(redundant)

I've installed linux (ubuntu caelinux) next to dos & xp/reactos
(every time I cycled between XP and RxOS, CAE wanted reinstall).
but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
In the past it wanted to install a second CAElinux partition,
but when I wiped it, it installed fine.

THe ISO hasn't changed. DOS & XP bootloader works fine.

So what did I do to the GRUB loader?

I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails

I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4), right?

GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
saved right)

I can't get back to this until Tuesday

Many thanks

Very confused

--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---

On 5/25/23 17:10, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> (redundant)
>
> I've installed linux (ubuntu caelinux) next to dos & xp/reactos
> (every time I cycled between XP and RxOS, CAE wanted reinstall).
> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
> In the past it wanted to install a second CAElinux partition,
> but when I wiped it, it installed fine.
>
> THe ISO hasn't changed. DOS & XP bootloader works fine.
>
> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?
>
> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails
>
> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4), right?

Read your documentation. As for extended and or logical partition why?
Because you want to run ancient softwares on hardware when ancient
softwares should be confined to a VirtualBox.
Use modern GPT with a tiny EFI partition to install a later version of
whatever OS you find convenient.
Then install the systems you want to have available though Deus or
Satanus knows why in separate instances of VirtualBox.
>
> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
> saved right)
>
> I can't get back to this until Tuesday
>
> Many thanks
>
> Very confused
You seem to work at that.

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

vjp2.at@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.

Use VirtualBox.

> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?

You did not use VirtualBox.

> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails

You should have been using VirtualBox.

> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4),
> right?

No, in 2023 you should be using VirtualBox.

> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
> saved right)

Using VirtualBox would save you from all of these problems.

> Very confused

Because you are not using VirtualBox.

Am 26.05.23 um 05:48 schrieb Rich:
> vjp2.at@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
>
> Use VirtualBox.
>
>> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?
>
> You did not use VirtualBox.
>
>> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails
>
> You should have been using VirtualBox.
>
>> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4),
>> right?
>
> No, in 2023 you should be using VirtualBox.
>
>> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
>> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
>> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
>> saved right)
>
> Using VirtualBox would save you from all of these problems.
>
>> Very confused
>
> Because you are not using VirtualBox.

And you are definitely a Troll and Idiot using VirtualBox.
Try to leave your tiny box.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 26/05/2023 11:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 26.05.23 um 05:48 schrieb Rich:
>> vjp2.at@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
>>
>> Use VirtualBox.
>>
>>> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?
>>
>> You did not use VirtualBox.
>>
>>> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails
>>
>> You should have been using VirtualBox.
>>
>>> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4),
>>> right?
>>
>> No, in 2023 you should be using VirtualBox.
>>
>>> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
>>> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
>>> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
>>> saved right)
>>
>> Using VirtualBox would save you from all of these problems.
>>
>>> Very confused
>>
>> Because you are not using VirtualBox.
>
> And you are definitely a Troll and Idiot using VirtualBox.
> Try to leave your tiny box.
>
No, he is fairly fanboi, but it does make sense. If you want to have an
old fashioned OS to run alongside a modern linux, virtual box is way
better than dual booting

Only if you wanna play real time games do you need e.g. a native windows
installation.

But if its that important, you will probably have a dedicated $5000
dollar machine and dedicated video/keyboard/overclocked CPU blah blah
for it.

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

Am 26.05.23 um 12:58 schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
> On 26/05/2023 11:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 26.05.23 um 05:48 schrieb Rich:
>>> vjp2.at@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>>> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
>>>
>>> Use VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?
>>>
>>> You did not use VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails
>>>
>>> You should have been using VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4),
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> No, in 2023 you should be using VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
>>>> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
>>>> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
>>>> saved right)
>>>
>>> Using VirtualBox would save you from all of these problems.
>>>
>>>> Very confused
>>>
>>> Because you are not using VirtualBox.
>>
>> And you are definitely a Troll and Idiot using VirtualBox.
>> Try to leave your tiny box.
>>
> No, he is fairly fanboi, but it does make sense. If you want to have an
> old fashioned OS to run alongside a modern linux, virtual box is way
> better than dual booting
>
> Only if you wanna play real time games do you need e.g. a native windows
> installation.
>
> But if its that important, you will probably have a dedicated $5000
> dollar machine and dedicated video/keyboard/overclocked CPU blah blah
> for it.

