Re: Redy 1.0.a1 released!
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 21, 2015
- 2869 views
For those who are very comfortable with Windows, Linux controlling the boot is very worrisome.
I don't understand why this would be the case. Of course, I haven't used dual booting in a very long time, so there might be something that I'm missing here.
My effort was to put WINDOWS IN CHARGE OF DUAL BOOT OR MULTIPLE BOOT instead of Linux..
Let's be technical here. Strictly speaking, neither is in charge, as this point comes before either kernel is loaded. The argument is merely over which bootloader to prefer loading first.
So I gave him the solution which keeps Windows in control of the Dual boot.
I feel this is really a matter of preference. If this is what you like, there's nothing wrong with it. I don't have an issue with ryanj doing things this way either, if that's what he wants.But I don't see any advantage at in doing it this way. OTOH I only see a very minor disadvantage, if it is even that at all (an extra step is required and so is an extra piece of software, that is restricted to non-commercial uses).
Your interpretation that Windows does not allow dual boot, is wrong.
I admit that I was not up to date on the latest version of windoze. So I finally looked it up.
http://www.tomsguide.com/answers/id-2212502/install-windows-ubuntu-linux.html
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RecoveringUbuntuAfterInstallingWindows
I therefore revise my original statement as follows:
"Better than doing it in reverse - even today, it appears that current M$ OSes STILL will refuse to give you a dual boot option with Linux/GNU when installed out of the box."
It does appear that third-party software, such as the non-M$ owned EasyBCD, will allow you to rectify this situation after the fact. However, that has always been the case.
