR varies because software varies. More than one tool for the job.
August 1st, 2013, 12:42 PM
Got it. Thank you very much!