You are problem- and solution-oriented. That is the difference.

The French say: C'est toujours le ton qui fait la musique.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 26.05.23 um 05:48 schrieb Rich:
>> vjp2.at@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
>>
>> Use VirtualBox.
>>
>>> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?
>>
>> You did not use VirtualBox.
>>
>>> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails
>>
>> You should have been using VirtualBox.
>>
>>> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4),
>>> right?
>>
>> No, in 2023 you should be using VirtualBox.
>>
>>> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
>>> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
>>> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
>>> saved right)
>>
>> Using VirtualBox would save you from all of these problems.
>>
>>> Very confused
>>
>> Because you are not using VirtualBox.
>
> And you are definitely a Troll and Idiot using VirtualBox.
> Try to leave your tiny box.
>

Plonk

On 2023-05-26 06:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 26/05/2023 11:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 26.05.23 um 05:48 schrieb Rich:
>>> vjp2.at@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>>> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
>>>
>>> Use VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?
>>>
>>> You did not use VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails
>>>
>>> You should have been using VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4),
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> No, in 2023 you should be using VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged
>>>> as boot
>>>> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and
>>>> NOT worked
>>>> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if
>>>> they got
>>>> saved right)
>>>
>>> Using VirtualBox would save you from all of these problems.
>>>
>>>> Very confused
>>>
>>> Because you are not using VirtualBox.
>>
>> And you are definitely a Troll and Idiot using VirtualBox.
>> Try to leave your tiny box.
>>
> No, he is fairly fanboi, but it does make sense. If you want to have an
> old fashioned OS to run alongside a modern linux, virtual box is way
> better than dual booting
>
> Only if you wanna play real time games do you need e.g. a native windows
> installation.
>
> But if its that important, you will probably have a dedicated $5000
> dollar machine and dedicated video/keyboard/overclocked CPU blah blah
> for it.
>
You all are assuming the OP has hardware that is capable of working
effectively with VirtualBox. That may not be the case.

The OP did not describe his hardware. It's quite possible that it is
older, slower, with limited RAM, etc. It may be OK with dual-booting,
but be a real dog for virtual options.

And before you tell him to get some newer hardware, that may not be an
option, either. None of us knows a thing about his situation.

TJ

Am 26.05.23 um 13:57 schrieb Rich:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 26.05.23 um 05:48 schrieb Rich:
>>> vjp2.at@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>>> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
>>>
>>> Use VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?
>>>
>>> You did not use VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails
>>>
>>> You should have been using VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4),
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> No, in 2023 you should be using VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
>>>> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
>>>> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
>>>> saved right)
>>>
>>> Using VirtualBox would save you from all of these problems.
>>>
>>>> Very confused
>>>
>>> Because you are not using VirtualBox.
>>
>> And you are definitely a Troll and Idiot using VirtualBox.
>> Try to leave your tiny box.
>>
>
> Plonk

*THX*
You are an antisocial idiot indeed.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:
> You all are assuming the OP has hardware that is capable of working
> effectively with VirtualBox. That may not be the case.

That is a possibility -- although I was running VB on a core2duo chip
with 8G ram circa 2011 with no issues. So the OP would have to be
using some seriously old hardware for such to be the case. But this is
a possibility, although I rank it a somewhat low probability
possibility.

> The OP did not describe his hardware.

The OP has been posting for some months with similar issues. Trying to
install some very old distribution in a dual/triple/etc. boot
situation, often with similar results to this latest post, hosing his
existing boot in the process. The push for "just use VirtualBox" has
come about for at least two reasons:

The OP's been repeating the same mistake (hosing his bootloader), again
and again, trying to install various niche distro's in a multi-boot
setup. VB has come up as a solution to stop the "repeating the same
mistake, expecting a different outcome" feel that OP has built up.

