Persistent Cheat Codes

[Harry Kuhman]

I had not heard of XOSL so I did some Googling. XOSL is just another boot manager.

Yes, it's a boot manager. Name stands for eXtended Operating System Loader. "Just another Boot Manager" is a bit of an understatement though, it's a very capable and powerful boot manager.

Currently XOSL can only be installed to FAT16 or FAT32 partitions (provided that your version of DOS supports it).

No good for NTFS users then

No, you're coming to the wrong conclusion there. By the same logic you would also say that it's not good for Linux users or anyone other than DOS and old windows versions users. While XOSL can install to a Windows partition, I find it best to give it it's own small (2 meg) partition on the disk. From there it can boot any OS, and it can do a lot of things that Microsoft pretends can't be done, like boot Windows from a logical drive on an extended partition on the second, third or forth hard drive.

The MBR (first sector of a hard disk) contains an IPL (Initial Program Loader, or whatever you want to call it) and a partition table. When XOSL is installed, it replaces the existing IPL, with one to load XOSL.

Absolutely. Just as Lilo and Grub do if you elect to install them to the MBR (as most users do). On thing I find real nice about XOSL is that you install it once and then you are pretty much done, unless some other OS (like anything from Microsoft, or letting lilo or grub install to the MBR) overwrites the MBR. But XOSL does prepare for that and makes a backup copy of the MBR, do it is very easy to restore XOSL with all of your curent configurations, should any program fecide to stomp on it.

Messing about with an MBR, along with introducing new partitions, is, in my opinion, too much of a risk to screwing up the Windows system.

Well, as you say, that's your opnion. In my experience it's never caused a problem and likely has avoided many. I see plenty of cases here where people install Lilo or Grub and let it install to the MBR, then can't get WinXP to boot again. When I install Linux I always tell the installer to install the Linux boot loader to the Linux partition. On booting XOSL, if told to select Linux, can then call the Linux boot loader from it's own partition. I never have to mess with a grub configuration file or worse, reconfigure Lilo and reinstall it to the MBR. I can have two or more different linux systems on the same computer and don't have to reconfigure any of their boot programs as I add or remove OSs, since each boot loader stays on the Linux partition with it's OS and only has to deal with loading that OS (as opposed to writing Grub to the IPL on the MBR, which then needs to have config files that show all of the OSs available). The bottom line is that a Windows system with XOSL as a boot laoder is much less likely to ever have boot problems after Installing or removing a Linux system on another partition than one without it that needs Grub or Lilo,

Consequently XOSL is no good to me on two counts already.

You seem to be on a bit of a cursade here to put this solution down, but I believe I have responded to both of your counts already.

It may be a perfectly good option for those who are happy to bit twiddle with their hard drives - but too much of a risk for me.

As already stated it is in no way any more risky than Lilo or Grub and in many ways less risky. But you sure don't have to use it if you don't want. I would just ask that you not invet undue FUD about any alterntive than your own personal religion.

The grub files from the Grub4Dos project do not need new partitions, do not mess with the MBR and are really easy to install - just copy a file to the right place.

I realise that were I to do a full hard disk installation of Debian Linux, or some such, then I would have to do something different - but that is not what is asked for in this thread.

ICPUG

And Grub, if not installed to the Linux partition, does overwrite the windows boot code. I'm happy with XOSL.

But my real reason for presenting my first post in this thread, beyond the poor wording on your part that only the boot loader that you use could solve the problem, is that XOSL is far more powerful than most boot loaders in this area too. While many boot loaders can indeed pass along a few arguments when they start an OS, XOSL is the only one that I know that can further interact with the OS while it boots. It can watch the Keyboard buffer and stuff in keystrokes as the OS is ready to accept them. In this way it can do far more than Grub can as it boots an OS.

Use it or ignore it as you see fit, but please don't spread Fear, Uncertainily, and Doubt against a very good tool just because it is one that you don't have experience with.

And while XOSL can boot Linux systems (it just does this by calling the Linux boot loader installed to the Linux partition), it can boot Windows or any other OS that is suitable for the 8086 PC platform (including OS2, Unix, and more, as well as any OS on a bootable CD or other media). There have been articles about people booting over 30 different OS on the same PC with it. You don't have to fool with manually editing configuration files like you do with Lilo or Grub. And you don't have to learn yet another boot loader if you want to work with another OS, or figure out how to make that system's boot loader and the Linux boot loader co-exist. You learn one good, clean and easy tool and then you have the right tool for booting any system. Knowing and using one easy but powerful tool strikes me as much safer than letting any OS that want to overwrite the IPL code in the MBR.

By the way, it includes the SBM code for booting from CDs even on systems that don't support CD booting. And it includes a partition and format too right in the boot manager (Ranish), so it becomes extremely simple to work with partitioning when you need to, two other things that you don't have if you let Grub take over the MBR.