XFS resizing & Win2k

[Net Llama!]

The more I think about this the more sure i am that the NT derrivitives
don't have a first partition on disk requirement.  In a previous life, i
had to setup a few multi-windoze boot boxen, and while win9x wouldn't boot
from anywhere but 'hda1', i know that i could get NT4 to boot just fine
from elsewhere.  big question though is whether win2k has changed this
behavior.  hrmm.

On Thu, 29 May 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote:
> I dont know about 2k but the other not NT versions have to be, I think win calls
> it "first active partition" or some such, but I think you can set that when you
> partition. But I recall installing windows98 on the second drive of a box once,
> but again, I had to set the partiton to active. FWIW
>
> On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:18:24 -0400 (EDT) - Net Llama! <netllama at linux-sxs.org>
> wrote the following
> Re: Re: XFS resizing & Win2k
>
> >On Thu, 29 May 2003, Andrew Mathews wrote:
> >> | ugh.  oh well, i guess i'll give it a whirl.  thanks.
> >> |
> >> | Anyone know if Win2k has any ridiculous need to be on hda1, or will it be
> >> | ok sitting on hda4?
> >> |
> >>
> >> No, it needs to be on C:\ <slap>
> >
> >Seriously, does win2k need to be on the first partition of the primary
> >master IDE channel?  I don't want to go through all of this to find out
> >that win2k won't fly.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman				netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo		     http://netllama.ipfox.com