The OP has also been posting in a rather typical "troll aroma" method.
Just barely enough info to be ambiguous, no (or extremely few)
responses to any queries for additional information. Both of which are
common troll tactics to get an 'infighting discussion' started.
Whether this is the OP's intent is not yet known, but some of the
common patterns show up. This aspect also led to the "just use
VirtualBox" response to his latest post. Even if someone here helps
him fix his latest breakage, in two weeks he will be back, with yet
another "broken bootloader from trying to install Y in a dual-boot
setup".

> It's quite possible that it is older, slower, with limited RAM, etc.
> It may be OK with dual-booting, but be a real dog for virtual
> options.

Possible, but as I was running VB on that 2011 era system with little
problem (now, I could not run ten VB's at the same time, but
'multi-boot' is "one at a time" -- so one VB at a time is little
different). Therefore while possible, OP would have to be using some
very old hardware if this were the case. But being silent on his host
hardware does not help us in any way either.

> And before you tell him to get some newer hardware, that may not be
> an option, either. None of us knows a thing about his situation.

Also true, although hardware that is quite capable of effectively
running VB can be had from eBay for circa $150-$200 (US) or thereabouts
(source: I'm typing this on one of those circa 150-200 eBay specials,
and it is well more than capable of running VB effectively). So yes,
it is possible that $150-$200 may be out of reach, but if that amount
is not out of reach, then OP does have a not too costly way (assuming
his existing system is not itself already capable) to avoid
continuously hosing his boot loader hosed each time he tries to shuffle
some new old distro through his system.

On 26/05/2023 16:50, Rich wrote:
> TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>> You all are assuming the OP has hardware that is capable of working
>> effectively with VirtualBox. That may not be the case.
>
> That is a possibility -- although I was running VB on a core2duo chip
> with 8G ram circa 2011 with no issues. So the OP would have to be
> using some seriously old hardware for such to be the case. But this is
> a possibility, although I rank it a somewhat low probability
> possibility.
>
>> The OP did not describe his hardware.
>
> The OP has been posting for some months with similar issues. Trying to
> install some very old distribution in a dual/triple/etc. boot
> situation, often with similar results to this latest post, hosing his
> existing boot in the process. The push for "just use VirtualBox" has
> come about for at least two reasons:
>
> The OP's been repeating the same mistake (hosing his bootloader), again
> and again, trying to install various niche distro's in a multi-boot
> setup. VB has come up as a solution to stop the "repeating the same
> mistake, expecting a different outcome" feel that OP has built up.
>
> The OP has also been posting in a rather typical "troll aroma" method.
> Just barely enough info to be ambiguous, no (or extremely few)
> responses to any queries for additional information. Both of which are
> common troll tactics to get an 'infighting discussion' started.
> Whether this is the OP's intent is not yet known, but some of the
> common patterns show up. This aspect also led to the "just use
> VirtualBox" response to his latest post. Even if someone here helps
> him fix his latest breakage, in two weeks he will be back, with yet
> another "broken bootloader from trying to install Y in a dual-boot
> setup".
>
>> It's quite possible that it is older, slower, with limited RAM, etc.
>> It may be OK with dual-booting, but be a real dog for virtual
>> options.
>
> Possible, but as I was running VB on that 2011 era system with little
> problem (now, I could not run ten VB's at the same time, but
> 'multi-boot' is "one at a time" -- so one VB at a time is little
> different). Therefore while possible, OP would have to be using some
> very old hardware if this were the case. But being silent on his host
> hardware does not help us in any way either.
>
>> And before you tell him to get some newer hardware, that may not be
>> an option, either. None of us knows a thing about his situation.
>
> Also true, although hardware that is quite capable of effectively
> running VB can be had from eBay for circa $150-$200 (US) or thereabouts
> (source: I'm typing this on one of those circa 150-200 eBay specials,
> and it is well more than capable of running VB effectively). So yes,
> it is possible that $150-$200 may be out of reach, but if that amount
> is not out of reach, then OP does have a not too costly way (assuming
> his existing system is not itself already capable) to avoid
> continuously hosing his boot loader hosed each time he tries to shuffle
> some new old distro through his system.
>
I think this HP Elite desktop which runs Vbox , has 8GB ram, 240GB SSD
and fast enough video for games was about £230 refurbed.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 2023-05-26 12:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 26.05.23 um 05:48 schrieb Rich:
>> vjp2.at@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
>>
>> Use VirtualBox.
>>
>>> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?
>>
>> You did not use VirtualBox.
>>
>>> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails
>>
>> You should have been using VirtualBox.
>>
>>> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4),
>>> right?
>>
>> No, in 2023 you should be using VirtualBox.
>>
>>> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
>>> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
>>> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
>>> saved right)
>>
>> Using VirtualBox would save you from all of these problems.
>>
>>> Very confused
>>
>> Because you are not using VirtualBox.
>
> And you are definitely a Troll and Idiot using VirtualBox.
> Try to leave your tiny box.

