Slashdot Log In
Boot Linux, BSD, and OS X from Vista
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Oct 16, 2006 02:51 PM
from the by-your-bootstraps dept.
from the by-your-bootstraps dept.
An anonymous reader writes, "NeoSmart Technologies has just released EasyBCD 1.5, complete with support for Vista, Windows NT/2k/XP, and Windows 9x/ME. EasyBCD 1.5 adds experimental support for dual-booting any of these along with Linux, Mac OS X, or BSD — straight from the Windows Vista bootloader without any additional configuration needed!" From the article: "Windows Vista's new bootmanager is a double-edged sword. It's one of the most powerful booting scripts in existence, and a far cry from the very limiting boot.ini of legacy Windows operating systems. But it overwrites the MBR without a second thought, and doesn't provide any means for users of alternate operating systems and boot managers to use their old system. That's where EasyBCD 1.5 comes in!" EasyBCD 1.5 is free.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
BCD? (Score:4, Funny)
Surprise, surprise. (Score:5, Funny)
"But it overwrites the MBR without a second thought...."
Well, who would have expected Microsoft to do that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Consider yourself lucky. When I installed Windows XP alongside Linux, it trashed my entire hard drive [advogato.org]. That was the last time I ever installed Windows. The system simply can not be trusted. I use Linux and OS X exclusively now.
Re:Surprise, surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Surprise, surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)
Personaly, I choose to instal lilo onto a floppy (the boot code). Then go in later and move it to the hard drive. This allows me to boot to a boot disk and streight into linux if neccesary. Also it allows for a backup of lilo's config in case windows trashes the partition linux is on.
Something i'm wondering is, Did microsoft do this in order to screw open source boot loaders and make the act of dual booting into a free operating system more dificult? It apears that the site is down for the EasyBCD loader. I cannot tell if it is free as in opensource free or just free as in no costs for now free. It could directly effect the way some distro's are compatible with VIsta.
I'm also wondering if the "opensource" free version if any, would be GPLv3 compatible because microsoft will no doubtly have certain levels of pattents pertaining to the vista boot loader that the EasyBCD guys might not be able to control enough to be GPLv3 compliant. Not to mention that newer microsoft OS's typicly create a volume serial number that is tied into booting and operation of the OS. This is most evident when cloning drives and when it doesn't keep the corect serial you get errors on booting. How would this be effected by the ANTI-TIVO type wording in the GPLv3 when a GPLed product is working with the code or programs? I Think some clearification might be in order on this. I have raised simular questions before with products like Itunes and Hardware that locks certain performances out in cheaper versions and the answer is always, they shouldn't be doing that or the Closed app should be open. I'm sure booting to vista in a free way might be more important then forcing apple to opensource Itunes in order to keep a GPLv3 frontend compatible with the GPL.
An no, I'm not trolling. These are legit concerns with the GPLv3 brought up by others too. I'm just putting them into relvent terms that can be related to in this context. It would suck donkey balls if GPLv3 licensed bootloaders are incompatible to dual booting with microsoft operating systems because of this. Especial when the entire idea behind the changes is to control the manufacturers hardware with previous versions of the GPL claims is outside the GPL's scope.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Jonah HEX
Overwrite MBR == Urgent Patch (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of like stealing from a Las Vegas casino. Won't happen.
So... (Score:2)
This is why on multiboot systems I install Grub into the partition rather than the MBR. This way you can keep the Windows MBR and just set the Linux partition as bootable and it works as it's supposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you checked your license agreement?
Re:Overwrite MBR == Urgent Patch (Score:4, Insightful)
In case you didn't notice, you are installing an operating system. Generally speaking, machines have always shipped with one OS to control the entire system. It is certainly *not* unreasonable for Microsoft to overwrite the MBR. Especially when they expect that their OS will be the only one. You'd have a hard time convincing a judge otherwise.
