Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

problems with xp sp2/backtrack


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 12:17 PM

basically i need some to tell me how to set up a dual boot with backtrack which probably isnt possible on the hdd because it already has a win xp 80gb pri c, a win 95 3gb primary hidden dos, and another 40mb primary hidden fat, and a 80gb d. i was going to part d and use that but i cant as can only have 3 primarys? so probably going to have to install on one of my 4gb flash drives. i am also wondering if anyone knows which dsl version i should download as the newest one that i installed on my dell inspiron 4000 is very touchy and if it loses power which it does beause the cable is reatarder or if i dont powerdown right it cant mount the hdd so i have to reinstall dsl which is crazy annoying.

#2 intimidat0r

intimidat0r

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 07 April 2009 - 02:55 PM

Why do you insist on crummy livecd distros?

Do those even have package managers?

#3 livinded

livinded

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Agents of the Revolution
  • 1,942 posts
  • Location:~/

Posted 07 April 2009 - 03:52 PM

Not defending backtrack at all because I am fairly apposed to it's use and it's installation, but I believe that it is now based on Debian with the release of the new one which means that it should have apt and dpkg installed.

#4 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 04:16 PM

Why do you insist on crummy livecd distros?

Do those even have package managers?

idk i was going to use it because 3.8gb isnt alot of space, and i could use debian which is the same size accept id have to install anything i want which would make it bigger that i can get on a 4g flash drive, pretty much all live cd's are the same size as most of them use the same .gz/.bz2 compression if install gentoo i still need like 4gb i just wont have any aps really. if i had more space i would probably install gentoo or open bsd but limited space on flash drive and cant install on hdd as i cant change the partition tables when i install xp. and i dont want to lug a usb dvd drive with me to run it on my eee if i go anywhere

Edited by dinscurge, 07 April 2009 - 04:25 PM.


#5 phasma

phasma

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:22 PM

Why do you insist on crummy livecd distros?

Do those even have package managers?

idk i was going to use it because 3.8gb isnt alot of space, and i could use debian which is the same size accept id have to install anything i want which would make it bigger that i can get on a 4g flash drive, pretty much all live cd's are the same size as most of them use the same .gz/.bz2 compression if install gentoo i still need like 4gb i just wont have any aps really. if i had more space i would probably install gentoo or open bsd but limited space on flash drive and cant install on hdd as i cant change the partition tables when i install xp. and i dont want to lug a usb dvd drive with me to run it on my eee if i go anywhere


Go with Knoppix. Its the KDE live-cd brother of Debian. And it has a package manager, which makes it not a waste of time!

#6 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:28 PM

Why do you insist on crummy livecd distros?

Do those even have package managers?

idk i was going to use it because 3.8gb isnt alot of space, and i could use debian which is the same size accept id have to install anything i want which would make it bigger that i can get on a 4g flash drive, pretty much all live cd's are the same size as most of them use the same .gz/.bz2 compression if install gentoo i still need like 4gb i just wont have any aps really. if i had more space i would probably install gentoo or open bsd but limited space on flash drive and cant install on hdd as i cant change the partition tables when i install xp. and i dont want to lug a usb dvd drive with me to run it on my eee if i go anywhere


Go with Knoppix. Its the KDE live-cd brother of Debian. And it has a package manager, which makes it not a waste of time!

lols i cant its the same as every other cd its like 3.7-4gb so i wouldnt be able to install anything thats why i wanted backtrack because then it already has stuff instead of having a little bit of nothing. :D

#7 phasma

phasma

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:41 PM

Why do you insist on crummy livecd distros?