No.

The OP poster has been asking the same question more or less for months.
Most responders have determined, after long threads, that the only way
for this poster is to use VirtualBox instead of real hardware. Or VMware.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-05-26 11:50, Rich wrote:
>> The OP did not describe his hardware.
> The OP has been posting for some months with similar issues. Trying to
> install some very old distribution in a dual/triple/etc. boot
> situation, often with similar results to this latest post, hosing his
> existing boot in the process. The push for "just use VirtualBox" has
> come about for at least two reasons:
>
> The OP's been repeating the same mistake (hosing his bootloader), again
> and again, trying to install various niche distro's in a multi-boot
> setup. VB has come up as a solution to stop the "repeating the same
> mistake, expecting a different outcome" feel that OP has built up.
>
> The OP has also been posting in a rather typical "troll aroma" method.
> Just barely enough info to be ambiguous, no (or extremely few)
> responses to any queries for additional information. Both of which are
> common troll tactics to get an 'infighting discussion' started.
> Whether this is the OP's intent is not yet known, but some of the
> common patterns show up. This aspect also led to the "just use
> VirtualBox" response to his latest post. Even if someone here helps
> him fix his latest breakage, in two weeks he will be back, with yet
> another "broken bootloader from trying to install Y in a dual-boot
> setup".

I reread the OP, and did a little research because I had never heard of
"xp/reactos" before. It may not be the old Linux distro's GRUB that's
the problem...

"ReactOS is currently an Alpha quality operating system. This means that
ReactOS is under heavy development and you have to be ready to encounter
some problems. Different things may not work well and it can corrupt the
data present on your hard disk. It is HIGHLY recommended to test ReactOS
on a virtual machine or on a computer with no sensitive or critical data!"

Clearly, the OP is ignoring this important warning from the Github site.
I suspect that is where his main problem is.
>
>> It's quite possible that it is older, slower, with limited RAM, etc.
>> It may be OK with dual-booting, but be a real dog for virtual
>> options.
> Possible, but as I was running VB on that 2011 era system with little
> problem (now, I could not run ten VB's at the same time, but
> 'multi-boot' is "one at a time" -- so one VB at a time is little
> different). Therefore while possible, OP would have to be using some
> very old hardware if this were the case. But being silent on his host
> hardware does not help us in any way either.

Yes, I can run Windows 7 in VB on a Probook that's a year older (1st gen
i3, 8GB RAM) and it does quite well - once I replaced the original rust
hard drive with an SSD. It was pretty sluggish with the rust drive.
>
>> And before you tell him to get some newer hardware, that may not be
>> an option, either. None of us knows a thing about his situation.
> Also true, although hardware that is quite capable of effectively
> running VB can be had from eBay for circa $150-$200 (US) or thereabouts
> (source: I'm typing this on one of those circa 150-200 eBay specials,
> and it is well more than capable of running VB effectively). So yes,
> it is possible that $150-$200 may be out of reach, but if that amount
> is not out of reach, then OP does have a not too costly way (assuming
> his existing system is not itself already capable) to avoid
> continuously hosing his boot loader hosed each time he tries to shuffle
> some new old distro through his system.
>
I bought an HP Pavilion 15 on a garage sale last year for $20, but then
I had to spend another $100 or so to get it usable. The battery was bad,
and it had (ugh!) Windows 8 on its rust drive. I replaced that with an
SSD, formatted the rust drive in ext4, and put it into the bay formerly
housing the optical drive to use for data storage - stuff like
documents, pictures, videos, etc. Boosted the RAM to the 16GB max. I
currently dual boot Mageia 8 and Mageia 9 on it, both of which are fine
with VB, of course. (I run two versions of Mageia because I'm on the
Mageia QA team, and I need to be able to test updates on both.)