The fact that Microsoft hasn't improved this part of the install as more hobby OSes have showed up just goes to show how little they care about letting you use your hardware as you want to use it. But they are under no obligations, especially when the installer warns you to make backups before you run it.
Parent
Getting lots of OSes running (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Getting lots of OSes running (Score:5, Informative)
Take the 5 minutes to learn it.
Parent
Re:Getting lots of OSes running (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I use Windows 98 "DOS" to make batch files to run loadlin with a nice menu to boot either Windows 98 (not very often), or a selection of window managers in my knoppix remaster (see screenshots). I can use a "knoppix.img" file for ~/, or just do without that, and boot into the default IceWM. Next choice is Fluxbox, then KDE, then twm.
The Windows 98 desktop has icons for all of that also, and the menu too. So, can jump
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Getting lots of OSes running (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Getting lots of OSes running (Score:4, Informative)
The "last selected OS" is handy, and GRUB can be configured to do this as well, but what if you last selected single user mode, or memtest86? If you reboot your machine remotely, and forget that the last option selected has no network support, you have no way to access the machine. At least with GRUB, you can edit the config and tell it not to do that.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, EasyBCD requires Grub to be installed in order to boot Linux.
Now my problem is, it doesn't want to know what DRIVE I've installed Grub on... so I am doubtful it will work. :/
Re: (Score:2)
2 OS's running simultaneously (Score:3, Interesting)
With the advent of dual core chips and O/S support for these chips, this doesn't seem all that difficult. Isn't Apple already doing it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What would be cool is if Microsoft released software that allowed someone to simultaneously open multiple O/S's at the same time in a non-virtualized environment.
How is this possible without virtualization of some kind be it hardware or software? Oh wait its not...
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like with this [vmware.com]? no wait, Vista's EULA won't let you do that unless you buy the pricier Vista...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You could get around that with some fancy firmware to save the state to some storage device and load it up again, but it really isn't worth it. Virtualization does a better job for most of what you would want to do: Have a base
Re: (Score:2)
Or the hypervisor in many mainframes, IBM POWER5 systems, or anything running Xen. The next generation of GPUs are going to include save and restore state operations, and newer x86 systems finally come with an IOMMU, meaning that a Hypervisor will soon be able to share everything, including the GPU, between machines.
The DirectX 10 driver mod
Re: (Score:2)
Re:2 OS's running simultaneously (Score:4, Interesting)
None of which represent running "2 OSs at the same time without virtualization".
Rosetta: a PowerPC emulation layer for running PowerPC binaries on Intel. I don't know the details but I would assume that system calls to Mac OS X APIs are presented to the native Intel OS X components - so the whole thing isn't exactly running in the emulation layer. The OS components being called by the software are running native on Intel.
X11: A window manager for UNIX. X11 apps running on Mac OS X are still binaries built to run on OS X. The Window manager just handles displaying the GUI elements. This is not running a different OS.
Classic mode: A form of virtualization. It booted OS 9 in a seperate process under OS X. Similar to how VMWare or Virtual PC work. Probably a bit better in terms of hardware support, because Apple had fixed targets for possible hardware on Apple computers, rather than VMWare which for some devices (video cards) only offers basic support.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Dual-core chips have absolutely nothing to do with the ridiculous "multiple OS without virtualization" scenario you are imagining. Yes, it really is "all that difficult", actually more in the line with "impossible".
And no, Apple isn't doing it. Apple hasn't even stepped a foot in the virtualization bandwagon yet, so I'm wondering where you got that idea. Boot Camp is just a
Despite the marketing speak... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm curious if this statement is more than marketing speak. What's so great about BCD?
