Dual boot problems (RESOLVED)
youshi10 at u.washington.edu
Wed Feb 14 03:46:20 UTC 2007
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:51:52 -0500 (EST)
> "Questions" <questions at totaldiver.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:44:03 -0500 (EST)
>>> "Questions" <questions at totaldiver.net> wrote:
>>>> However, when I try FreeBSD/amd64, grub won't compile (it's
>>>> architecture is forced to i386 only in the Makefile. I haven't dug
>>>> into why, but I'm confident there is a reason. Obviously, grub
>>>> becomes a non-option. Gag has the same limitation of being i386
>>> I'm not sure why gag is i386 only, all it does is install a binary
>>> floppy disk ISO. You can also install it from many Linux live CDs.
>>> Once it's installed it's independent of the original installation
Probably because architecture stuff and bit length in 32-bit is half :)?
Instruction set's a bit different too. There are some new features in
the new Intel processors like overflow protection, etc, so I wouldn't
doubt there are differences in ISA at the assembler level.
>> To help anyone out who is also attempting to dualboot FreeBSD/amd64
>> and Vista: here is what I did.
>> Install Vista first. Use the disk manager to create a partition (or
>> resize the partition) to make room for FreeBSD.
>> reboot, and install FreeBSD, installing a standard MBR (the machine
>> will reboot directly into FreeBSD)
>> After back into a fresh FreeBSD, do:
>> sysinstall > Configure > Distributions > lib32 (this installs 32bit
>> compatibility libraries.
>> Now fetch
>> (yes, the i386 package)
>> pkg_add grub.tgz
>> It will now work in compatibility mode, and you can use it same as
>> you can with a native FreeBSD/i386.
> FWIW gag will work without any of that, and will carry on working if
> you replace the FreeBSD partition.
Yeah, but grub provides more power in choosing your load options though.
Besides, gag has an ugly bootloader screen >_>.. I only use gag when I'm
not afforded a choice with FreeBSD's bootloader and then grub.
More information about the freebsd-questions