In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb
<brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:10:09 -0400
<t1mxvr918zlr$.1sr8hvsos06pj$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:40:03 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
>> <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:01:02 -0400
>> <gp1hz4cnel0c$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:11:38 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll admit to some curiosity as to whether Vista's bootloader,
>>>> which I suspect is identical to the old NT/2k/XP bootloader,
>>>> will work the same way with GRUB. GRUB has no trouble at all
>>>> booting XP.
>>>
>>> No, the Vista bootloader is an entirely different program. It's designed to
>>> work with BitLocker (Full disk encryption) and EFI (although Microsoft
>>> doesn't officially support EFI in 32 bit, it's still the same system that's
>>> supported in 64 bit).
>>
>> So OK, then. How does one install Linux on a
>> single-partition Vista machine?
>
> The real question is *why* would someone want to install Linux on a single
> partition Vista machine.
>
Why are people wanting to install XP on a single partition
Vista machine?
Vista's wonderful, right?
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
