eeek
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3db3d/3db3d59337ccc8bc3ec15645b7ab368bce77b85a" alt="Offline"
Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: Dec. 2006 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cd3a8/cd3a84c67c9ea531b591a3a8b33552269a04250f" alt="" |
Posted: Feb. 19 2007,21:48 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d6c44/d6c44952b272c7945ab6f79c02e4aece27e637ca" alt="QUOTE" |
From my beginning with DSL, I had done a traditional HD install because that's all I knew how to do. Then I came across the (very informative) thread about "why do people do HD installs instead of frugal".
Until last weekend, I'd had a very well functioning laptop that dual booted to DSL or WinME. I had done a traditional HD install, used Lilo and the dual boot machine was set up very easily.
Just for fun, I decided to try the frugal install. Leaving the windows partition alone, I wiped the linux partition, reset up the partitions, and tried the frugal install. The computer didn't like it. I think it had something to do with not recognizing more than 4 HD partitions (but of course, I'm really not sure why the install didn't work.)
So (finally), the question: will the frugal install method allow dual booting as smoothly as the traditional HD install does?
By the way, after all this I went back to my old setup. I timed myself - I started and completed the traditional HD install in less than 5 minutes. Pretty cool. I think many people like DSL for many different reasons.
Thanks,
|