Re: (Score:2)
Why BCD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact that... (Score:5, Informative)
1. Breaking Apple's Mac OS X license agreement, which says that Mac OS X is to be run only on Apple-branded computers
2. Pirating Mac OS X (Intel), since Mac OS X (Intel) is not available as a standalone OS at present
3. Running a horribly hacked version of Mac OS X, with critical pieces of the system modified, including the kernel
4. Running Mac OS X in an unupdateable state, since any official Apple software updates that overwrite modified pieces of the hacked version of Mac OS X will break it
5. Running Mac OS X in a state completely unsupported by its vendor
6. Possibly violating civil or criminal law in your jurisdiction
I hope that most people can find at least *one* of the above items that would make them reconsider running Mac OS X (Intel) on a generic PC without paying for it (some will no doubt argue that they should be able to "reuse" PowerPC licenses for Mac OS X in spirit, but the fact is that it's not the same product - that's like saying that you at one time owned one software product from a company that's similar, so you should be able to use this other one/newer version/older version/different version for free). I'm sure others will come up with all sorts of justifications why it's okay.
But isn't all of the billions of dollars or R&D and hundreds of thousands of manhours invested in Mac OS X worth something? What if their pricing is predicated on what is essentially a good faith agreement that you'll not hack it and run it on non-Apple hardware? Does Apple have ANY say in how they'd prefer it to be used?
I could go on, of course, but just thought this was worth mentioning.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Breaking the law
2. Having an install which might not work right
Re: (Score:2)
You state that OS X on non-apple hardware is neither stable nor production quality. Legality in terms of licenses is of little importance for personal use and no sane company would use such an unstable product so your "points" are redundant. As a result it is only viable for those individuals who either lack money or wish to play around with OS X, neither of whom is going to buy a Mac instead.
So
Re: (Score:2)
Your arguments are the ones that are irrelevant, here. You don't get to decide that using Mac OS X in this fashion benefits Apple, therefore it's okay in the context your own moral or logical framework for people to pirate it and so on. Apple is the entity that gets to decide, and they have.
It doesn't have anything to do with having anything in anyone's backside.
Again, I'd love to hear about anything that I said that's inc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The retail boxed version of 10.4.7 Server is Intel-compatible.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, you can do just that, then?
...
(What are you trying to ask? Because Boot Camp will officially support Vista, and you'll legally be able to purchase and install Vista on an Intel-based Mac, and you can of course install Linux (yes, the final version of Boot Camp will very likely support more than two partitions and thus more than two OSes), and Mac OS X is obviously a supported OS on an Intel-b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Except for the fact that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple doesn't exactly try to get people thrown in jail for doing this. Sure, they frown on people who distribute hacked versions of their OS. But, I think they are right to do that merely from the point of view that they are protecting less savvy people from fucking themselves and also making it really clear that running OS X in that manner is unsupported and therefore unwise if you are doing any work that might actually be important. But frankly, I've spoken with lots of people from Apple on the subject (admittedly they are not from Apple Legal and are not speaking officially) and they pretty all say that if you want to hack something for the sheer fun of trying to get it to work and aren't redistributing their stuff, then knock yourself out.
Parent
The award goes to... (Score:2)
License: Freeware (Score:5, Informative)
It's freeware. Sorta looks like a Creative Commons license, but basically it's just plain old freeware.
4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
a. You may distribute the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) to, this License with every copy of the Work You distribute, and only with the permission of the Licensor & Original Author. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested.
b. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
c. If you distribute the Work, You must obtain permission from and let the Original Author know, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (and/or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; and to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work. Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner.
Well I just tried it (Score:3, Funny)
I had to replace my MBR for it to work, since I had loaded grub into it.
So I tried to boot into Linux. I must say, I don't remember Linux being a blank screen. I seem to recall it being more interactive...
Boot Record Mastery (Score:3, Informative)
That's not "from" Vista, it's despite Vista.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
already slashdoted
microsoft overwrote it...
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and the U.S. government established the anti-boot laws to keep people from booting OS X.
OS X checks the hardware while booting. This, as far as I know, does nothing to remove or bypass that check. Presumably, it may only be used to boot OS X if you are installing multiple OS's on a Mac or have applied other hacks to OS X. I don't see any likely lawsuits over this.
Tinfoil too tight? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry
Are you posting from the future, where the world has been decimated by killer iPods or something?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)