hello everyone, i am unable to boot with the windows vista partition installed on C the same disk where opensuse was installed, from grub2 at the boot the three option are:
opensuse
opensuse recovery
windows recovery (installed on F not C)
so what can i do? please help me and sorry if i post in wrong position but i am new to the forum
linux-3kex:~ # fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x473ab21f
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 63 326472992 163236465 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda2 603068416 625135615 11033600 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sda3 * 326473728 603068415 138297344 f W95 Ext’d (LBA)
/dev/sda5 326475776 330682367 2103296 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda6 330684416 372627455 20971520 83 Linux
/dev/sda7 372629504 603068415 115219456 83 Linux
Partition table entries are not in disk order
linux-3kex:~ # grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
Generating grub.cfg …
Found theme: /boot/grub2/themes/openSUSE/theme.txt
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.7.10-1.16-desktop
Found initrd image: /boot/initrd-3.7.10-1.16-desktop
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.7.10-1.1-desktop
Found initrd image: /boot/initrd-3.7.10-1.1-desktop
No volume groups found
Found Windows Vista (loader) on /dev/sda2
done
On Sun 01 Sep 2013 02:48:08 PM CDT, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2013-09-01 16:16, rafsorv wrote:
>
> i made it, thank you all
That’s good.
What was the problem?
So that others reading this in times to come know.
Hi
I think you meant to say what was the OP’s ‘solution’ to the problem?
The problem was specified in the original post…
–
Cheers Malcolm °¿° SUSE Knowledge Partner (Linux Counter #276890)
openSUSE 12.3 (x86_64) GNOME 3.8.4 Kernel 3.7.10-1.16-desktop
If you find this post helpful and are logged into the web interface,
show your appreciation and click on the star below…
> Hi
> I think you meant to say what was the OP’s ‘solution’ to the problem?
>
> The problem was specified in the original post…
Same thing…
Maybe it is a language difference, because asking where I live what the
problem was implies talking about the solution.
Or in other words, knowing what exactly was the problem highlights the
solution.
“The problem with my car was that the ignition coil had shorted” -
obviously the solution was to change the coil - and it is more
interesting to learn what the problem really was than the solution: the
same solution can be applied to other coil failures.
Saying that “the car does not start” is not a full description of “the
problem”, only a (huge) symptom
Don’t know if you follow me…?
We only know that vista did not boot, but not the symptoms, error
messages, what. Specifically, whether grub attempted to boot it and
Vista failed for some internal reason, or it was grub which failed.
Probably the OP message was not seen with the access problem the forum
had. I did not see it.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.3 x86_64 “Dartmouth” at Telcontar)
Actually Carlos, malcolmlewis was right. “‘Solution’” was the correct word. For you to suggest, that problem and solution are the same thing, would be grossly inaccurate. The problem does not always indicate the solution. Just like a runny nose, cough, and fever, may be the problem, but depending on what these symptoms lead to as the root issue will affect the solution. In no way could one say that the “problem” and the “solution” are the same. The symptom, in this case was Vista would not boot, and as you said, that could be many different things, each with their own solution. Your responce to malcolmlewis could be contrued as a few things, none of which are positive. Perhaps before you post, you should think about how it comes accross. Are you intending to insult or put down the person? If I can read your post and see insulting undertones, it could be construed as a personal attack which would be violating the T&C’s. I’m not saying you intended such, but then that’s why you might should consider how you come accross a bit more carefully. Your post served no benefit except to increase your post cound and insult a staff member. Perhaps this was not your intension.
> Your responce to malcolmlewis could be contrued as a
> few things, none of which are positive. Perhaps before you post, you
> should think about how it comes accross. Are you intending to insult or
> put down the person? If I can read your post and see insulting
> undertones, it could be construed as a personal attack which would be
> violating the T&C’s. I’m not saying you intended such, but then that’s
> why you might should consider how you come accross a bit more carefully.
> Your post served no benefit except to increase your post cound and
> insult a staff member. Perhaps this was not your intension.
Saying that I intended to insult a staff member I consider an insult :-/
And I consider this as harassment, trying to find harmful meanings in
anything I post.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.3 x86_64 “Dartmouth” at Telcontar)
