[arch-general] Wanted: advice dual-booting Arch and Windows 7 on new laptop
gsnijders at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 13:00:44 EDT 2012
2012/9/19 Robbie Smith <zoqaeski at gmail.com>:
> On 19/09/12 07:02, Guus Snijders wrote:
>> 2012/9/18 Robbie Smith <zoqaeski at gmail.com>:
>>> Hi everyone
>>> TL;DR: I've just bought a new HP Pavilion g6-2103ax, and I'm having
>>> difficulties trying to figure out how I can dual-boot it with Windows 7
>>> (which was preinstalled).
>>> Windows *still* defaults to using MBR partitions, and even though the
>>> is UEFI, HP have used some trickery somewhere to make it boot from BIOS.
>>> make matters worse, the disk table already has four partitions:
>>> SYSTEM: 199 MB NTFS
>>> Windows C drive: ~ 450 GB NTFS
>>> HP Recovery partition: 18.5 GB NTFS
>>> HP_TOOLS: 99 MB FAT32
>> Hmm, i'd guess that the recovery partition is bootable, so it's best
>> not to modify it too much. The HP_Tools partition is probably just a
>> data partition (and not a very interesting one, but ymmv).
>> First of; do you have (or can you create) a recovery disk in case all
>> goes wrong?
[moving and deleting partitions]
>> I'm not sure where the bootloader fits in best in the scenario, but
>> that shouldn't be too hard.
> I can delete the recovery partition, as I've got the "recovery" (AKA factory
> reset) disks from HP under warranty. The HP_TOOLS partition is at the end of
> the disk, so in theory I can't add an extended partition before it, as
> extended partitions are meant to be the last in the table. Although on this
> Samsung netbook I've got an extended partition as the third (marked with *)
> of four primaries, so it seems to work:
> Using that as a guide I could set up the new laptop in a similar way.
Indeed. In fact an extended partition is just a "special" primary partition.
In theory a single (MBR) harddisk could just as easily have 4 extended
> It's a shame HP and Microsoft made it so difficult, and after this little
> episode I'm beginning to suspect that the real reason Microsoft is pushing
> Secure Boot is because UEFI+GPT makes it much easier to install multiple
> operating systems on a machine without conflicts, but Secure Boot will
> require an authorised and signed key, and guess who will control the key
I'm still not entirely sure what the real benefits of GPT are, but
that's another discussion.
That they made a it a bit more difficult; no argument there. I guess
they assume users never
touch the partition table anyway.
As for secure boot: Redhead/Fedora were working (or perhaps already
having) a secure
bootloader. It would't be too hard to install that and use it to boot
More information about the arch-general