Do those even have package managers?

idk i was going to use it because 3.8gb isnt alot of space, and i could use debian which is the same size accept id have to install anything i want which would make it bigger that i can get on a 4g flash drive, pretty much all live cd's are the same size as most of them use the same .gz/.bz2 compression if install gentoo i still need like 4gb i just wont have any aps really. if i had more space i would probably install gentoo or open bsd but limited space on flash drive and cant install on hdd as i cant change the partition tables when i install xp. and i dont want to lug a usb dvd drive with me to run it on my eee if i go anywhere


Go with Knoppix. Its the KDE live-cd brother of Debian. And it has a package manager, which makes it not a waste of time!

lols i cant its the same as every other cd its like 3.7-4gb so i wouldnt be able to install anything thats why i wanted backtrack because then it already has stuff instead of having a little bit of nothing. :D


Then I would suggest getting rid of some of those partitions and sticking Ubuntu or Debian along side XP. Use your favorite partitioning manager (can only think of Partition Magic at the moment) for this. Or if you are a pack rat or just have sentimental attachment to other OS. Just use stick BT3 on a flashdrive and boot from it.

<fingerscrossed>
I hope livinded is right about the new backtrack!
</fingerscrossed>

#8 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:45 PM

Then I would suggest getting rid of some of those partitions and sticking Ubuntu or Debian along side XP. Use your favorite partitioning manager (can only think of Partition Magic at the moment) for this. Or if you are a pack rat or just have sentimental attachment to other OS. Just use stick BT3 on a flashdrive and boot from it.

<fingerscrossed>
I hope livinded is right about the new backtrack!
</fingerscrossed>


lols thats what i was trying to ask, i cant remove the wndows 95 dos/ or the hiden fat 40mb, i may be able to remove one but i havent checked and dont really care to brick my machine again and have to reinstall the whole os and tons of apps i mean i havent used the d: partitiona at all but dont i need a primary to boot linux?

#9 phasma

phasma

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:46 PM

Then I would suggest getting rid of some of those partitions and sticking Ubuntu or Debian along side XP. Use your favorite partitioning manager (can only think of Partition Magic at the moment) for this. Or if you are a pack rat or just have sentimental attachment to other OS. Just use stick BT3 on a flashdrive and boot from it.

<fingerscrossed>
I hope livinded is right about the new backtrack!
</fingerscrossed>


lols thats what i was trying to ask, i cant remove the wndows 95 dos/ or the hiden fat 40mb, i may be able to remove one but i havent checked and dont really care to brick my machine again and have to reinstall the whole os and tons of apps i mean i havent used the d: partitiona at all but dont i need a primary to boot linux?


Don't quote me. But I think you need a primary for linux.

#10 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:48 PM

Don't quote me. But I think you need a primary for linux.


i think its the /boot that needs to be primary as swap and /home is logical
:edit aparantly it does have to have primary for boot, but according to some site google sent me to which im going to link to when i find it again said i ca have 4 primarys on a intel machine if i have a primary's contatint the whole drive and have a logical some how partitioned of inside the primarys allowing me to get like 15 different parts? idk it confused me as i didnt know you could partition inside of another partition..
http://www.faqs.org/.../Partition.html

Edited by dinscurge, 07 April 2009 - 06:06 PM.


#11 phasma

phasma

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 07 April 2009 - 06:06 PM

Don't quote me. But I think you need a primary for linux.


i think its the /boot that needs to be primary as swap and /home is logical
:edit aparantly it does have to have primary for boot, but according to some site google sent me to which im going to link to when i find it again said i ca have 4 primarys on a intel machine if i have a primary's contatint the whole drive and have a logical some how partitioned of inside the primarys allowing me to get like 15 different parts? idk it condused me


I think we're both wrong.

Typical Linux desktop systems often use only two partitions: a single "/" (root directory) containing the entire filesystem plus a much smaller swap partition


http://en.wikipedia....sk_partitioning

#12 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 06:08 PM

I think we're both wrong.

Typical Linux desktop systems often use only two partitions: a single "/" (root directory) containing the entire filesystem plus a much smaller swap partition


http://en.wikipedia....sk_partitioning


i think wiki is wrong again, as whenever i have used dsl, gentoo, debian, and tried backtrack which is slax based? it said to make a boot, a swap and /,

#13 phasma

phasma

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 07 April 2009 - 06:13 PM

I think we're both wrong.