TJ

Am 26.05.23 um 19:38 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 2023-05-26 12:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 26.05.23 um 05:48 schrieb Rich:
>>> vjp2.at@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>>> but somehow now caelinux wants to erase the microsoft partitions.
>>>
>>> Use VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> So what did I do to the GRUB loader?
>>>
>>> You did not use VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> I have tried rescutux and the grub repair fails
>>>
>>> You should have been using VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> I'm supposed to set up an extended and logical partition (ext4),
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> No, in 2023 you should be using VirtualBox.
>>>
>>>> GRUB has been confused, once it wouldn't boot when DOS was flagged as boot
>>>> then it woudln't boot when XP was, but it has worked with both and NOT worked
>>>> with both settings. (Irreproducible results, I know; tho I wonder if they got
>>>> saved right)
>>>
>>> Using VirtualBox would save you from all of these problems.
>>>
>>>> Very confused
>>>
>>> Because you are not using VirtualBox.
>>
>> And you are definitely a Troll and Idiot using VirtualBox.
>> Try to leave your tiny box.
>
> No.
>
> The OP poster has been asking the same question more or less for months.
> Most responders have determined, after long threads, that the only way
> for this poster is to use VirtualBox instead of real hardware. Or VMware.

Why is he then asking the same question again and again?
OK: I'm recalibrating my filters and that is the reason why I see the OP
in the first place.

Sorry for the inconvenience but I stick to what I wrote.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 26/05/2023 11:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>
> No, he is fairly fanboi, but it does make sense. If you want to have an
> old fashioned OS to run alongside a modern linux, virtual box is way
> better than dual booting
>
> Only if you wanna play real time games do you need e.g. a native windows
> installation.

Well not really, it could also be important if you want the Windows
OS to run hardware drivers or related software that doesn't work
properly with the other OS. My first guess was this guy might have
some lab equipment that he wants a modern computer to interface
with, replacing an old PC that died and was already running
outdated OS/s. Although his posts were already too wacky for me to
want to help him (he's not unlike a lot of the odd people who seem
to post at software support web forums though, so I assume that
there's a world of them out there).

But at this point, given that he's posting from a PC running NetBSD
(AMD64 arch, so probably not too old to run VirtualBox by the way),
about running old versions of Windows, ReactOS(!), and various
Linux distros, I'm pretty sure he's just playing around, either
consciously or subconsciously. Perhaps with this newsgroup as well
as with his computer.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2023-05-26 20:31, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 26/05/2023 11:51, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>
>> No, he is fairly fanboi, but it does make sense. If you want to have an
>> old fashioned OS to run alongside a modern linux, virtual box is way
>> better than dual booting
>>
>> Only if you wanna play real time games do you need e.g. a native windows
>> installation.
>
> Well not really, it could also be important if you want the Windows
> OS to run hardware drivers or related software that doesn't work
> properly with the other OS. My first guess was this guy might have
> some lab equipment that he wants a modern computer to interface
> with, replacing an old PC that died and was already running
> outdated OS/s. Although his posts were already too wacky for me to
> want to help him (he's not unlike a lot of the odd people who seem
> to post at software support web forums though, so I assume that
> there's a world of them out there).
>
> But at this point, given that he's posting from a PC running NetBSD
> (AMD64 arch, so probably not too old to run VirtualBox by the way),
> about running old versions of Windows, ReactOS(!), and various
> Linux distros, I'm pretty sure he's just playing around, either
> consciously or subconsciously. Perhaps with this newsgroup as well
> as with his computer.
>
Possible, but you never know. I have a scanner I bought on a great sale
during my Windows 98SE days that never has worked with Linux. I had to
dual-boot with some version of Windows to use it. When I finally
obtained hardware that could run VB, I created an XP guest, and while my
Linux host still could not use the scanner, the XP guest could. By then
I had an Officejet with a scanner Linux COULD use, so it was just a
curiosity, but still it was informative.

If he HAS replaced an old computer with newer UEFI hardware, that might
be his problem. Some UEFI "legacy modes" are more effective than others,
and perhaps his "XP/Reactos" can't deal with it.

TJ