4 ms·

They sorta did then sorta skipped everyone else. The real requirement was that their bootloader was in the first partition. You can install windows to a diffe

by elwes5 6y ago

They sorta did then sorta skipped everyone else. The real requirement was that their bootloader was in the first partition. You can install windows to a different drive/folder. It would probably mess with a lot of programs out there though. The later versions (past 2000 I think, maybe xp its been awhile) did not really give you the option to put it somewhere else. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/overview-of-the-boot-ini-file https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/de... The problem is they only really made it work correctly with OS2, WindowsNT, Win9x, and DOS. Even then it was kind of a pain to make it work correctly. Have not messed with the UEFI bits they added in recent versions so it may be different now. But I doubt it.

josteink 6y ago
> Have not messed with the UEFI bits they added in recent versions so it may be different now. But I doubt it. So you have not looked into the modern way PCs boot operating systems (as in this century), that is UEFI. Yet somehow you decide to assume Microsoft (which is predominantly not a PC-vendor) have somehow done something something to the PC firmware which boots Windows? Am I understanding you correctly? If you’re 100% ignorant about how modern PCs boot and work, why do you even comment as if your opinion will bring anything to the discussion? And if you’d bother researching things, as opposed to merely holding meanings against them, you’d know UEFI is a firmware level solution to the multi-boot problem, so that operating systems don’t have to solve it each on their own, differently and incompatible. It’s quite great actually.
- elwes5 6y ago
  Did not realize I had to do full on research before posting on everything? My point if you had read it would be boot.ini allows multi boot in particular cases. I am not sure on the UEFI bits as I do not really multi boot anymore. I am sure it is great or miserable. I just personally have little need to do it anymore as VM's tend to solve the particular issues I ran into. Did your browbeating me bring much to the discussion? Why did you bother to comment other than to mock me? Am I understanding YOU correctly?

by elwes5 6y ago

josteink 6y ago

> Have not messed with the UEFI bits they added in recent versions so it may be different now. But I doubt it. So you have not looked into the modern way PCs boot operating systems (as in this century), that is UEFI. Yet somehow you decide to assume Microsoft (which is predominantly not a PC-vendor) have somehow done something something to the PC firmware which boots Windows? Am I understanding you correctly? If you’re 100% ignorant about how modern PCs boot and work, why do you even comment as if your opinion will bring anything to the discussion? And if you’d bother researching things, as opposed to merely holding meanings against them, you’d know UEFI is a firmware level solution to the multi-boot problem, so that operating systems don’t have to solve it each on their own, differently and incompatible. It’s quite great actually.

elwes5 6y ago
Did not realize I had to do full on research before posting on everything? My point if you had read it would be boot.ini allows multi boot in particular cases. I am not sure on the UEFI bits as I do not really multi boot anymore. I am sure it is great or miserable. I just personally have little need to do it anymore as VM's tend to solve the particular issues I ran into. Did your browbeating me bring much to the discussion? Why did you bother to comment other than to mock me? Am I understanding YOU correctly?