Typical Linux desktop systems often use only two partitions: a single "/" (root directory) containing the entire filesystem plus a much smaller swap partition


http://en.wikipedia....sk_partitioning


i think wiki is wrong again, as whenever i have used dsl, gentoo, debian, and tried backtrack which is slax based? it said to make a boot, a swap and /,


/ and swap are primary's, and usually boot if you have multiple OS's. Which in this case you do. So I'd go with that.

Edited by phasma, 07 April 2009 - 06:14 PM.


#14 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 06:22 PM

/ and swap are primary's, and usually boot if you have multiple OS's. Which in this case you do. So I'd go with that.


go with what the flash drive?, i can make ext3 and linswap logical but i think the boot has to be primary atleast but dont know how to make partitions inside other ones or watever ^_^ mabey a mastermind like ohm could explain how i can get a fourth primary

Edited by dinscurge, 07 April 2009 - 06:24 PM.


#15 phasma

phasma

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 07 April 2009 - 06:25 PM

/ and swap are primary's, and usually boot if you have multiple OS's. Which in this case you do. So I'd go with that.


go with what the flash drive?


No. I am saying that it is required to have / and swap partitions. You cant stick a distro on a flash drive, only a live distro would work on a flash drive.

Just delete those un-used partitions and put Linux on your laptop along side XP. There is no use for Win 95.

Edited by phasma, 07 April 2009 - 06:26 PM.


#16 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 06:52 PM

/ and swap are primary's, and usually boot if you have multiple OS's. Which in this case you do. So I'd go with that.


go with what the flash drive?


No. I am saying that it is required to have / and swap partitions. You cant stick a distro on a flash drive, only a live distro would work on a flash drive.

Just delete those un-used partitions and put Linux on your laptop along side XP. There is no use for Win 95.

i tried before it bricked the machine its a hidden fat32 windows 95 part,

the part disk is basically
hda1	 b	pri.	NTFS	90gb
hda2		  pri.	NTFS	70gb
hda3		  pri.	hidden windows 95 fat32	10gb
hda4		  pri.	NTFS EFI (fat-12/16/32)	50mb

i basically want to use hda2 as i only need 1 primary and id be able to have like 11 more logical parts so can definatly have linuxswap and a /. i have no idea what the win95 or the efi parts do but i deleted them before and it just bricked xp

Edited by dinscurge, 07 April 2009 - 06:53 PM.


#17 phasma

phasma

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 07 April 2009 - 06:57 PM

It shouldn't brick anything. XP doesn't depend of 95 once so ever. They even use different file systems. If you're that worried about it then back your data up and then do it.

#18 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 07:00 PM

It shouldn't brick anything. XP doesn't depend of 95 once so ever. They even use different file systems. If you're that worried about it then back your data up and then do it.

how can you back up a partition you cant acces? ^_^. i deleted the win95/efi before all it did was when i started up it couldnt boot. just went to bios

#19 phasma

phasma

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 527 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 07 April 2009 - 07:07 PM

It shouldn't brick anything. XP doesn't depend of 95 once so ever. They even use different file systems. If you're that worried about it then back your data up and then do it.

how can you back up a partition you cant acces? ^_^. i deleted the win95/efi before all it did was when i started up it couldnt boot. just went to bios


I am saying back up sensitive data on the XP side. (If your not able to access that either, then just nuke it!) Then delete Win 95 and if it happens to mystically destroy your computer then just reinstall XP and load the just load back on the data.

#20 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 937 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 07 April 2009 - 07:11 PM

It shouldn't brick anything. XP doesn't depend of 95 once so ever. They even use different file systems. If you're that worried about it then back your data up and then do it.

how can you back up a partition you cant acces? ^_^. i deleted the win95/efi before all it did was when i started up it couldnt boot. just went to bios


I am saying back up sensitive data on the XP side. (If your not able to access that either, then just nuke it!) Then delete Win 95 and if it happens to mystically destroy your computer then just reinstall XP and load the just load back on the data.


lols i already did that like last wednsday thats why i dont want to do it again :D its mostly the couple gigabites of updates for video games i dont want to have to re download




BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!